Boycotting all devs who use the In App purchase feature in iPhone OS 3.0

Discussion in 'Off-Topic Lounge' started by brewstermax, Mar 17, 2009.

?

Please Devs. Don't add this to your games

  1. Add it to games

    21 vote(s)
    34.4%
  2. Don't add it to games

    20 vote(s)
    32.8%
  3. Where is Steve?

    20 vote(s)
    32.8%
  1. le'deuche123

    le'deuche123 Well-Known Member

    Feb 5, 2009
    2,476
    18
    0
    I would love to wait months for a game to actually be brought up to what it should have been when released. I don't want an FPS with one gun...that's stupid. Now I know "I don't have to buy it" but I just don't want "more" crap that I don't want to buy hiding the actual great games.
     
  2. Eli

    Eli ᕕ┌◕ᗜ◕┐ᕗ
    Staff Member Patreon Silver Patreon Gold

    Unless you're willing to blindly bankroll the development of a game that takes months to make, you're most likely going to have to settle with the microtransaction add-on business model. The App Store seems to have a very short attention span when it comes to the popularity of games, so I really doubt you're going to find anyone willing to spend months developing games for the iPhone on blind faith that they'll somehow magically recuperate their development costs or ever turn a profit.

    When you do that, you end up with something like this- http://www.streamingcolour.com/blog/2009/03/09/the-numbers-post-aka-brutal-honesty/ A game that somehow cost $32,000 to make, and has made just over $500 in sales.
     
  3. le'deuche123

    le'deuche123 Well-Known Member

    Feb 5, 2009
    2,476
    18
    0
    Testing the waters?? There have been plenty of indie games that were released complete, no add-on's necessary. Castle crashers, World of goo, Flower. I'm not against DLC. On the contrary it's great. My beef is that games should not be released unless it is a "Full game". I think they used to call those demo's and I don't remember paying for them:)

    Edit: It's called taking a risk. If your not willing to take one maybe don't be in such a fickel industry.
     
  4. Eli

    Eli ᕕ┌◕ᗜ◕┐ᕗ
    Staff Member Patreon Silver Patreon Gold

    Yes, and developing several 99 cent titles then selling a couple add-ons for the games which take off is a way to defer the risk of development costs instead of sinking tons of development time/money in to a series of $3 apps without any assurance that anyone will buy them.
     
  5. le'deuche123

    le'deuche123 Well-Known Member

    Feb 5, 2009
    2,476
    18
    0
    #45 le'deuche123, Mar 18, 2009
    Last edited: Mar 18, 2009
    In what business are you ever assured people will buy your product? All investments are based on risk. Higher risk investments tend to have higher returns. If you want to be conservative, be happy with conservative gains. That's life.

    EDIT: :D (smiley's make everything better)
     
  6. Eli

    Eli ᕕ┌◕ᗜ◕┐ᕗ
    Staff Member Patreon Silver Patreon Gold

    So you're suggesting the small indie developers who have sprung up from the success of the App Store heavily invest in a single project which could lead to their ruin when not enough people buy it to recuperate the development costs to appease a vocal minority of whiners who demand top of the line games at rock bottom prices?

    [​IMG]
     
  7. le'deuche123

    le'deuche123 Well-Known Member

    Feb 5, 2009
    2,476
    18
    0
    #47 le'deuche123, Mar 18, 2009
    Last edited: Mar 18, 2009
    I'm more than willing to pay what a game is worth...be it 99 cents or $60 doesn't matter. I agree that we have been spoiled by the free market pricing structure of the app store, but that is why the app store has been a success at all. Mobile gaming has been around for a while and only recently has it taken off. If you decide to quit your day job and invest "hard work, money and time" than you better know you have something special. Most of these indie devs still work full time jobs. Don't give me that I don't have time to be a developer, if you don't then stop developing games. Your not gonna make any money dipping a toe in the water. What if they released a "test the water" portion of the game just to alienate and ruin the market with their less than finished game. If you want to test the water's do beta testing. Or promo's, demo's, lites etc. I'm sorry if I don't feel bad for the guys doing something everyone wishes they could do...make games. Plenty of devs have made good money off the current model.
     
  8. Sierra275

    Sierra275 Well-Known Member

    Nov 22, 2008
    534
    1
    0
    nil
    Singapore
    Personally I am very concerned that developers will abuse this feature. Take the demoed Sims game for example. Many people happily bought Sims for their PC and are perfectly fine playing it that way. In-game currency is an inspiration to keep at it in a bid to earn more money. Now, by entirely replacing in-game money with real-world currency, you take away that element of having something to work towards. Only the rich people would benefit. Many people who don't want to waste $0.99 on a virtual sofa won't play this game at all.

    Similarly for LiveFire. People who are rich will just hoard all the powerful weapons. Rich people will just pour in cash to get power weapons, and people who just want to play a game for fun will be constantly blown up by rich people. People aren't going to want to play a game where skill counts for less than cold-hard cash.

    Even map packs are somewhat in question. Because of this, I can guarantee that the number of level add ons will spike, just because devs want to get money.

    As a positive example, look at PocketGod. The dev updates the App every week. At this point, he doesn't get anything monetary from it. But his fanbase grows, his customers are happy. And yes, more people get to know about his game and will buy it. I got to know about it because of all the awesome things I read about it on this very website, and I don't regret it. If this in-game purchase thing goes through, imagine this:

    Trism 2: each game mode sold separately
    Fastlane: Cars sold for 99c each
    Tap Tap 3: each song sold for 99c
    SciFly 2: Planes sold separately
    iShoot: weapon packs for 99c each
    X-Plane: planes sold for 99c, maps for god knows how much
    GeoDefense: maps for 99c each

    The whole point is, this new update feature will make the App Store a very money-centric thing. Developers aren't going to produce good stuff so their consumers will be happy. Instead, we'll have tons of developers producing mediocre stuff just to earn money. What if you have to buy each level? What if you have to pay to unlock new weapons? The App store already has a lot of developers trying to scam people, far more so than any other platform, simply because of accessibility. It's a double edge sword, and this update is just going to proliferate the problem of dev scamming further. Promising future updates but instead, making you pay for them. I'd reckon the far less people are going to buy Sims 3 now. The App store might even lose out if too many devs start including this feature as a central part of their game, as with Sims. Even if it does bring in more money, more consumers will be unhappy than not. If Apple is only concerned about bringing in money, then have them tell that to us straight up. But if Apple cares at all about it's customers, then they'd better listen before people get pissed enough to boycott the App store.
     
  9. Eli

    Eli ᕕ┌◕ᗜ◕┐ᕗ
    Staff Member Patreon Silver Patreon Gold

    The sky is falling!
     
  10. sam the lion

    sam the lion Well-Known Member

    Jan 12, 2009
    1,456
    0
    36
    Italy
    You: don't buy 'em.
     
  11. Little White Bear Studios

    Little White Bear Studios Well-Known Member
    Patreon Silver

    Aug 27, 2008
    2,572
    0
    0
    Exactly. There will be huge updates, because devs will be able to afford to make them.
     
  12. Little White Bear Studios

    Little White Bear Studios Well-Known Member
    Patreon Silver

    Aug 27, 2008
    2,572
    0
    0
    Ummmm, what you've just described is the model that the majority of the App Store apps work on today. The top 100 is filled with get rich quick apps. Sure, there are a lot of good honest devs there too, but there's a reason there are 25,000 apps on the store today: Money.
     
  13. IUGOME

    IUGOME Well-Known Member

    Thank you everyone for sharing your thoughts on this...we find it incredibly valuable as a small developer. :)

    I agree with most of what has been said here; there are ways to make this work really well for new game ideas, but it can also unfortunately be exploited. Hopefully the consumers (you guys) will be the judge of that.

    Question: What's everyone's thoughts on what iMob did with their peripheral "respect points" apps versus the new in game purchase model?

    We also agree that microtransactions should not determine the quality of gameplay. Rather it should offer a chance at customization for the game for those who chose to do so. All players should have access to the entire game.
     
  14. RedStaR

    RedStaR Well-Known Member

    Jan 7, 2009
    465
    7
    0
    I can sum up in app purchase in one word

    X-Plane
     
  15. The Game Reaper

    The Game Reaper Well-Known Member

    Dec 6, 2008
    1,978
    68
    0
    The Emerald Isle
    I think that the title of the thread should change to Boycotting all devs who abuse the In App purchase feature in iPhone OS 3.0
     
  16. spmwinkel

    spmwinkel Well-Known Member

    Oct 22, 2008
    1,351
    25
    36
    The "respect points" are the only example I can think of at the moment, where in-game commerce would be a good substitute. It will not generate an additional icon on the iDevice and you don't even have to close the app to buy it (assuming you've got a connection, people with an iPT will need to enable their WiFi if they don't have it on all the time).

    Another good example (in my opinion) would be Toy Bot Diaries. People complain that they have 3 icons for games that they consider relatively short, so peolpe would prefer to have all games in one app (it consumes only 1 icon space). This could be done through the in-game commerce.

    But as for new levels, characters, bug fixes etc., I'm still thinking they should come through the current model of updates. I might change my mind later, but that's how I think now. (For example: the devs of Zen Bound will add the new Tree as a free update, they planned this ahead so they knew this when they set the price for their game.)
    The most important thing is the last thing you said:
    For example: in a Sudoku app you can offer new skins for $0.99 but you shouldn't charge anything for the ability to use pencil marks.
     
  17. dannys95

    dannys95 Well-Known Member

    Sep 29, 2008
    5,252
    225
    0
    Earth
    Nope. I asked Austin and he said he would not even look at that.
     
  18. I think what will change is the reviews in general. If a game comes out half complete we masses let it slide and said no worries will be fixed in update. This time around though gonna slam em with 1 star review if that's the case whereas maybe gave a 4 star review in the past. I'm just speculating though who knows. Just saying we won't give developers as much of the benefit of the doubt as we have in the past.
     
  19. FilthyCanadian

    FilthyCanadian Well-Known Member

    Feb 27, 2009
    1,502
    1
    0
    Ontario Canada
    Exactly, I have no problem paying for a few in game items, But developers who consistently abuse this *cough* ..EA.. Should be boycotted.
     
  20. Mjbreese

    Mjbreese New Member

    Mar 15, 2009
    3
    0
    0
    I think over time the market will tell them what is acceptable. Remember there were a lot of $10 games when the app store first came out, they have all dropped the prices on those realizing people don't want to pay that much, I think the same thing will happen with this new feature. Microsoft likes to nickel and dime people with the 360 add ons, problem is will people pay 99 cents for an add on for an application that costs 99 cents?
     

Share This Page