Freemium isn't always bad. E.g., suppose it's a game that includes the first level for free and it costs $5 to unlock the rest of the levels?
(Doom itself was distributed under this model... not exactly crap!)
The problem is that exploitation has undermined trust in the model. I enjoyed FIFA 13, but I won't download FIFA 14 because I don't really understand how the IAP works for this game and don't want to get close to rewarding anything beyond the old shareware model.
If we all think IAP undermines our gaming experience, but we all keep downloading their games, then we've really only got ourselves to blame.
I've pretty much stopped buying anything from EA (and Gameloft, but that's because Gameloft games are generally pretty but crap). I'll admit I bought SimCity for Mac from EA in a moment of weakness, though...
What honest publishers should do is 1) only use simple, close-ended IAP and 2) make it as crystal clear as possible what the ultimate cost to complete the game is.
I think Apple could help a lot with this.
E.g.,
(1) support demo apps with a single "unlock" IAP and mark such apps clearly.
(2) For apps with a fixed set of IAP, list all of them, their prices and total price.
(3) Slap loud warnings all over apps that sell consumables, or better yet, ban them. If they are allowed, track and display the $ spent (filtering out people that don't really use the app).
I don't think 3 is really viable, but I like the differentiation between 1 and 2. Apple could set up specific APIs to "unlock the full version" and make that distinct from selecting from a menu of purchases then mark the apps accordingly.
That would also work towards solving another annoyance-- having free and paid versions of apps in my library sitting side by side.
edit: by the way, can we get rid of the term "Free-to-play"?
The whole problem with IAP is people are uncertain of the real costs... using a misleading term like this makes it worse... Apps with IAP are designed to NOT be free to play.
Agreed. I propose "Extortionware".
