This thread has gone downhill to the degree that reading the last few pages isn't enough to give me the slightest clue what anyone is talking about. Not really the point I was making You've played Punch Quest, right? And ARC Squadron? If not you're missing more than just "some games", you're missing some of the best reasons to own an iOS device.
The super-condensed summary I could offer you is that there's some extreme tension between how consumers define and view exploitation and fair practices on the part of developers, and developers advocating free-to-play income models which can give them realistic and reasonable levels of income for them to continue staying in business. Or at least, the way I've read it is that for most arguments or options that I've seen which would allow a developer to earn a net profit as opposed to a net loss, there's almost always a countervailing view or perspective from the consumer point of view that argues that it's unfair or exploitative -- whichever view is more fair or correct may vary according to how you see things depending on the particular option in question. To name two contrasting analogies which may or may not get on a few people's nerves: is it like gambling, where the general view is that consumer impulses are being exploited to maximise profits? Or is it like purchasing luxury items, where it's the consumer's responsibility to ensure that they don't end up spending above their means? I personally think that the exact nature of what's happening is determined on a case-by-case scenario rather than as an overarching whole, and I don't intend to take sides on what's happening in the case of anyone in this thread -- I'm simply stating what I think are the contrasting views to the best of my ability, and I'd welcome elaboration or correction if you feel that I've misrepresented anything.
I think that's the entire thread in a nutshell! The reason these threads exist in the first place is simply that those that think it's not right in some way get all vocal about it, but those that think its fine don't feel the need to stand up and make their voice heard. Any apparently stupid piece of legislation in local law basically comes about for the same reason - crusaders care about an issue when often the majority just don't, so the minority wins.
I'm an advocate of being in control of my own brain, so I'd probably go the luxury items route. That's not to say I don't make snap decisisons or ones that I regret, but I've never thought it was anyone's fault other than my own. I had the option and chose the wrong one. Some people might not be quite so careful with IAP, but that'd mean there's room for some self-improvement there, so I'm all for that. What bothers me most is potentially brilliant games being hampered by the model, rather than the moral implications on the consumers.
In my opinion this is not just the real issue, but the only issue. It's up to the developers to sort that one out though, as the consumer is already fully protected - if the game is crap, it doesn't cost a cent to find out. If anything, ftp games have to be more engaging for longer. Once you've bought doodle jump it's too late to get a refund when you realise that yes, that's all it does. I think the neighsayers usually miss that key point tbh. We hear about how developers "make" customers do things, but that's a convenient fallacy. If we want to get your money, we have to make something you feel is worth money. In the case of ftp, after you've seen it. And that's all there is to it, the subject really doesn't seem that complicated to me.
Yeah, I can relate to that. Practically all of my bad App Store purchases have been paid apps. I can't recall regretting spending money on free to play games, mainly because I generally don't.
I think the best strategy is to make a free demo thats good enough to get people to buy the game. Im about to drop $11.99 on Ridge Racer because they did that right. I dont think Ive ever spent money on a f2p game though. I usually play the free part then move on. Those aren't the ones that I'm so against because I get what I paid for even if it's not a full game. c'mon There are so many other great games besides those two. I played Arc Squadron and deleted it because the IAP was too distracting. I think my favorite IOS game is The Quest.
Yeah, there are... but those two are still fantastic. Ever considered just trying to adopt a mentality whereby you're not distracted by optional IAP? Negatives: none. Positives: significantly more enjoyment. In my mind it makes about as much sense as refusing to buy a game you know you'll love just because you don't like the box art. ARC Squadron barely requires any grinding to as all of the expensive upgrades are purely cosmetic, so being bothered by it seems somewhat strange to me. It's not like you're gonna hit a paywall, there's absolutely nothing stopping you from enjoying hours and hours of gameplay at your own pace. Still, I'm a little biased as I consider myself quite deeply "into" gaming. Just as I'd laugh in the face of anyone who called himself a gamer yet hadn't played Super Mario World, I find I have to be on top of the current trends and smash hits in order to safely say I know a bit about the subject. ARC Squadron calls out to me due to the Starfox link, and as the latter is such a beloved game for many (myself included), I'm now confidently able to point fans of the series in the right direction when they ask about possible iOS clones... and a little optional button somewhere within the menus shouldn't stop me from doing so.
I like games like ridge racer because you have to earn your way to the best cars. It can only be done by skill and beating the game fair and square the way it was made to be played. Theres no option to buy your way to success. That's what I find distracting.
The sad part is, even a great freemium game without much need for IAP (meaning, it can be played for free just fine) can be a 'flop' - http://www.theverge.com/2012/10/31/3577838/punch-quest-iphone-game-struggle Or: http://penny-arcade.com/report/editorial-article/going-broke-with-success-how-an-app-with-200000-downloads-led-to-devel Anyway, here's the top grossing games in the Brazilian App Store. Brazil has been through a good economic moment so lots of people buy apps here, and you can see some games in the grossing list (FIFA 13 since soccer here, ya know), and the usuals like Angry Birds. But I can almost swear this 'Clash of Clans' has been in first place since release (I don't have it but read that tons of money is needed if you don't wanna take days to amass resources because of forced waiting, and gets worse in higher levels). I also don't think Zombie Tsunami (which I bought) would be there if it hadn't gone free. Click on the pic to see it bigger.
I think this is a telling quote from the punch quest people after a financial fail: "We're going to try the model again for the next release, see if we can do it next time," says Auwae. "It's really either that or leaving mobile game development completely." They've made paid apps in the past. but in their article that option never came up. The reason is that paid apps are pretty much guaranteed to not make money, whereas ftp at least might.
Paid apps can and do make money. There is good and bad IAP models, Freemium can be as valid for the consumer as it is the developer, but because of the way it has been mistreated by some developers I don't see it being a long term viable option. The golden path isn't Freemium no mater how hard some developers try to crusade for it.
Why do you keep saying that? It seems to me that every developer offering an opinion, myself included, is telling you it's not working. So can I see your research that says it is? If you want plenty of choice and plenty of games with more than $1 worth of content, you'd better get used to the idea of paying for them somehow. Someone was on about an imminent crash earlier, but the truth of the matter is that it already happened a few years ago. What you're seeing now is the shockwave.
I wouldn't call freemium the golden path, more like the only way off the island after consumer greed burned down all the toll bridges.
What you see now is reactionary to Zynga's Facebook success, it's a normal for business to go for the extra dollar when they see it. By all means try it, then when you're qualified as to the ins and outs, by all means let me know how it went.
Firstly, let me preface the following the response by saying that I don't intend to sound hostile, even if I'm not necessarily agreeing with you: it's an actual point of interest I wish to discuss. Now, that there are paid apps which turn over profit is a statement I can agree with in and of itself: I'm thinking of Infinity Blade 1 and 2 in particular, because those games have absolutely monstrous ratings despite having normal prices around the $6 or $7 mark (in AUD, anyway). What I believe hasn't been considered is the relative ratio of "profitable-to-flop" paid apps. My belief right now, given the relative market saturation of the iOS gaming market, is that for every successful, well-known paid game there is, there are many more which aren't turning over profit -- either because they're simply not visible being outside the top 100, or because they lack appeal (it could be lacklustre game quality, it could be poor marketing -- anything goes here). Basically, my impression (I do not claim this as solid fact, nor do I have statistics) is that the paid game market somewhat resembles the "We are the 99%" situation: there's a small majority at the top turning over significant profits, while the vast majority of paid games would likely be struggling. I think this because I'm personally unwilling to spend much more than $1 or $2 on an obscure game which doesn't rival a console game in quality, and I don't think my consumption habits are THAT far from the norm (again, I'm quite happy for you to disagree with me on this). Under such conditions, I don't see how it's economic or viable to try going for the paid game approach, unless you're creating something which looks like it could be sold on a gaming console. Again, if you disagree with any of my assumptions here, I'm quite happy for you to point out where, but please keep in mind that I'm neither interested in a flame war nor mud throwing -- I state these as my views, and I neither assert them as fact nor absolute.
Well you say that, but there are likely several thousand developers out there who would be incredibly happy to be able to make a game and then sell it at $5 with no IAP at all.
No I respect sensible discussion, I'm mature enough to see other people's opinions and actually don't disagree with what you've posted, earlier I acknowledge that it isn't an easy market. Where I would probably differ is I think some developers come in with the wrong game plan (emphasis on some). They overstretch themselves to point there's no out and their expectations aren't always reasonable. Despite that I was really trying to say is that there is no one win model, you will have success stories through paid and freemium, I also think freemium has a finite life span and it'll be equally as hard, I see it less as a gaming model than a business one. There needs to be an equilibrium for long term success.
