iOS Users Overwhelmingly Prefer Free Games With Advertisements to Paid Titles

[pika2000]

I hope developers realize that yes, people prefer free games with ads. However, these same people would also jump ship to other more hyped games more readily since they have no real investment in the game. Meaning you may have a lot of users, but none of them are loyal and can leave anytime.

In the short run, free+ads model work, but in the long run, it won't. We already see all the freemium games are pretty much gobbled by one giant company. I guess if that's the goal of the game developer, to be bought out by the bigger publishers, well, I guess that's the way to do it while getting something in the short term.

 

[WardC]

I don't buy many iOS games because I do not see them worthwhile or worth my time. The game I have gotten the most play out of is TETRIS, and that is because I already loved it from the Gameboy days. Well worth the money to have this on my iPhone, to pass the time while I am waiting somewhere. But I've bought several other more expensive games that I pretty much never play....I don't even play games on the computer anymore!!

I was a HUGE Nintendo gamer back in the day...Mario, Zelda, Dragon Warrior, etc...but haven't been into games in years really since Quake III and that was like 14 years ago.

I do not know any other explanation for my lack of interest, other than maybe I just grew out of it. I'm 31 years old, and get more satisfaction surfing the web than I do playing games. It's as simple as that.

 

[AppleScruff1]

I thought that iOS users spent the money and Android users were the ones who downloaded all the free stuff? Or at least that was reported here several months ago.

 

[Jessica Lares]

What survey results never tell you is that the people taking these things do it for the 50 cents to a dollar they get from them.

People don't prefer advertising, they'll deal with it though if it means not paying a dime for something out of their pockets.

 

[Oz.]

What? no apps with ads on my iphone

 

[doctor-don]

BS stats.
Just get rid of in-app purchases for good please.
They SUCK.

Also, has anyone tried the free version of Angry Birds lately?
Every 10 seconds you have to watch a video ad!!
Crazy!
Had to delete it straight away from my Mum's iPad.
The worst case of ads in a game that I've ever seen.
Atrocious.

Have not played - not even downloaded AB. However, I did have a few games on my iPad that I deleted because they pestered me to buy buy buy. What good is a FREE game if it cannot be played without paying to upgrade to a paid version after only one level?

One of the FREE games was even interrupting with porn ads. Developer assisted in removing those ads - maybe even contacted whomever was responsible.

And those researchers never asked my for my opinion. Perhaps they skewed the results by including only children in the small sample.

Wonder if this news was scheduled to be released tomorrow.

----------

I don't buy many iOS games because I do not see them worthwhile or worth my time. The game I have gotten the most play out of is TETRIS, and that is because I already loved it from the Gameboy days. Well worth the money to have this on my iPhone, to pass the time while I am waiting somewhere. But I've bought several other more expensive games that I pretty much never play....I don't even play games on the computer anymore!!

I was a HUGE Nintendo gamer back in the day...Mario, Zelda, Dragon Warrior, etc...but haven't been into games in years really since Quake III and that was like 14 years ago.

I do not know any other explanation for my lack of interest, other than maybe I just grew out of it. I'm 31 years old, and get more satisfaction surfing the web than I do playing games. It's as simple as that.

My down-time game is sudoku. On a phone some games just are not very friendly with the lack of controls - as in Tetris.

 

[OldSchoolMacGuy]

I'd rather pay from the start for no ads rather than deal with all the ********. Then again I can afford the $500 device I bought (like cars, houses, and everything else, there are lots of people that buy one but can't afford it) and I don't cry about paying 99¢*or even $5 for a game I'll get hours of enjoyment out of.

iPhone users are MUCH more likely to pay for applications compared to Android users. Look at the difference in the quality of the apps because of that. As a developer, I'm going to go where the money is and that's with iOS. It's stupid that so many expect these developers to spend hours on these games and then give them away for free. Would you work your job for free? Some argue that if the game is good, it will make money with ads but the statistics show that only a very small number of apps ever see those kind of download numbers. By charging for an app, even a lesser known app can make a developer enough money to continue to add to it, polish it, and improve it. Paying for an app also shows the developer that people care about that app and gives them a reason to keep working on it and improving it. I know we all can think of some apps that we loved but they stopped seeing development. Chances are they were a free app.

 

[deluxeshredder]

Even with the small sample and biased survey-taker, these numbers are probably correct--reality bears them out.

That said, by their own calculations that means there are about 70 million people with App Store accounts who would rather pay upfront for a game than play an ad supported game. That's not exactly a small user base to target.

But it is a tough user base to target.

There is an even smaller user base that wants pure, evocative, atmospheric PC titles that unleash the potential of top gaming PCs. Guess what? It didn't receive anything truly game-changing since Crysis.

Sure, churning out a simple, addictive freemium game that cajoles its players into paying to play is the easy road to riches. So is making cheap, * hamburgers and advertising them like crazy. And you're also competing with the "big boys"--you're up against Candy Crush Everything et al. It's like trying to open a new national cheap burger joint--you're going toe-to-toe with McDonalds, Burger King, and several others, who already know how to beat you.

Great analogy.

This is proof there's also a very sizable market for quality games that don't treat their players like marks to be bled on an ongoing basis, just like there's plenty of room in the world to open a good restaurant or upscale chain that sells quality food for fair prices to people with taste.

Both haute cuisine and AAA (and especially PC-exclusive) games are tough and unfashionable, yet arguably there is still more demand than supply.

You could also flip it around and say "86% of iOS gamers only game in small fragments of time, so intentionally or unintentionally have very poor value calculations when it comes to paying for a game rather than downloading something free with ads. The other 14% are gamers who spend more time or have better taste."

I never had a problem fitting some AAA games in my extremely tight schedule. Maybe taste rules it all.

It's also worth pointing out things like the sketchy, sexed-up, free-to-play (but pay-to-win) MMORPGs whose entire business model is based around a small player base who dump huge sums of money into the game to stay ahead of each other while the vast majority of players pay little or nothing. They're just a more narrowly-targeted, blatant form of the same thing as Clash of Clans and Candy Crush are--basically a casino that gives away the cheap seats in an effort to draw in the gambling addicts.

As much as I hate such blatant freemium, it often gives casual gamers a chance. Not everyone wants to dig deep.

Once upon a time, SimCity (up to 4) was heavily criticised for the opposite approach - it was so management-oriented and "uncool" that many casual players gave up and didn't see the stunning gameplay underneath.

Personally, the moment I realize that paid add-ons in a game aren't just there for people who are lazy, but are actually the intent of getting you to install the game, I will immediately stop playing and delete it. So I'm proudly in that 14%--give me a quality, meaty game for $10 (even $20, if it's big enough) that doesn't try to upsell me once I'm playing and I'll gladly pay it.

Agree.

 

[Traverse]

And this is what is wrong with the App Store! Cheap people driving the price and quality down which eventually shuts out good developers. Just like people not wanting Microsoft office unless they could get Word for $.99!

 

[shortugae]

i noticed this just yesterday while browsing the app store. its kind of pathetic really, that companies would rather destroy a perfectly good game (ahem EA) by placing adverts and in-app purchases all throughout, ruining the experience. like real racing 3 and plants vs zombies 2. i spent $17 on final fantasy 3 on my phone, which entertained me for months on end, whereas a i haven't played a single free to play game for longer than an hour or two, and soon deleted it. yet, people think I'm crazy for spending sooooooo much money on an iPhone game.

 

[Gigaman]

What kind of gamers are these? That's pretty crucial to this study, I'd say. If it's the typical casual gamer- of course they're going to want the free stuff.

I'd like to think I'm a core gamer who enjoys games like Halo, Super Smash Bros and the game I just finished, Mario 3D Land. I definitely prefer to buy games and avoid those damn ads.

There's a significant difference in the type of gamer because casuals might enjoy the ad riddled flappy bird knockoffs, while I stick to NOVA 3 and would gladly pay for it.

 

[sesnir]

Are you suggesting it's not true? The free charts have 10x the downloads as the paid charts. I think it's pretty obviously true. A better criticism for the study is 'duh'

arn

Yeah but I think it's the IAP that brings those games to the top, not the ads.

Whether it's obvious or not, the company running the study is biased.

 

[urbanlung]

My son is trying this out with his first iOS game at the mo

My 14yr son has just released his first game 'Meateors' on the store supported by ads. He has managed about 150 downloads, mainly in the US which has earned him about 80cents or 50pence over the last couple of weeks. His previous app 'infinite password' was not free got fewer downloads but obviously more money. Ultimately, as ever it's a numbers game and unless you can get the interest and something of a ball rolling it has to be something of a labour of love (or at least interest). Either way, he's learning stuff and stretching his brain a bit.


If you interested there is a link below

https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/meateors/id823883177?mt=8

 

[jonnysods]

I like the idea of free games with ads, in app purchase to remove ads.

 

[arn]

Yeah but I think it's the IAP that brings those games to the top, not the ads.

Whether it's obvious or not, the company running the study is biased.

No, the IAP affects the grossing charts. It's well known the free charts drive a lot more downloads than paid.

arn

 

[dec.]

I thought that iOS users spent the money and Android users were the ones who downloaded all the free stuff? Or at least that was reported here several months ago.

Are you referring to this article?

> https://www.macrumors.com/2013/08/1...er-one-in-revenue-despite-google-play-growth/

I understand your -ion. In your opinion what caused the App Store to generate more revenue than the Google Play Store? Since the article from today says that iOS users download all the free stuff, the Google Play Store really should be generating far more revenue if you go by the approx. +80% market share.

 

[AppleScruff1]

Are you referring to this article?

> https://www.macrumors.com/2013/08/1...er-one-in-revenue-despite-google-play-growth/

I understand your -ion. In your opinion what caused the App Store to generate more revenue than the Google Play Store? Since the article from today says that iOS users download all the free stuff, the Google Play Store really should be generating far more revenue if you go by the approx. +80% market share.

That was one of them and I thought there was another one too. If the App store generated more money, it means that more people paid for apps. It could still mean that Android users still aren't paying. I was just surprised to see today's article stating that iOS users preferred the free apps, but maybe I am confusing things because this article is speaking of games, not apps as such? But then again, games are the most downloaded apps in the App Store. But somewhere in there people are paying for something at a higher rate than they do at Google Play.

I'm still confused.

 

[Sabon]

Were they all 13 year olds? And how did they ...

Two questions.

How exactly did they do the "poll". Did they just look at what people were buying or did they actually contact people and ask them what they preferred.

As for people like me, I do not and will not buy freemium or ad based apps. I either pay for it up front or I don't "buy" it.

I can't stand it when programs/companies nickel and dime you to death.

 

[sesnir]

No, the IAP affects the grossing charts. It's well known the free charts drive a lot more downloads than paid.

arn

We're not talking about the grossing charts? You have a picture of the Top Grossing charts in the original post, along with a blurb about how well freemium games do with IAP.

Some of the most popular freemium apps in the App Store, like Clash of Clans and Candy Crush Saga, have generated millions of dollars in revenue. Clash of Clans, for example, is said to earn approximately $1 million per day through add-on content, booster packs, and more, while Candy Crush Saga earns upwards of $834,148. In comparison, Minecraft - Pocket Edition is estimated to be earning $60,000 per day -- not exactly small change, but nowhere near the revenue popular freemium games can bring in.

If I'm misunderstanding where you're coming from then I apologize, but I think we're talking about two different things here.

edit: okay I see - you're talking about the free charts in your first reply to me, but I'm commenting on the original article and the top grossing chart. Yep, we're talking about two different things.

 

[GeneralChang]

These are not at all the same gamers as the ones that play on consoles.

Absolutely not. And I think that there’s a market for both sets that should be addressed individually. It seems like by and large most consol gamers would rather pay a high price up front for their games. This is why the tendency of consol game makers to include IAPs lately is so… odd. Annoying. Fascist. Pick your level of disgust.

 

[69Mustang]

And Android, remember it's a system used across all mobile platforms.

It sickens me to see console games attempting to adopt this rubbish too, take Forza 5, I think it's 5, on the Xbox One, a nice new next gen title trying to make you buy additional content like tracks and cars! On a game costing nie on the RRP of a full AAA game!
You don't get all the tracks in the game you buy, they cost extra...

Hopefully these games are suffering in sales due to these underhand tactics. It's just pure money grabbing.

Console gaming isn't attempting to adopt this. That statement is rubbish; it's crazy talk. There is no attempt. They are full on, knee deep, head over heels, go for broke, push it all to the middle of the table with IAP or DLC as it's called in the console world. This has been going on for years. Forza, and it is 5, is one of my favorite games. It has had DLC since 2007. Most AAA titles today are designed from the ground up with the intent of having DLC. You would be hard pressed to find one without it. I can't immediately think of a single AAA title without DLC. Unfortunately, we are so programmed by it that we actually look forward to it. Hell, we even buy the DLC packs at the same time we buy the game. Sad I know. I justify it by telling myself it increases the length of my time enjoyment by releasing new content over time. I'm playing the latest DLC from Bioshock Infinite right now. IAP/DLC is the way of gaming. There is no way around it.

----------

Absolutely not. And I think that there’s a market for both sets that should be addressed individually. It seems like by and large most consol gamers would rather pay a high price up front for their games. This is why the tendency of consol game makers to include IAPs lately is so… odd. Annoying. Fascist. Pick your level of disgust.

It's not lately. This has been going on for years. We don't like it but we are used to it. PC gaming as well.

 

[ctrlshft]

Myopic sample size says this is a publicity stunt.

FWIW I find Freemium games to be typically banal and void of any real creative merit. It's a junky platform.

 

[apolloa]

Yeah, it's a franchise seriously let down by switching to IAP. I've purchased both RR1 and RR2 (both paid-for upfront) but refuse to pay for any kind of consumable(!!!) IAP in RR3. That's definitely a loss for the devs.

Yeap, I had RR1 and RR2 on my iPhone when they were out, loved them, but RR3 I just can't get into because of the IAP, I even had it on my Nexus 7 and got a crack to give me unlimited cash etc, but it locked all the cars and I couldn't be bothered to play endlessly to unlock a Ferrari! And that was after I had actually paid for in game car packs etc, I was so tired of the endless timers etc I actually was willing to crack the game and start from the beginning again!, so in the end I just ditched it and bought RR2 again.
I wholly blame Fire Monkey's and EA for managing to make the whole freemium/ IAP model even worse with it's in game timers, which other devs now copy.

The general consensus over on Touch Arcade seems to be that to totally finish RR3 you will need to spend over £200 on the game! A lot of them seem to have hit the paywall and then ditched the game.

Console gaming isn't attempting to adopt this. That statement is rubbish; it's crazy talk. There is no attempt. They are full on, knee deep, head over heels, go for broke, push it all to the middle of the table with IAP or DLC as it's called in the console world. This has been going on for years. Forza, and it is 5, is one of my favorite games. It has had DLC since 2007. Most AAA titles today are designed from the ground up with the intent of having DLC. You would be hard pressed to find one without it. I can't immediately think of a single AAA title without DLC. Unfortunately, we are so programmed by it that we actually look forward to it. Hell, we even buy the DLC packs at the same time we buy the game. Sad I know. I justify it by telling myself it increases the length of my time enjoyment by releasing new content over time. I'm playing the latest DLC from Bioshock Infinite right now. IAP/DLC is the way of gaming. There is no way around it.

It isn't rubbish when it's a fact, I am not talking about DLC, DLC is sold as a big update or add on, I am talking about individual items like tracks or cars even. It is early day's for this though and I hope it stays that way!

At least with DLC you can now buy a pass to allow you access to it all. Not cheap sure, but I bet you can buy a AAA game and all it's DLC for less than can be spent on a mobile freemium game!
Plus you don't have to buy it if you don't want to, it's entirely optional.

 

[TouchMint.com]

I really don't like this trend as a gamer and developer but I guess I'm
Not the 80% or whatever. I'd rather have a quality game I can buy once and own rather than one full of ads and iap of tokens.

 

[jettredmont]

Are you suggesting it's not true? The free charts have 10x the downloads as the paid charts. I think it's pretty obviously true. A better criticism for the study is 'duh'

arn

Well:

1. The survey was commissioned and designed by a company with 100% stake in the results. We don't accept tobacco company studies about the health effects of smoking, we shouldn't accept an ad company's survey about their business model's utility.

2. The 500 users were freemium game users. That is, people who were in the middle of using a freemium game.

3. The 500 respondents actively chose to respond to the survey. This has the legitimacy of putting a poll on your blog like "Do you enjoy reading my blog?" and reporting that it scientifically proves 95.8% of all Internet users enjoy reading your blog.

4. The stats in the ad store say absolutely nothing about how much people do or do not prefer the freemium model versus a paid-up-front model. It says that people like "free". Duh. It doesn't mean they like ads, or forced in-app-purchases (unless you want to slog around the Level 3 dungeon for 73 hours, which is totally possible to do of course). Freemium apps aren't marketed with full disclosure of how the app makes its money, so it is not surprising that they deceive a number of users (and of course there are those who prefer it).

That's too many strikes against it to take this as "news". It is marketing from an ad company.