6 ms·

The flipside is the market clearly doesn't think mobile games are directly worth enough to pay for making them. The dominance of IAPs is not something engineer

The flipside is the market clearly doesn't think mobile games are directly worth enough to pay for making them. The dominance of IAPs is not something engineered by the game makers, it's just that it is so much more lucrative it is what enables the production values of modern mobile titles to be what they are. Many game makers would prefer it if you could charge somewhere around $5 per title and make a decent amount from honest players, but unless you have some uberbrand crossover from console land that's not going to work.

gtirloni 12y ago
It would prevent the tsunami of stupid titles from showing up. Companies would get into the game (pun intended) only if sure they had a decent product. Just as always. The amount of trickery I have seen in IAPs is disgusting.
- fidotron 12y ago
  This is like arguing that Walmart should be banned. You might think the products are stupid, but there are enough people that don't spending money on their preferences to create the current situation. If there is a problem it is with consumers. Admittedly this does poison the well for many other game developers, but the reality is getting attention in the current mobile market is close to impossible without an enormous spend, so conservatism of business model is going to rule the roost now. It also doesn't help that self professed hardcore gamers undervalue mobile titles enormously, and that touch controls just aren't good enough for many purposes either.
  - DanBC 12y ago
    Could you imagine a Walmart that had fast checkout lanes that charged a few dollars extra, and regular checkout lanes that didn't have baggers and deliberately went slowly, even if there wasn't anyone ahead of you in the line?
    - hsod 12y ago
      I could imagine that, and it would be a bit silly and (I'd guess) not too successful, but I certainly wouldn't find it offensive or somehow morally wrong.
    - fidotron 12y ago
      You kind of do already. You have the choice between convenient places near you which cost more or drive to out of town big box stores where things are supposedly cheaper. Or you can buy online, and wait until tomorrow for your items but pay less again.
    - asperous 12y ago
      If it were the only grocery store around I might see it as wrong, but personally I'd just shop somewhere else.
    - MichaelGG 12y ago
      I'd love a store that offered that. Sometimes I go to buy something then just walk out because they're processing so long. Sometimes I'm tempted to throw down cash and walk out but I figure that might cause a security incident. But being able to skip the line for a few bucks is great. I do the same when flying, too.
      - lmm 12y ago
        Agreed on the checkout, but the flying thing always struck me as stupid. You spend some extra dollars so you can skip ahead and... spend longer on the plane? It's not like that's any more fun than standing in a queue.
        duderific 12y ago
        Well...if you know you can skip the line ahead of time, you don't have to get to the airport quite as early. I'd imagine that's the main draw for Clear and the other programs. Plus not having to take off your shoes etc.
        12y ago
- Karunamon 12y ago
  Your trickery is someone else's fun game, though. It's a larger philosophical question if you have the right to stop someone from "being taken advantage of" if they are a willing, informed, enthusiastic participant in the process.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- bhartzer 12y ago
  The trickery is definitely an issue. But I don't have any problem with allowing users to watch an ad or watch a video promoting another app in exchange for more coins, or more 'points' in order to continue playing a game.
- gearoidoc 12y ago
  Nopes. Crappy games would just cost more. See: every generation of video gaming.
- Iftheshoefits 12y ago
  This isn't limited to games, though. My experience is that people see "app on my phone" and think "disposable, like kleenex--and should cost about as much as a single sheet of the stuff." One shouldn't underestimate the sheer effort required to get even trivial revenue from any one app, regardless of genre or quality.
- tolmasky 12y ago
  * Companies would get into the game (pun intended) only if sure they had a decent product. Just as always.* You highly overestimate the ability to judge a winner ahead of time. If only the products we knew we're going to be "decent" got made, we'd have a considerably less innovative society. Not to mention that this is all just completely subjective. I know plenty of people hat are legitimately happy with their "trash games" (just like certain tv...), and who am I to explain to them what they should actually like?
stanleydrew 12y ago
Perhaps it would be alright if all the games that can't be sold for $5 each just didn't exist?
- tolmasky 12y ago
  I'm not sure the desire to not want things to exist that other people are choosing to use. I don't like many romantic comedies, sure, but I don't then additionally desire they not exist altogether. I am capable of accepting that there exists a segment of the market that doesn't interest me but (clearly) satisfies a large group of other people. Let's not forget that the flip side to this may be a return to just having a few AAA titles.
wmf 12y ago
The flipside is the market clearly doesn't think mobile games are directly worth enough to pay for making them. But it doesn't necessarily follow that mobile games have to be digital crack. If a game can't survive on <$100 of IAPs per user, I'd be happy to see that game not exist.
- jfoster 12y ago
  Why not just ignore the existence of it? I have a feeling that the way this conversation is headed is toward app marketplaces having separate categories for with-IAP apps and without-IAP apps. It's clear to me that many consumers are very happy with the IAP option, whereas many are completely repulsed by it. Apple and Google should help both groups find the apps that appeal to them.
  - wmf 12y ago
    My impression is that it's crowding out games that would actually be good.
    - jfoster 12y ago
      Good according to who? I suspect that an element of (for example) Candy Crush's success is that it is actually very close to what people are looking for out of a game. People who self-identify as "gamers" are likely repulsed by it, but they are generally not the people who Candy Crush was made for.
      - wmf 12y ago
        OK, so now I'm imagining those people playing a version of Candy Crush where they spend $100 instead of $10,000. Are they more or less happy?
  - chowells 12y ago
    You're asking why have consumer protection systems at all, more or less. And the answer is that some people make poor choices that hurt society as a whole - both by putting themselves in vulnerable positions, and by rewarding the exploiter's bad behavior. Here's the simple measuring stick: If spending money on IAP is a substitute for skill in terms of game progression, it's a societal negative. It exploits those least able to make good decisions. And it ruins what may have once been good games for the rest of us. What might be a really good game is distorted by the IAP market. You are monetarily rewarded for adding subtle gates that are very difficult to pass without spending money. And worst thing about all this? Ask the people who spend a bunch of money if they really think the game is fun. Go ahead - ask them.
siglesias 12y ago
the market clearly doesn't think mobile games are directly worth enough to pay for making them I would argue that this pattern is an irrationality that must be corrected with force [1]: When faced with a choice of selecting one of several available products (or possibly buying nothing), according to standard theoretical perspectives, people will choose the option with the highest cost–benefit difference. However, we propose that decisions about free (zero price) products differ, in that people do not simply subtract costs from benefits and perceive the benefits associated with free products as higher. That is, users systematically spring for games with lower cost-benefit tradeoffs simply because they are offered for free. While this would be economically infeasible for game developers, they've figured out how to take advantage of other psychological breakdowns to extract revenue. On a larger scale I'm not sure this makes users as happy as they could be. 1) http://web.mit.edu/ariely/www/MIT/Papers/zero.pdf http://web.mit.edu/ariely/www/MIT/Papers/zero.pdf
- ataggart 12y ago
  >That is, users systematically spring for games with lower cost-benefit tradeoffs simply because they are offered for free. Except that's not what the paper says. It just notes that the decision-making process that goes on in people's heads doesn't just include the monetary cost (duh), and that when one option is "free" some other non-monetary factor is revealed (e.g., removing the mental cost of even having to do a cost/benefit analysis). That said, I'm troubled by your notion that when people's actual behaviour does not conform to a model, the problem is with the people.
  - siglesias 12y ago
    I'm not saying that the users know that free options have lower cost-benefit tradeoffs, but in reality, experiments show that they do, specifically the on I cited. But you raise an interesting point. It could well be that the "mental cost of even having to do a cost/benefit analysis" is too high for many people to consider paid options. That reenforces the proposal that Apple should wean users off of low (even negative) utility free options and train them to make such evaluations efficiently, the way many of us who are used to paying for software can. Again, all of this predicated on the thesis that benefit - cost - mental cost (which improves as we learn how to evaluate software) of many paid apps is higher than the average benefit of free apps. As for my notion that people's actual behavior doesn't conform to a model of rationality, perhaps we should agree to disagree. There is plenty of research to suggest that people are bad at making calculations and require intervention.
fla 12y ago
IMO the market doesn't think mobile games are woth enough to pay _without_prior_testing_ . These mobile apps platforms should relly offer a better structure for demos. Remember the sharewares ?

gtirloni 12y ago

It would prevent the tsunami of stupid titles from showing up. Companies would get into the game (pun intended) only if sure they had a decent product. Just as always. The amount of trickery I have seen in IAPs is disgusting.

fidotron 12y ago
This is like arguing that Walmart should be banned. You might think the products are stupid, but there are enough people that don't spending money on their preferences to create the current situation. If there is a problem it is with consumers. Admittedly this does poison the well for many other game developers, but the reality is getting attention in the current mobile market is close to impossible without an enormous spend, so conservatism of business model is going to rule the roost now. It also doesn't help that self professed hardcore gamers undervalue mobile titles enormously, and that touch controls just aren't good enough for many purposes either.
- DanBC 12y ago
  Could you imagine a Walmart that had fast checkout lanes that charged a few dollars extra, and regular checkout lanes that didn't have baggers and deliberately went slowly, even if there wasn't anyone ahead of you in the line?
  - hsod 12y ago
    I could imagine that, and it would be a bit silly and (I'd guess) not too successful, but I certainly wouldn't find it offensive or somehow morally wrong.
  - fidotron 12y ago
    You kind of do already. You have the choice between convenient places near you which cost more or drive to out of town big box stores where things are supposedly cheaper. Or you can buy online, and wait until tomorrow for your items but pay less again.
  - asperous 12y ago
    If it were the only grocery store around I might see it as wrong, but personally I'd just shop somewhere else.
  - MichaelGG 12y ago
    I'd love a store that offered that. Sometimes I go to buy something then just walk out because they're processing so long. Sometimes I'm tempted to throw down cash and walk out but I figure that might cause a security incident. But being able to skip the line for a few bucks is great. I do the same when flying, too.
    - lmm 12y ago
      Agreed on the checkout, but the flying thing always struck me as stupid. You spend some extra dollars so you can skip ahead and... spend longer on the plane? It's not like that's any more fun than standing in a queue.
      - duderific 12y ago
        Well...if you know you can skip the line ahead of time, you don't have to get to the airport quite as early. I'd imagine that's the main draw for Clear and the other programs. Plus not having to take off your shoes etc.
        12y ago
Karunamon 12y ago
Your trickery is someone else's fun game, though. It's a larger philosophical question if you have the right to stop someone from "being taken advantage of" if they are a willing, informed, enthusiastic participant in the process.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
bhartzer 12y ago
The trickery is definitely an issue. But I don't have any problem with allowing users to watch an ad or watch a video promoting another app in exchange for more coins, or more 'points' in order to continue playing a game.
gearoidoc 12y ago
Nopes. Crappy games would just cost more. See: every generation of video gaming.
Iftheshoefits 12y ago
This isn't limited to games, though. My experience is that people see "app on my phone" and think "disposable, like kleenex--and should cost about as much as a single sheet of the stuff." One shouldn't underestimate the sheer effort required to get even trivial revenue from any one app, regardless of genre or quality.
tolmasky 12y ago
* Companies would get into the game (pun intended) only if sure they had a decent product. Just as always.* You highly overestimate the ability to judge a winner ahead of time. If only the products we knew we're going to be "decent" got made, we'd have a considerably less innovative society. Not to mention that this is all just completely subjective. I know plenty of people hat are legitimately happy with their "trash games" (just like certain tv...), and who am I to explain to them what they should actually like?

stanleydrew 12y ago

Perhaps it would be alright if all the games that can't be sold for $5 each just didn't exist?

tolmasky 12y ago
I'm not sure the desire to not want things to exist that other people are choosing to use. I don't like many romantic comedies, sure, but I don't then additionally desire they not exist altogether. I am capable of accepting that there exists a segment of the market that doesn't interest me but (clearly) satisfies a large group of other people. Let's not forget that the flip side to this may be a return to just having a few AAA titles.

wmf 12y ago

The flipside is the market clearly doesn't think mobile games are directly worth enough to pay for making them. But it doesn't necessarily follow that mobile games have to be digital crack. If a game can't survive on <$100 of IAPs per user, I'd be happy to see that game not exist.

jfoster 12y ago
Why not just ignore the existence of it? I have a feeling that the way this conversation is headed is toward app marketplaces having separate categories for with-IAP apps and without-IAP apps. It's clear to me that many consumers are very happy with the IAP option, whereas many are completely repulsed by it. Apple and Google should help both groups find the apps that appeal to them.
- wmf 12y ago
  My impression is that it's crowding out games that would actually be good.
  - jfoster 12y ago
    Good according to who? I suspect that an element of (for example) Candy Crush's success is that it is actually very close to what people are looking for out of a game. People who self-identify as "gamers" are likely repulsed by it, but they are generally not the people who Candy Crush was made for.
    - wmf 12y ago
      OK, so now I'm imagining those people playing a version of Candy Crush where they spend $100 instead of $10,000. Are they more or less happy?
- chowells 12y ago
  You're asking why have consumer protection systems at all, more or less. And the answer is that some people make poor choices that hurt society as a whole - both by putting themselves in vulnerable positions, and by rewarding the exploiter's bad behavior. Here's the simple measuring stick: If spending money on IAP is a substitute for skill in terms of game progression, it's a societal negative. It exploits those least able to make good decisions. And it ruins what may have once been good games for the rest of us. What might be a really good game is distorted by the IAP market. You are monetarily rewarded for adding subtle gates that are very difficult to pass without spending money. And worst thing about all this? Ask the people who spend a bunch of money if they really think the game is fun. Go ahead - ask them.

siglesias 12y ago

the market clearly doesn't think mobile games are directly worth enough to pay for making them I would argue that this pattern is an irrationality that must be corrected with force [1]: When faced with a choice of selecting one of several available products (or possibly buying nothing), according to standard theoretical perspectives, people will choose the option with the highest cost–benefit difference. However, we propose that decisions about free (zero price) products differ, in that people do not simply subtract costs from benefits and perceive the benefits associated with free products as higher. That is, users systematically spring for games with lower cost-benefit tradeoffs simply because they are offered for free. While this would be economically infeasible for game developers, they've figured out how to take advantage of other psychological breakdowns to extract revenue. On a larger scale I'm not sure this makes users as happy as they could be. 1) http://web.mit.edu/ariely/www/MIT/Papers/zero.pdf http://web.mit.edu/ariely/www/MIT/Papers/zero.pdf

ataggart 12y ago
>That is, users systematically spring for games with lower cost-benefit tradeoffs simply because they are offered for free. Except that's not what the paper says. It just notes that the decision-making process that goes on in people's heads doesn't just include the monetary cost (duh), and that when one option is "free" some other non-monetary factor is revealed (e.g., removing the mental cost of even having to do a cost/benefit analysis). That said, I'm troubled by your notion that when people's actual behaviour does not conform to a model, the problem is with the people.
- siglesias 12y ago
  I'm not saying that the users know that free options have lower cost-benefit tradeoffs, but in reality, experiments show that they do, specifically the on I cited. But you raise an interesting point. It could well be that the "mental cost of even having to do a cost/benefit analysis" is too high for many people to consider paid options. That reenforces the proposal that Apple should wean users off of low (even negative) utility free options and train them to make such evaluations efficiently, the way many of us who are used to paying for software can. Again, all of this predicated on the thesis that benefit - cost - mental cost (which improves as we learn how to evaluate software) of many paid apps is higher than the average benefit of free apps. As for my notion that people's actual behavior doesn't conform to a model of rationality, perhaps we should agree to disagree. There is plenty of research to suggest that people are bad at making calculations and require intervention.

fla 12y ago

IMO the market doesn't think mobile games are woth enough to pay _without_prior_testing_ . These mobile apps platforms should relly offer a better structure for demos. Remember the sharewares ?