Apple Promotes Games Without In-App Purchases in App Store

[bilboa]

It's a bit sad though that games that use in-app purchases in a good way are mixed in with the "freemium" games. One example is Smash Hit, which you can try for free and if you like it, a one-time in-app purchase enables features such as iCloud sync and checkpoints.

Yup, or Monument Valley, which has a one-time unlock for the additional levels. There are lots of games like that. It would be nice if Apple distinguished between consumable IAPs and unlockable content. However maybe there's too much gray area between the two, so it probably does make the most sense for Apple to just keep it simple. Hopefully Apple keeps this category around in iTunes, and it will encourage developers to develop pay-up-front games.

 

[viorelgn]

We need to encourage developers to move away from annoying, consumable IPA as a method of monitization.

 

[bilboa]

Good! In-App purchases and DLC are the cancer of the gaming world.

I don't agree with lumping DLC and consumable IAPs together. In my opinion, unlockable content that you pay for once to permanently unlock is just as legitimate as fully paid games. For example I don't see how Monument Valley offering their expansion as an in-app purchase is fundamentally any different than if they had sold as a separate Monument Valley 2 app. It's just a technical difference, where selling it as an IAP allowed users to have all the levels available in one app. Same thing with episodic games like Telltale's Walking Dead and Wolf Among Us series which are sold by the episode.

However games whose monetization is based around pushing users to buy premium currency or other consumable in-game items which don't offer any permanent value is where the real cancer lies. I think the problem is that these second type of freemium games have given in-app-purchases such a bad name that now some people react badly to any sort of IAP without examining what it's being used for.

 

[RedBanana]

I do hope it is the start of a trend and Apple will do more to promote this over freemium games. And that other stores (Google, Amazon - I'm looking at you) will follow. For now, nice move Apple!

I will be watching the near zero downloads of my two games on iTunes over the next month to see if anyone actually buys the paid version over the free versions! (paid and free+Adverts versions of both on there... perhaps I should remove the free?).

I think it fair to say all developers hate the freemium IAP model, we want to write games and apps not currency systems or have to implement adverts SDKs.

A lot will now depend on whether the public support this too. I can only hope everyone has had their fill with Candy Crush and Clash of Clans walled experiences.

 

[HarryWarden]

Leo's Fortune is one of my favorite game ever, no matter the platform. Great experience. I don't mind IAPs for episodic games like Broken Sword 5, Telltale's games, etc.

 

[B4U]

Even after a whole day, I am still seeing the same typo on my 5s running iOS7...

 

[dilbert99]

Addicts. That's what people might say to gambling addicts and it sometimes works out. Same thing with a gaming addict. Since neither gambling nor gaming addiction have nothing to do with the topic I fail to see the relevance.

The majority of people gamble and game without issue.

I think its relevant, the article was talking about in app purchases. There are lots of people who are addicted to games that offer in app purchases. Simply stating that people are free to choose not to play is not at option for addicts...

 

[the8thark]

This is what Apple is trying to avoid here.

 

[Daniel L]

Greedy apps? I had no idea the app store was a place for social welfare to the 1% of the world (iPhone owners). Good Lord.

No one is asking for social welfare. There's a fine balance between good apps that are worth paying for versus random games that chip away a person's bank account. Go look up how much money a simple game like Candy Crush Saga makes in comparison to apps that require much more development. Potentially good apps aren't being made because the lure of "freemium" is more appealing.

 

[Smith288]

No one is asking for social welfare. There's a fine balance between good apps that are worth paying for versus random games that chip away a person's bank account. Go look up how much money a simple game like Candy Crush Saga makes in comparison to apps that require much more development. Potentially good apps aren't being made because the lure of "freemium" is more appealing.

That's all fine and dandy but then dont play the games that use this approach. If the developer is making money and supporting his family or whatever, then so what? If he starts to suffer in revenue stream then he'll change his philosophy. His goal isn't always to give you a game you love and he doesnt make a living from.