20 ms·

Yet the vast majority of those games seem to have very questionable business models. This is great for shareholders but from a point of taste this is nothing to

by pell 5y ago

Yet the vast majority of those games seem to have very questionable business models. This is great for shareholders but from a point of taste this is nothing to be proud of. Apple though used to be or at least tried to be the company of taste.

heavenlyblue 5y ago
It's actually a bit amusing that Apple considers porn to be less ethical than the business models of some of these games.
- formerly_proven 5y ago
  Looking at tits: Nuh-uh! Our ethics board won't allow it! :3 Gambling away income so poor stays poor: Fuck yeah! snorts 30 % cut in coke
falcolas 5y ago
FWIW, they're good about keeping that extensively exploitative crap out of their own less-exploitative arcade subscription.
- AlexandrB 5y ago
  One hilarious consequence is games like Angry Birds Reloaded. This game has a variety of "boosters" that can be bought with a currency that I'm guessing could be bought for real money before. It can also be earned very slowly by playing the game. Now this game is on Apple Arcade with the boosters and premium currency intact, but no micro-transactions. As a result it just feels like a game with a borderline-useless booster system tacked on because the time needed to earn these boosters makes them impractical to use on a regular basis. It's a pretty good illustration of how MTX crappifies game design.
boplicity 5y ago
I wonder how much of the money basically comes from something virtually identical to "gambling addiction."
- thebean11 5y ago
  I briefly worked at a slot machine app company (microtransactions, but you cannot win real money) and my guess would be a lot. I did not feel good about that job.
  - spicybright 5y ago
    I'm also really curious about the behind the scenes of companies like this Would you mind sharing some of your experiences? What were some moments in particular that made you feel not good about what you were doing?
    - thebean11 5y ago
      I used to sit by the customer support agent, and she mentioned that one of our players frequently opens tickets asking for more "slot chips", promising to make a purchase as soon as their next paycheck comes in. It seemed even sadder to me than pouring your paycheck into a real slot machine, there wasn't even the potential of a reward beyond worthless chips and endless levels. I was only there about 4 months. From talking to the folks at the company, I got the impression the target demo was lonely, often alcoholic people in their forties and fifties. Although I find it pretty hard personally to see what the appeal of our product was, I do think the business model was based on getting these people addicted. If you want to see what the product was like, just search slots on iOS or Android app stores, the company in question doesn't exist anymore but it's all the same stuff. Google and Apple must be making a killing off of it.
- radicalbyte 5y ago
  The vast majority of it I would wager. It's shocking that the EU hasn't regulated against it yet.
- derefr 5y ago
  Not too much, AFAIK. I worked for one of these companies way back in my career (didn't realize what they were when I signed on.) Our whale customer profile was something like "Saudi oil-tycoon's trust-fund kid trying to keep up with the Joneses [other Saudi oil-tycoons' trust-fund kids] by throwing money at lootboxes until they get the high-spec or rare equipment required to be equal-or-better in social status." The way to make whales spend money wasn't to make our mechanics more addictive; it was to "seed" a rare item to one whale in a friend-group of whales, and watch the others scramble to acquire it too, so as to not suddenly be relegated to lower status. We actually built measures into our game mechanics that would try to subtly disincentivize people from playing if they looked to be genuinely addicted—and for truly severe cases, we actually reached out to customers to get help (since if they're addicted to our game, they're probably addicted to other games, too, so just kicking them off ours probably wouldn't help.) These people were never the key user-story for us, so doing things like this was essentially free publicity.
k1rcher 5y ago
Gone are the days of Jelly Car. Now it’s enormously rare to find any sort of mobile game that does _not_ have either invasive ads with arbitrary timers and intentionally hard to click dismiss buttons or egregious in-app-purchase models
- Gigachad 5y ago
  The developer of Jelly Car just announced he is working on Jelly Car 4 btw.
- heartbreak 5y ago
  The entire Apple Arcade collection are games without invasive ads, arbitrary timers, or IAP models. You pay the arcade subscription ($5/mo or Apple One) and the games are all free downloads.
  - k1rcher 5y ago
    This is very interesting and good to know. I rarely game on my phone these days, but every now and then I get that itch. I’ll check out their catalogue.
    - joshstrange 5y ago
      They have also been adding games that aren't exclusives to them and initially launched on the main App Store. They are all the games that have a "+" after their name. Essentially the same game will all IAP removed/made free.
      - mcphage 5y ago
        I love those so much—so many great older games out there have since become unplayable because of constant intrusive ads. Like, shortly before Cut The Rope+ came out, I tried replaying the original Cut The Rope, and got an unskippable ad after every reset (or every other?). Apple Arcade gave me a way to play it again, without spending more time watching ads than actually playing.
_fat_santa 5y ago
Not just games, both apps and games in the appstore today seem to follow the "gym" model, where they count on your signing up and forgetting about it. A perfect example of this is an app called "DayCount". The app's concept is very simple, enter a date, and the app will tell you either how many days until this date, or how many days have passed since this date. When you open the app for the first time you're immediately presented with a "Pro" version, for $3.99/month. And almost every app does it now, many are "free" but as soon as you open it you realize that you actually have to "subscribe" to the app. Now don't get me wrong, some apps work great with this model. I just happily paid 1Password for another year of service, but 1Password is a genuinely useful application, and they keep my passwords, and paying them $2/mo to take care of this is a great deal in my opinion. But what kind of value does a "day counting" app add that would warrant an annualized price of $48? I will say that DayCount is better than others, because it actually does something. I once saw an "Emoji Keyboard", a re-implementation of the default emoji keyboard, offered for $9.99/month. Apple needs some more rules around what is and isn't allowed with iAP purchases. Subscriptions should have extra scrutiny put on them, make sure they actually add value and don't just extract money from users. Hell it might be a good idea to nuke "Subscriptions" entirely. I get Netflix, Hulu and other services that give you ongoing value. But the notes app you threw together in half an hour using tutorials on Youtube does not deserve to charge $4.99/month for it's "Pro" version.
- jhatax 5y ago
  You’re suggesting that the App Store impose more rules on developers in this day and age when the App Store is deemed onerous, restrictive, rent-seeking, etc. The other side of this argument is that developers will always find ways to make money — they need to pay bills. As long as they are following the rules of the platform — use IAP, don’t abuse user data, etc. — the App Store should allow the app on the store regardless of the future subscription cost. Whether it is affordable or not is an individual subscriber’s decision, not that of the App Store. So, should Target not carry items at a price point higher than a threshold that it sets arbitrarily? If users don’t want to pay a subscription for a service that they don’t think is going to add value — not for you or me to determine the value an app has for its legion of users just because it is not of value to us — they shouldn’t download the app or pay for it. Maybe users can use the day counting app to count down days until when their free subscription ends, then unsubscribe. Apple has made it super simple to unsubscribe to a subscription purchased through the App Store. If users don’t use said feature, that’s on them; it’s not the responsibility of the App Store. Let’s take responsibility for our actions & subscriptions.
boardwaalk 5y ago
I came here to comment with that exact though. Apple does seem to care that the things it supports are "good" in the general sense. It feels like this mobile gaming thing grew up under them and it makes them so much money they just sort of turn a blind eye. So many of their devices (iPhone, iPad, Apple TV, now MacBook) seem like such obvious decent gaming machines, far overshadowing something like a Nintendo Switch in specs, that it's really sad we can't get much worth playing on them (personal opinion).
tinus_hn 5y ago
Apple blocks this: they are the gatekeepers of the walled garden! Apple allows this: they are a company of bad taste!
- pell 5y ago
  Apple's decisions foster a culture. Of all the many arbitrary rules they set up on their app store, I do wonder how many actually kept abuse at bay and why they turn a blind eye on the very obvious one. If there's a walled garden to begin with, it's fine to criticize the way it is being run.

by pell 5y ago

heavenlyblue 5y ago

It's actually a bit amusing that Apple considers porn to be less ethical than the business models of some of these games.

formerly_proven 5y ago
Looking at tits: Nuh-uh! Our ethics board won't allow it! :3 Gambling away income so poor stays poor: Fuck yeah! snorts 30 % cut in coke

falcolas 5y ago

FWIW, they're good about keeping that extensively exploitative crap out of their own less-exploitative arcade subscription.

AlexandrB 5y ago
One hilarious consequence is games like Angry Birds Reloaded. This game has a variety of "boosters" that can be bought with a currency that I'm guessing could be bought for real money before. It can also be earned very slowly by playing the game. Now this game is on Apple Arcade with the boosters and premium currency intact, but no micro-transactions. As a result it just feels like a game with a borderline-useless booster system tacked on because the time needed to earn these boosters makes them impractical to use on a regular basis. It's a pretty good illustration of how MTX crappifies game design.

boplicity 5y ago

I wonder how much of the money basically comes from something virtually identical to "gambling addiction."

thebean11 5y ago
I briefly worked at a slot machine app company (microtransactions, but you cannot win real money) and my guess would be a lot. I did not feel good about that job.
- spicybright 5y ago
  I'm also really curious about the behind the scenes of companies like this Would you mind sharing some of your experiences? What were some moments in particular that made you feel not good about what you were doing?
  - thebean11 5y ago
    I used to sit by the customer support agent, and she mentioned that one of our players frequently opens tickets asking for more "slot chips", promising to make a purchase as soon as their next paycheck comes in. It seemed even sadder to me than pouring your paycheck into a real slot machine, there wasn't even the potential of a reward beyond worthless chips and endless levels. I was only there about 4 months. From talking to the folks at the company, I got the impression the target demo was lonely, often alcoholic people in their forties and fifties. Although I find it pretty hard personally to see what the appeal of our product was, I do think the business model was based on getting these people addicted. If you want to see what the product was like, just search slots on iOS or Android app stores, the company in question doesn't exist anymore but it's all the same stuff. Google and Apple must be making a killing off of it.
radicalbyte 5y ago
The vast majority of it I would wager. It's shocking that the EU hasn't regulated against it yet.
derefr 5y ago
Not too much, AFAIK. I worked for one of these companies way back in my career (didn't realize what they were when I signed on.) Our whale customer profile was something like "Saudi oil-tycoon's trust-fund kid trying to keep up with the Joneses [other Saudi oil-tycoons' trust-fund kids] by throwing money at lootboxes until they get the high-spec or rare equipment required to be equal-or-better in social status." The way to make whales spend money wasn't to make our mechanics more addictive; it was to "seed" a rare item to one whale in a friend-group of whales, and watch the others scramble to acquire it too, so as to not suddenly be relegated to lower status. We actually built measures into our game mechanics that would try to subtly disincentivize people from playing if they looked to be genuinely addicted—and for truly severe cases, we actually reached out to customers to get help (since if they're addicted to our game, they're probably addicted to other games, too, so just kicking them off ours probably wouldn't help.) These people were never the key user-story for us, so doing things like this was essentially free publicity.

k1rcher 5y ago

Gone are the days of Jelly Car. Now it’s enormously rare to find any sort of mobile game that does _not_ have either invasive ads with arbitrary timers and intentionally hard to click dismiss buttons or egregious in-app-purchase models

Gigachad 5y ago
The developer of Jelly Car just announced he is working on Jelly Car 4 btw.
heartbreak 5y ago
The entire Apple Arcade collection are games without invasive ads, arbitrary timers, or IAP models. You pay the arcade subscription ($5/mo or Apple One) and the games are all free downloads.
- k1rcher 5y ago
  This is very interesting and good to know. I rarely game on my phone these days, but every now and then I get that itch. I’ll check out their catalogue.
  - joshstrange 5y ago
    They have also been adding games that aren't exclusives to them and initially launched on the main App Store. They are all the games that have a "+" after their name. Essentially the same game will all IAP removed/made free.
    - mcphage 5y ago
      I love those so much—so many great older games out there have since become unplayable because of constant intrusive ads. Like, shortly before Cut The Rope+ came out, I tried replaying the original Cut The Rope, and got an unskippable ad after every reset (or every other?). Apple Arcade gave me a way to play it again, without spending more time watching ads than actually playing.

_fat_santa 5y ago

Not just games, both apps and games in the appstore today seem to follow the "gym" model, where they count on your signing up and forgetting about it. A perfect example of this is an app called "DayCount". The app's concept is very simple, enter a date, and the app will tell you either how many days until this date, or how many days have passed since this date. When you open the app for the first time you're immediately presented with a "Pro" version, for $3.99/month. And almost every app does it now, many are "free" but as soon as you open it you realize that you actually have to "subscribe" to the app. Now don't get me wrong, some apps work great with this model. I just happily paid 1Password for another year of service, but 1Password is a genuinely useful application, and they keep my passwords, and paying them $2/mo to take care of this is a great deal in my opinion. But what kind of value does a "day counting" app add that would warrant an annualized price of $48? I will say that DayCount is better than others, because it actually does something. I once saw an "Emoji Keyboard", a re-implementation of the default emoji keyboard, offered for $9.99/month. Apple needs some more rules around what is and isn't allowed with iAP purchases. Subscriptions should have extra scrutiny put on them, make sure they actually add value and don't just extract money from users. Hell it might be a good idea to nuke "Subscriptions" entirely. I get Netflix, Hulu and other services that give you ongoing value. But the notes app you threw together in half an hour using tutorials on Youtube does not deserve to charge $4.99/month for it's "Pro" version.

jhatax 5y ago
You’re suggesting that the App Store impose more rules on developers in this day and age when the App Store is deemed onerous, restrictive, rent-seeking, etc. The other side of this argument is that developers will always find ways to make money — they need to pay bills. As long as they are following the rules of the platform — use IAP, don’t abuse user data, etc. — the App Store should allow the app on the store regardless of the future subscription cost. Whether it is affordable or not is an individual subscriber’s decision, not that of the App Store. So, should Target not carry items at a price point higher than a threshold that it sets arbitrarily? If users don’t want to pay a subscription for a service that they don’t think is going to add value — not for you or me to determine the value an app has for its legion of users just because it is not of value to us — they shouldn’t download the app or pay for it. Maybe users can use the day counting app to count down days until when their free subscription ends, then unsubscribe. Apple has made it super simple to unsubscribe to a subscription purchased through the App Store. If users don’t use said feature, that’s on them; it’s not the responsibility of the App Store. Let’s take responsibility for our actions & subscriptions.

boardwaalk 5y ago

I came here to comment with that exact though. Apple does seem to care that the things it supports are "good" in the general sense. It feels like this mobile gaming thing grew up under them and it makes them so much money they just sort of turn a blind eye. So many of their devices (iPhone, iPad, Apple TV, now MacBook) seem like such obvious decent gaming machines, far overshadowing something like a Nintendo Switch in specs, that it's really sad we can't get much worth playing on them (personal opinion).

tinus_hn 5y ago

Apple blocks this: they are the gatekeepers of the walled garden! Apple allows this: they are a company of bad taste!

pell 5y ago
Apple's decisions foster a culture. Of all the many arbitrary rules they set up on their app store, I do wonder how many actually kept abuse at bay and why they turn a blind eye on the very obvious one. If there's a walled garden to begin with, it's fine to criticize the way it is being run.