4 ms·

Disagree. IAP in games can be used to offer premium fun stuff that users want to pay for like boosts, or getting ahead in the game. Nothing wrong with it, as sh

Disagree. IAP in games can be used to offer premium fun stuff that users want to pay for like boosts, or getting ahead in the game. Nothing wrong with it, as shown in the massive success of games with IAP. Majority of games allow you to earn everything yourself over time without spending money, but if you want to spend money to get them earlier, you can. IAP being used for full version of an app from a demo is slowly dwindling down in games, in favor of the Free to Play model. This developer added it later and it's more of a fun thing to do, so not the best way to do IAP, but there's more to IAP outside of demo --> Full version.

huhtenberg 14y ago
You simply repeated what I said and stepped around the main point - "everyone's doing it" and "it works" doesn't make this practice any less tacky. C|Net repackaging installers and stuffing them chokeful of 3rd party malware clearly works great! Nothing wrong with it. Norton Antivirus scaring the shit out of unwitting users with its messaging also works wonders for subscription renewal. Nothing wrong with it too. See, even other AV vendors are now adopting the practice. Who we are to question it, right? You want them to pay, you must create a pain point, which is fine and this is what demo/shareware/nagware models are based on. But if your plan for monetizing your game is to continuously discomfort your users, then your product is basically a perpetual crippleware and the ethics behind it are inherently repulsive.
- j2bax 14y ago
  It absolutely makes sense. And I don't find it tacky at all. When you consider the cost of creating a game, especially a really good one you have to do what you must to make it profitable. If users are overwhelmingly showing that they prefer to pay for a game only after they have gotten into it and invested themselves in it, who are you to say that this is a tacky business tactic? You do realize that in this new freemium era, the games that do well are constantly getting updated with more content, more levels, etc etc offering a lot of value to users. There must be a reason that the highest grossing apps in the app store are using this model... It's actually refreshing to see that making games can still be profitable, as it was looking grim there for a while with all apps in the app stores racing to the $0.99 price point. Its not just in the app stores either. Look at games like League of Legends. Personally, I much prefer a system where I can decide to buy content that I want, than a system like WOW where I'm forced to pay a $15.00/month payment just to connect. By your standards though, we should probably just assume that our users are idiots that can't resist our slimy business methods of enticing them with content that they want to buy. Comparing it to the scare tactics of AV software is just ridiculous. These are games, that people are playing for fun. If they want to pay more to have more fun, let them!

huhtenberg 14y ago

You simply repeated what I said and stepped around the main point - "everyone's doing it" and "it works" doesn't make this practice any less tacky. C|Net repackaging installers and stuffing them chokeful of 3rd party malware clearly works great! Nothing wrong with it. Norton Antivirus scaring the shit out of unwitting users with its messaging also works wonders for subscription renewal. Nothing wrong with it too. See, even other AV vendors are now adopting the practice. Who we are to question it, right? You want them to pay, you must create a pain point, which is fine and this is what demo/shareware/nagware models are based on. But if your plan for monetizing your game is to continuously discomfort your users, then your product is basically a perpetual crippleware and the ethics behind it are inherently repulsive.

j2bax 14y ago
It absolutely makes sense. And I don't find it tacky at all. When you consider the cost of creating a game, especially a really good one you have to do what you must to make it profitable. If users are overwhelmingly showing that they prefer to pay for a game only after they have gotten into it and invested themselves in it, who are you to say that this is a tacky business tactic? You do realize that in this new freemium era, the games that do well are constantly getting updated with more content, more levels, etc etc offering a lot of value to users. There must be a reason that the highest grossing apps in the app store are using this model... It's actually refreshing to see that making games can still be profitable, as it was looking grim there for a while with all apps in the app stores racing to the $0.99 price point. Its not just in the app stores either. Look at games like League of Legends. Personally, I much prefer a system where I can decide to buy content that I want, than a system like WOW where I'm forced to pay a $15.00/month payment just to connect. By your standards though, we should probably just assume that our users are idiots that can't resist our slimy business methods of enticing them with content that they want to buy. Comparing it to the scare tactics of AV software is just ridiculous. These are games, that people are playing for fun. If they want to pay more to have more fun, let them!