3 ms·

Economics says people will pay what they think something is worth, and it's up to the consumer to balance the cost vs. the utility they get from it. In your ex

Economics says people will pay what they think something is worth, and it's up to the consumer to balance the cost vs. the utility they get from it. In your examples the key is if the buyer was fully informed, or surprised and learned something new after buying that changed their mind. It only works as well as the consumer is informed about the product, the market, and the alternatives. Paying $200 for a bunch of Steam games might be fine, as long as you know what you're getting... Or, you might feel scammed if you thought you were getting a complete game and later discovered you had to pay more via IAP to get what you thought you paid for in the first place. This change (not calling IAP apps "free") is part of trying to inform the consumer. I'm not sure if it's the best solution as IAP seems like its own category, but that's the goal.

kosei 12y ago
I think the vast majority of customers know what they're getting when they start playing a free game with incredibly high production values. Additionally, to the economics point, consumers are making choices about whether they think a purchase is worth it every single time they are faced with an IAP. There are also varying degrees of IAP: - Should a "free" game that offers ads be considered free? You're paying for it by being forced to watch interstitial ads. (ex: Flappy Bird) - Should a "free" game that has IAPs for purely cosmetic items that have no impact on the game be considered free (ex: TF2 model)? - Should a "free" game that has IAPs that are optional that help you win be considered free (ex: Candy Crush)? - Should a "free" game that has IAPs that have a pure pay gate 20 minutes into the game be considered free? Personally I think there are a ton of varying degrees here, and putting a "if you have IAP in the game, PERIOD" it's not considered free, makes a black-and-white statement about something that has many shades of gray.
- dyarosla 12y ago
  Your assumption is wrong- games companies (clarifying- the exploitative ones) will generally take advantage of the fact that the majority of customers actually DONT know what they're getting. A free game is expected to be free. Ridiculous concept, I know. A free game with ads should be considered free. That's simply how free services are categorized on the internet (facebook, twitter, reddit, etc). Purely cosmetic items not affecting a game is a hard one to classify. Could go either way. A free game with optional IAP's is also hard to classify. A game with a pay GATE is definitely not free. So the hard to classify cases, if they are more pronounced to show that they are in fact, not completely free games, but free game with in app purchases available, the description or reviews can then go on to describe how that works. At the moment, the "offers in app purchases" in small subtext and a huge FREE DOWNLOAD button is insufficient and cause for much of the (I would argue, intentionally designed) confusion. IAP created a breed of game developers that preys on spur of moment purchases on the part of the consumer. Yes, this exists in other businesses, but that doesn't make it acceptable or non-manipulative of consumers. A Lite version of a game, clearly specified, followed with a Full version paid version, is currently my preferred method of selling a game. No confusion is created on the part of the consumer, and they know what they're getting in either case.

kosei 12y ago

I think the vast majority of customers know what they're getting when they start playing a free game with incredibly high production values. Additionally, to the economics point, consumers are making choices about whether they think a purchase is worth it every single time they are faced with an IAP. There are also varying degrees of IAP: - Should a "free" game that offers ads be considered free? You're paying for it by being forced to watch interstitial ads. (ex: Flappy Bird) - Should a "free" game that has IAPs for purely cosmetic items that have no impact on the game be considered free (ex: TF2 model)? - Should a "free" game that has IAPs that are optional that help you win be considered free (ex: Candy Crush)? - Should a "free" game that has IAPs that have a pure pay gate 20 minutes into the game be considered free? Personally I think there are a ton of varying degrees here, and putting a "if you have IAP in the game, PERIOD" it's not considered free, makes a black-and-white statement about something that has many shades of gray.

dyarosla 12y ago
Your assumption is wrong- games companies (clarifying- the exploitative ones) will generally take advantage of the fact that the majority of customers actually DONT know what they're getting. A free game is expected to be free. Ridiculous concept, I know. A free game with ads should be considered free. That's simply how free services are categorized on the internet (facebook, twitter, reddit, etc). Purely cosmetic items not affecting a game is a hard one to classify. Could go either way. A free game with optional IAP's is also hard to classify. A game with a pay GATE is definitely not free. So the hard to classify cases, if they are more pronounced to show that they are in fact, not completely free games, but free game with in app purchases available, the description or reviews can then go on to describe how that works. At the moment, the "offers in app purchases" in small subtext and a huge FREE DOWNLOAD button is insufficient and cause for much of the (I would argue, intentionally designed) confusion. IAP created a breed of game developers that preys on spur of moment purchases on the part of the consumer. Yes, this exists in other businesses, but that doesn't make it acceptable or non-manipulative of consumers. A Lite version of a game, clearly specified, followed with a Full version paid version, is currently my preferred method of selling a game. No confusion is created on the part of the consumer, and they know what they're getting in either case.