I never download lite versions of games. I look at the description / screenshots and if it appeals to me, I'll buy it. BTW, I love your game Rubicon.
I'm the same. Apps cost next to nothing as it is. When I was releasing one of my apps some kid was emailing me telling me he had to save up and buy gift cards. I bet there are loads of kids that have access to these devices that want apps and for them lite versions are probably valuable.
@runloop: Are these kids liable to end up buying the game though do you think? Sure, if you just want to play something different for five minutes on the way to work/school/whatever then you can live forever on free stuff. But what really matters as developers is the best way of converting those into actual sales. Maybe the future is premium or full but free with ads ? Just asking, too n00b at marketing to have an informed opnion on this stuff yet.
Maybe not, but they might tell their friends, parents etc. Good to see another developer from the south coast on here too.
Two big problems with your argument here: 1. You are mixing up the issues of free vs. paid with IAPs that are "optional" vs. ones that some might consider unethical (BTW, no user is ever "forced" to buy an IAP). If an IAP is misleading or requires the user to purchase it to continue playing, it doesn't matter if you give the game away for free or charge for it. Users won't like the IAP either way. Similarly, if an IAP is something the user feels he chooses to purchase, it doesn't much matter whether he paid $0.99 for the game or got it for free. He'll like it either way. The point is that giving away a paid game for a day which includes an IAP is in not, by definition, unethical. Even if the IAP is required to continue, it's not unethical. You got a free game and played it for some time. If you want to continue playing, pay for it! 2. Your example of paying $400 for parking is ridiculous and incorrect. If you were given two free entrees at a nice restaurant, you probably still have to pay for wine, beer, dessert, and maybe parking too. How does that in any way reduce the value of the free dinner or make it a bait and switch? Getting a good game for free and then having the option of paying $0.99 to get some extra value/feature, and support the developer of a game you like sounds like a great deal to me.
I would hate that. Even if a game is both awesome and free I refuse to play it if I'm hit with ads. I would much, much rather pay the $1 or 2 (or more) and just enjoy the game. I still think the biggest problem with the App Store is it's too dependent on New and Noteworthy and the main Top 50 lists. So you have the race-to-the-bottom where people are going for pure numbers to get in that top 50. We need a web-based store (ala Amazon Appstore) where Apps are better sorted and get better exposure combined with the ease of use to purchase on the web and have it auto-appear on your phone. I think then there will be some breathing room where you can sell a decent amount of apps and not have to resort to giving it away for free to get some exposure.
Just to clarify, this isn't what I was suggesting. I'm saying give your app away, full version nothing locked, as part of a free promo. There are free sites like Daily App Dream that can get you coverage sans-fee. All I'm saying is that I think the max value of this would come that if you launch IAP -- say extra levels, etc -- at the same time, as to have the potential to make money off of the new users. In no way am I saying you should put a crippled app up and charge to unlock, as I've heard many have done.
It's still bait and switch if you give away a full game and then expect them to buy extra levels. At least that's how users see it. I agree the only way to really successfully sell IAP where users don't hate you is to sell them something they absolutely don't need. May that be virtual coins they can earn anyway or time saving options etc.
is it really? if i buy a game for amount X and they offer extended content for amount Y, why is that bad? you pay for what you get in the initial package. why should be all additional work you to do a product be free? yes if you scam user thats bad, but the most developer are pretty conscious about how to implement their IAP.. if the iap give me more levels for a game , why not.. a new chapter, a new world.. an addon.. why does an iap need to unlock generic stuff you don't want?! i think most comments are too narrow with a focus on specific kind of game.. iap can unlock pretty much everything.. based on the game its either something people might like or not.. at the end no one forces you to buy the iap.. and if the developer designed the iap in a way that it forces you to buy it to actualy enjoy the product, then yes thats crap.. anything else is childish hysteria from kids with a dollar left on their appstore account and no new money in sight.. when i like a game (like the creeps) i also buy the level packages.. why not?
The list of successful free games on the top 200 grossing list now http://appshopper.com/bestsellers/games/gros/?device=iphone&sort=price&dir=asc
Freemium is obviously not something that's morally wrong. But it doesn't really matter. If the customer feels cheated, the customer feels cheated.
As developers of course that's what we'd want but in reality a precedent has been set by the likes of Doodle Jump, Angry Birds, Cut the Rope et al.
if the customer is a 12 year old child moaning about rovio doing seasons as a seperate app and crying foul play in hundreds of reviews and that everything ever after should be a free update up their ar*** then i would say.. who cares.. costumers are not equal.. and running after every crybaby is pointless.. you will never ever find a sweet spot where you satify everybody.. if a customer crys fould play where everything in in order.. well ignore it you will get grey hair alot later in life.. guranteed
thoose are the wrong examples.. if you make millions of dollars from your app you have the ressources to push free updates.. but this is neither realistic to achieve something like them..so you need to think economic.. so smaller games sell their stuff as iap and they still sell.. you can't fullfill everyone wishes.. especialy not thoose of children and teens who have no feeling about the value of work. i think developer should stop looking at the top chart guys, because thats like hoping to win the lottery.. angry birds had a what 100k of dev cost.. they play in a different league, you can only reach if you have the money. instead developer should look into the work of the avergae sucessfull developers on the platform. their sucess is real and not based on (dumb) luck.. being promoted by apple and reaching the high ground.. the best example of an developer and realistic success i talk about when asked is donut games.. none of their games ia angry bird but they don't need to.. over the years they extended their libaries of games to such an width , that the mass makes the money.. if one game does not work no problem, thats catched up by the others.. the average sale of their games might be not top10 levels, but their complete amount earns them pretty nice money. and thats realistic sucess.. if you have the breath to devliver 10+ games .. hard work and long time involement is always needed for any success that is not based on pure luck.
I'm not using them as an example of what you should do. I'm using them as an example of what people expect. Because everyone has those games. No one cares that you aren't making millions like they are, they just don't want to pay for new content in your game because they don't have to in the most popular games on the store. That is why I said a precedent has been set. It's got nothing to do with trying to emulate their success. It's about user expectation. Using donut games as an example is irrelevant. If they made their money selling new content to their users over and over again from one game I would agree. But you say they release new games. No one is arguing that having 10+ games that do moderately well isn't a good strategy. Of course it is.
Fair enough, but when spending a lot of your time online you kind of feel that the world is made up of 12 year olds. If the naysayers are vocal enough and willing to down-rate your game it is certainly something that should be part of the equation...
Exactly. If you can create 10+ sources of income (games, IAP, ads in Lites, affiliate links, etc.), with each source bringing in low to moderate income each day, you will be making more than the majority of developers on the App Store. And odds are your income will be fairly consistent week to week. The more games you have, the less important it is for each one to be a hit for you to survive. There are only a handful of devs who are consistently living in the top 100. Odds are extremely high that you will not be one of them. Plan for that fact. If you do end up there, consider it a huge life changing bonus.
It looks like there are some confused folks out here, so I'll do my best to try to get you all on the right track. Two things with this: 1, this was specifically about offering the full app, then actually taking AWAY those features, making users now pay for them in the update. That is the bait-and-switch I am referring to; there is no "mix up." 2: Your assertion that no one is "forced" to buy IAP is as invalid in this scenario, as in many cases and games, IAP is flat-out REQUIRED to beat games. A perfect example - my girlfriend is currently playing Queen's Crown. No one is forcing the players to get IAP, but by the time they find out that it is virtually necessary for completion, they have *made* an investment of time into the game (and made it in good faith, may I add). That's the leverage being used against them in this scenario, and it is quite extortionistic. Agreed, although I disagree with the rationalizing and degree. Users may be more sympathetic to IAP for continued play in a free game than they are in a premium title. In fact, this isn't a hypothetical - users ARE more sympathetic. However, the issue at hand is one of a premium app going free, gathering users, and then updating to LIMIT content that users previously had access to, behind a pay wall. We have virtual currency / IAP / DLC purchase options enabled in our SDK, so we have some rather comprehensive stats on this very thing. The fact is that free games see a substantial increase in downloads, and not merely in relationship to their larger userbase, but rather a higher % of overall users purchasing similarly-priced IAP compared to premium games. It is true that if a "free" game (ads) with virtual purchases also has a paid version, the paid version has a higher % of virtual purchases, but that is due to the paid user already being a very active/engaged "free" user first - so those numbers are a bit more difficult to gauge. And not, by definition, what I was talking about. I specifically mentioned the switch. Finally, From the "free-into-IAP" switch perspective, your analogy doesn't make sense. You aren't being promised an entree, or a portion - you are being promised the entire game. "XYZ, now entirely free! Act fast!" the banner reads. A user who shows initiative to respond to that *is* being tricked when the next update rescinds his access. Yeah, but getting a FULL game for free, then having "required" IAP forced on you in a later update does not. The users will agree. [Although, if anyone has been paying attention to Queen's Crown, they have implemented a very interesting way to combat this - bribing users for 5star ratings on the appstore. Not merely the "your 5star ratings keep us updating" shpiel, but actual in-game rewards (after the point where time has been invested and the value of those rewards is manifest) for positive ratings. But really, my entire point can be summarized from beginning to end with a look at the history of "Awareness!" if anyone fancies a bit of app sleuthing, the update history (and corresponding player reactions) should paint a pretty fair picture. Great case-study for anyone interested.
