iOS 7.1.1 Now Labels Apps with 'In-App Purchases' in Top Charts and Featured Sections

[TallManNY]

I wish they would differentiate between one-time IAPs (e.g. DLC) and repeated IAPs (e.g. "freemium" in-game currency / powerups needed to do anything). I'm cool with paying once for expansions and other forms of in-game content, including upgrading a free demo into a full app, but have zero interest in pay-to-play grindfests built around being frustrating and letting you pay to temporarily stop the frustration.

I basically won't download a freemium game. I understand the business model and it not set up to provide value for your money. The business model is to get you to pay an irrational amount of money for the game. I did it once on a sniper game where I played for a bit, spent about $10 and then got to a point where I clearly had to either grind for weeks on the same levels I could already effortlessly clear, or I had to spend another $10 for a gun with enough range to hit enemies and open the next level. And I had no way of knowing if another barrier like that was going to crop up after another ten minutes of playing.

So I'm done with freemium games. I just won't touch them.

 

[apolloa]

So have Apple. It's just more prominent in 7.1.1.



It's worthy of front page news because it is something that they are changing. Whether it is by choice or not is irrelevant.

I don't think it should be front page news every time Apple actually decides to follow regulations and laws, it should be posted when it chooses to ignore them however like its extended warranty.

While there are stupid and predatory ones, mostly in games, there are a lot of applications that feature IAPs to get rid of things like ads or to add premium content that I think get lumped into the bad IAPs that everyone rails against.

For example, I don't think Speedtest.net or Accuweather are bad apps just because they feature an IAP to remove ads. Both are great apps that allow you to remove their advertising with an IAP, I don't see that as being a bad thing at all, and it allows for easier development by having them only maintain one app vs. "Speedtest.net Premium" or "Accuweather Premium" on top of the free one.

Same with MLB At Bat. It's free, but it has IAPs for MLB.tv or GameDay Audio, and is one of the highest grossing apps, but for most features you don't need to subscribe. Pandora as well, free app but uses IAPs for subscriptions, why should these be lumped in the same category as your Farm/Candy/Clans games that use IAPs for everything under the sun?

I'm against "stupid" use of IAPs, define that however you will, I'm just saying that I don't get the complete hate, that's all.

On the Google Play store the AccuWeather app has a premium paid version and a freemium version with the option of an IAP to upgrade to the premium version, can't see anything wrong with that myself.

I hate EA for the ridiculous timers it introduced with Real Racing 3 but damn it, the game is too good to not play, I've deleted it so many times now but keep re-instralling it after.

 

[dampfnudel]

It's a good first step, but I think all apps with IAP should be given its own category and only truly free apps with absolutely no IAP would continue to be placed in the 'free' category.

Possible titles for this new IAP category:

"Not really free"

"Not happy with 99 cents or even 5 bucks"

"Watch your kids"

"How do you like our timers"

"Free with a big catch"

"Wait or be gouged"

"I can't believe I just spent money on that"

or maybe just 'demos' would suffice.

 

[Blakjack]

Small detail, but much appreciation. Maybe this will decrease app downloads for apps with in app purchasing and discourage developers create these types of apps. There are some cool games I like but refuse to download because they use that method

 

[Parasprite]

I don't think it should be front page news every time Apple actually decides to follow regulations and laws, it should be posted when it chooses to ignore them however like its extended warranty.

What's wrong with posting both?

 

[Cod3rror]

I hate in-app purchases.

I never feel like I "own" the app if I buy an in-app purchase to unlock more features.

Make a free "lite" version and a normal paid version and I'll buy the normal paid version.

 

[rockarollr]

Why bother?

All these 'Free' apps (and games) with 'in-app purchases' are is a way to circumvent Apple's original policy (instated when the App Store first launched) of "No demos allowed". All an app with 'In-app purchases" is... is another form of a demo. Just like a demo, you don't get the full app until you've paid some money. It's all just a bunch of smoke and mirrors and is really just a crock.

I'm glad Apple is finally forcing developers to be transparent about what they're selling. It was the right thing to do to help customers weed out the bullcrap up front.

 

[C DM]

All these 'Free' apps (and games) with 'in-app purchases' are is a way to circumvent Apple's original policy (instated when the App Store first launched) of "No demos allowed". All an app with 'In-app purchases" is... is another form of a demo. Just like a demo, you don't get the full app until you've paid some money. It's all just a bunch of smoke and mirrors and is really just a crock.

I'm glad Apple is finally forcing developers to be transparent about what they're selling. It was the right thing to do to help customers weed out the bullcrap up front.

In some cases that's more or less it, while in many other cases the in-app purchases aren't really related to giving you the full app as you already have it (the in-app purchase can just give you more of something used in the app, or perhaps remove something like ads, etc.).

 

[wikiverse]

I wish apple gave me functional control over app searches and lists. A simple 'sort' function would be nice so that I can filter out apps with IAP. Or even distinguish between subscriptions, one time upgrades, and ongoing purchases.

The search function of the AppStore is terrible anyway. Why can I only swipe through one app at a time?

 

[sdf]

What bothers me here is that there's different kinds of In-App Purchase. A free app with a couple unlocks? Sure, go ahead, float that to the top. A free app with consumables? Don't even show it to me!

But no, we just get an indicator that it has in-app purchases. Not very helpful.

 

[QT317]

an example of IAPs done well is Halfbrick Games Jetpack Joy Ride.

the game itself is free. Collecting coins allows you to buy things in game, most of them being cosmetic only. There is no secondary currency that is super rare that forces you to buy them in bulk lots as an IAP.

some of the items are game-changers, such as magnets for the vehicles to attract more coins, or the coin-doubler.

These things are permanent, and the slot machine at the end of the game is pretty frequent with payouts.

Then there are games like real racing, or trials fusion, that put a limit on how frequently you can play the game unless you continue to pump money into it. this is a terrible model for a number of (hopefully obvious) reasons.

Jetpack Joyride, you can play the game, and if you enjoy it, throw them $5 and get enough coins to make the grind a little quicker.

Real racing, you can play the game, and eventually you'll be told you've played enough for now and you need to pay up if you want to continue playing. This occurs over and over again, forever.

What is truly concerning is seeing this model bleed into full priced console games. if $80AUD doesnt buy me the ability to finish the game (and without having to grind my life away to do it) then what exactly am I paying for?

 

[justinthesommer]

Definitely a nice feature!

 

[rockarollr]

In some cases that's more or less it, while in many other cases the in-app purchases aren't really related to giving you the full app as you already have it (the in-app purchase can just give you more of something used in the app, or perhaps remove something like ads, etc.).

True. And there should be a way to sort everything in the App Store accordingly - much like what wikiverse said above.

 

[apolloa]

What's wrong with posting both?

I think one is more news worthy then the other.


And to everyone on here, please don't forget Apple gets 30% of every single IAP made, as I said they aren't doing this through choice.

 

[C DM]

I think one is more news worthy then the other.


And to everyone on here, please don't forget Apple gets 30% of every single IAP made, as I said they aren't doing this through choice.

On an unofficial rumors site dedicated to one particular company, pretty much anything related to that company is worthy.

 

[MentalFloss]

Is that IAP stuff really so surprising? For many many years, users have been making it 100% clear that they are definitely NOT willing to pay money to buy software by pirating it. IAP and software subscription license models (such as what Adobe is doing) are the software industry's answer to that. If people jailbreak their devices to get apps for free, then IAP and DLC is the obvious answer, as it is significantly more difficult to pirate.

So don't blame the developers for trying to make money with this kind of schemes. Blame the freeloader parasites who have forced them into this corner.

 

[QT317]

Is that IAP stuff really so surprising? For many many years, users have been making it 100% clear that they are definitely NOT willing to pay money to buy software by pirating it. IAP and software subscription license models (such as what Adobe is doing) are the software industry's answer to that. If people jailbreak their devices to get apps for free, then IAP and DLC is the obvious answer, as it is significantly more difficult to pirate.

So don't blame the developers for trying to make money with this kind of schemes. Blame the freeloader parasites who have forced them into this corner.

Personally I enjoyed being able to purchase office for $100 or so every 3 years rather than $10 a month for the foreseeable future.

There is no way to slice it where it becomes beneficial to the user to pay more for the same software.

 

[snprintf]

Glad they are labeled so I can steer clear. They should also add a "top free games with no in-app purchases" category. Most (but not all) of the top games with IAPs totally abuse them.

----------

Is that IAP stuff really so surprising? For many many years, users have been making it 100% clear that they are definitely NOT willing to pay money to buy software by pirating it. IAP and software subscription license models (such as what Adobe is doing) are the software industry's answer to that. If people jailbreak their devices to get apps for free, then IAP and DLC is the obvious answer, as it is significantly more difficult to pirate.

So don't blame the developers for trying to make money with this kind of schemes. Blame the freeloader parasites who have forced them into this corner.

It's much easier to simply install LocalIAP store to steal the in-app purchases than it is to pirate apps. If I was a you-know-what, I'd be able to download the free Phoenix Wright app and steal all 3 games within it.

 

[haruhiko]

My recent experience with the otherwise great game "Line Cookie Run":

Not only that the in-game currency is very expensive (US$7.99 for 88 "diamonds"), but the method to make you spend those in-game currency is crazy. 20 diamonds are required to "draw" (yes, not "buy") a "pet" that enhances the ability of the main characters, so basically US$7.99 only gives you 4 chances of lucky draw and you may get the same pet over and over again (it will be "upgraded" if you get the same "pet").

1 diamond is given for free every day, so basically you only get one chance of free lucky draw every 20 days.

For your reference, the developer Devsisters' quarterly revenue *from this game only* is well above US$20 million per quarter when the game was available in South Korea only.

----------

Glad they are labeled so I can steer clear. They should also add a "top free games with no in-app purchases" category. Most (but not all) of the top games with IAPs totally abuse them.

----------



It's much easier to simply install LocalIAP store to steal the in-app purchases than it is to pirate apps. If I was a you-know-what, I'd be able to download the free Phoenix Wright app and steal all 3 games within it.

Apple, in response, enhanced the IAP system to prevent this kind of local hack. IAP systems in recent games are not as easy to hack than the old days.

Also some games "call home" frequently to find if users are using gem hacks or other add-ons to cheat on in game currencies.

 

[itsthenewdc]

I always prefer to buy apps then put up with freemium BS. I'd rather pay a couple bucks for software that I use everyday and encourage developers to make software that innovates rather than innovative payment methods.

That's part of the problem though.. Developers need more than a couple bucks for something you're going to use almost everyday.

 

[snprintf]

Apple, in response, enhanced the IAP system to prevent this kind of local hack. IAP systems in recent games are not as easy to hack than the old days.

Also some games "call home" frequently to find if users are using gem hacks or other add-ons to cheat on in game currencies.

Oh yeah, I forgot about that. I tested it and found that it worked on Temple Run 1 and 2 and many other games (including Real Racing 3), but my friend tried it on Clash of Clans, and it didn't work. I guess anything that involves player-to-player interaction and play-to-win has some security mechanism.

----------

I wish apple gave me functional control over app searches and lists. A simple 'sort' function would be nice so that I can filter out apps with IAP. Or even distinguish between subscriptions, one time upgrades, and ongoing purchases.

The search function of the AppStore is terrible anyway. Why can I only swipe through one app at a time?

I wish it had that too. As with the swiping view, I like it because I can see screenshots very easily that way, but it often lags badly.

 

[mad3inch1na]

Doesn't Candy Crush Saga also have IAPs to skip the timer?

Once you download the App, it doesn't mention that there are IAPs. In the first picture, the app wasn't downloaded, but in the second one it was.

 

[mw360]

Is that IAP stuff really so surprising? For many many years, users have been making it 100% clear that they are definitely NOT willing to pay money to buy software by pirating it. IAP and software subscription license models (such as what Adobe is doing) are the software industry's answer to that. If people jailbreak their devices to get apps for free, then IAP and DLC is the obvious answer, as it is significantly more difficult to pirate.

So don't blame the developers for trying to make money with this kind of schemes. Blame the freeloader parasites who have forced them into this corner.

Got to agree. As much as people bitch about software companies tactics, it's nothing compared to what their 'customers' get up to.

Like it or not, the software industry isn't going to stand for not getting paid.

I remember posting years ago on a thread full of pirates: if you don't support the current business model the industry will find something you like even less. And here it comes. Games charts completely flooded with games that 'real gamers' hate. While those same gamers whine that they'd 'happily pay' $1.99 for something that needs vastly more to break even. Times are changing, and it's not because companies got greedy. People are greedy too. Has nobody noticed that most of these IAP games involve no more 'game' than simply amassing money or gems? Sadly, we're getting what we deserve. We had a good thing, and showed ourselves unwilling to pay to maintain it.

 

[mrsir2009]

I reckon there should be three sections in the app store: Paid, Free and Free with In-app Purchases.

...although the "free" section would probably be a bit empty

 

[nightstalkerz]

I reckon there should be three sections in the app store: Paid, Free and Free with In-app Purchases.

...although the "free" section would probably be a bit empty

The top grossing part is basically free with in-app purchases with the exception of around 10 apps.