6 ms·

>> "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

>> "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 $180/yr is an exploitation. And if not, why would you consider someone paying the same amount of money for bonuses on Candy Crush to be exploited?
  - Lerc 10y ago
    I cannot speak with much authority on either game because I have played neither of them. At the start of the year was the player aware how much a years worth of play would cost them? The key to whether or not something is exploitative in this respect is whether or not the player is spending more than they were prepared to. Does either game disguise the cost and bring in extras incrementally to promote a sunk-cost fallacy? Do they force the decision to spend at points of particular tension in the game? Some games certainly do. This is quite a good read. http://insertcredit.com/2011/09/22/who-killed-videogames-a-ghost-story/ http://insertcredit.com/2011/09/22/who-killed-videogames-a-g...
  - nxzero 10y ago
    Given the average WoW player likely plays 500+ hours a year, sounds cheap cost wise, but expensive time wise.
    - hinkley 10y ago
      Years ago when one of my social circles decided to play WoW together, most of us found we had more money in the bank at the end of the month. It was far cheaper entertainment per day than most of the other options we would choose. One night out for drinks and you've paid more than a monthly subscription.
      - Ntrails 10y ago
        I feel like you're ignoring the ancillary cost of grinding heroics until the early morning hours with friends. There were some large pizzas, a bunch of soft drinks, and probably a packet of biscuits to accompany Tea... That's gotta be at least a couple of rounds of drinks each :D
        hinkley 10y ago
        When I said we had more money in the bank at the end of the month, that wasn't a figure of speech. I meant that we had more money in the bank.
  - Retric 10y ago
    People spend 1,000-10,000$ per month on pay to win games. You don't need a lot of them to break even. PS: It's actually become a fairly common issue people seek addiction counseling for.
themartorana 10y ago
"Milked" is seriously loaded. AAA console games cost $60 and up - do you know how hard it is to get a paying freemium user to even $10? Yes. There are people that spend thousands. They also spend thousands on $60 AAA games as well. The idea that players get "fleeced" is ridiculous. Spent $15 on Candy Crush, a game that you spent months playing? That really doesn't seem like a lot to me. Edit: I should acknowledge that certain games, like Candy Crush, do play on psychological weaknesses. Not all free-to-play games (hell, I'd say vanishingly few in the sea of free-to-play games on the App Store) do. Free-to-play is the new shareware and try-before-you-buy. It's also the only real path to sustained revenue, and anyone that runs a game studio knows what I'm talking about with the roller-coaster that are games that take 1-2 years to develop and have an earnings bell-curve of 3 months.
- cageface 10y ago
  I'm happy to pay $15 or even $60 for a game I really enjoy and play for more than a few hours. I'm not willing to pay to win though, which is what most of the top grossing mobile games require.
  - themartorana 10y ago
    No, but the point of this thread was that there is room in the middle to make money, you don't have to be in the top 200. We use rewarded video and advertising and IAP in free-to-play games our users play, but we have no desire to be exploitative. The amount of room between basic free-to-play and psychological warfare on your players is enormous.
    - Lerc 10y ago
      If you sorted your customers by the amount of revenue they generate? How much revenue comes from the individual at the bottom of the top 50% of revenue?
      - themartorana 10y ago
        It's mixed. Our most popular game is still supported by an old style of advertising, and some players that have played daily for years still prefer to look at/ignore advertising than pay the $2.99 (now $4.99) to get rid of ads. In fact, that's true of the majority of players - less than 5% of our revenue comes from that IAP. This is why I say people have told us how they want to pay us for their fun and our server costs. They've had the opportunity to pay us with money forever. Most never will. Rewarded video makes up about 10% (currently it's not in a very prominent placement, some games make a majority of their money that way - see Shooty Skies). So to kind of answer your questions, the longer people play, the more they're worth to us, which feels fair to us (and again, they can pay to rid themselves of ads anytime they want). We will be featuring rewarded video more prominently, which allows the user to have more choice in the matter (although I'm betting they chose ads over cash most of the time, but that's just years of experience talking). Edit: I should add that our ARPU (average revenue per user) is less that $4.99, so we'd still much rather people buy ads away with IAP.

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 $180/yr is an exploitation. And if not, why would you consider someone paying the same amount of money for bonuses on Candy Crush to be exploited?
- Lerc 10y ago
  I cannot speak with much authority on either game because I have played neither of them. At the start of the year was the player aware how much a years worth of play would cost them? The key to whether or not something is exploitative in this respect is whether or not the player is spending more than they were prepared to. Does either game disguise the cost and bring in extras incrementally to promote a sunk-cost fallacy? Do they force the decision to spend at points of particular tension in the game? Some games certainly do. This is quite a good read. http://insertcredit.com/2011/09/22/who-killed-videogames-a-ghost-story/ http://insertcredit.com/2011/09/22/who-killed-videogames-a-g...
- nxzero 10y ago
  Given the average WoW player likely plays 500+ hours a year, sounds cheap cost wise, but expensive time wise.
  - hinkley 10y ago
    Years ago when one of my social circles decided to play WoW together, most of us found we had more money in the bank at the end of the month. It was far cheaper entertainment per day than most of the other options we would choose. One night out for drinks and you've paid more than a monthly subscription.
    - Ntrails 10y ago
      I feel like you're ignoring the ancillary cost of grinding heroics until the early morning hours with friends. There were some large pizzas, a bunch of soft drinks, and probably a packet of biscuits to accompany Tea... That's gotta be at least a couple of rounds of drinks each :D
      - hinkley 10y ago
        When I said we had more money in the bank at the end of the month, that wasn't a figure of speech. I meant that we had more money in the bank.
- Retric 10y ago
  People spend 1,000-10,000$ per month on pay to win games. You don't need a lot of them to break even. PS: It's actually become a fairly common issue people seek addiction counseling for.

themartorana 10y ago

"Milked" is seriously loaded. AAA console games cost $60 and up - do you know how hard it is to get a paying freemium user to even $10? Yes. There are people that spend thousands. They also spend thousands on $60 AAA games as well. The idea that players get "fleeced" is ridiculous. Spent $15 on Candy Crush, a game that you spent months playing? That really doesn't seem like a lot to me. Edit: I should acknowledge that certain games, like Candy Crush, do play on psychological weaknesses. Not all free-to-play games (hell, I'd say vanishingly few in the sea of free-to-play games on the App Store) do. Free-to-play is the new shareware and try-before-you-buy. It's also the only real path to sustained revenue, and anyone that runs a game studio knows what I'm talking about with the roller-coaster that are games that take 1-2 years to develop and have an earnings bell-curve of 3 months.

cageface 10y ago
I'm happy to pay $15 or even $60 for a game I really enjoy and play for more than a few hours. I'm not willing to pay to win though, which is what most of the top grossing mobile games require.
- themartorana 10y ago
  No, but the point of this thread was that there is room in the middle to make money, you don't have to be in the top 200. We use rewarded video and advertising and IAP in free-to-play games our users play, but we have no desire to be exploitative. The amount of room between basic free-to-play and psychological warfare on your players is enormous.
  - Lerc 10y ago
    If you sorted your customers by the amount of revenue they generate? How much revenue comes from the individual at the bottom of the top 50% of revenue?
    - themartorana 10y ago
      It's mixed. Our most popular game is still supported by an old style of advertising, and some players that have played daily for years still prefer to look at/ignore advertising than pay the $2.99 (now $4.99) to get rid of ads. In fact, that's true of the majority of players - less than 5% of our revenue comes from that IAP. This is why I say people have told us how they want to pay us for their fun and our server costs. They've had the opportunity to pay us with money forever. Most never will. Rewarded video makes up about 10% (currently it's not in a very prominent placement, some games make a majority of their money that way - see Shooty Skies). So to kind of answer your questions, the longer people play, the more they're worth to us, which feels fair to us (and again, they can pay to rid themselves of ads anytime they want). We will be featuring rewarded video more prominently, which allows the user to have more choice in the matter (although I'm betting they chose ads over cash most of the time, but that's just years of experience talking). Edit: I should add that our ARPU (average revenue per user) is less that $4.99, so we'd still much rather people buy ads away with IAP.