Apple Allows Free Apps to Sell In-App Purchases
posted by arn on October 15th, 2009 5:16 PM EDT in News
Apple has emailed developers today that they have made a major change in the way they deal with in-app purchases or downloadable content (DLC). When Apple introduced the idea of in-app purchases, they restricted this to applications that cost $0.99 at a minimum.
Now, they have extended it to free applications as well:
In App Purchase is being rapidly adopted by developers in their paid apps. Now you can use In App Purchase in your free apps to sell content, subscriptions, and digital services.
You can also simplify your development by creating a single version of your app that uses In App Purchase to unlock additional functionality, eliminating the need to create Lite versions of your app. Using In App Purchase in your app can also help combat some of the problems of software piracy by allowing you to verify In App Purchases.
Visit the App Store Resource Center for more details about how you can add In App Purchases to your free apps.
This will result in some massive changes to the scenery of the App Store. A number of questions and possibilities arise. Developers could, for example, completely eliminate a Lite version altogether, and simply provide a Free version with the rest of the content as downloadable in-app purchases. This, however, also changes the dynamic of the top 100 lists. Such an app would be ranked only in the Top 100 Free and may never show up in the Top 100 Paid.
Just got that email… head… exploding…
This is going to completely change the app store. Especially in terms of games.
I wonder if devs will still release 2 versions of the app in order to get visibility in both top 100 lists? Or did Apple make it so that once you "unlock" the lite version it counts as a regular download of the paid version?
Will we see the Free 100 list become even more competitive and the Paid 100 less?
Exciting times!
Just got the email, too. I'm curious about what happens with the lists as well.
So, I'm not sure if there's a real piracy benefit if you have the entire content in the free version (just not unlocked). Right? Or am I missing something.
I'm VERY interested as I haven't released my game yet.
I suppose it wouldn't really hurt anyone (consumers or devs) to do both a paid and lite version, right? That's probably what most will do. Hmm…
The developer could combat piracy by NOT having all the code/features locked in the free version, but having them absent entirely. Requiring code/levels/whatever to be downloaded. Which is more work for the dev if they do so, and surely no more than a stumbling block to casual piracy–but still, it's one option devs didn't have (as easily) yesterday.
Wow, that´s amazing! Now this is more like Xbox live arcade market and is very nice to download the game just 1 time, try it and unlock/pay the full game. Great move Apple!
This is an interesting dynamic.. I thought during one of the last keynotes Apple specifically said in-app purchases would be limited to paid apps. I understand the idea of developing them as 'lite' versions but I wonder how much success folks will have selling DLC on a free app?
The comment about combating piracy piqued my interest. There is a lively discussion going on right now about piracy (it sort of evolved a bit into a discussion around privacy as well) and it will be interesting to watch how this develops and the implications towards piracy.
WTF?
This means all the apps will have to be free? So bad for developers… I am going out of this business now.
INDIES, you are over! ;(
I think you misread the article. The only change is that now free apps can have (paid) DLC content.
It's nothing to do with that. Apps will still fall into the same 4 categories we have now…
1. Paid-only apps
2. Free-only apps
3. Ad-supported apps
4. Apps with free versions PLUS paid versions
This change just offers a new and better way to handle case #4. (And the old way, having 2 versions, can still continue to be done too.)
Developers haven't lost anything, and they've gained an option. An option that makes it easier for them to get people to upgrade from their "Lite" apps.
A big change, but in the end a good one. I'd much rather download one app and then upgrade it, than have to download a Lite THEN throw it out and get the full app. Plus I like the anti-piracy implications.
And a single update can update ALL users this way. I like it!
The main downside I see is minor: apps can "seem" to be free when in reality they do almost nothing. Well… that was already happening sometimes. Read reviews to avoid it—and at worst, you're only out the zero dollars you spend
Any way you look at it, this promotes try-before-you-buy, and I think that's good for both consumers AND developers of quality apps. Shovelware developers probably won't benefit—and that's fine by me!
(At the same time, horror stories from the devs of Star Hogs make me think that using DLC isn't entirely simple for developers… so I won't whine and moan about devs that continue to use the Lite vs. Paid 2-app method.)
Keep in mind the person who downloaded the "free" app, ran through the free levels, and just hit the "pay wall". They decide that it was "kind of" fun, but not worth the fee. So they quit the "free, but not really, app", go to delete it from their iPhone or touch, and are given the opportunity to rate it.
That is NOT the perfect time to get a great review. I expect the frequency of the terms "bait" and "switch" and "scam" to be very popular in reviews of these sorts of apps.
I would stick with the "lite" + paid model myself.
I hope this means that tap tap 3 will drop in price since I believe that was the reason they even charged money for it.
Why would it? Its only $0.99 and its the top selling/paid app.
Niice.. this will totally kill piracy on the platform in a vast number of cases. the existing cracks usually function as a means to bypass the initial loading checks, this uses signed(encrypted) communications between the device and apple's servers to verify receipt of purchase.
Also, this will have the benefit for developers of having the capability of disallowing the same purchased apps to be run on multiple devices.
So, the first part is easy right? Just crack a fully purchased app. :-/
The second part interests me. I'm not familiar with the point in the transaction that the dev(me) could do this. Can we somehow make a key based on the device ID? … but any check for this could be found and skipped.
Still, I do see that a one crack for all apps could be avoided this way.
Apple's rules explicitly allow purchasers to load a single purchased app onto multiple devices. If developers try to use DLC to abridge this mutually agreed upon right, I expect them to catch hell from both users and Apple.
Being able to share apps among members of a household is part of the deal if you want to sell in the App Store. An app which fails to operate on multiple legit devices is broken and should be pulled from the store. I will request a refund from Apple on any app that fails to run on all of my authorized devices.
I don't pirate. I don't jailbreak. I spend a fair amount of money on apps, but this is one thing I won't stand for.
My only concern is regarding amounts paid for the dlc. Doesn't this mean developers will no longer be restricted by apples pricing model?
Don't quote me, but I believe DLC still has to fit into the same old pricing tiers as full apps. This policy change need not affect the ultimate prices paid at all—it just makes it EASIER to pay to update. That's good for users AND developers.
And by that I mean, when you download the free version of a game, you may not know what the downoadable content is worth. So in effect, you wanted to download the full version straight away, but had to download the lite first and investigate. Has the potential to be annoying
This is a very good point…
It's be great to just go to a Games page and either click "buy app" or "get demo" like you do with XBL.
Course that brings up a whole new issue with supporting the Top 100 lists, cause any given app's ranking would be a combination of it's Demo & Paid versions.
The main benefit of doing the 2 apps is that you won't clog up your real offering with the FreeTard reviews.
Although only having 1 app in the store so you can hit every user with an update is very tempting.
But until we get some sort of way to address the FreeTards that post factually untrue reviews, or at least respond to the "this ap is Ghay" reviews, it's tough to justify putting all you're chips on a Free app.
Alza – DLC works on the same pricing model as apps – $0.99, $1.99, $2.99 etc. Developers pick one of those prices, Apple gets 30% cut.
This outta be interesting. TTR3 was early ><
I wonder if the top 100 list by revenue includes DLC revenue.
It would be interesting if games adopt the shareware model and a game can be in the top 100 free and top 100 grossing. If not, then demos and full games are having to compete on the same chart, and visibility is going to suffer.
I wondered this as well. Maybe the highest grossing list _already_ accounts for DLC. That would help with the problem of the free list getting flooded…
They will need to introduce a new Top 100 list for DLC.
And side-by-side star ratings? Just thinking out loud… maybe the developer could pick ONE DLC item that would get reviews of its own. So maybe a game has its free version, a fully-featured multiplayer paid version, and some paid level packs. The dev would select the full-feature update as the "main" DLC option, not one of the level packs.
Then, when you look at the app in the store, you see side-by side, Free Rating: 3 Stars and Paid Rating: 4 Stars, with a little note indicating exactly which DLC item that refers too.
Then free ratings (which tend to be low since people download who don't even WANT the app) would not detract form judging paid versions.
this just seems like a bad idea…
i hope that devs are required to specify what is in the free app, and what is purchased..
instead of a hook and bait technique…buy an app for 99 cents, and find out you need to spend 8.99 to make the game at least functional
yes this now makes piracy easier as people no longer need to use 3rd party hosts to dl pirated stuff. they can now spoof the cal from apple saying you bought something and dl it from US! yay! (sarcasm)
How could the DLC affect the top ranking? How will Apple count this factor into the top ranking? or they would not? Would there be 'free' apps in the Top Grossing catagories?
The only thing we would expect is that we need to have more chances to exposue us in any ways, and will it?
This is great news as far as I'm concerned. Could help with the piracy, plus every app can automatically be a trial at first, and I don't have to mess with downloading a lite, trying it, deleting it, then buying the full.
could care less about topXXX lists or anything. you'd have to be pretty much a sheep to just buy based off of that.
"could care less about topXXX lists or anything. you'd have to be pretty much a sheep to just buy based off of that."
But that's exactly how the App Store functions. That's why anything that gets featured sells, even if it sucks. The average customer trusts that anything featured, or at the top, is good.
Can you download DLC from your computer? For some reason, the Wifi on my phone is broken, so I have to download apps over 10 mb from my computer. If the same 10 mb restriction applies to DLC, this will mean I can't get any DLC games basically.
Polyghost is now free to download, with DLC available inside of it.
http://bit.ly/2BUmRh
Now we just need them to let DLC cost less than .99
I hope not! The race-to-the-bottom pricing is somewhat absurd already at a buck. It's hard to imagine complaining because good game content costs more than a Jolly Rancher
(If it's not worth a buck, who would want to waste their time playing it anyway?)
YA TAP TAP REVENGE 3 WILL BE FREE!!!!!!
This is probably good. The free section in it's current form is a crap heap of lite versions. It seems like people are able to manipulate reviews on free items for the worse simply because they don't have to pay to download and therefore can give a bad impression of a good full game by slamming the lite version with 1 stars.
About time, I hope to see the end of "Lite" version of games.
Now Skype will be tons simpler with regards to buying time…
If an app is Free how will a customer be made aware of a sale?
I think the true shareware model has finally arrived this in many ways is a good thing.
My comment above about Cutomers being able to see sale prices on $0 dollar items is in regards to the DLC price.
While lots of folks see this as a great thing, I see the move to DLC as basically anti-consumer. As it is, apps that I buy cannot be resold to others (OK, I guess) but how will DLC affect the ability to pass an app to other members of my family? I can share apps today between all four touches in the household, if I so choose. Will the same be true of an DLC-locked "free" game?
I also wonder whether developers are going to like the results of putting a "crippleware" demo version out there for "free" as the only version, and then have the "freetards" (as some folks here have so quaintly called them) downloading and reviewing your app – the "you must buy the app to review it" barrier is down for any such trialware app, allowing folks to download it for free and then write a review as they see fit.
No doubt developers will soon be demanding Apple only allow reviews by people who buy the DLC…
Personally, I plan on avoiding any app that cannot be fully shared or transported between my devices. I have spent well over $300 on apps, mostly games, but I simply won't consider buying apps that don't give me that portability. And this factor *will* come up in reviews.
I also think this move has the potential to sour a lot of casual buyers who will see the whole "free app that isn't really free" as a bait-and-switch.
I view this as a bad move by Apple.
So if the apps I buy are locked to my machine …. simple. I buy no more apps. And any and every that update to include such "features" will get reviewed accordingly.
To the devs – be very very honest with the people who hand over money. This could really bite you otherwise.
DLC can be shared across authorized devices just as apps can. This is explained in the developer documentation.
Is it explained in the *user* documentation?
Um, why is this such a big deal? It's something that should of been here from the beginning. It had no reason to be restricted. Yet apple holds something basic back, releases it and everyones all in a fuss over it.
Next will be the folders for the iPhone, and for something so basic people are going to love them even more. Even though again, it should of been there from the beginning.
Yippee!
Imo this is a great move by apple. It will get rid of all the lite versions crowding up the app store and will make it a lot harder for hackers to crack apps. In respect to the bad reviews, i think that apple should just enforce an approval process that stops spam reviews.
What happens when I change the device? Are my purchases "inside" the app and I can back that up? Or does the app remember me and next time I can re-download all my purchases?
All your DLC will move along with your application and can be restored.
The one exception is 'consumable' or one use DLC items. What is considered 'consumable' is up to the developer and they should make it very clear when any item is one-use or one-device only.
I'd think the best way to avoid the 'bait' comments would be to have a free version that can be updated to full plus a seperate full version. That way conusmers know in advance the full price plus the quickest purchasing option but have the additional benefits to avoid a seperate download when wanting to upgrade from free to full.
Another advantage of having both: You can have a sale on your full app so customers who buy the full version pay less then someone who upgrades the lite version.
But I thought the big advantage of this was so that developers only had to provide one version?
I just find this whole DLC thing, ridiculous. I have spent my share of money on apps, mainly apps in the top 100 or apps i see on this website; that actually have good ratings, or i would find interesting, but that is all going to change. I like to find it quick and easy & flat out purchase games, so i never have to download them again, and this free version to DLC for whole game is ridiculous. I really don't want to search the app store for like a half an hour trying to find the game. Also, what willl the size of the app actually be if you only get the free version? then, have to download the DLC full version? i dont agree that they are going to do this; i believe that a person can buy the full version or buy free and then upgrade, because if you buy the free version, (think about it) and you want to upgrade, it is almost as though you are deleting the *lite* version then downloading the full version. SO that it can be both on the top 100 lists.
so what I'm curious about is how this will affect jailbroken iphones. if there's no way to buy the full version of a game up front, and you can only do in app purchases, there might not be a way for jailbroken users to buy the dlcs in app. For some reason I can't access the itunes or app store from my iphone. I dunno, just a thought.
And for the people who have an ipod touch and doesn't have wifi??
He just can't pay for the app, the devs cannot let this users like that
So the best option is to have 2 versions…
How will review websites get money from free demo apps with in-game purchases? Usually they get 5% (4% in europe) for links to the Appstore, but this won't work anymore. This will cost sites like Touch Arcade thousands of dollars.
There's an affiliate agreement with Apple and Toucharcade (for instance)? They get paid to link to the App Store?
That's slightly problematic!
@Simon: Almost every review website does this. It's not much (5%), but it can easily pay the server bills and maybe a good income for 1-2 persons if the site is big enough.