3 ms·

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 wit

by 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.

3 ms·

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 wit

by jfoster 12y ago

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.