Sounds like you are doing totally the right thing, & I applaud you. When even your Mom is falling into the trap, it takes guts to stand up & not let money that could otherwise go to better things be used up.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Candy Crush Saga Players Spent Over $1.3 Billion on In-App Purchases in 2014
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Sounds like you are doing totally the right thing, & I applaud you. When even your Mom is falling into the trap, it takes guts to stand up & not let money that could otherwise go to better things be used up.
This is extreme gross but is not going away anytime soon.
People can complain all they want but the only reason compaines are moving to freedom is because it's what the users want.
Look at the top grossing charts on the App Store 99% freedom games.
People can complain all they want but the only reason compaines are moving to freedom is because it's what the users want.
Look at the top grossing charts on the App Store 99% freedom games.
Settings -> restrictions -> in-app purchases on/off
----------
Jailbreak is not necessary to turn off IAP's.
In App Purchases in the context of these types of game are basically straight up gambling apps. There is very little skill involved and is just a revamped version of a slot machine that has no gambling age limits!
I personally feel that there should be a cap on users in app purchases to prevent abuse. This abuse is obviously happening in candy crush as billions means there must be plenty of single users spending thousands in app.
I'm all for limits to be imposed to protect the vulnerable players out there!
I personally feel that there should be a cap on users in app purchases to prevent abuse. This abuse is obviously happening in candy crush as billions means there must be plenty of single users spending thousands in app.
I'm all for limits to be imposed to protect the vulnerable players out there!
Time this nonsense stopped now. It's killing the gaming industry. 
----------
Right now, King Games are worse than the likes of EA and Ubisoft. At least EA or Ubisoft don't shamelessly rip off other people's games (like PopCap's) and then simply add IAPs, which is all King Games has ever done. King Games don't give two ***** about games. All they care about is your money and how quickly they can make it become their money.
----------
Right now, King Games are worse than the likes of EA and Ubisoft. At least EA or Ubisoft don't shamelessly rip off other people's games (like PopCap's) and then simply add IAPs, which is all King Games has ever done. King Games don't give two ***** about games. All they care about is your money and how quickly they can make it become their money.
Not all IAP are bad. Galaxy on Fire 2 is a good example of how to do it properly. You pay for extra missions or if you want to take the easy route and get all the upgrades early. But the game isn't ruined if you don't want to pay for those upgrades.
EA are by far the worst at this, not only do they go to the extremes of IAP, but without them, their games would actually be rather good. For anyone that has played Plants vs Zombies 2 since the beginning, you can see how EA has changed over the years. When it first came out, only the people with the most serious gaming addictions would have paid for the IAP. But as each update has been released, they make the game just that little bit less fun by making the game harder and harder to play without using IAP.
In the beginning, if you made a good game that people liked, you would make money on it. So it was in their interests for companies to make good games. But now, companies just want to make the most addictive games possible, like a dealer trying to get his clients hooked on the latest drug.
EA are by far the worst at this, not only do they go to the extremes of IAP, but without them, their games would actually be rather good. For anyone that has played Plants vs Zombies 2 since the beginning, you can see how EA has changed over the years. When it first came out, only the people with the most serious gaming addictions would have paid for the IAP. But as each update has been released, they make the game just that little bit less fun by making the game harder and harder to play without using IAP.
In the beginning, if you made a good game that people liked, you would make money on it. So it was in their interests for companies to make good games. But now, companies just want to make the most addictive games possible, like a dealer trying to get his clients hooked on the latest drug.
Outside of in app book purchases from Disney or Reading Rainbow, I've spent a total of $10 on in app purchases across several games. Each purchase was in a game that I played and enjoyed, and I wanted to support the developer. Each time, it was for a durable in game item, and not coins/gems/etc. I would rather have paid up front, and will happily do so if the game is a good one.
I've played games with people that have spent thousands in IAPs. They would have been better served using that money for therapy to deal with their OCD tendencies that these companies are preying on. Shame on those greedy developers.
I've played games with people that have spent thousands in IAPs. They would have been better served using that money for therapy to deal with their OCD tendencies that these companies are preying on. Shame on those greedy developers.
I started to have the feeling that the levels were getting impossible without paying but I'm on 100 and still can win, just takes a ton of tries and luck. I met a woman who said she has never paid to continue a level and she is in the 600s levels
One of her tips was the judicial use of the free daily boosters. I know there were many times where I only had one thing left and if I had thought to use the lollipop to smash that last thing I could have finished that one a lot sooner.----------
Yes, how dare people have the freedom to spend their money the way they want!
Last edited:
Holy Cow. B as in Billion. Unbelieveable. I just can't imagine. I guess I need to learn to code. Cant be that hard. How much of that does the developer get?
Sorry to hear that. If I theoretically bought IAPs, my dad would say that I should buy stocks instead. That goes with new Macs too, unless my Mac is actually broken. I agree with that sentiment. Actually though, trading stocks is a lot more fun than playing this stupid knockoff of Bejeweled.
I never make IAP for games and have it restricted on my device as well as the kids but I sure wish I'd been the one to think of Candy Crush with them.
Because some posters want to play games designed to give you a good gaming experience, not interactive adverts designed to continually tempt you to spend more money.
Good games designers tune games for playability by ensuring that the goals are achievable but challenging and add 'replay value'. "freemium" games corrupt the design of games to encourage developers to make games that rapidly become frustrating unless you continually buy IAP upgrades (as several others have posted: there's nothing wrong with using IAP to implement a "demo" that lets you play the first few levels for free and then pay a sensible price to unlock the complete game - but that's not how it tends to work: the big score is to trick punters into losing track of lots of small IAPs).
Somehow, developers managed to sleep indoors and eat hot meals before "freemium" came along, although they didn't seem to have so much cash left over for expensive TV adverts.
I have never done in app purchases for games, I play freemuim games sometimes but games boor me fast so I wind up uninstalling or if I do get to a level designed to fail except with purchases I install. If I get paid games I watch applesliced and get them when they are free because I DO get bored and hate spending money for something I will use for a short time.
I don't dislike in app purchases though, I know they have to make a living. I would rather they do it this way than sell the game outright in which case I would probably never play it.
I also don't have any sympathy for someone that cannot control themselves or their children and blame the in app purchases. Turn off the freaking in app purchases, take some responsibility and turning off these purchases is taking a bare minimum responsibility.
----------
Then don't download them, simple. I don't like being charged to put gas in my car but I know others have to make a living also. I always have the option of not gassing up and walking or taking the bus.
I don't dislike in app purchases though, I know they have to make a living. I would rather they do it this way than sell the game outright in which case I would probably never play it.
I also don't have any sympathy for someone that cannot control themselves or their children and blame the in app purchases. Turn off the freaking in app purchases, take some responsibility and turning off these purchases is taking a bare minimum responsibility.
----------
Then don't download them, simple. I don't like being charged to put gas in my car but I know others have to make a living also. I always have the option of not gassing up and walking or taking the bus.
It sounds like you've never played puzzle games. We're talking about Candy Crush Saga. It's a free mindless game with absolutely no obligation to purchase an IAP upgrades. Every progressive puzzle game becomes increasingly frustrating with subsequent levels. That is no different than Tetris or Bejeweled... except that there is an opportunity to purchase upgrades to help defeat a level.
I have yet to see an intelligent argument against freemium games that isn't driven by emotion.
One could swap out "devs" for other things that use addiction hooks to make money, such as "casinos" "drug dealers". It's a horrible practice. Creating software, deliberately sabotaging it and then selling it back without letting the user enjoy it. These are reasons I tend to stick to console games (at least from reputable developers) when I want to sit back and enjoy a game.
I make PC and console games, when someone buys my game they get the potential to access all of it from the entry fee. One of my console games lets you buy ingame currency for real currency, that was the decision of my publisher but thankfully it doesn't impact the game in any way (time saver logic, rather than restricting play).
----------
I haven't played Candy Crush, but doesn't it have some kind of time-limited retry system, with a way to bypass it for a fee? I might be wrong here. I know other games do it and from skimming discussions on Facebook CC sounds like it does it too. But that's not on. You should never limit the amount of time someone can spend in a game unless they spend money. That's the same hook gamblers get caught on.
I don't - but the problem with IAP and "Freemium" is that it attracts developers like flies (thanks to a surplus of idiots who won't pay $10 up front for a decent game but will happily fork out 100 lots of 99 cents for magic berries over a few weeks) and suddenly everything is IAP driven.
Case in point: Plants vs. Zombies. Great casual game, originally cost about $10 up front (there was a free demo for Mac with a couple of levels), as you played the main campaign you earned coins to unlock mini-games and extra plants. Then the developer gets taken over, and they push out an update that hikes all the "prices" and makes earning the extras become extremely tedious but, surprise surprise, lets you use IAP to buy coins with real money. Of course, then PvZ2 comes out and its entirely "Freemium".
Really? You mean it doesn't pester you to buy extras?
No, good puzzle games become increasingly challenging with each level - there's a difference. The designer of a pay-up-front puzzle game wants you to solve each level after a sensible amount of effort, so you get that sense of achievement that marks a good game. A good game ensures that you get a bit further with every try. A good game adds new elements as you progress to keep it fresh. Then maybe you'll recommend it to your friends and/or buy the developer's next game when it comes out.
The designer of a free-to-play game doesn't care about that - they want you to continually get stuck, or exhaust the possibilities of the 'free' features, so that you will be continually tempted to fork out a couple of bucks on extras - because there are always a few mugs out there who will lose track of how much they are spending.
Sadly, I have for the Batman Game and a couple of others and felt dirty afterwards.... Never again though.
No. If I play on my desktop/notebook, it will prompt me once, after 4 lives have been spent, if I want to buy something. That's it. When I play on my phone or tablet, it doesn't prompt to buy stuff. It DOES prompt me to download other games though, THAT is an irritation.
There is no difference. "Challenging" for one person is "frustrating" for another. The difference is a reflection of how the person playing the game responds.
----------
Yes it does have a limited retry system. On iOS and Android one can easily get unlimited retries without having to pay a penny. On those occasions when I needed additional mindless game time, I've done it.
I'm not big on "knowing what's best for people and protecting them from themselves". But I can respect that as a reason for being against freemiums.
There are idiots in every walk of life. Let them get weeded out, if you try to protect all of them there will be nothing left but sitting at home staring at the walls.
Because the trend is killing options to play games without IAP. Its a ruse to get people to spend more money on the game than it is worth. Say, if you were to make all of the purchases, in-app, it would cost you $150. But the full game would only cost $25, if it was traditionally designed as a full game with those purchases already built in.
I don't have a problem with in-app purchases, in theory. As long as you can unlock everything without having to pay, its good. Or if its additional DLC to a full game. What I take issue with having to pay to progress. Especially, when everything would cost $25 in the past and now costs $150 for the same. How they can specifically cripple the game unless you keep paying.
