Apple Removes Subscription-Based iPad Gaming App from App Store

[thewitt]

They do seem to treat updates with less vigor in the review process than they treat new apps.

 

[gkpm]

What's not being said is that in the few days the app was on the store Big Fish's servers were rammed and they had to close their system to new subscriptons, but still took sign-ups via the app.

This was the message posted in the app store page: "The exclusive first look of Play Instantly! is available to a limited number of customers. Due to a high level of interest we are currently full, but sign-up within the app and we will notify you via email as soon as we have room. "

Google cache here: http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...s/app/play-instantly!-by-big-fish/id479716908

Apple doesn't usually take a light approach to apps just collecting e-mail addresses without giving any functionality, so that's probably why the app was removed in the meantime.

One of the reviews for the app puts it quite well "Love the concept but hate the tease. Why offer this at all if no one can actually get in? "

Nice of Big Fish to keep quiet about all this.

 

[fat phil]

...

One of the reviews for the app puts it quite well "Love the concept but hate the tease. Why offer this at all if no one can actually get in? "

Nice of Big Fish to keep quiet about all this.

Well one of the Developer Terms is not complaining to the press about Apple policy or actions (peevish I know, but then so are a lot of complaints), so Big Fish are probably regretting their reactionary press release - though I think it's justified by the need to let customers know what's going on (not everybody reads their email, just as not everyone reads the news feeds). But that might account for why they've not said much since.

Big Fish are a big company anyway, I don't think they're hurting too much from this. It'll all settle out, they'll get their app re-instated when Apple have figured out the new T&C language, and then they'll get even richer

 

[gkpm]

Android has no approval process. You submit an app and it's on the App Market immediately. Google can pull apps but they generally only do so if the app is clearly misleading and/or malicious.

Google doesn't just pull misleading or malicious apps, they've pulled apps for many other reasons, including several console emulators recently.

They also pulled an app called Kongregate Arcade that offered downloadable flash games, simply because Google deemed it to be a store within their own Android Market - also not allowed by Google's rules.

Google have their own guidelines which developers must follow or risk being pulled - there's no review process, so apps just get pulled once they are in the market already.

 

[fat phil]

Google doesn't just pull misleading or malicious apps, they've pulled apps for many other reasons, including several console emulators recently.

They also pulled an app called Kongregate Arcade that offered downloadable flash games, simply because Google deemed it to be a store within their own Android Market - also not allowed by Google's rules.

Google have their own guidelines which developers must follow or risk being pulled - there's no review process, so apps just get pulled once they are in the market already.

Yeah I've heard this before (re Kongregate) - someone here also suggested the Big Fish pull might be a similar situation. It's a bit weak if so, seeing as there's nothing stopping anyone (other than file size) from bundling XX games into a free app as unlockables - indeed there are games that do exactly that on the App Store already. The only significant difference here is the use of the Subscription payment system.

 

[Misaki]

Ick Freemium games.

I'd normally give the developer the benefit of the doubt if there is a compelling reason to have a subscription (reduces hacking and cheating, competition with millions of worldwide players, skilled leaderboards, etc) but if it's just a paywall like a newspaper or magazine, forget it.

Newspapers and Magazines contents are 100% different between subscription periods, so they have a compelling reason to pay the fee. It's free competition is the web in general.

Video falls in between, because services like Netflix offer unlimited content to watch, but may not always have something you want to watch. There are free alternatives (eg youtube) that you would never want to pay for when most of the content is cats in boxes.

But games, have too much investment upfront to basically offer a new game every month, and it's free alternative is also the web, but most of the existing web games are FLASH, and don't work on the iPad. Including some not very compelling flash games, and everything you see on facebook.

So no, I think a subscription-only game probably won't work on the iPad unless it already has a fanbase.

 

[fat phil]

Ick Freemium games.

I'd normally give the developer the benefit of the doubt if there is a compelling reason to have a subscription (reduces hacking and cheating, competition with millions of worldwide players, skilled leaderboards, etc) but if it's just a paywall like a newspaper or magazine, forget it.

Newspapers and Magazines contents are 100% different between subscription periods, so they have a compelling reason to pay the fee. It's free competition is the web in general.

Video falls in between, because services like Netflix offer unlimited content to watch, but may not always have something you want to watch. There are free alternatives (eg youtube) that you would never want to pay for when most of the content is cats in boxes.

But games, have too much investment upfront to basically offer a new game every month, and it's free alternative is also the web, but most of the existing web games are FLASH, and don't work on the iPad. Including some not very compelling flash games, and everything you see on facebook.

So no, I think a subscription-only game probably won't work on the iPad unless it already has a fanbase.

I kind of agree, but while subscriptions are going out of fashion (on PC anyway) pay-to-play is trending heavily. It's not helped by the fact that a huge number of people are happy to embrace it - it was huge in Korea long before it became trendy elsewhere (some karting game did massive numbers IIRC). The world is full of really odd folks - BigPoint sent out a press release yesterday that one of their MMO's virtual items (a virtual Drone) sold 2000 units at $1000 per unit. With that kind of news doing the rounds, you can expect a lot developers are seeing ker-ching $$$'s flashing before their eyes.

Sadly, precidents in stupidity often set the standard for future business models, not things that might actually be good for the end users. This is the new digital Gold Rush decade: Freemium and monetization are the buzz words of 2011. Fleece your users while you can...

That said, subscription models aren't all bad, so long as you're getting value from what you pay for, for as long as you choose to pay. Paying for virtual items though, that makes me a little uncomfortable. $1000 for an item, or $100 for a year's access to a game with no limits? I know what makes more sense to me.

 

[Marx55]

Wrong post, please remove.

 

[russell2]

I see many bitching about this being another app-store but Netflix is a similar premise they let you look at a catalog you subscribe to and they can change the content. It's different yes but I could see a gaming app you open to see say 10 openable games to play.