Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
That'd be a nice gesture, but...

1) I'm on the fence of whether Apple will actually do this. On one hand, you do have this sort of news. OTOH, whenever a "whale", or otherwise large amounts of IAP are purchased, Apple gets a 30% cut of that. They don't have to lift any additional fingers and they get all that free money. It's hard for Apple, and any other corporation to say no to that

2) Putting hard caps on how much users can spend is a big "no no" if they want to stay in business. Never mind that some of these can be half decent (although TBF, I've only played 2 freemium games for extended times... Castlestorm: Free To Siege (which contains the word "free"!), and Plants Vs. Zombies 2: It's About Time, and I quit both after about 5 months and a few years respectively), but if #1 is something that Apple would like to keep around, then they want these devs to stay in business so they get revenue from that.

3) Apps like Facebook should also be under the same scrutiny then. You mention "casino like tactics"... According a TED Talks video, social media companies like Facebook have hired actual people who created slot machines for the casinos. They most certainly know a thing or two about luring in users and keeping them hooked. The speaker for that person even compared apps like the Facebook one to having a slot machine in your phone.

I totally understand that it makes no sense as a business decision, but I am only talking about the extreme cases. You are totally right about apps like Facebook, but wasting time is one thing, but wasting money for most people is more devastating. On Plants Vs Zombies, there really isn't a reason to spend $1000s of dollars, from what I can tell (I only played it for a week or so). Some of these games lure middle class people into spending $1000s of dollars, and the way it happens is very gradual and deceptive. I've lost money on the stock market before with options contracts (so I know the feeling of loosing big) and the feeling of spending money on some of these games feels the same way once you look back on what you spent after a few months or a year. People who never played these games are quick the judge, but once you click download (or get) and open, you are facing a product that was masterfully designed to suck as much money as possible from you by thousands of professionals who work day and night just to "get you".
[doublepost=1490843541][/doublepost]
That is just your opinion. Let the market determine what sells. Cars, soda, airline tickets, etc.. many products are sold with variations of features and prices.
[doublepost=1490762570][/doublepost]

Consumers do not need to be enticed. The problem is that Apple "allows" things. And you let them do it.
[doublepost=1490762927][/doublepost]

Wow, what a socialistic perspective. It is amazing how you are recommending restrictions on the freedom of consumers to choose to live their life as they see fit. Why not limit how much Apple can limit? That would fix the problem of this entire monopolistic ecosystem.

Than we are socialist for having an age limit on alcohol and tobacco? How about gambling? Why isn't that legal everywhere?
[doublepost=1490843748][/doublepost]
But what if you are able to go through all the content of said app, and utilise it for your purposes, within a few hours, let alone 24-48 hours - you'd get it all for free.

I may need to just edit a PDF, or spreadsheet, or just pass some time while on a flight. I just download the app freely, use it, discard it. Doesn't seem fair.
[doublepost=1490774989][/doublepost]

So you want to adults to transfer the responsibility onto the developers - and in the process affect everyone else - why?

If you can't control yourself/your children with an in-app purchases, that is your fault.

You're so quick to judge. There is a reason gambling isn't allowed in most places. There is a reason tobacco and alcohol have age restrictions. Having casinos a tap away accessible to everyone (any age) everywhere is just pure evil.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RuralJuror
You're right... if that were true.

I have had instances like that, but if I need to edit a PDF today, I will likely need to do it in the future. You could jump from app to app, or you could just suck it up and pay .99 or a couple bucks to have it ready.

There would be leeches that did that but they would eventually run out of usable apps to "try". I still think it would provide more purchases with folks feeling more confident in the app.

If someone wanted to just leech games, it will be years before they ran out of apps to "try".
 
I totally understand that it makes no sense as a business decision, but I am only talking about the extreme cases. You are totally right about apps like Facebook, but wasting time is one thing, but wasting money for most people is more devastating. On Plants Vs Zombies, there really isn't a reason to spend $1000s of dollars, from what I can tell (I only played it for a week or so). Some of these games lure middle class people into spending $1000s of dollars, and the way it happens is very gradual and deceptive. I've lost money on the stock market before with options contracts (so I know the feeling of loosing big) and the feeling of spending money on some of these games feels the same way once you look back on what you spent after a few months or a year. People who never played these games are quick the judge, but once you click download (or get) and open, you are facing a product that was masterfully designed to suck as much money as possible from you by thousands of professionals who work day and night just to "get you".

Plants Vs. Zombies 2: It's About Time is one of the better freemium games out there. After they did away with the "randomly generated keys" first introduced back in 2013/14, the game became much more playable since you can just unlock the next world the normal way (without grinding nor spending real money). You can get to the very end without spending any real money, and having even a modest amount of gold (in-game, non-premium currency) to help you out in those few, tight spots.

However, the latest thing they added were leveling up plants. To me, that just takes the cake. And they're effective too. For example, you would normally never pit a single Pea-Shooter against a Bucket Head Zombie, nor Gaurgantor. However, you get to preview the Pea-Shooter at the max lv20. It takes only 2 shots to kill the former, and about 8 shots to do the latter in (a 9th for the Imp that it launches). Problem is if you do the math and projections:
1) Despite getting to try out a level 20 plant, the plants currently max out at lv5 to lv7 or so. Even if you wanted to get to lv20, you'll have to wait
2a) Getting to lv2 is quick enough, but the progress required goes up in some triangular fashion. So it may take 3x, 8x, or 20x as much grinding for those packets (which fills up the leveling up bar).
2b) On top of that, filling up that meter means you can level up, but AFTER paying gold. The gold cost goes up in some sort of triangular/exponential fashion too

AFAI could tell, it'd take 8 months of full time playing just to level up the plants "high enough". Not worth it.

It's ironic that when content needs to be paid for, you wish you could've gotten if for free, like how some of the premium plants cost real $$. OTOH, there are times where I wish I could pay real money, as here, doing so could've meant they won't need to keep nickel and diming you in money and grinding in other areas.

================================================================

If we really want Apple to stop this (along with similar games on Android), then the only way really would be to push for laws against them, and apply similar regulations as gambling, tobacco, and alcohol, to here as well. However, I doubt the law would really go for this, and I'm sure Apple would fight it.

Not to get too far off topic, but if there's one thing I'd like to see fixed... is to make regulations to curb back all the freaking sugar that's in our food. Sucking our money away is bad, but sugar is killing us in more ways than one as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ghost187
Plants Vs. Zombies 2: It's About Time is one of the better freemium games out there. After they did away with the "randomly generated keys" first introduced back in 2013/14, the game became much more playable since you can just unlock the next world the normal way (without grinding nor spending real money). You can get to the very end without spending any real money, and having even a modest amount of gold (in-game, non-premium currency) to help you out in those few, tight spots.

However, the latest thing they added were leveling up plants. To me, that just takes the cake. And they're effective too. For example, you would normally never pit a single Pea-Shooter against a Bucket Head Zombie, nor Gaurgantor. However, you get to preview the Pea-Shooter at the max lv20. It takes only 2 shots to kill the former, and about 8 shots to do the latter in (a 9th for the Imp that it launches). Problem is if you do the math and projections:
1) Despite getting to try out a level 20 plant, the plants currently max out at lv5 to lv7 or so. Even if you wanted to get to lv20, you'll have to wait
2a) Getting to lv2 is quick enough, but the progress required goes up in some triangular fashion. So it may take 3x, 8x, or 20x as much grinding for those packets (which fills up the leveling up bar).
2b) On top of that, filling up that meter means you can level up, but AFTER paying gold. The gold cost goes up in some sort of triangular/exponential fashion too

AFAI could tell, it'd take 8 months of full time playing just to level up the plants "high enough". Not worth it.

It's ironic that when content needs to be paid for, you wish you could've gotten if for free, like how some of the premium plants cost real $$. OTOH, there are times where I wish I could pay real money, as here, doing so could've meant they won't need to keep nickel and diming you in money and grinding in other areas.

================================================================

If we really want Apple to stop this (along with similar games on Android), then the only way really would be to push for laws against them, and apply similar regulations as gambling, tobacco, and alcohol, to here as well. However, I doubt the law would really go for this, and I'm sure Apple would fight it.

Not to get too far off topic, but if there's one thing I'd like to see fixed... is to make regulations to curb back all the freaking sugar that's in our food. Sucking our money away is bad, but sugar is killing us in more ways than one as well.

I personally gave up on mobile phone games, bought myself a Nintendo Switch and so far I'm ver impressed (though the library of games is very limited for now).
 
  • Like
Reactions: ackmondual
I personally gave up on mobile phone games, bought myself a Nintendo Switch and so far I'm ver impressed (though the library of games is very limited for now).
I still play iOS games, but these days, I'm going to go through as much of the backlog as possible (I've spent about $140+ on them, even though I haven't really purchased anything outside of a few favorites in years).

But yeah, I still have Wii, Android, and PC games that demand my attention!
 
  • Like
Reactions: ghost187
I still play iOS games, but these days, I'm going to go through as much of the backlog as possible (I've spent about $140+ on them, even though I haven't really purchased anything outside of a few favorites in years).

But yeah, I still have Wii, Android, and PC games that demand my attention!

Yeah, those 99c sales got me to purchase bunch of games that I thought I might play, but I never did. I always loved portable gaming whether it was my GBA or PSP, but smartphones have not replaced them in my opinion like everyone predicted.
 
I think that Apple's new rules are contradictory. The first part of rule 2.3.7 states, “Choose a unique app name, assign keywords that accurately describe your app” and then further into the same paragraph it states “app names should not include prices, terms, or descriptions that are not the name of the app."

We’ve recently launched a Free Lottery feature that enables users to enter a free lottery funded by advertising as oppose to ticket sales. We’ve created an entire brand around this feature called ‘Raffall’s Free Cash Lottery’ and all of our advertising, URL’s and metadata reflect this.

Apple’s reason for not wanting developers to refer to price in the app title is to ‘not game the system’ and although this makes sense in many cases, I think that there are some examples of where the word ‘free’ is necessary. In our case we need users to understand that this is a free lottery as opposed to a normal one. Users wanting to enter paid lotteries in the hope that they might win a life-changing prize will not necessarily be interested in playing our free lottery which only offers a maximum prize of £1,000 and requires them to invest 30 seconds of their time to watch a video ad instead of simply buying a ticket.

Apple want to create the best user experience possible and want App Store listings to be representative of the actual user experience. However, by them forcing us to remove the word free from our app name, subtitle and screenshots, they’re actually achieving the exact opposite.

We’ve contacted the IPO and made an application for a ‘Certification Mark’ for the term ‘free lottery’. If successful we hope that this might create a valid argument and added justification as to why we believe that using this phrase is a genuine necessity for our platform.

If anyone has alternative name suggestions that might help us until then, please take a look at www.raffall.com/free-lottery and post your ideas in the comments below. Thanks Team Raffall.





R_Ju2ljg-250x250.jpg
Apple has started blocking developers from promoting their apps by using a price in the app's name, reports VentureBeat. For approximately the last month, apps that use "free" or other pricing information in their metadata have been blocked in iTunes Connect submissions.

Apps that use "Free" in their titles are receiving the following rejection notice after being submitted for review:An Apple spokesperson VentureBeat contacted confirmed the changes but declined to offer any additional information.

Given that there are still dozens of apps in the App Store that use "Free" in their title, such as Disney's "Where's My Water? Free" or "Doodle Jump FREE," it appears this is a new policy that will affect app submissions going forward. It's not clear if Apple will make apps that are already in the App Store implement a title change.

freeappsrejected-800x504.jpg

In related App Store news, Apple appears to have mistakenly approved Metadata, an app that sends a notification when a U.S. drone strike is reported in the news.

The app, which had previously been rejected a dozen times before, was approved this morning and then pulled just hours later, suggesting its temporary approval was an accident. Previously, the app was approved in 2014 and was in the App Store for almost a year before being removed.

Article Link: Apple Rejecting Apps With Pricing Info Like 'Free' in App Title
 
  • Like
Reactions: Septembersrain
I think that Apple's new rules are contradictory. The first part of rule 2.3.7 states, “Choose a unique app name, assign keywords that accurately describe your app” and then further into the same paragraph it states “app names should not include prices, terms, or descriptions that are not the name of the app."

...

We’ve contacted the IPO and made an application for a ‘Certification Mark’ for the term ‘free lottery’. If successful we hope that this might create a valid argument and added justification as to why we believe that using this phrase is a genuine necessity for our platform.

If anyone has alternative name suggestions that might help us until then, please take a look at www.raffall.com/free-lottery and post your ideas in the comments below. Thanks Team Raffall.

I see your dilemma but wouldn't call Apple stance a contradiction. Describing an app or service without pricing info is a pretty clear concept. You are going after customers who value the 'free' aspect of the service and Apple wants to dissuade just such marketing angles.

On another note, your website says "* Approved by Apple and Google - Enter via the iOS or Android app now!" -- you might want to re-word that as it implies that the lottery is approved by Apple and Google as opposed to them simply allowing your app in the store. Kinda feels like the ambiguity is intentional, but maybe just a translation issue. I'd recommend shortening to just "* Enter via the iOS or Android app now!". If the apps are in the store, it goes without saying they were approved.

As to your question, getting a trademark on the name and/or registering "Free" as part of your company name would be your best bet. Probably still a long shot.

You can take the position that "Free" in this context is *not* descriptive of pricing but instead of the type of lottery and that it's required in order to differentiate from standard lotteries. That omitting "Free" is actually misleading as to the nature of the app. What you basically already said you're trying. But I still think you'll lose the appeal as it's much easier for Apple to have a black and white rule.

I'm waiting for the app named "Cancer Free Recipes" or the like where the word "free" has no connection with pricing.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.