6 ms·

Indeed, this is the "Top Grossing 200" I wonder what percentage could be classified as abusive software. If that's the path I have to take to make money on i

by Lerc 10y ago

Indeed, this is the "Top Grossing 200" I wonder what percentage could be classified as abusive software. If that's the path I have to take to make money on iOS, I'll take a path on a different platform.

kbenson 10y ago
I agree. All my interest in the platform (mobile in general) dried up when I realized people really wanted free, and the way to monetize that path was rife with dark patterns. I don't like playing games like that, why would I want to make one?
- colejohnson66 10y ago
  Money and greed. It's as simple as that.
  - mback00 10y ago
    Poor and stupid - Simple you are. In a civil society those that provide a utility (or "fun") to others are rewarded and incentivized.
    - colejohnson66 10y ago
      I have nothing against people being rewarded for doing stuff others enjoy. What I have a problem with is the freemium model that seems to have taken over. It's nothing but greed what some developers are doing. I had quite a few games that I paid for. Then, one day, the app claims that "due to compatibility issues, I need to download The New $game to continue receiving updates". Then you go and look at the "new" version to find it's free and full of IAPs. THAT is nothing but greed.
k-mcgrady 10y ago
>> "If that's the path I have to take to make money on iOS, I'll take a path on a different platform." I think this is about much more than iOS. Anything that can be delivered online (software, music, movies etc.) is something that consumers think should be free. Strangely they are willing to get milked after download through things like in-app purchase.
- Lerc 10y ago
  >Strangely they are willing to get milked after download through things like in-app purchase. I don't think that is true. I doubt many pay at all. I think there are a small number of people who are massively exploited to generate the revenue for these apps.
  - Consultant32452 10y ago
    I'm curious if you feel that WoW at $180/yr is an exploitation. And if not, why would you consider someone paying the same amount of money for bonuses on Candy Crush to be exploited?
    - Lerc 10y ago
      I cannot speak with much authority on either game because I have played neither of them. At the start of the year was the player aware how much a years worth of play would cost them? The key to whether or not something is exploitative in this respect is whether or not the player is spending more than they were prepared to. Does either game disguise the cost and bring in extras incrementally to promote a sunk-cost fallacy? Do they force the decision to spend at points of particular tension in the game? Some games certainly do. This is quite a good read. http://insertcredit.com/2011/09/22/who-killed-videogames-a-ghost-story/ http://insertcredit.com/2011/09/22/who-killed-videogames-a-g...
    - nxzero 10y ago
      Given the average WoW player likely plays 500+ hours a year, sounds cheap cost wise, but expensive time wise.
      - hinkley 10y ago
        Years ago when one of my social circles decided to play WoW together, most of us found we had more money in the bank at the end of the month. It was far cheaper entertainment per day than most of the other options we would choose. One night out for drinks and you've paid more than a monthly subscription.
panic 10y ago
I think they should have developers choose a monthly limit for their games. This limits the abuse and prevents addicted "whales" from spending all their money on the game. And if the limit is too high ("free (up to $1000/month!)") people might think twice about buying it.
- themartorana 10y ago
  I'm not against this at all. I don't want to survive as a studio on people paying $10k/month. $10/month I don't mind. For what it's worth, "rewarded video" is, IMHO a nice middle-ground. It's a trade of time for value that doesn't require an out-of-pocket spend, and is user-initiated, and still allows a studio to survive.

by Lerc 10y ago

kbenson 10y ago

I agree. All my interest in the platform (mobile in general) dried up when I realized people really wanted free, and the way to monetize that path was rife with dark patterns. I don't like playing games like that, why would I want to make one?

colejohnson66 10y ago
Money and greed. It's as simple as that.
- mback00 10y ago
  Poor and stupid - Simple you are. In a civil society those that provide a utility (or "fun") to others are rewarded and incentivized.
  - colejohnson66 10y ago
    I have nothing against people being rewarded for doing stuff others enjoy. What I have a problem with is the freemium model that seems to have taken over. It's nothing but greed what some developers are doing. I had quite a few games that I paid for. Then, one day, the app claims that "due to compatibility issues, I need to download The New $game to continue receiving updates". Then you go and look at the "new" version to find it's free and full of IAPs. THAT is nothing but greed.

k-mcgrady 10y ago

>> "If that's the path I have to take to make money on iOS, I'll take a path on a different platform." I think this is about much more than iOS. Anything that can be delivered online (software, music, movies etc.) is something that consumers think should be free. Strangely they are willing to get milked after download through things like in-app purchase.

Lerc 10y ago
>Strangely they are willing to get milked after download through things like in-app purchase. I don't think that is true. I doubt many pay at all. I think there are a small number of people who are massively exploited to generate the revenue for these apps.
- Consultant32452 10y ago
  I'm curious if you feel that WoW at $180/yr is an exploitation. And if not, why would you consider someone paying the same amount of money for bonuses on Candy Crush to be exploited?
  - Lerc 10y ago
    I cannot speak with much authority on either game because I have played neither of them. At the start of the year was the player aware how much a years worth of play would cost them? The key to whether or not something is exploitative in this respect is whether or not the player is spending more than they were prepared to. Does either game disguise the cost and bring in extras incrementally to promote a sunk-cost fallacy? Do they force the decision to spend at points of particular tension in the game? Some games certainly do. This is quite a good read. http://insertcredit.com/2011/09/22/who-killed-videogames-a-ghost-story/ http://insertcredit.com/2011/09/22/who-killed-videogames-a-g...
  - nxzero 10y ago
    Given the average WoW player likely plays 500+ hours a year, sounds cheap cost wise, but expensive time wise.
    - hinkley 10y ago
      Years ago when one of my social circles decided to play WoW together, most of us found we had more money in the bank at the end of the month. It was far cheaper entertainment per day than most of the other options we would choose. One night out for drinks and you've paid more than a monthly subscription.

panic 10y ago

I think they should have developers choose a monthly limit for their games. This limits the abuse and prevents addicted "whales" from spending all their money on the game. And if the limit is too high ("free (up to $1000/month!)") people might think twice about buying it.

themartorana 10y ago
I'm not against this at all. I don't want to survive as a studio on people paying $10k/month. $10/month I don't mind. For what it's worth, "rewarded video" is, IMHO a nice middle-ground. It's a trade of time for value that doesn't require an out-of-pocket spend, and is user-initiated, and still allows a studio to survive.