3 ms·

> There's starting to be a pushback against developers releasing games for free and monetising through IAP If a free app is a demo and IAP is a one-time upgrad

> There's starting to be a pushback against developers releasing games for free and monetising through IAP If a free app is a demo and IAP is a one-time upgrade to the full version, then it's reasonable and perfectly acceptable. This is, arguably, what the IAP were actually designed for - a nextgen support for try-then-buy software. The pushback is typically aimed at tacky milking practices - "a satchel of coins for $5.99, a pot of gold for $15.99, etc". You either release a limited, but self-contained playable demo, or a fully functional game. Anything that falls into a stretch between these two feels like a sleazy bait-n-switch kind of deal, hence the pushback.

nicholassmith 14y ago
That seems to be one aspect, but I've seen games getting railroaded for having a limited aspect with a pay to access additional functionality, and people saying "I'd prefer to have paid X amount for this app not IAP", even in cases where devs have made it free to get more traction. I personally think companies releasing apps now should be bold enough to stake it and go "it's $10". Square Enix are, it seems to be working for them, sometimes.
- huhtenberg 14y ago
  For what it's worth I personally don't even look at free games anymore, because there's always a catch. So, yeah, I guess it's a form of a pushback due to the massive abuse of IAP that doesn't align well with user's genuine interests.
Turing_Machine 14y ago
Hmm... I personally don't have a problem with a game that requires significant ongoing expenses on the part of the company (e.g., servers) charging for that, whether through IAP or some other means. Otherwise you'd have to charge enough up front to pay for the servers in perpetuity (or at least as long as the expected lifetime of the game). If the game is self-contained, sure, I see your point, but even there I'd make an exception for "major version"-level changes -- you should let your existing customers have a price break if possible, but maybe not give it to them for free.

nicholassmith 14y ago

That seems to be one aspect, but I've seen games getting railroaded for having a limited aspect with a pay to access additional functionality, and people saying "I'd prefer to have paid X amount for this app not IAP", even in cases where devs have made it free to get more traction. I personally think companies releasing apps now should be bold enough to stake it and go "it's $10". Square Enix are, it seems to be working for them, sometimes.

huhtenberg 14y ago
For what it's worth I personally don't even look at free games anymore, because there's always a catch. So, yeah, I guess it's a form of a pushback due to the massive abuse of IAP that doesn't align well with user's genuine interests.

Turing_Machine 14y ago

Hmm... I personally don't have a problem with a game that requires significant ongoing expenses on the part of the company (e.g., servers) charging for that, whether through IAP or some other means. Otherwise you'd have to charge enough up front to pay for the servers in perpetuity (or at least as long as the expected lifetime of the game). If the game is self-contained, sure, I see your point, but even there I'd make an exception for "major version"-level changes -- you should let your existing customers have a price break if possible, but maybe not give it to them for free.