How in-app purchases have destroyed the game industry - <AUTHOR> http://www.baekdal.com/opinion/how-inapp-purchases-has-destroyed-the-industry/ <comment><USER3> I suspect many game developers find themselves in an awkward spot:

1) People seem to balk at paying >$5 for a mobile or tablet game. (With some notable exceptions.)

2) The $0.99 or $1.99 price point is not financially viable for most games.

3) People do seem willing to purchase coins or lives or more daily playtime via in-app purchases. Some spend tens or hundreds of dollars on a single game.

If you're building a game for a large company like EA, you're probably forced to take the most lucrative path. EA's not an atelier for starving artists. And if you're a small, struggling game studio, you probably can't afford to leave money on the table.

So what's the solution? If people are unwilling to pay reasonable prices up- front for games, how besides in-app purchases does a game company profit from their work?

This is an honest question, because I also generally hate how IAP is integrated into most games. I'd much rather pay up-front.

<comment><USER4> It seems like a simple solution to me would be to make the game free, but with most features blocked behind a SINGLE in-app purchase. That way you can download it, play what amounts to basically a demo, and decide if you like the game. If you don't, you've lost nothing, and the game developer gets the opportunity to add an additional step to their funnel and see how many people genuinely don't like their game or are frustrated / confused by it. If you do, you buy it with the IAP and now have the rest of the game forever.

What am I missing here? Is this hard to do? Or prohibited somehow?

Disclosure: I'm not a mobile game developer, so maybe I'm missing something here about the rules of the app stores.

<comment><USER5> Not only this, developers shouldn't shy away from charging what they think the game is worth, $5, $29, $59, $99, whatever. If the game is good, people will pay it.

<comment><USER6> This is simply not true. Price has an enormous impact on units sold.

<comment><USER7> Price elasticity _is_ strong, but the original comment is presumably assuming you can make a decent revenue with a non-minimum price tag.

For instance, imagine a game listed as free:

\- a freemium model let you play 15 levels and asks for 4.99 to unleash 500 more levels, maybe let a 1.99 option for 100 levels; this should convert 3-5% with a million testing players; _v.s._

\- free-to-play with locking levels every 10 levels that are so hard you have to use bonus, that would convert 1% to pay for either a Golden Orb for 1.99, or a Golden Blast for 5.99, etc. each who may or may not make a difference, and appease your frustration, and work only once. You get a couple of whales (desperate, clueless players) who pay 50$ a month, but even with a larger distribution (two to three millions players) you don't break even.

The idea in the original comment is not that a price twice higher will double sales, but more that _having a price tag_ (which free-to-play games deny having) makes sense for good games.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> When thinking about gaming business models it's important to think about the context in the history of gaming.

Since in the 1980s in addition to retail and digital sales the business models we've seen have included:

      * Pay-to-play arcade games
      * Premium hint lines
      * Add-on content sales
      * In-game sponsorship (Zool, sports games)
      * Shareware
      * Advertorial games (McDonalds Land)
      * Subscription fees
      * Peripheral sales
      * Real money betting
      * UGC Rev shares
      * Membership clubs
      * Game rental
      * In game ads
      * IAP
      * Virtual items

IAP is likely here to stay, but just like the many many business models that have existed before, it'll likely become one of many in use.

<comment><USER9> Many apps use several of these business models at the same time - buy in game currency with money or watch in game sponsorships to earn it, then use that currency to buy virtual items.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Gamers have voted with their wallets for this outcome. (Dungeon Keeper retailed for $60, not $6, at launch. I couldn't afford it so I checked back weekly, and then found the best deal of my life six months later: $9.99 with a $20 manufacturers rebate.)

Minus the rebate thing this is the traditional curve for IP price discrimination: you pay more to get faster access.

Gamers thought both $60 or waiting one day, to say nothing of 6 months, were monstrously unfair, so they pirated the games. So the industry did a rethink, and figured out a way to give them what they want. Enter Free To Play.

<comment><USER11> Because of the nature of IAP-based game design, I don't believe this is really about the revealed preferences of gamers. There's widespread hate for IAP among gamers. Zynga or whoever was first discovered a way to exploit players. There's a level of deliberate manipulation in the design of these games that just can't be paralleled with charging up front. Companies even update the game in response to the telemetry they're collecting, trying to find ways get players to spend more. The dynamics can't really be compared to the honest exchange of a product for money. I think that's why it engenders such hate. I realize people weren't too happy with $60 games, but as far as I could see, great games always did very well.

<comment><USER12> What people hate is paying money. Full stop. Oh sure, there's always the "I'd pay for that if..." or the "I don't mind supporting stuff I like" (as though this were charity), but this is talk and talk - like bullshit - is cheap.

In reality, the _vast_ majority of people won't pay unless they absolutely have to, with "absolutely have to" meaning "you'll go to jail on criminal charges if you don't." So assuming you're in a situation where people really must pay, the question becomes "How seamlessly can you integrate payment extraction into your providence of value?" In the case of airline tickets, groceries, and auto repairs, the answer is "Pretty easily, actually". As a result, payment extraction is a solved problem.

With the non-negotiable inevitability of payment accepted, and the means to pay made as frictionless as possible, people don't think twice about handing over their credit cards the moment a demand is made. When people expect to pay, producers can expect to get paid. It's just that simple. Businesses compete for the custom of those who accept the system and it call the cops on the tiny minority who don't.

The problem with IP is that the legal system that protects every other viable business has imploded. And it's not about "just inventing another business model" since the unsolved problem of human nature means having to produce a new law enforcement structure to back that model up. Devolving to private enforcement (e.g. the Mafia) is an obviously unacceptable outcome, so instead of telling IP producers that it's up to _them_ to "just invent new models" it's really time for people to recognize that law and law enforcement are the responsibility of citizens, not corporations.

If you want a smooth and efficient market then come up with the laws and enforcement mechanisms that (a) this kind of market requires and (b) you can live with as a society. In the meantime, expect suboptimal solutions from producers who have been left to squeeze whatever cash they can from the teeming hordes of assholes who think payment is debatable.

<comment><USER13> paying 3-4000 USD for playing a game.. yeah.. yeah people hate paying that. I doubt ANYONE finished dungeonkeeper on mobile, for example..

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Sadly, the gaming public has brought this fate upon itself, because so many people don't respect game developers and routinely pirate the results of their hard work.

I remember having this discussion on forums like Slashdot a few years ago. I argued that although pirating games was easy in the Internet age, if people kept doing it then the only surviving game developers would be those who adapted to models that prevented it. The usual response was mumbled with the eloquence of a five year old, and said something about copyright infringement not being the same as theft and whatever the developers did someone would just crack it so why should anyone pay for games?

Fast forward a few years, and almost all the AAA games are heavily linked with some on-line element and the most successful games tend to be either multiplayer subscription models or rely heavily on in-app purchases and DLC. If you actually wanted to make a good standalone, single-player, one-time- purchase game today, I wonder how hard it would be to make real money on it. It seems like the only winning options along that path are to make a relatively low-budget game like a puzzler and sell it for an order of magnitude less so it's attractive to a long tail of customers and/or to be hit-it-out-of-the-park successful. Of course, for every Minecraft or Angry Birds there are probably thousands more titles that never quite made it.

I have some hope that crowd-funding models will help to end this kind of stand-off, because they tap into a genuine desire many gamers have for good and original titles to play but they also bridge that reality gap and illustrate in concrete terms why money is needed to make them. I've seen several very promising games get funded far beyond their original goals on Kickstarter, including RPG, RTS and even space combat titles. Whether any of them will actually be able to pull off what they promised with slimmed down teams remains to be seen, as I don't think any of the really big ones have actually launched yet, but this is a field where I'm optimistic about an alternative model to the old copyright vs. piracy conflict.

<comment><USER15> I am suspicious of your explanation.

Who pirates iPad and iPhone games? Approximately nobody. But the problem describe in the article is acute for game publishers regardless of platform.

The public has brought this upon themselves, sure, but more by being cheapskates. And I think Apple has contributed to this as well; their app store design isn't helping.

<comment><USER16> On the iOS family you can install Cydia which lets you install 3rd party non- apple-sanctioned apps. This in turn let's you download things like Installous which lets you download every single popular App for free, pirated.

There is a HUGE amount of people who pirate iOS apps.

<comment><USER15> I just don't believe it, not without data.

The approach you describe requires a jailbroken phone, plus going through a lot of shenanigans. Even most of the nerds I know haven't bothered to jailbreak their iPhones. I'm very skeptical that a significant number of civilians do it. Certainly not a significant number of civilians who would otherwise pay for games.

I've talked a lot with friends who started an iPhone games company two years back. They have mentioned a ton of issues in the marketplace, but worrying about piracy has never come up. Ever.

<comment><USER16> You're assuming all people who pirate jailbreak their phones themselves. Nope.

Lots of people pay some kid to do it and install N amount of apps.

<comment><USER15> I'm not assuming that.

I've seen no data on "lots of people". Even if it happens, I've seen no evidence that it's a significant concern of people writing iPhone games. And if it were a significant concern, I'd still be skeptical that there's a real financial impact, as opposed to the erhmagerd school of "they are stealing my precious things" freak-out. And if there were a measurable financial impact, which I don't think there is, then I'd expect it to be an order of magnitude smaller than the concerns raised in the article.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I find that even in games which are generous and you could play them just fine without paying, if I _can_ buy consumables that effect the game it severely reduces the enjoyment. Ben Kuchera said it like this:

[https://web.archive.org/web/20131211185745/http://penny- arca...](https://web.archive.org/web/20131211185745/http://penny- arcade.com/report/article/reviewing-certain-free-to-play-games-is-turning-me- into-a-nervous-wreck)

>I'm finding it increasingly difficult to enjoy free-to-play games, even those that are designed well.

>Hitting a difficulty spike can make you unsure of whether the game has simply gotten more difficult and you must try harder to succeed, or if this is where you're supposed to be putting coins into the slot in order to move forward. It's hard to focus on the story of the puppet show when you're straining to see the strings, and that's how many of us feel when we play these titles.

>Playing free-to-play games is often a matter of waiting for the other shoe to drop. Until it does, it's hard to relax. I don't want to have to figure out where the stress of the purchasing decision will be, and having to be faced with that stress on an ongoing basis is a major turn off.

Thank god for PC gaming. So far it has remained immune from so much of this.

The top 2 selling games on Steam for the last 2 months, even over the Steam Sale, are Rust and DayZ, which couldn't be farther from this model.

The closest you get are F2P games like LoL which are not nearly as bad as this, and Dota 2 a competitor doesn't let you purchase a single thing that has an effect on gameplay.

<comment><USER18> >The closest you get are F2P games like LoL which are not nearly as bad as this

Just to put this in perspective, LoL has more (by 400,000 users) concurrent players than the entire Steam platform.[1][2] I would also put forth the argument that you do gain an advantage by paying for stuff like new heroes which are almost always OP. I think the only element of PC gaming that is keeping more major studios out of the F2P models are dedicated server and p2p gaming where it doesn't make sense and is probably hard to accomplish in any meaningful way.

[1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Legends](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Legends) (para. 1)

[2] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_(software)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_\(software\)) (para. 3)

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> This reminds me of an insider's-view feature written by Tim Rogers back in 2011 titled _Who killed videogames? (a ghost story)_ [1]. Some find his writing style objectionable but it's worth a read even if you do. Page 4 of the article in particular, which somewhat confusing leads you to "chapter three: engagement wheels and compulsion traps", can serve as a pretty good introduction to F2P mechanics and their dark patterns.

The following quote more or less summarizes the piece:

>[...] "The players will come for the cute characters, and stay for the cruel mathematics."

There is also an accompanying review of _The Sims Social_ [2].

[1] [http://insertcredit.com/2011/09/22/who-killed-videogames- a-g...](http://insertcredit.com/2011/09/22/who-killed-videogames-a-ghost- story/)

[2] [http://www.actionbutton.net/?p=1076](http://www.actionbutton.net/?p=1076).

<comment><USER20> Thank you for linking that insertcredit article - you saved me the trouble. Sure, it's long, it's quite repetitive, and it's cynical as anything.

But it's also _spot on_ for this discussion.

(I'm also very happy the domain is no longer on google's shitlist for serving malware. Not long after that article was published, the site startede to trigger a big fat warning if your browser used safesurfing.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> When I read a user review stating a game has In App Purchases, I don't buy it. Period. No matter how good it looks otherwise.

I'm probably just old, I guess.

<comment><USER22> So if a game is free to download, but you have to buy the last 10 levels after playing 5 already. Would you consider that an in-app purchase? Is this a deal breaker for you?

<comment><USER23> You should be able to play the game, and beat the game, without any in-app purchases. It can beg you for add-ons all it wants, but gameplay shouldn't be affected.

<comment><USER24> I think IAP's to upgrade trails are ok. IE play two levels for free, buy the rest.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I'm really into emulation and retrogaming. One thing that concerns me is how these works of art will become unplayable and "die" once their life expectancy is over. The body of work of video games is pretty large now, but I'm worried the body of games we can continue to enjoy 20-30-40-50 years from now will grow at a very slow rate from now on out. This is very different from the movie industry, where films from 60-70 years ago are still very enjoyable.

<comment><USER26> > _This is very different from the movie industry, where films from 60-70 > years ago are still very enjoyable._

They are to us, but the average movie goer would need restraints to sit and watch them.

With the BS emphasis we had for over 2 decades on special effects, fast editing, CGI, and teenage-fantasy kind of material, the adult oriented movies of yesteryear are only left for cinephilles.

For the average 15-25 year old today, they'd be unbearable to watch, whereas back in the day they watched them just fine.

<comment><USER27> So? Who cares if the average 15-25 year old does something? The average 15-25 y/o may not visit a museum, attend an orchestra, or have a tenured professorship, but all those things still exist. Plus, 20 years from now, those kids will be adults who might want to play the games of _their_ youth.

<comment><USER26> > _So? Who cares if the average 15-25 year old does something?_

Well, since we were talking about old movies, people who value them, and who would have liked to see them being watched by newer generations and surviving into the future, do.

> _The average 15-25 y /o may not visit a museum, attend an orchestra, or have > a tenured professorship, but all those things still exist._

Just barely.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Jonathan Blow -creator of Braid and working on The Witness- also has a very nice critique on the problems with games that are designed around micro- payments. The whole talk is interesting, but he starts discussing the issues around the 20 minute mark:

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxFzf6yIfcc#t=1214](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxFzf6yIfcc#t=1214)

<comment><USER29> Jonathan sometimes comments on Hacker News as well: [https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=jblow](https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=jblow)

His comments on game industry, I find, are usually very on point. One of his last ones: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6803844](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6803844)

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> This is sort of like when MMORPG's were all the rage and they said that they were destroying traditional RPG's, but fast forward a decade or so and guess what, we still have great traditional RPG's. We have great MMORPG's. There's a lot of enjoyable gaming to be had.

So there's in app purchase, okay. That's another way some games are going, but it's not the only way and it probably won't be. You can't make a AAA title like Halo or Call of Duty as a F2P with IAP. that's not going to happen anytime soon. However, some devs might try and nickel and dime players more because they can, but maybe just maybe this means that game developers will have a more sustainable business and won't be going bankrupt every few years as many seem to.

<comment><USER31> Maybe I spend too much time look at MMOs, but what recent RPGs are there?

As for AAA with IAP, look at Planetside 2. Free to play, IAP, AAA by any measure.

In many ways, we're training a new generation of gamers to have the following beliefs:

\- Games are not meant to challenge you, but to steadily progress you, no matter how good you are. \- Anything difficult can be "spent" out of.

While both are working theses, I feel that there are far too many games that will fall away if this becomes permanent.

<comment><USER32> >In many ways, we're training a new generation of gamers to have the following beliefs: - Games are not meant to challenge you, but to steadily progress you, no matter how good you are.

Working in f2p games, I've thought about this quite a bit. From my observation, you have causality reversed. There's a new audience that is demanding progress-based games and that new market is pushing a lot of game designs away from skill-based challenges.

Going back to the pac-man era, games had to be extremely challenging because they couldn't have enough content to stay interesting otherwise. That selected for gamers who enjoyed overcoming great challenges and pretty much defined "what games are" for 30+ years. Meanwhile, there has always been an unserved audience that does not like overcoming great challenges and preferes steady progression based on effort rather than mastery.

That huge, newly discovered audience pushes back /hard/ when the games they play swing towards rewarding mastery. They just want to show up, know exactly what routine needs to be performed and know that if they do it, they will progress. For them, it's not about winning the gold at the Olympics. It's about tending a garden/getting fit/going on a hike. Imagine going on a hike and some weird old man stops you to say "No. That guy hiked better than you. You must go back down the mountain and start over from the beginning until you hike better than someone else." You'd never come back.

Meanwhile, the classic, challenge-oriented audience is still there and games are still being made for them. But, a lot of them are discovering that sometimes they just want a nice hike as well. Thus more and more products are responding to that new demand.

Gaming is a bigger world now. After 30+ years, the focus has shifted from being laser-locked on catering to hardcore gamers like you and me. Now there are not just different genres of fun challenges, there are different genres of fun.

<comment><USER33> Disclaimer: I'm really having a hard time being empathetic here.

Why do companies chase this market? They're very fickle, and rarely appreciate any sort of gameplay mechanics. These sorts of games devalue the medium to themed Skinner boxes, essentially. I play games to be competitive, and employ creative problem-solving strategies. Meanwhile, loads of companies seem hellbent on removing all nuances from their games to pursue ever-more- mainstream sensibilities.

It's disgusting and patronizing.

<comment><USER34> >Why do companies chase this market? They're very fickle, and rarely appreciate any sort of gameplay mechanics.

Because they spend money.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> I also saw the Dungeon Keeper on the iOS App Store, and my first thought was: "DKs gameplay would be fantastic for mobile!".

Then I saw their IAP strategy and dropped the game.

I would happily have payed $19.99 (the price of XCOM for iOS) for a decent DK on my iPhone.

On the other hand I see myself paying for cosmetic items in DotA 2. They don't change gameplay, but my characters look cool. It sounds stupid, and it probably is, but Valve have really designed it well.

<comment><USER36> You are unique in this. They would get almost no sales and destroyed in reviews if they charged the real price of the game ($20).

Instead, they use IAP. Some users buy nothing, some buy the $69.99 game, and on average everyone pays $20.

<comment><USER37> Actually, the effect is much more exaggerated than you are suggesting. According to Tim Rogers, the mythical average player pays $1.70, but it's really made of 95% of people who spend $0, and a power-law-esque distribution of people who spend >$0 to hundreds or thousands of dollars.[1] Most of the money is made off of "whales." Technically he's talking about social games and not mobile games, but it would be surprising if the economics were significantly different given that the mechanic (pay to make things go faster) is identical.

1: [http://insertcredit.com/2011/09/22/who-killed-videogames- a-g...](http://insertcredit.com/2011/09/22/who-killed-videogames-a-ghost- story/chapter/2/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> There are a few dynamics going on. In one sense, in-app "gem" systems have enabled companies to create highly social online games without a per-month fee. I've been playing Clash of Clans and it's really fun. Everything is run on their servers and you attack other people's villages. This sort of game would normally require something like $5/month.

But with the in-app gems, I can play at a slower pace for free. If I wanted to play faster, I could spend $5 on gems and do pretty good for about a month. So in some ways it's a pay-per-usage system.

The problem is that it can be easily abused and the dungeon game he describes sounds much more socially engineered. The handicap applied in the dungeon game sounds a lot worse than it is in Clash of Clans.

This could also all be a result of the downfall of LAN-centered games. Clash of Clans could have taken the decentralized host-your-own-server route and it would still be just as good, if not more interesting. That actually would be ideal setup because I do find myself wishing I could just play the game underneath the gem-fishing strategy.

I think Minecraft should remind us that it's the host-your-own-server strategy is a really good one, and I hope that doesn't die. It probably doesn't make as much money, so we need to figure out a way to balance the economic force which will eventually extinguish it.

</comment><comment><USER39> I've been really disappointed with Apple's laissez-faire approach to policing this trend in their App Store, especially since their philosophy is founded on making big, sweeping decisions in favour of their users.

Honestly, I don't know why they haven't, because this is one of the biggest dark user patterns that exist outside of outright illegalities.

We - and I - are used to giving companies like Facebook and LinkedIn shit for similar things, so why are Apple tacitly supporting this abomination. They don't even make that much from games anyway.

What would the coverage be like, if the FCC fined either of those two $35.5M, as they recently did Apple[1][2]?

If we believe that the App Store is a Big Deal, we should care that this is the new normal in handheld videogames.

[1]: [http://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press- releases/2014/01/apple-...](http://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press- releases/2014/01/apple-inc-will-provide-full-consumer-refunds- least-325-million)

[2]: [http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/16/technology/government- and-...](http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/16/technology/government-and-apple- settle-childrens-app-purchase-inquiry.html)

</comment><comment><USER40> I think Apple has a big part of the blame to take. Somehow - I don't know how - they engineered a situation where the original apps were priced dirt cheap for the iPhone. 99c was the initial expectation, and companies were so keen to get in on the early app store action that they didn't care. Starting from there the industry has struggled to ever raise prices for apps to a reasonable level. No matter how much content there is in a game, no matter what the quality, the perception in the consumer mind is that a good app costs $1 - $2 and an exceptional app might charge $5, but nobody ever in their right mind would pay $20 for an app. We're now at the point where mobile games contain graphics at the same level of consoles from a year or two ago, and yet prices aren't moving. Entire office suites that might have been $50 - $100 struggle to fetch $10. It's not sustainable, has never been sustainable. The only question is how we're going to get out of the mess, and it looks like we're having to go through an IAP hell before consumers will start to be prepared to pay a premimium price to get an IAP-free experience.

</comment><comment><USER41> There are still plenty of games that don't use in app purchase at all or at least in a conservative way (like expansion packs) on consoles and PC, so I wouldn't draw such conclusions.

I think the reason for this push of freemium games (in particular mobile games) is that people (who aren't usually gamers) tend to play them for very short periods as a way of passing the time. (while waiting, or while they are sitting on the toilet)

And since most game companies were unable to sell full priced games to this demographic they adopted this business model to make money.

Would you pay $30 for a game on a mobile phone with all its limitations? (touchscreen controls, small screen, crappy audio, battery drain)

If I'm paying that kind of money (or more) for a game I expect at least solid 15 hours of immersive gameplay. (which is impossible for me on a phone - <USER2> have my consoles&PC for that)

</comment><comment><USER42> There needs to be a distinction drawn between mobile games and console/pc. These are two completely separate industries that are only married by name. They have different target audiences, mechanics, and business models. Mobile games are played to piss some time away, and are almost never played for hours like console/pc games are. One of the big reasons the Ouya failed was because its creators didn't realize that the console and mobile markets were separated so much - they don't compete with each other on any level.

This is why I think it's silly to compare older games to mobile games. With the mobile market, you can do all sorts of disgusting slimy things and the consumer won't give a damn because they spend at max - 20 minutes on your game at a time. As long as people view mobile games as a way to blow some time rather than an interactive experience, I doubt nearly enough people will become involved with them enough to even care about in-app purchases.

</comment><comment><USER43> Another interesting video review of the another incarnation of this problem: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_AgjWkNGew](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_AgjWkNGew) Angry Joe on the iOS app Star Trek: Trexels.

It does not amaze me that this level of depravity was tried; I always considered it a forgone conclusion that the companies would do anything that worked. It does sort of amaze me that this is _working_. Though I suspect rather than being the long-term future of gaming that this is the equivalent of slash&burn development. Yes, there's a huge bunch of people right now who haven't quite cottened to how nasty this can be, but they're learning fast, and while another one is born every minute, it's never quite the same as the first time the new scam goes raging through an unprepared population.

</comment><comment><USER44> It would be an interesting experiment to offer a version of Dungeon Keeper (the focus of this article) in the App store for $39.95 and without the IAP accelerators. Then compare sales with that one and the cheap one. Clearly EA just works out their life time value per customer either way.

I did hear a game developer mention that IAP is really a form of copy protection, in the sense that if you made a copy of a game that can only effectively be played by buying additional tokens, then it is more difficult to pirate.

I agree with the author that it has made for a very different sort of industry. But given the income these companies are making I don't think the industry is being "destroyed" any more than the extortionate seat prices the NFL charges to see a game in person are "destroying" football.

<comment><USER45> Plague Inc. allows you to unlock the game for a few bucks as an IAP, but it's a one-off purchase. That seems to work for copy protection.

Needling the shit out of your customers like Dungeon Keeper is doing is killing the system. Unless a game ends up on the Humble Bundle, I almost refuse to get it because I'm worried about IAPs.

<comment><USER46> some games that end up on the humble bundle have in app purchases. I don't know if they've changed their policy about it. I remember one game in particular that was pretty aggressive with it's DLC nag.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> Shouldn't the comparison of prices be for the original cost of the game, rather than how much it costs nowadays? Surely in 14 years time the iPad version would be indeed be cheaper if still existent?

</comment><comment><USER48> Dungeon Keeper costs $6 because it's 15 years old... When it was new it cost $50.

<comment><USER49> Which is still less than that £69.99 In App Purchase that lets you dig out 56 blocks.

<comment><USER48> Sure, but when he says things like:

"So this is the old days: Full game price + expansion packs included: $5.99 [...] Just remember that."

That's a complete and utter lie.

<comment><USER50> A used or budget version of DK was easy to find for a few bucks back in maybe 98 or 99 thats still the old days.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> I don't really understand in-app game purchases, but that's maybe because I've never made any. I don't know anybody that has either, so I'm a bit baffled that it's disrupting the industry this much. Might be cultural difference too, being in Europe.

I also don't understand the sense of in-app purchases in some games. For instance, in Candy Crush I believe you can make in-app purchases to skip ahead, not have to play quests to clear levels etc. Reason I don't get it is because the whole point of playing the game is surely to play the levels and not skip them!

It leads me to believe that the only reason in-app purchases happen is because they pray on the weak: people who genuinely get addicted. I may be wrong about it since I don't have data to back up my claims, but I'm assuming that instead of a lot of people making up the industry, that the whole concept is powered by a few people making massive payments in the form of tonnes of purchases; people who I can only imagine get addicted in the sense that anyone can get addicted to drinking, smoking, gambling etc.

Perhaps someone can shed light on the nature of the in-app payment industry for gaming and perhaps explain to me what I'm missing.

Disclaimer: I'm not a big gamer, so that might explain all of the above.

PS: I find it somewhat amusing that the author's blog site offers a premium content purchase link: in-blog purchase?

</comment><comment><USER52> I do think IAP has made games less fun, but as a non-game app developer I think IAP is amazing.

The old model (for devs who don't like ads) normally went like this:

* Free Version: Limited Feature Set

* Paid Version: $0.99 or $1.99, full features

There were a lot of problems with this model, such as:

1) People didn't know the paid version exist, leave bad ratings on the free version for lack of features.

2) It was hard to gain traction since your downloads were split over multiple apps, meaning each would rank lower individually.

3) When people made the free-to-paid conversion, you had to worry about data migration including all preferences, etc.

4) Some apps just don't have a meaningful feature set for a free version.

5) Maintaining separate code.

IAP fixes this and allows be to be a more "lean" operation. Now I publish a free app with a minimum viable feature set. I watch what features people ask for in reviews, and if one seems like a non-bug feature that people really want I'll introduce it as a $0.99 IAP. In the meantime, my free app can keep gaining users which means putting the opportunity to buy my product in front of more people and not splitting my popularity across two app store listings. I also make sure to add features for free to keep moving up the charts and make most users happy. Also, people are much more likely to want to pay for a feature after they've used the rest of the app than pay up front.

</comment><comment><USER53> This is a silly argument.

1\. Game developers aren't shooting themselves in the foot. They're catering to customers. IAP works because customers want to get a game for free, and the people who really love a game are willing to spend thousands (sometimes even tens or hundreds thereof) on it.

2\. The old-school game model was struggling anyway. Console game sales haven't been doing well for a long time.

3\. You can't rent an app, and you mostly don't play it on someone else's device. Both of these were ways of testing out a new franchise on consoles that no longer exist. It makes sense that something filled the void.

4\. The platforms now (mobile devices) have a vested interest in you playing as many games as possible, moreso than you paying for them. Apple/Samsung etc. make their money by your buying a new $650+ phone every two years, and if you get a bunch of apps you love on one, you're more likely to get another from the same OEM later. Why try to sell you a few $10 games off of which they make $3 (minus carrier fees) when they can give you a ton of free games and hope you love a few enough of them to plunk down another $650 a year from now? Until content is no longer gated by app stores that have incentives very different from those of game devs, this business model is a natural fit.

Don't get me wrong, I don't love it either, and I make the damn things for a living. I don't think all IAP-monetized games suck. But I do think that plenty of them do, and the misaligned incentives make it hard to make a game that is both profitable and genuinely fun that way.

I just don't think the fault lies with game developers.

</comment><comment><USER54> The inception of in-app purchases on mobile games is not to be blamed on game developers - it's the markets. Specifically, AppStore discovery and refund policies.

There you were circa 2009, a mobile game player, presented with games you need to pay for, upfront, with no demo or trial, needing a credit card. You don't like what you bought? That's a shame.

On the other hand, there was Free category, install it, play it, see few ads, or options for in-app purchases, and for the the most part, it matched the quality of premium up-front-charged games. But even if it didn't, who cares. It's free.

My point here is that in-apps were reasonable evolution of money-hungry marketplaces, not developers. Developers just sort of got shoved on that path.

Your point of argument might be - "Well, aren't developers money-hungry too?" Let me explain to you why game developers are paid way below the average compared to their IT fellows in spite of doing arguably much more complex work (you say web site - i say 3d world, you say RoR backend - i say real-time MMO- powering beast, you say web design - i say asset-friggin'-pipeline) and why game market is so cutthroat...

It's because we love what we do and will take shit in order to do it. We're very oppinionated about it, and for the most of us, it's not a job - it's life, a quest, a mission.

And even if this doesn't resonate with you, how about - there's nothing wrong with in-apps? Go to any international/interstate retailer. Check the shelving, check the products, the design, the smell. The sheer amount of science to get you to purchase that particular box of razor blades, removing any rationality you might have for your purchase, is towering over anything you might encounter in mobile game in-apps infrastructure.

<comment><USER55> No one is saying that the very essence of in-app purchases is wrong. In fact we all agree that games are the most under-valued pieces of software. We honestly support monetization of games (hence everyone saying i would happily pay $X for full unlock). Of course most people would NOT pay that upfront and need to be... "convinced" to pay that amount.

What we ARE decrying is the negative affect on the GAME itself for this monetization. The gameplay element should remain unaffected from this. So IAP that gives you extra levels, extra maps, extra skins, are the perfect way to monetize on it. In contrast charging per turn (or for speeding up turns), or for lives, or even things that make your game "pay-to-win" are not only unethical but ruin the GAME. SO doesn't that ruin your " it's life, a quest, a mission" philosophy.

PS: My most hated line on play store or appstore is "greedy devs charging me money for content"

</comment></comment><comment><USER56> I read a lot of complaints like this "OMG , all games are becoming F2P IAP" but I don't really see it outside of a niche of mobile games which seem to be modern day one armed bandit machine.

If you at the current crop of Steam games or console games there are a ton of popular games that have no IAP or IAP which are for only for cosmetic items or expanding game content.

</comment><comment><USER57> A reddit user has started a tumblr to catalog ad-less, up-front-purchase, single in-app-purchase Android games:

[http://honestandroidgames.com/](http://honestandroidgames.com/)

</comment><comment><USER58> Well I can only speak about myself and say that I have spent at least twice as much for in game purchases than I have for buying games. In my case the culprit is Heroes of Newerth , a game I am completely addicted to. Its a MOBA game , also known as DOTA clone. And I did try Dota 2 and LoL and non made me switch. I am waiting for Heroes of the Storm. In the case of Heroes of Newerth all you can buy is Alternative Avatars of your Heroes , or reset your stats, or some other accessories. None of the things you buy actually affects the gaming experience. The game is 100% free and if you dont want to spend a euro on it so be it it will be as playable to you as it is for the guy that spends thousands of euros. I really like this and this is why I decided to spent my money. They dont force me to spend , I spend because I want to support them and keep this game improving. I see DOTA 2 also follows a similar path.

</comment><comment><USER59> From the second video (warning for language):

[http://youtu.be/GpdoBwezFVA?t=5m6s](http://youtu.be/GpdoBwezFVA?t=5m6s)

1\. Few things in life are more enjoyable than an angry British guy having a good rant.

2\. Coincidentally I just yesterday (re)read the part of _Hackers_ talking about the founding of EA. Times have changed.

</comment><comment><USER60> The author made a disingenuous comparison. Dungeon Keeper didn't cost $5 when it was released many years ago. It costed $39.95. And there was not trial play ahead of time. Is he willing to pay for $49.95 (adjusted for inflation) for the iPad version before even playing it?

The in-app purchase got to this way because of gamer purchase behaviors. If the majority of the gamers are willing to pay upfront, you won't see in-app purchase. This is just like most people (at least in US) unwilling to pay the full price to buy the phone upfront but rather to pay for it with smaller monthly charges via the long term contract.

Gamers change their purchase behaviors and in-app purchases will go away.

<comment><USER61> The price of AAA games has gone down in real dollars, so adjusting for inflation isn't accurate. Also, when you paid $40 for a game in 1998, you ended up with a game you could resell when you were done with it. The video game market was built around that expectation. And the price of used games was much lower than retail -- $5-10 was common for games that sold at $40 a year or two earlier.

In this case, I think it's notable that the mobile Dungeon Keeper is both less playable and more expensive than its predecessor.

</comment></comment><comment><USER62> Calling these games "the game industry" does a disservice to all the other games that aren't like this.

</comment><comment><USER63> Maybe I'm an old fogey but those 1990's graphics look awesome to me.

<comment><USER64> That's because, while being low-res, they spent a lot of effort on the animations and the details. Most "modern" mobile games have about as much animation as final fantasy on the gameboy.

</comment></comment><comment><USER65> I'll point to Blizzard's Hearthstone (still in open beta) as a counterexample. It's a collectible card game, and it's perfectly fun to play from day one with little more than the starter cards. You can earn more cards slowly by playing a lot, or you can just buy them. But while buying better cards can make you more competitive, it doesn't necessarily make the game more fun, since in any case it generally matches you up against an equally-matched opponent.

</comment><comment><USER66> Anybody notice the bottom of the article:

Subscribe for $9/month Baekdal PLUS: Premium content that helps you make the right decisions, take the right actions, and focus on what really matters.

Really?

</comment><comment> Digit-Al Is this really different from arcade games, where when you lose all your lives you can stick some more money in before the timer runs out and continue where you were killed?

Having said that, I do think this concept ruins games. Personally I never play 'free to play'. I prefer ad supported ones, where if you like the game you can then pay a one off price to get rid of the adverts, or ones where you can pay to get more levels (and remove adverts).

<comment><USER46> Funny you should mention those old arcade cabinets.

Their "pay to try again" model created the perverse incentive to kill the player off quickly in unpredictable ways to give the impression that it wasn't really their fault. Coin eating machines.

They're great examples of how business models color the nature of a game deeply.

</comment></comment><comment><USER67> Obviously, this is a byproduct of our "everything should be free" online culture.

What's really funny is that the author's blog itself follows the same freemium model as the games he's decrying. Free to read, but $9/month to subscribe per the end of the article:

"Baekdal PLUS: Premium content that helps you make the right decisions, take the right actions, and focus on what really matters."

How is it possible that he's overlooking this irony?

It's the culture.

</comment><comment><USER68> As a mobile developer venturing into building my own games, I disagree and agree.

First off, I hate, __hate __, the practice of slowing down the game or crippling it, and then allowing the user to use an IAP to get the game back to a normal pace.

I vow never to do that.

However, a some users (and anecdotally, quite a few of my friends) won't download my app if it costs $1. The barrier to entry is too high, and they don't know if they are going to get a good experience. They can't pick up my app and hold it, feel it, rub their hands over it's quality. They have 5 screenshots (and any reviews online) to go by. Okay, so I'll make it free to lower that barrier.

But now how do I make money? I think the best thing to do is to simply have users pay for content that they have already proved they love. Let them play through 50 levels, or the first "area" of the game. Let them buy more levels or unlock more content. This way they can play the game and decide if they like it, and if so, buy more.

I think the two rules of thumb about this sort of IAP is: 1: Don't be a asshole. Give the user a lot of completely unaltered content up front, and really let them dive into the game. Ensure they know that buying the rest of the game later will cost some money, but don't take away features because they haven't bought the game yet. Let them fall in love with it. 2: Price it fairly. Let users buy "All Levels Forever" for $5, or each level pack for $2. Allow them to unlock all the content at once. If they bought 2 levels packs, and want to buy all the rest later, give them a discount.

Make a game you'd want to play.

</comment><comment><USER69> Isn't the reason actually that people have been "trained" to favour the quick hit instead of actually savouring experiences? If that is a given, then the game industry is just trying to sate this new/modern taste of esp. the younger generation. The "guilty" here isn't really the game industry then. Who is? No idea... and most assuredly not one single industry or person.

</comment><comment><USER70> I recently wrote a book about Freemium, in part, because I think it is vilified unfairly within the context of gaming.

Before moving to gaming, I worked at Skype. No one ever accused Skype of exploiting people, or of facilitating addiction, or of polluting the purity of telephony. Skype made money by, essentially, up-selling people to paid phone calls. Those phone calls might have been to people's sick parents in foreign countries, or their kids. Imagine that! By charging for phone calls, Skype might have been prevented someone from speaking to their sick mother!

Freemium is a business model; it's not a moral framework or an ethos. Some people make terrible games with the freemium model; they likely would have made terrible games had they gone with an upfront payment model. The difference between the terrible freemium game and the terrible paid game is that people got to choose whether or not they contributed money to the terrible freemium version after playing it. They got more information before making a purchase, kind of like a test drive. Isn't that a good thing -- more information?

<comment><USER71> Gaming is actually the most evil possible context for freemium. It encourages bad design at literally every level, in ways that generally do not transfer to other types of software.

If freemium were generally _just_ a demo for a better game, you would be right that there's nothing wrong with it, but optimizing a game for freemium means a worse game. Watch the second video in the article; the "best value" gem cart is in the ballpark of just straight up buying a game. Except you don't get the entire game.

<comment><USER70> > If freemium were generally just a demo for a better game

It's not, and no one ever said it was. The demo analogy isn't valid; a free- to-play game is a fully functional game. IAPs may unlock additional functionality, or help bypass time gates, or whatever, but the "core loop" of a game shouldn't (under the guise of freemium, anyway) be restricted by payments.

This isn't to say that it doesn't happen -- not every developer really understands freemium, and some bastardize it. But can you really argue with consumer preference for freemium? If consumers hated freemium, it wouldn't dominate the app store.

<comment><USER71> > a free-to-play game is a fully functional game

I suspect my definition for "fully functional" is different from yours, but I have high standards.

> If consumers hated freemium, it wouldn't dominate the app store.

Actually it's entirely possible for something hated to also be the most profitable course of action given things like information asymmetry. For instance, if people would be happier with good $20 apps, but it's so hard to tell which $20 apps are good that no one is willing to risk buying them, then you end up with the current situation.

I'm not necessarily saying that this is the case (much as I hope it is), but I would love nothing more than for reviews like this to bring people around to how exploitative this model is, and how much it encourages bad game design.

<comment><USER70> This is verifiably not the case; for example, see the positive reviews of Candy Crush Saga and any number of other F2P titles. It's pretty clear that consumers prefer the freemium model, it's just a vocal minority that continues to single out specific games (like the one in the OP) and use them to denigrate the business model.

Also, isn't your argument re: information asymmetry an argument in favor of F2P? In the case where a developer has made a great game, it behooves them to release it for free, not only because that's obviously what consumers prefer (see the App Store), but because it allows the app to be more widely distributed and critiqued (and thus the worst apps would be quickly identified as bad and not downloaded -- perfect information).

<comment><USER71> > Also, isn't your argument re: information asymmetry an argument in favor of > F2P?

It's an argument that developers and consumers can both be correct to gravitate toward F2P. It's not an argument that this is the happiest equilibrium for either. It's the same rationale behind lemon laws; the absence of such laws pushes the market toward a position where buyers have to assume all cars are secretly busted, sellers have to price their cars accordingly, and the market ultimately gravitates toward people selling busted cars because nothing else is profitable.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER72> You want everything included for $5.99. Studios want more lifetime value out of the customers. Consumers want to sample the game for free and incrementally pay if they are hooked on. Studios have come up with a model that makes them a lot of money and keeps consumed happy. This is evident by the fact that studios have moved to this model. In a nutshell the market has decided the best model.

<comment><USER61> Markets can't "decide" anything. They're not intelligent.

Investors have selected what they believe to be the optimal strategy for looting the games market. Time will tell whether the approach remains profitable or whether they're going to run their companies into the ground in the long term.

</comment></comment><comment><USER73> Crappy mobile games are not "the game industry"; it's a perverted travesty, just like the rest of the disgusting app culture.

</comment><comment><USER74> Sadly, I didn't have time to play the iOS Dungeon Keeper myself, so I started to watch the video review in the article — and in one minute, the reviewer showed that he doesn't know anything not only about free2play, but about modern games in general.

DK is clearly a Clash of Clans clone. Apart from being a clone, this means that it's supposed to be primarily multiplayer. Persistent-state, massive multiplayer. And a day of real time in this games IS NOT a lot of time. Similarly to Eve Online (which I draw as an example as the "nerdiest" game to have this kind of mechanics), this kind of games have a LOT of stuff that take hours, days and sometime even months of real time to unlock or produce. This mechanics first started as a variation from traditional PBEM on BBSes; their primary purpose was not to draw money from players, but so that regular playing would yearn a greater, or at least similar reward, to hours of grinding, that only a tiny fraction of players can afford.

</comment><comment><USER75> Freemium is not a bad thing. Dungeon Keeper for iPad is just a bad game. But why it sholdn't be? Who remebers the disaster Master of Orion 3 was? It wasn't freemium. It supposed to be good because it was master of orion, but it wasn't.

There are a lot of horrible games that are basically pay to play at any fun pace. They have one of two or three very stupid mechanics that proved to be most efficient extortion schemes dressed in some graphics and story.

Good thing is you can just install them, play ten minutes, recognize what kind of beast you are dealing with, uninstall and forget.

Bad thing is, thers no one place where you can go to check if the game is pay or wait scheme. Gamers basically get nohelp from noone when they try to decide what to play next.

Good freemium is when you pay for game to be easier. Pay or wait is insane but pay or play some more on the current level before advancing is reasonable enough if it's balanced so that you can advance faster if you are more skilled.

<comment><USER76> The problem I see with your proposed model is that game developers will then make games harder to encourage you to pay. Or the game will be grindier, so you have to farm for XP or items or whatever to advance. But for only 99 cents...

IAP hurt game design and result is less-fun games. The only use I can swallow is in cosmetic-only IAP, and even then I'm iffy.

<comment><USER75> Forcing player to farm things already happens even without IAP. It happens because average player wants this. I have no idea why. I suspect it's US cultural thing. Getting better just by putting more hours into crappy job. Cosmetic only IAP are holy grail but I can accept well balanced IAP that makes the game easier. I don't mind that my game is hard. What I don't want is waiting or doing easy thing over and over again. If a game makes me do one of those two things or pay I abandon it.

I don't even mind that such games exist. But I do mind that I can't know if a game is like that before I try it out myself.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER77> My hunch is the "freemium is bad" argument is primarily an oversimplification of the underlying concern -- the erosion of trust and how that manifests during gameplay.

When I play a traditional "pay" game, I trust that the developer want me to finish the entire game. After all, the team slaved away creating all that content and the player should damn well appreciate their effort.

As a result, when I get stuck at some point in a game (Dead Space 2 being a recent example), I _trust_ that there's a way forward and with a little more effort or practice, or perhaps if I retrace my steps, I'll become unstuck and move along the path toward completion.

Because the developer and I are working with a common goal in mind -- get Eric to the end of the game -- I am confident that at any point in the game I will be capable of completing the challenges set forth (no matter how stingy the Dead Space guys are with ammo).

With freemium games, that trust is obliterated. When I can't progress, I am forced to ask a fun-sucking question -- is the developer trying to extort money from me in order to continue? Am I unable to continue because I just haven't mastered some in-game skill or is this simply the point at which I'm supposed to hand over my tithe?

Candy Crush is an obvious (if extreme) example. When you can't complete a level after the 20th try, the player begins to feel that the developer is expressly barring their passage. And at that point, the game ceases to be fun, at least for the generations of gamers who saved the princess.

Then again, my kids (eight and six) just assume that buying gems is how one progresses in a game. It's not unlike when I was eight and pumping quarters into Gauntlet in order to reach the next level -- Blue Warrior's health dropped whether or not you were taking damage.

Everything old is new again.

<comment><USER78>
      > With freemium games, that trust is obliterated. When I can't progress, I am forced to ask a fun-sucking question -- is the developer trying to extort money from me in order to continue? Am I unable to continue because I just haven't mastered some in-game skill or is this simply the point at which I'm supposed to hand over my tithe?

Absolutely. I hate the feeling of not knowing whether I'm not good enough yet or if this level is just designed to have no feasible way of completing without buying a power up. There is also no way to benchmark and compare with your friends since someone might have completed a level using a power up. Games for me is like sports, everyone should play on equal terms, even for single player games. Imagine playing/watching football where one team can buy an extra player to have on the field.

I'd much rather have the paywall be honest like buying levels like the oldschool shareware method or subscriptions like mmorpgs.

I'm actually surprised there are so few subscription based games, this should be ideal for both parties. The user don't have to pay the up front $60 for an unknown game and the vendor gets a constant revenue stream.

</comment></comment><comment><USER79> Simply brilliant video.

I think that people who pay for these guys are miserable. It's up to them to choose what's "fun" for them. If playing this kind of game is "fun" for them, then it's fine for me. I'll play a different game. As long as there will be people like me, there will be indie games and a lot of fun for us.

</comment><comment><USER80> I want to know how much overlap there is between mobile gaming consumers and console/pc gaming consumers. Has mobile gaming stolen away any of the spending of the console/pc gaming demographic? Or has it instead created an entirely new market that doesn't do console/pc gaming at all?

I can only go by personal experience as I cannot find any consumer surveys, but I've spent about a grand total of 5 dollars on mobile games, all for expanded content, not consumables, but I've spent hundreds on my 3DS alone. I strongly suspect the audiences for in game purchases and the audience for deeper games hardly overlap at all.

Are kids just not going to know that real gaming exists? I'm simply not convinced that the existence of mobile non-games means that the discoverability of real games is hampered. Console gaming isn't exactly a niche market that few people know exists and never end up experiencing.

</comment><comment><USER81> I find it ironic that this blog post is filled with ads from top to bottom. Talk about destroying industries.

<comment><USER82> I don't see how ads sitting on the separate column and bothering nobody destroy anything. I personally didn't notice them at all before you said there are lots of ads. So I guess we can say about destroying ads industry since most of the target audience does not see them, but I'd say that's their problem to find a way to be more useful.

</comment></comment><comment><USER83> Virtually all games I've bought recently have had this inane obnoxiousness. One of my favorite games was 'Choice of Romance: Affairs of the Court.'

You play it. You want to go on to level 2? Pay. Level 3? Pay. Not have to wait 20 minutes to start a new game? Pay. No ads? Pay. Start from level 2 or 3 with accomplishments you achieved? Well, it claimed to be free, but restore-from- save doesn't work, so you pay. Play it on your iPhone, Kindle, Android, and Chrome? Pay four times.

It was a great game, and I would have gladly bought the rest of the games, but it's both not fun to know I can either waste hours or get blackmailed into paying, and terrifying to see where they'll try to skin me next time...

I moved on, but I haven't found any really good games that don't do this.

</comment><comment><USER84> I mostly agree with the premise here, but I want to play devil's advocate:

* The game isn't actually reviewed. Maybe you can play the game perfectly well without paying for gems. Maybe the game is actually more interesting to play for the fact that you have to manage your resources according to the time cost/gem count. Maybe there's a _genuine_ reason why thousands of people have given five stars.

* There's no reason to believe that we are supposed to pay for the £70 bundle. Maybe the £70 bundle is just for the IAP 'whales' who are paying for everyone else to play. When I go to a coffee shop, I don't have to buy a triple-cream, triple-chocolate mocha latte for £8, but I also don't need to get annoyed that this is on the menu.

<comment><USER85> Regarding the high number of five-star ratings, there's a common pattern in this style of mobile game to optimize for ratings. After the tutorial introduces the mechanics, and after a bit of time spent in the main game, it prompts the user to go to the app store and give a rating. Shortly after this prompt is when the game starts hitting the player hard for IAPs. I haven't played this new Dungeon Keeper, but EA's Plants vs Zombies 2 followed this model to a T at release, popping the rating prompt near the end of the first world, but before letting the player know that they would need to replay the entire world repeatedly in order to pass the paywall for free.

</comment></comment><comment><USER86> Don't pay so much attention to app store reviews. There are plenty of agencies out there offering fake reviews for pretty much anything.

I don't see how bad games full of microtransactions and fake reviews would be able to destroy the industry. They will not prevent the next Minecraft.

</comment><comment><USER87> Don't people see that this is just a rant? The post is nothing but someone letting off some steam.

</comment><comment><USER88> I purchased an iOS table tennis game, Virtual Table Tennis by SenseDevil Games after playing the free version. I "upgraded" with a $1.99 in app purchase.

Shocked to discover I still had to buy bats if I wanted to advance in the game, the bats for sale offered more spin to compete in harder levels. I'm not even sure what my $1.99 bought me.

If I spend money on a game, I don't want to find things "locked" such as table tennis bats in a bloody table tennis game. I left a 1 star review for that. Will avoid SenseDevil Games in future.

All their "buy coins" crap "visit the store" crap in the game. Who do they think they are? A bloody table tennis virtual economy? Obnoxious game developers, that's what it is.

</comment><comment><USER89> Good that we can spoof in app purchases with in-appstore.com. I'm willing to pay good money for good games (full), but I'm not willing to pay 20 bucks to play and still have limitations to opponents who pay 50 bucks in multiplayer games.

</comment><comment><USER90> The gaming market has ALWAYS been choked with shit. I don't understand how people can forget Sturgeon's Law so quickly and proclaim the death of the gaming industry. If anything, there are more great games now than there ever have been, if only because the barrier to entry is low.

You know all those old games that are so great that you wish they'd make now? They're still there! You can still play them! Go grab _Dungeon Keeper_ and relive those days. So many amazing games to play, so many new technologies to make new ones with. Quit complaining and be a part of the solution rather than a part of the problem.

</comment><comment><USER91> Here is the main problem. I don't know if I will like a game when I buy it.

I would gladly spend $5.00 on a mobile game if I really like it.

But, too many times I have spent money on a game and then not really liked it.

The reason in-app or in-game purchases work is because you don't mind spending money on something you really like.

If Apple or Google Play allowed for a testing period of a few hours, then this might solve the problem.

If I have a money back time limit of say 2 hours, then I can get my money back anytime before I spend a total of 2 hours playing the game.

This would allow me to only spend money on games I really like without the fear of spending money on games I don't like.

<comment><USER92> Maybe provide a free download and allow users to play through tutorials or the first 2 levels then opt for a single in-app purchase to unlock the full game. One single in-app purchase that would have been the cost of the game anyway. No different than all those free demos we got to play on PC.

<comment><USER55> > play through tutorials or the first 2 levels

That usually irks me. The free bundle should have enough to get me hooked. Few (possibly) really good games only gave me the most basic of levels for free without any of the complexity the rest of the game had. So obviously, it wasn't enough to get me to buy the rest.

Dont get me wrong, i LOVE this model. Give me free levels, make me love it. Promise me far cooler stuff awaits me beyond the pay wall (offer a video trailer) and i'd love to pay for the rest.

One great example i ran into (and yes i am probably mentioning this like the third time here) is BADLAND. I am honestly not a dev of it :P but am in love with their model!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER93> In app purchases have ruined so many games for me.

I don't even mind their existing so much if they are a simple 'cheat' (and the game isn't impossibly slow to progress without them), but what bothers me is when they are the _only_ way to get or do something (especially if the 'thing' is to progress any further in the game). I have quit games at this point when they no longer became fun for me, and I don't just mean fb/mobile games, but even proper (read: PC) games that used to be fun before that element came into them (e.g. Star Trek Online).

</comment><comment><USER94> I remember arcade games that were designed to eat quarters. They did very well. People loved them.

Seems that people love these games. I don't know why either but I still burn through quarters playing Area 51 whenever I find it.

Go figure.

<comment><USER95> I played Smash TV on someone's free MAME system recently. I finished it in about 20minutes without starting over, just pumping credits. (In STV, you lose 0 progress when you continue with a new credit after falling. In fact, you get a brief invincibility bonus.)

It was surrreal. For one, a lot of the drama and challenged vanished. For two, it made me wonder how I sent god knows how many quarters as a kid.

Now I am playing Crystal Castles, where falling causes a partial start over (there are some warp/checkpoints later) and it is addicting me again, still fun.

</comment></comment><comment><USER96> I don't mean to defend in-app purchases, but this isn't the first time the game industry has tried to nickel and dime you. How is it that different from the 90s when the game industry put out incredibly difficult games and charged players tokens every couple minutes to keep playing? I know I've personally spent a hell of a lot more money in the arcade than on in-app purchases. This isn't a mobile example, but I think Riot (maker of League of Legends) is a company that really gets it right with in-app purchases in a tasteful way.

<comment><USER97> As far as I can tell, the objection to IAPs vs the old arcade model is the difference between "pay to win" and "pay to play".

<comment><USER96> With enough quarters a monkey could beat Area 51 so I think that is arguably "pay to win" as well.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER98> The only way to break the in-app purchase model is to have try before you buy. I'm not going to pay full price to try a game before knowing if it's good or not. So yes, I'm potentially ignoring lots of great games that charge full price up front, but how do I know if they are good or not? I don't understand why Apple hasn't pushed for this from day 1. If I got to play even two levels of Super Mario 3, I would buy the game in a heartbeat.

Also, we rented the full game for a weekend from Blockbuster before buying.

</comment><comment><USER99> I wonder if the problem isn't the AppStore itself. It is so difficult to find good content, and the 'Top 10 Lists' are the primary place people go to find games. This has led to rampant spamming and other dirty tactics to get on these lists, and now there is no market for higher quality content.

I think another problem is scarcity - there isn't any anymore, making it hard for me as a customer to focus on a few higher quality products. Now there are just too many apps.

</comment><comment><USER100> In-app purchases are not the problem, people paying for them are.

</comment><comment><USER101> I don't like IAPs but this blog post's argument misses a really big key point. To do a fair comparison between a real game such as Dungeon Keeper and its IAP version, you can't quote the GOG price for the real game. That's the price that arrived years after the game was fresh with healthy sales and years after the game already recouped all of its costs.

The price they should have quoted for the original Dungeon Keeper game is $49.99.

</comment><comment><USER102> I think that "destroyed" is not the right word.

Yes, free to play games with in app purchases dominate the mobile market. For now. The mobile gaming is just 6 years old. We're in the 'Space Invaders' era. The quality of the top-grossing games is, how I shall put it, not great.

I think eventually the quality will grow to a level where paying up front for a mobile game will not be the stupidest thing on the face of the Earth.

<comment><USER103> >> The mobile gaming is just 6 years old. We're in the 'Space Invaders' era.

Game developers have access to over thirty years of video gaming knowledge when designing a game. People have access to multi-platform SDKs, etc. Today, anyone with a computer can produce and publish a game.

When Space Invaders was around, this was not even remotely the case.

The expectations for quality on a 6 year old platform today should be __much __higher than it was in the 80s.

</comment></comment><comment><USER104> It's quite funny how the author calls the game industry destroyed by in-app- purchases, when most of the games industry isn't mobile gaming and doesn't have that. PC or console, there isn't a lot of IAP (no real mechanism for it). The irony is that people who identify themselves as gamers generally see the mobile gaming space as a cesspool of discardable lightweight games.

</comment><comment><USER105> Well, I am also very disappointed by nearly every mobile game I have ever seen, but on the computer and PS3/4 I still see good things done right. So don't really see the point here. The platform is obviously for little children with too much pocket money and people make lots of money serving them such kind of games. Looks to me like nearly everybody could be happy.

</comment><comment><USER64> Posted on HN a long while ago, here's an article that describes in-depth just how some F2P games manipulate the consumer to spend the maximum amount of money they can:

[http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/RaminShokrizade/20130626/1949...](http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/RaminShokrizade/20130626/194933/)

</comment><comment><USER106> The only games that are worth playing is stuff released years ago. i have never payed a single $ to play these app store scams and never will. I however dumped close to $200 on a KS game I wanted made.. scum is scum and I will never assoicitate with them(shared office in with one of these before.. felt dirty at the end of the day)

<comment><USER17> >The only games that are worth playing is stuff released years ago.

Wow. I absolutely detest the kind of games talked about in this article but I believe more great games are being made now than anytime in history. The whole gaming space has grown so much that every single niche is better served now. Not in the AAA space but indy game quality is so high now, they can easily best games from 15 year ago.

Look at the Steam top 10, it's not bad at all. DayZ and Rust are both extremely interesting game designs that like of which had only been seen in MUDs before.

</comment></comment><comment><USER92> I'll admit, sometimes I don't want to spend more than $10 on a game especially without knowing what it's like. But that's why there's in-app purchases or rather, a single purchase. Like the golden era of PC games where you got a free demo with your PC Magazine. Play it, love it, wait a few months, buy it.

</comment><comment><USER107> > So what's the solution? If people are unwilling to pay > reasonable prices > up-front for games, how besides in-app > purchases does a game company > profit from their work?

If morality is valued higher than profitability, game studios wouldn't enter into the market. That's the choice they have.

</comment><comment><USER108> It seems many think the same way - check out this Reddit thread:

[http://www.reddit.com/r/AndroidGaming/comments/1vu3gy/sick_o...](http://www.reddit.com/r/AndroidGaming/comments/1vu3gy/sick_of_every_new_game_being_ruined_by_inapp/)

</comment><comment><USER109> In the last 18 months I've entirely stopped buying mobile games because of this trend. I know that any game I buy is probably going to become less fun if I'm not willing to buy virtual cranberries.

This is not sustainable as an industry practice. People will eventually get wise.

</comment><comment><USER110> I'm surprised it hasn't been nicknamed something like the 'entertainment singularity'. It's like a philosophy of maximum productivity has encroached entertainment and now you're either working or paying. Not playing.

</comment><comment><USER111> To me, this model is closer to gambling than gaming. In fact, some gamedev studio actually build some slot machine games, where you put in real money through in app purchase and you get game money in return. It's disturbingly successful.

</comment><comment><USER112> I don't remember exact term for the idea that too efficient virus (a parasite) eventually eliminates the whole population of potential hosts and therefore destroys itself.

Too many cheaters destroys a market. Too many thiefs destroys a country.

</comment><comment><USER113> The strategy of releasing part of a game for free and charging for the full product is tried and true. This frees the game from in app purchases and allows the developer to make money. Sounds like a good, workable solution to me.

<comment><USER114> That's not really the problem, though. Free demos have been around for ages. The issue is integrating cash payments into the core gameplay. This necessarily undermines the integrity of any game that uses it, unless it's really a game designed around real money like poker or blackjack.

</comment></comment><comment><USER115> (originally posted in the similar post "Optimizing Your Industry to the Point of Suicide", I thought _this_ post title had been edited [same subject, same domain] - apologies if that's against HN etiquette)

As much as I also dislike how some IAP game developers base all their gameplay mechanisms purely on maximizing the user likeliness to keep spending without even noticing, I recognize that they get the very basics of video game design very right.

Because they have to.

The goal for any game developer who treats its creation not only as an artistic piece but also has a product, is to design software that offers a positive feedback loop to the user in order to keep her engaged.

Consider how Nintendo, for instance, considers the Mario platformer franchise as an instrument (see Ask Iwata interviews). During development, designers are focused on getting the timing (rhythm) right between challenge (say ennemies or holes) and corresponding rewards (powerups or secret exits). This ultimately plays/tricks how our brains are wired (effort needs reward) in order to engage users and ultimately enjoy the game... and pay again (and again) for the sequels/updates when they need their fix.

Imho IAP is an interesting return to the origins of video gaming (and coin- based arcades) and refocuses the industry on getting the core ingredient right, the feedback loop, rather than betting it all on graphics, story, feature-creep... and marketing.

Marketing is disproportionally important when you need to convince your game is worth paying upfront, even in a seemingly minimal amount, as mobile gaming is a very "dispensable" expense in the general public.

There is no ROI in marketing an IAP game that does not engage enough of its users (enough). On the other hand, marketing heavily an upfront-cost game can draw sales, sometimes thanks to the franchise name as well, despite providing no to little entertainent to most of its users as the feedback loop is just not good enough to engage them.

For good or bad, I think IAP is accelerating adoption of data-driven practices for video game design. As an engineer/scientist, this is very interesting.

Last but not least, IAP probably helps expand the (mobile) gaming audience to people who would have otherwise either not played game(s) at all or would have downloaded illegally.

In the long term, I believe this can only be good for the industry. The bad apples of IAP will be regulated by better consumer protections for the worst "abuses" and more naturally over time by the users themselves as they get more familiar with the model and more "meaningful" IAP titles become available.

</comment><comment><USER116> The world's sure changes since I was shoving quarters into a coin-op.

On the technical side, wasn't there something in giving a game away and in-app charging that made it harder to pirate on iOS / Mac App Store?

</comment><comment><USER117> The consumer would only invest $40 in a game purchase if it represented durable value, but that is incompatible with the platform which is itself a consumable product -- get a new phone every two years!

</comment><comment><USER118> Games are making more money than ever, destroyed is not the right word. There will always be a demand for games, and if users do get sick of IAPs then the strategy from every game company will change.

</comment><comment><USER119> I must have missed part I and II, namely "The game industry has been destroyed", and "It was in-app purchases that destroyed the game industry." Any links to those?

</comment><comment><USER120> Is hex editing your savegame files to get more coins, stars etc then piracy? After all I am licensed to use software and the savegame is my creation and its IP belongs to me.

<comment><USER48> Or that guy who had one of his servers pretend to be the Candy Crush server, so that he could "beat" all of the levels instantly?

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> What is incredible is that they don't even throw in the fully unlocked game to a user who would pay £70 which is > the price of a next gen AAA game.

</comment><comment><USER121> There still is a sane solution: make a game free with a small number of free levels and sell unlimited levels for a fee as a one-time in-app purchase.

</comment><comment><USER75> This can be fixed with better content discovery tools. There's currently no decent way to discover, if a game will be any fun for me.

</comment><comment><USER122> pfft. IAP? Dude's talkin about the 90's like it was the genesis of gaming. Arcade games did IAP back when we were feeding those big machines quarters in the 80's. "Oops. You got this far and died. Want to continue? That'll be one more quarter please. 20.. 19.. 18.." The gaming world didn't end.

<comment><USER71> You could beat the good arcade games on one credit, and if you were skilled enough to do so it was the best possible experience. Some people still consider it the only "legitimate" way to play those games.

</comment></comment><comment><USER123> * the mobile games industry.

</comment><comment><USER124> It's not just games using these strategies now, it's everything..

</comment><comment><USER125> This just in: The game industry is destroyed.

</comment><comment><USER126> Just sell the damn Hats instead!

</comment><comment><USER127> yes you are right.

</comment><comment><USER128> Destroyed? Sounds whiny and old.

Changed.

</comment><comment><USER11> I work at a well-known and [formerly?] successful casual game company. Recently, the company ventured into the 'freemium' with in-app purchases model. It hasn't gone so well - garnered a lot of hate, and not nearly as much money as hoped. The execs have responded by _doubling down and going all in on freemium_.

So now there's this uncomfortable tension in the air, where lots of employees think it's a potentially company-destroying mistake, while the execs are pushing it as the type of propaganda that you either shut up and get behind, or 'perhaps this is no longer the right company for you.' And if it fails, it'll be because those employees didn't believe in the vision, not because freemium fucking sucks and core customers hate it.

Why are they doing this? Basically because of the success of Candy Crush and Puzzles and Dragons. The execs want so badly to be them. They want that money. It's revenue envy. Never mind that the company has always been wildly successful doing its own thing, these other companies are printing money doing this _other_ thing. We gotta get that money. We gotta do whatever they're doing over there.

I just think money inside games distorts the game and is distasteful, like money in politics, or money in your esophagus.

<comment><USER14> _...the execs are pushing it as the type of propaganda that you either shut up and get behind, or 'perhaps this is no longer the right company for you.'_

Perhaps they are right. As an entirely serious suggestion, if you've got a solid development team who know how to make good games and it's the leadership that is letting you down, maybe some of you _should_ move to another company.

Maybe there is an existing competitor that would benefit from hiring a ready- made team with a good track record, and you could collectively negotiate a mutually beneficial deal.

Alternatively, in true HN style, maybe you could start your own company. Either learn the management skills you need personally, if that's achievable with your group, or hire in management staff whose views are more compatible with how you want that company to behave.

You'll have to get a lawyer to look over your existing contracts for anything that might interfere with these ideas, and of course it can be a scary move to break away from an established job. On the other hand, if you're seeing the writing on the wall already, it might be a good idea to start thinking about your options.

<comment><USER129> Will the next Traitorous Eight or PayPal Mafia come from the games industry?

The guys that started Activision did this already 30 years ago. Do we have a catchy name for them, too?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER130> ruined quizup

</comment><comment><USER131> I think that having to purchase item is a huge problem because without it you are at some disadvantage even when you enjoy the game. It completely turns me off from even trying out the game if I find out it has in game items.

On a side note that Dungeons Keeper game is simply, mind blowingly ahead of it's time. It looks insanely fun. Thought it was just another RTS but wow, you can play as any of the minions in FPS mode. It was on DOS too. Why can't games be like this more? Focus on fun instead of graphics and wallet grabbing?

</comment><comment><USER132> More like destroyed the iOS/Android market. The game industry is doing just fine.

Only the lowest common denominator has suffered</comment>


How Facebook exploits iOS to stay active in the background - <AUTHOR> https://theoverspill.wordpress.com/2015/10/20/start-up-sneaking-ios-apps-spoofing-spotify-cia-director-gets-hacked-and-more/#link2 <comment><AUTHOR> Other links:

[https://www.macstories.net/linked/the-background-data-and- ba...](https://www.macstories.net/linked/the-background-data-and-battery- usage-of-facebooks-ios-app/)

[https://medium.com/@mg/battery-life-load-times-and- actually-...](https://medium.com/@mg/battery-life-load-times-and-actually- giving-a-shit-about-your-customers-c3738386bded)

</comment><comment><USER2> Interesting. I just uninstalled Facebook on Android because I noticed it was using ~5% of my battery. I literally never open the app ... so why was it using battery?!?

I figured it was just polling background data in a way that allowed Android to track it ... but maybe it was something more like this?</comment>


An Open Version of WordNet - <AUTHOR> https://en-word.net/ <comment><USER2> Wordnet is already open, I think the advantage of this is that it is being actively maintained.

From Wordnet:

> Permission to use, copy, modify and distribute this software and database > and its documentation for any purpose and without fee or royalty is hereby > granted, provided that you agree to comply with the following copyright > notice and statements, including the disclaimer, and that the same appear on > ALL copies of the software, database and documentation, including > modifications that you make for internal use or for distribution.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Wordnet is like a dictionary in that it contains definitions and synonyms of words. It goes beyond a dictionary in that it also records relationships like hypernym (broader) and hyponym (narrower), which can be useful for "understanding" (what ever that means) text. It is a graph, that connects different senses (called synsets), and also senses to words. It used to be released under some close license and poorly maintained, now there's a fork of it on github to which all can contribute.

<comment><USER3> Wordnet has a "gloss" field but it's very lacking if used as a traditional dictionary. Its value lies in the graph of synsets.

<comment><USER4> The problem with the gloss or example field is that it is per synnet and not per (word, sense or synnet) pair as it would be in a normal dictionary.

This means if you try to use it as a normal dictionary the glosses tend to not contain the word for which you are listing the senses.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> An animated graph of wordnet links may help explain why it's useful: [https://www.wordsapi.com/](https://www.wordsapi.com/)

</comment><comment><USER6> What exactly can you do/produce with this graph and connection of words? I can't understand the benefits.

<comment><USER7> It used to be used in NLP, but never to great success. Word embeddings are a far more powerful way to achieve a lot of similar goals, but with easier computation, easier scalability to other languages, and accommodation for new/personal words that aren't (yet) in the dictionary.

<comment><USER8> I agree with you, sort of, but WordNet based systems can be explainable. Word embedding (and sentence embedding, etc.) is great, but like deep learning models is a black box.

<comment><USER7> I wouldn't assume even that... "X was chosen because a matrix decomposition suggested it was relevant" isn't so great either... WordNet is/was rarely used as just a single hop, those hops are somewhat arbitrary to begin with, and ultimately it never really materialized as a useful tool. If it can't be used for anything, then there's nothing to explain!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> A fun way to access WordNet hosted by dict.org

        nc dict.org 2628
        DEFINE wn hacker

Don't think it's open though.

<comment><USER10> It's open. You can install your own copy locally.

Arch has an AUR dict-wn that does this. For those not using arch you can still clone the PKGBUILD and see how it grabs and compiles and installs.

git clone [https://aur.archlinux.org/dict-wn](https://aur.archlinux.org/dict- wn)

<comment><USER11> I remember installing the Wordnet database on my Arch Linux install 17 years ago so I would have a dictionary I could use without internet connectivity. Wordnet can be used as a traditional dictionary although it is not very good compared to, e.g., the dictionary that comes with any Mac or iPhone.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I have used WordNet for 20 years, off and on.

Cool that is was forked and effort put into the new version.

WordNet has a rich set of libraries in many languages to use the data. I didn't see anything similar on their github repo.

<comment><USER4> You can use the existing libraries for Wordnet with the version in WNDB format.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Is there a similar API with the etymology of the words? I played with this a bit and it doesn't seem to cover this area.

</comment><comment><USER13> it... doesn't know the word "how"? literally like the second word i typed in. it seems like this must have some holes in it?

<comment><USER14> Function words are often considered less interesting form a syntacto-symantic point of view. WordNet focuses on content words (nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs).</comment></comment>


House GOP Leadership Calls for FCC to Abandon Proposed Net Neutrality Regulation - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2014/05/14/house-gop-leadership-calls-for-fcc-to-abandon-proposed-net-neutrality-regulation/

<comment><USER2> These guys clearly don't have a clue what this issue is all about... They want to keep the "bright spot" in the economy by making sure the ISPs aren't regulated? HA!</comment>


Ask HN: What are some innovative ideas for improving democracy? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> I find strange that in a time where we can be aware of everything going on at the other side of the world, there is still a need for representative democracy.

The interested people could easily gain knowledge on complex issues and make a decision collectively.

Look at Wikipedia, it works very well and there is even no built-in mechanism to resolve conflicts!

</comment><comment><USER3> Less democracy, more freedom. Some people want to vote about things that don't concern them in any way, and the system allows them. The bad thing about democracy is that most people are not interested in politics, and so a small minority of people is able to force-feed them their opinion. Even if most people were interested in politics and voting, it still something the remaining 49.9~% of people didn't want (doesn't really matter if 40, 30 or 20 percent - still way too much).

</comment><comment><USER4> In the US, the courts always skirt around the 10th amendment. This is even taught in law school according to co-worker who is a lawyer.

I think altering some of the existing amendments to strengthen the 10th amendment would go a long way towards restoring freedom and democracy.</comment>