I am officially boycotting any devs who add this to their games. While in theory a decent idea, it is horrible. DS and PSP games come with everything. I understand that the prices are low and devs are trying to make more money. But if you don't come to grips with the idea of the App Store economics, you shouldn't be making games on this platform. Basically, you buy a game. You play the game for a bit, and a huge popup comes up saying you need to pay an extra $.99 for something. That is just stupid. I hope that no sensible devs go this route. If so, I will not buy that game. iPhone OS 3 is a great thing. But is completely ruined by the fact that Apple under Tim Cook decided to add this useless feature to the iPhone OS. I will pay the $10 for the new software. But please, Apple. If you are reading this, come to your senses and do something good for the consumer. Take this out of the OS and make each and every game come fully featured. Don't have add on packs which will be abused by everyone- small devs, to EA. Look at the ngmoco example. That is exactly what it will be like with iPhone OS 3. Don't do this. Join me in boycotting any and all devs who charge extra in game for addons which should be included. Join me in stopping ignorant App Store abuse. Join me in preventing the App Store from killing itself. This will destroy and viability of the App Store, and only make Android and the Pre more open to developers. Tim Cook has torn the App Store upon itself, so lets stop this stupidity. Where is STEVE? He would never do this.
Many already boycotted devs by pirating their apps so don't see much difference here boycotting microtransactions.
It depends. I don't want things that should be free updates paid features. But some things are not needed; and are improvements. That I believe COULD be a paid feature. Like -Stereo Sound - Not needed but nice. Could be paid. So for me it really just depends on what they are doing. I think today's demo was too little to know anything. They just wanted to show off the feature.
No, no, no. Don't boycott this. Boycott devs who abuse this. Not all of them. I'm sure some of them will use this in a good way.
this is a terrible feature if used in the wrong way, but if they use it rite it will be a very nice addition, such as paying $2 for new maps for a racing game or a fps, if you get what im saying. the wrong way would be to charge a dollar for a new weapon in a fps......it could be very good and very bad
While I understand your concerns, I think the model will work very well for content based games, which are fully featured upon release, but add new content over time. Content takes time, which is something devs are forced to do for free right now. That will only work if the game is a great success, and only if it continues to be a great success. But eventually, there will be no return on investment. With this new option, devs have an opportunity to deliver new content to fans of their game, yet still put food on the table, even if they aren't in the top 100 games list anymore. For instance, I'm currently playing Blocked. Love it. When I get to the end, I'm hoping the dev makes new content. I would be happy to pay him another $1 for more puzzles, because I know from personal experience that content is expensive to make. Steve did do this. He's still involved in all key decision making. This has been in the works for months.
I miss Steve. Anyway, along with LWBS's example, i have another one. Toy Bot Diaries. In this example, the could have just had one "Toy Bot Diaries" app instead of the three episodes. After you would beat the first one, you could buy the other two right from the app. This would save 2 app spaces. (not much else though.) The problem with this is the fact that money-hungry companies like EA are going to exploit it like in that demo today. Yes, i know it wasnt real, but who knows right? Also, this could lead to false advertising, take TanZen for example. (LWBS wouldnt actually do this i hope.) He could sell the game for 10 bucks saying "500 levels for only 10 bucks!" When you open the app, you find 20 are unlocked and the rest you have to buy. I know this is a very extreme example, but you know the greedy companies will try anything to get money (take I Am Rich for example.) Just my buck fiddy.
Just out of curiosity, how do you know that this has been in the works for months? Did Apple personally tell you? Also, Steve has been on leave for months. I doubt he's helping with any decisions while on sick leave.
They specifically said Steve will still be involved with key decisions, the moment he went on leave. And things like this don't happen overnight. API's and infrastructure take months to plan, design, and develop. They didn't suddenly decide to do this last month. I wouldn't be surprised if this has been in the works since at least October.
This is where I think Apple may do a little pre-approval checking. And this sort of thing will show up in reviews and ruin sales. I think, for the most part, this will be auto-correcting.
You guys don't have anything to worry about. Any developers who abuse the add-on/subscription based features of the 3.0 app stores will face the consequence of scathing reviews and sub-2 star ratings. When in doubt, just hold off on purchasing games until you read some reviews. No need to make a mountain out of a mole hill just yet. The tech demos seen today during the press conference are exactly that, demonstrations. So take a chill pill, don't start screaming for boycotts, and let's just see what happens when 3.0 goes live. Developers on the App Store require forums like these to spread word of mouth about their games. If developers are abusing it, word will spread like wildfire and their apps will fail and fall in to obscurity.
First off, boycotting is a bit premature, don't you think? We haven't even really seen what the devs might do with this. I agree that purchasing in-game items sounds stupid, yet the market will regulate that, no one will buy them and devs will stop doing it. On the other hand, extending gameplay for already great games is a wonderful idea. For example, adding additional map/unit packs for TD games would easily get some extra money from me. Games like 7 Cities or Fieldrunners can't be expected to continually keep adding content without getting more coin from people, and I'd much rather pay an extra buck or two to extend my original five dollar investment than have to wait and pay five more dollars for that same game with the extra content (ie Fieldrunners 2). When a completely new game warrants the sequel, fine, I'll pay, but we can't really expect these developers to continue pumping new content into these games indefinitely without being compensated. What about a great game like Bounce On selling additional worlds for a buck or Let's Golf selling a course pack for another buck or two?. If they're well done and warrant the investment, why not...I think giving the devs a chance to enhance and extend these games while giving them some pricing flexibility to reward their work is only fair.
Seriously. This is the worse thing that can happen for us consumers. Sure it's good for developers because they just make more money. But this a such a bad idea. Greedy developers will probably give you half the levels instead of all of them because of this new in game app purchase. They're making us pay more than before. D< Apple first you make a authentication chip in your new iPod shuffle that wont let manufacturers make their own version of the new iPod shuffle headphone. And now this?
Something like 90% of all the developers on the store are making less than $10 a day. The vast majority are not paying the bills with their App Store sales. This will create a new revenue stream for some of them, which means they will have the opportunity to make more games. Good for devs, and good for consumers. And greedy developers will pay the price through bad reviews and bad press. Good developers will use it to give consumers worthwhile updates at low prices, thus extending the value of a particular game.
I still don't like the idea of having to pay for extra items or levels. I don't want this new add on. D: Too soon to judge... but my gut says no.
Everybody loves free extra stuff. Only problem is, creating extra stuff is not free. When the App Store started, devs were not happy with the fact that updates were free forever. It's a bad business model. But it was all Apple was offering, and a small percentage of developers made up the difference in sheer volume of downloads, making it not feel as bad as it should.
