In App Purchase REALLY annoys me...

[nickhutson]

I liked the magazine and subscription function - that's useful.

However - - what annoyed me was the buying things within games. Why would I spent £0.79 on a gun to use in a game (when surely in shooting games, you have to find the weapons as you fight) ... or £0.79 on a sweater for a 3D dog... or a Hi-Fi for my sim character... or whatever other ridiculous charges the app developers will inflict. I am not saying it's Apple's fault - but... it is

If I buy an App, I expect it all to be there - without having to keep having to pay for more things within the app.

What is everyone else's opinion on this? I think it's taking everyone for a ride, really...

 

[Roessnakhan]

A majority of the game/app will be there. Think of them as expansion packs. You know what you're getting when you buy it. Stop complaining.

 

[jmccullough108]

I liked the magazine and subscription function - that's useful.

However - - what annoyed me was the buying things within games. Why would I spent £0.79 on a gun to use in a game (when surely in shooting games, you have to find the weapons as you fight) ... or £0.79 on a sweater for a 3D dog... or a Hi-Fi for my sim character... or whatever other ridiculous charges the app developers will inflict. I am not saying it's Apple's fault - but... it is

If I buy an App, I expect it all to be there - without having to keep having to pay for more things within the app.

What is everyone else's opinion on this? I think it's taking everyone for a ride, really...

I agree, but it's already happening now.. Like the iMob respect point purchase options.

 

[iMule]

It bothers me as a consumer, but if I was a developer I would love this function for the extra profit. The downfall of it on the consumer side is that there are going to be some devs that are going to go overboard with it (like you said with having to buy guns). After all it's all about the money and Apple will do very well with this new system. This will open up the door for more big time devs who want to get in the door with apple.

 

[TEG]

In the examples you brought up, they will likely be charges to allow you to skip forward. The gun could be something you buy if it is beyond your current level. The sweater you buy because it is new and cute, the hi-fi, because your SIM spent all their money on booze, and now they're bored. It is just a way to help you forward. Must you do it in games? No. It is only an option to either move you forward or give you an advantage.

TEG

 

[statik13]

It is just natural progression from buying extra track for Guitar Heroes or any other game. Still, I wish Apple would of left it out of the games. This just opens the floodgates for all sorts of sleaze. How long until you have to start paying real money to get in game hints? Or to buy extra lives if you are losing?

Brilliant for the developer, sucky for the consumer.

 

[Etnies419]

It is just natural progression from buying extra track for Guitar Heroes or any other game. Still, I wish Apple would of left it out of the games. This just opens the floodgates for all sorts of sleaze. How long until you have to start paying real money to get in game hints? Or to buy extra lives if you are losing?

Brilliant for the developer, sucky for the consumer.

Agreed. I'm sure we'll see games that once you die, you can't play anymore unless you buy more lives. The good thing is that this won't happen on free apps, only paid ones.

 

[joeshell383]

Stop complaining.

That's really inappropriate.

A majority of the game/app will be there. Think of them as expansion packs. You know what you're getting when you buy it.

Not necessarily, not necessarily at all. It looked like EA, and ngmoco are going to be charging for every little thing. Keep in mind, that I understand that developers large and small will appreciate this capability. Several threads have already been created about this issue.

 

[cellocello]

It's gonna be like DLC on the Xbox Live Arcade.

People were freaking out over "horse armor" for a while there and what not ... but it wasn't a big deal.

Ya, EA will try to milk you for Sim Shirts - but most companies will just sell an extra 10 levels to those who beat the first 10.

 

[iVoid]

One possible use is to give away a free or low cost App and then have a way inside the app to buy the full version. That gives you a trail version to try out before spending a bigger chunk of money.

 

[milani]

It bothers me as a consumer, but if I was a developer I would love this function for the extra profit. The downfall of it on the consumer side is that there are going to be some devs that are going to go overboard with it (like you said with having to buy guns). After all it's all about the money and Apple will do very well with this new system. This will open up the door for more big time devs who want to get in the door with apple.

I think the market will balance itself out. People who buy apps will either like having to pay for extras or they wont, and subsequent ratings will reflect that. I think that developers will find a happy balance, but I suspect that off the bat it's definitely going to be abused. I think the key to buying any app is to really do your homework and to not just impulse buy. You ought to know what the scope of an app is before you buy it, because in some cases it might be obvious that the developer is going to hose you.

 

[myca]

I did find it amusing when I saw it.

Paid for DLC can work, Fallout 3 has some good DLC. EA will try and milk it, they always do, Dead Space charges you silly money for skins, but these weren't necessary to play the game, so it wasn't too much of a problem.

I think gamers will get upset when they have to buy DLC to complete a game, adding extras like the SF4 outfits shouldn't be too bad, as it's only the die-hards who'll get that, and it's not needed to play the game.

I did find the idea of having to pay for weapons in a FPS a complete rip-off, and there would be no way in hell I'd purchase a game if that's how you got powerups.

It'll be interesting to see how the devs implement this, I just hope that most of them have a sensible aproach, cause it'll suck if to reach the next stage in a game you have to use the 'Gold Key', 'Buy now for $9.99', that would be plain stupid IMHO.

 

[RTiii320]

In app. does not really bother me, but the in-game may seem a bit distracting/annoying

 

[NT1440]

I love how people freak out over things that DEVS have control over and assume that EVERY function in an app is now going to have to be paid for.

If a DEV abuses in app purchase guess what, they will get ridiculously horrible ratings/review and no one will buy.

There will be a balance, this isnt some sort of requirement.

Logical thinking in place of senseless ranting would be amazing.

 

[myca]

I love how people freak out over things that DEVS have control over and assume that EVERY function in an app is now going to have to be paid for.

If a DEV abuses in app purchase guess what, they will get ridiculously horrible ratings/review and no one will buy.

There will be a balance, this isnt some sort of requirement.

Logical thinking in place of senseless ranting would be amazing.

I hope you're right, and I'm guessing that lessons will have been learned after Bethsedas Horse armour shenanigans

I'd imagine some will try it on, cause there is a sucker born every minute

 

[SFC Archer]

This will be a Nickle and Dime its customer to death arraingment!!! I can see it as a positive for magazine subscriptions or full expansion levels but I guarantee that there will be developers out there that will push the envelope and start charging for a feature that should have been there but was withheld just to gain another dollar.

The cost for apps has already increased from the average .99 to now 1.99 to 4.99 is not uncommon and I feel well deserved for the most part. Now add another .99 to get this feature or that extra quality graphic. Not just talking expansion packs which would be ok such as Aura Feint...but when it comes to little items it will get out of hand and there will be many many unhappy users.

I guarantee that if ANY developer sells me an app and does not have FULL disclosure on what it comes with and what will have to be purchased for expansion will...1) Have the app completely deleted out of my account. 2) Receive a 1 Star rating for dishonesty, shady marketing and ripping customers off. 3) I will post that developers dishonesty in every forum that I can to teach them the value of honesty and full disclosure. You do it right and I find the app fully functional and everything that should be there is there from the start, then you have nothing to fear. That is not a threat...its a promise and I am sure that there are others that feel the same way. You may get one extra Buck from me but I will cost you as much as I can with poor reviews...so will it be worth it? You decide!

Everything else with 3.0 is eagerly anticipated...Especially A2DP and listening to my music on my bluetooth headsets

 

[NT1440]

This will be a Nickle and Dime its customer to death arraingment!!! I can see it as a positive for magazine subscriptions or full expansion levels but I guarantee that there will be developers out there that will push the envelope and start charging for a feature that should have been there but was withheld just to gain another dollar.

=

And they will lose business because of it. See how that works?

This kind of thing has a good tendancy of self regulation,

 

[cellocello]

The cost for apps has already increased from the average .99 to now 1.99 to 4.99 is not uncommon ...

Really? do you have a link or anything? I feel like the average price has gone down actually.

It seemed like 9.99 apps were gonna be common place when the app store launched, but now everything is like 1.99 or something.

 

[garethjs]

2 issues with this.

1 - ya I can see drastic overcharging with this. we're at the losing end here.

2 - I would have thought that this allowed developers to release their apps as demo versions for free and then allow expansion to full version via this in app purchase. But at the 3.0 presentation they said that free apps will not have this feature.

 

[MacToddB]

2 issues with this.

1 - ya I can see drastic overcharging with this. we're at the losing end here.

2 - I would have thought that this allowed developers to release their apps as demo versions for free and then allow expansion to full version via this in app purchase. But at the 3.0 presentation they said that free apps will not have this feature.

Correct on #2... a free app will not have the option to buy anything. But I think you'll see a lot of $0.99 apps as a "loss leader" (think "Black Friday") to get you in the door. When I first saw this, I thought about how we could do this for 100sounds, by selling add-on sounds, but the more I think about it, I'd rather keep my app at $0.99, and let everyone get 100% of the value. As a consumer, I hate being nickel and dimed, so I'm not about to do it.

On the positive side, this might be the answer for the 'Premium Apps' section that was rumored. Instead of a $20 and up section, those developers can still sell a $5 app and recoup additional revenue over time. For example, I have several Sims Expansion packs, probably worth more than $100, but if the original program was $100, I wouldn't have bought it. And, users who might be interested in such apps can get them for $5 instead of $20, and not expand them. So it's a potential win-win. But there is indeed the danger of nickel and diming.

 

[PoitNarf]

I love how people freak out over things that DEVS have control over and assume that EVERY function in an app is now going to have to be paid for.

If a DEV abuses in app purchase guess what, they will get ridiculously horrible ratings/review and no one will buy.

There will be a balance, this isnt some sort of requirement.

Logical thinking in place of senseless ranting would be amazing.

Summed it up pretty well right there. If a customer thinks a product is too expensive or they don't like the pricing model associated with add-ons for the product, they'll simply vote with their wallet. Behold the invisible hand of the market.

 

[Michael CM1]

You don't like it, you don't buy it. If people aren't buying something, then the developer will get the word. How else do you think a lot of "overpriced" apps were later cut in price?

Developers are probably not going to do too much of the 99-cent gun variety things, which are kinda neat but not really all that functional or useful. But the add-on to The Sims where you can play your iTunes music, now that's neat. Of course they might start out with the game at 99 cents and then you can decide how much money to spend for your experience.

Let's also not forget that Apple gave them this SDK and said "do your worst." I think a lot of the demos were merely pointing out things that could be done, not would be done. I would not pay 99 cents for a stinkin' shirt in a pet sim game, but I might pay 99 cents for a whole assortment of stuff like that. It's exactly what games like The Sims have been doing for a while with expansion packs.

As a newspaper employee, I'm thrilled to see subscriptions for editorial content as a possibility. Maybe you like the content from X newspaper in the AP Mobile News Network. You subscribe for 99 cents/month or whatever. That's cheap as hell for readers and PEOPLE ACTUALLY PAY MONEY FOR NEWS AGAIN. Oh happy day.