4 ms·

It's obvious if a game has IAP (says there right on the app store page, along with a list of the top purchases). It's not reasonable to say people are being tri

by dilap 9y ago

It's obvious if a game has IAP (says there right on the app store page, along with a list of the top purchases). It's not reasonable to say people are being tricked. This is just one example of a huge philosophical question -- how much should we, as a collective, try to set things up to save people from themselves? I tend to come down on the favoring individual autonomy side. Give me my drugs, my alcohol, and my F2P. Caveat emptor! (But I do like requiring odds to be disclosed, and purities of alcohol and drugs enforced. Those are hard things to do as an individual, so bringing collective strength to bear makes sense. But partaking or not is something I can do alone; please don't force me to do what you think is good for me, society.)

rcthompson 9y ago
I think there's a meaningful distinction to be made between in-app purchases of add-on functionality and other such one time upgrades on the one hand, and things you can keep buying indefinitely, like loot boxes.
- evilduck 9y ago
  I've also seen the "add-on functionality" go sideways. Look at some of the Lego Whatever games vs. their console counterparts. They make the install free but then make every. single. level. a separate IAP. It's literally not a complete game unless you buy all of them. Instead of just labeling the game the true $49 it's bucketed under "free" instead.
  - ThrowawayR2 9y ago
    > They make the install free but then make every. single. level. a separate IAP. That's just the shareware model though; there's no gambling involved. Granted, it could be labeled better.
  - gav 9y ago
    > It's literally not a complete game unless you buy all of them I like this model as it removes the risk of you not liking the game and being out $49. If you get bored after the first few levels you're not out the full amount–I'd be willing to try out more games this way.
- logfromblammo 9y ago
  There is even a distinction to be made between loot boxes than can be used once, ever, and provide a one-time bonus to one play-through, and loot boxes that get restored every time you reinstall the game, start a new character, or reset your player account. And there is a distinction to be made if any of the benefits from in-app purchases can be acquired without actually making an in-app purchase--earned through gameplay or traded from paying players, for instance. In those instances, it would be useful to report the number of hours of unpaid gameplay per dollar of in-app purchase. If I know up front that it takes 1000 hours of in-game farming to get something that a paying player can get instantly for $1, I'm probably not going to bother with that game. I recently saw an article about Star Wars Battlefront's upsell options that basically said all new players will now start without legs, and legs could either be purchased immediately in the in-game store, or players could earn their legs without paying by dragging themselves through a 100-hour questline using just their arms and buttocks. I had to check that it was actually satire.
eropple 9y ago
It's obvious if an app has IAP. It isn't obvious it has burn cards/gacha bullshit, nor that it's exploitative and psychologically coercive until you're already in. Like, I made an Android (React Native, so eventually iOS, but I'm very lazy) remote control for Open Broadcaster Software[1]. Asking for seven bucks to unlock it for full use, once, is represented the same way as a game that does burn cards or loot boxes. It's extremely, extremely fucking shady because games in particular don't start demonstrating their upsell and their engagement patterns until you've started playing and until they have their hooks in you. At absolute minimum, ARPU and ARPPU should be required disclosures for any application. (Mine would be around $0.75 and $7.00 even, respectively. I made it for myself, so I don't care, but it's interesting.) It's a partial patch and doesn't solve it. But it's better. [1] - (shameless-ish plug) https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.tracecomplete.streamcopilot.obs https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.tracecompl...
- dilap 9y ago
  Fair points, and I could definitely see benefit to having a more fine-grained breakdown of the nature of IAP in the app description. (As a practical matter, if you check top-purchases and it's something like "bucket of gems", there's probably gunna be gacha. :-)
  - eropple 9y ago
    Totally, but that's not something people are encouraged to do or is made Very Up Front And Apparent. Games have power. They get in your head and they can mess with you. When that's done for the purposes of gambling, that sucks.
notatoad 9y ago
There's a massive range of IAPs though. Some games have stickers or hats or other little bonuses that don't impact the playability of the game. Some have a purchase to remove ads or unlock extra levels. It's not obvious if IAPs are part of the gameplay or not just because a game says on the tin that it has in app purchases.
Barrin92 9y ago
>how much should we, as a collective, try to set things up to save people from themselves? people in this case often means minors, because the extreme gamification of gambling, often attached to other videogames, tends to target very young audiences. Hell, even none gambling games explicitly reward this carrot and stick behaviour. This isn't an issue of individual autonomy, it's one of animal conditioning. Companies use their data, their feedback and the basic things we know about human psychology to groom themselves customers with loose pockets. There's no autonomy involved in any of this. If you want to have people grow up to be free and autonomous citizens, you better reign those businesses in
- dilap 9y ago
  i think this is a misconception, and most of the payers and players of F2P games are actually adults. (and in fact, companies target adults, for the simple reason that they tend to have more money than kids, who are usually more or less broke.) but of course some players are kids. so what? just because kids play games doesn't mean we have to go full-collective-control -- kids have parents that can act as proxies for their individual will until they're of age. and i strongly disagree with the idea that companies using psychological tricks to motivate people in any way materially weakens the argument for individual autonomy. of course every action that every person takes is the sum result of the multitude of influences tugging at them, but again, so what: either i have the freedom to make the choices i want, or i am compelled via (ultimately) physical force to do something else. that's the difference i care about.
PhasmaFelis 9y ago
There's a big difference between games where IAP is essentially used to enable a free demo, where you pay once to unlock full functionality, or where it's used to buy cosmetics; and cases where someone essentially designs a fun, well-balanced game and then deliberately breaks it to be increasingly slow and unsatisfying, requiring you to pay continuously to get that initial fun back.

by dilap 9y ago

rcthompson 9y ago

I think there's a meaningful distinction to be made between in-app purchases of add-on functionality and other such one time upgrades on the one hand, and things you can keep buying indefinitely, like loot boxes.

evilduck 9y ago
I've also seen the "add-on functionality" go sideways. Look at some of the Lego Whatever games vs. their console counterparts. They make the install free but then make every. single. level. a separate IAP. It's literally not a complete game unless you buy all of them. Instead of just labeling the game the true $49 it's bucketed under "free" instead.
- ThrowawayR2 9y ago
  > They make the install free but then make every. single. level. a separate IAP. That's just the shareware model though; there's no gambling involved. Granted, it could be labeled better.
- gav 9y ago
  > It's literally not a complete game unless you buy all of them I like this model as it removes the risk of you not liking the game and being out $49. If you get bored after the first few levels you're not out the full amount–I'd be willing to try out more games this way.
logfromblammo 9y ago
There is even a distinction to be made between loot boxes than can be used once, ever, and provide a one-time bonus to one play-through, and loot boxes that get restored every time you reinstall the game, start a new character, or reset your player account. And there is a distinction to be made if any of the benefits from in-app purchases can be acquired without actually making an in-app purchase--earned through gameplay or traded from paying players, for instance. In those instances, it would be useful to report the number of hours of unpaid gameplay per dollar of in-app purchase. If I know up front that it takes 1000 hours of in-game farming to get something that a paying player can get instantly for $1, I'm probably not going to bother with that game. I recently saw an article about Star Wars Battlefront's upsell options that basically said all new players will now start without legs, and legs could either be purchased immediately in the in-game store, or players could earn their legs without paying by dragging themselves through a 100-hour questline using just their arms and buttocks. I had to check that it was actually satire.

eropple 9y ago

It's obvious if an app has IAP. It isn't obvious it has burn cards/gacha bullshit, nor that it's exploitative and psychologically coercive until you're already in. Like, I made an Android (React Native, so eventually iOS, but I'm very lazy) remote control for Open Broadcaster Software[1]. Asking for seven bucks to unlock it for full use, once, is represented the same way as a game that does burn cards or loot boxes. It's extremely, extremely fucking shady because games in particular don't start demonstrating their upsell and their engagement patterns until you've started playing and until they have their hooks in you. At absolute minimum, ARPU and ARPPU should be required disclosures for any application. (Mine would be around $0.75 and $7.00 even, respectively. I made it for myself, so I don't care, but it's interesting.) It's a partial patch and doesn't solve it. But it's better. [1] - (shameless-ish plug) https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.tracecomplete.streamcopilot.obs https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.tracecompl...

dilap 9y ago
Fair points, and I could definitely see benefit to having a more fine-grained breakdown of the nature of IAP in the app description. (As a practical matter, if you check top-purchases and it's something like "bucket of gems", there's probably gunna be gacha. :-)
- eropple 9y ago
  Totally, but that's not something people are encouraged to do or is made Very Up Front And Apparent. Games have power. They get in your head and they can mess with you. When that's done for the purposes of gambling, that sucks.

notatoad 9y ago

There's a massive range of IAPs though. Some games have stickers or hats or other little bonuses that don't impact the playability of the game. Some have a purchase to remove ads or unlock extra levels. It's not obvious if IAPs are part of the gameplay or not just because a game says on the tin that it has in app purchases.

Barrin92 9y ago

>how much should we, as a collective, try to set things up to save people from themselves? people in this case often means minors, because the extreme gamification of gambling, often attached to other videogames, tends to target very young audiences. Hell, even none gambling games explicitly reward this carrot and stick behaviour. This isn't an issue of individual autonomy, it's one of animal conditioning. Companies use their data, their feedback and the basic things we know about human psychology to groom themselves customers with loose pockets. There's no autonomy involved in any of this. If you want to have people grow up to be free and autonomous citizens, you better reign those businesses in

dilap 9y ago
i think this is a misconception, and most of the payers and players of F2P games are actually adults. (and in fact, companies target adults, for the simple reason that they tend to have more money than kids, who are usually more or less broke.) but of course some players are kids. so what? just because kids play games doesn't mean we have to go full-collective-control -- kids have parents that can act as proxies for their individual will until they're of age. and i strongly disagree with the idea that companies using psychological tricks to motivate people in any way materially weakens the argument for individual autonomy. of course every action that every person takes is the sum result of the multitude of influences tugging at them, but again, so what: either i have the freedom to make the choices i want, or i am compelled via (ultimately) physical force to do something else. that's the difference i care about.

PhasmaFelis 9y ago

There's a big difference between games where IAP is essentially used to enable a free demo, where you pay once to unlock full functionality, or where it's used to buy cosmetics; and cases where someone essentially designs a fun, well-balanced game and then deliberately breaks it to be increasingly slow and unsatisfying, requiring you to pay continuously to get that initial fun back.