Godfire IAP Debate and Discussion - Can a game have IAP and still be labeled premium?

My opinion is yes, if the premium stuff is just a currency that you can earn in game with an acceptable rate, skins and cosmetics or something else that dont change gameplay

 

I've decided to try this app, I shall see if these IAP's are necessary.

 

They gave it a 4/5. I haven't played the game, so I am curious what you didn't like about their review.

 

I'm sure if the devs change a few things they can improve the experience but unfortunately desire for IAP's has stuffed this game and its launch up. Every reviewer is saying the same as Appunwrapper. Why the IAP system and paywalls in a premium game and such stingy gold drops and no gold farming to make the experience better.

Other issues such as a longer story and different enemies need to be addressed but we want to have fun and there ARE paywalls here depending on how good you are which shouldn't happen in a premium game.


http://www.appunwrapper.com/2014/06/19/godfire-rise-of-prometheus-review/

"A way to farm for some gold, or just letting us see the stats of an item before unlocking it, would have made a huge difference in keeping the game from feeling like it’s pushing IAPs.

But you’re best off going in knowing about the loot system, and not expecting a 100% premium game with no paywalls. If you can accept the system for what it is, there’s definitely some hack ‘n’ slash fun to be had here. It’s unfortunate that they chose this model for the gold and loot system, because Godfire is otherwise a very satisfying gaming experience."

 

Ok, I never read their review, I only watch their video reviews. They states that battleheart a strength wasn't combat. The games only strength is combat, that is literally the whole game. He said the game was too easy, because you could walk out of rooms and wait for your skills to recharge and come back to fight. Go watch the video review- they don't give number scores- and tell me it doesn't sound super negative. I've been watching appspy videos for a while now, and that was one of the most negative sounding reviews I have ever heard.

 

I'm at the last stage 7 on very difficult mode, phew, really tough. Narrow battlefields, stronger enemies and and less checkpoint (at least it feels like that,correct me if i'm wrong). I repeat what i said in the normal thread:
Absolutely NO iap's needed in this game ! Whoever says something else didn't play the game or (i feel sorry for you) just simply sucks in this slasher.

 

Once again, I just found out that they did number scoring. I never knew they did that, because I only watch videos. If I was a potential customer and on the fence about buying the game- but I looked on appspy, because I considered them credible- that review would stop me from buying it. The review started off somewhat negative and ended negatively. BH :L is an amazing game, even outside of ios standards. So it bothers me that they would make a review that spoke more on the negatives of the game than the positives; they left a lot of things out , that could potentially stop someone from buying.

 

A lot of appspy reviews sound negative. It's really just telling the truth, as it seems you're disregarding any downsides to the game.

 

..... Ok. Go listen to their review. Count how many positive things they said compared to negative. If the game received a 4/5, why would they not explain how it received it?

 

I didn't watch the video, but the text version of their Battleheart review is all positive, except for the paragraph talking about combat.

I do think his analysis of the combat was a little silly. His main complaint was just that you could cheat the combat system by leaving the room in the middle of a fight and coming back once your special move cooldowns renewed. I think he's correct about that, but the thing is there was nothing forcing him to take advantage of that exploit. If that was the only problem with combat, then the solution would simply be to not take advantage of that. It made sense for him to mention that exploit in his review, but it would also have made sense for him to describe how the combat was if you just stayed in the room.

I also must point out that what you're criticizing about Appspy's review is exactly the same logic that some people are using to criticize Godfire's IAPs. It's just as possible to ignore the overpowered weapon IAPs in Godfire as it is to ignore the "leave the room in the middle of a fight" exploit in Battleheart, yet some people insist on focusing on those exploits instead of on what the game is like when you just ignore the exploits.

PS: To be fair to Battleheart, I should mention that the developer has partly closed that exploit in the latest update by making it less beneficial to leave the room temporarily during combat, since enemies regain full health as soon as you leave the room.

 

Battleheart and Godfire are like polar opposites. The only way you could compare the two even a bit is if Battleheart made it so each area can only be completed once for loot/gold, the Arena didn't unlock until you defeated the final boss, and then they offered you items and gold for IAPs if you were having trouble progressing. Ran out of money to unlock the next skill? Your only choice is to go without it or start using your credit card. Would you have enjoyed Battleheart as much if it was designed that way? Some might, but those struggling the most to get through the game would feel the most cheated.

Edit: Btw, it's fine if developers want to create hardcore games (look at Wayward Souls). So maybe ask this -- what would the reaction be to Godfire if it was released the exact way it is, just without the ability to buy gold or equipment? Without the ability to farm gold *or* buy gold, do you think the average player would be able to complete it? There's a reason games give you the ability to grind.

 

I'm not comparing the two games at all. The discussion has just taken a detour into the topic of whether Appspy's reviews are credible, using their review of Battleheart as a point of evidence, so I was discussing that.

In any case I wouldn't even say these two games are opposites, I'd say they're just orthogonal. Completely aside from whether or not Godfire is a good game in its own genre, it's just a completely different genre from Battleheart. Even if Godfire was excellent, there would probably only be a small overlap in the set of people who like each game. It would be sort of like comparing God of War to Skyrim -- they're meant to scratch different itches.

 

They both have RPG elements that can be compared. But if you want to stick with what you were specifically referring to... the exploit in BHL is still the complete opposite of the IAPs in GF. In one, it's up to the player to decide that s/he wants to make that extra effort to avoid the exploit and make it a bit more challenging. In GF, it's up to the player to decide if s/he wants to make the game easier -- through IAPs. It's not just a matter of "ignore the IAPs if you don't like them" if someone is finding the game too hard.

 

Based on my experience so far with Godfire, the answer is definitely yes, most players could finish it. Maybe not everyone, but certainly a lot more people would be able to complete Godfire than Wayward Souls. I'm half way through Hard difficulty and haven't found any levels to be very challenging yet. I certainly haven't felt any temptation to buy any more gold to upgrade faster. In fact I don't think I've seen a single complaint about the IAPs in Godfire from anyone who said they'd actually played it to a point where it got too hard and they felt a need to buy IAPs because they were under-powered. It's all been either people who haven't played it and just assume they would reach that point if they played it, or people who feel a need to own every item in the game for some other reason.

I don't want to spend too much time defending this game anyway. I think Wayward Souls for example is ultimately a much deeper and more interesting game, and in the long run I'm sure I'll put a lot more hours into Wayward Souls than into Godfire. But that's not because of the IAPs in Godfire, it's just because it's not a very deep game. To me Godfire is just the gaming equivalent of a big dumb action movie, which I'm occasionally happy to spend $10 to go see in a big theater with surround sound and popcorn, and then probably forget about within a few weeks.

 

I understand the distinction you're making. Based on what I've played of GF so far, I doubt many people are really going to find it too hard though. It seems like the developer has balanced the game pretty fairly. I think it's completely reasonable that people get suspicious when a game has IAPs that it may have been purposefully balanced to push people to buy them, but I haven't experienced that to be the case with this game. Maybe it'll feel different on the highest difficulty.

I do agree in wishing they made it possible to replay story mode levels for gold, instead of only Survival mode, though in reality I don't feel like the combat is currently interesting enough that I'd want to replay levels lots of times.

 

I'm speaking from my own experience with the game, not speculating on the fact that it has IAPs. I found them very intrusive, and not simply because there were IAPs in the game. It's how the whole system was implemented. I've played paid games with IAPs that didn't feel designed around getting you to buy them. I never bought IAPs, but I felt very pressured to do so when I couldn't even see what the items I looted even do.

Since Battleheart was brought up -- if they decided to keep the game exactly the way it is but offer the option to buy gold (basically for people who don't want to play the game), I'd be 100% fine with that, because at no point do you feel like you can't get enough gold by just grinding a bit.

Now, let's say Battleheart was released with the option to pay a few bucks to get a character you accidentally killed or chose the wrong answer with. That would make it feel like the game was designed around getting people to spend more money if they didn't know they were supposed to choose a different option. But since the game has no IAPs, it simply feels like a choice the dev made, without money steering their decision.
So... If GF was similarly designed exactly the way it is without IAPs, players would simply have to accept that the game is designed to be that way with a specific difficulty curve. If you can't complete it, you just accept that the game is not for you, or perhaps make suggestions to the dev to tweak things a bit. But you wouldn't feel like the dev designed the game the way it is just to get more money out of its players. And btw, most F2P games *can* be completed without buying IAPs. But that doesn't change the fact that most of them are designed to try to get you to buy them. And that's how this felt to me.

 

Ok, fair enough. I think I'm missing that collector urge that some people have which makes it feel really important to get every item, so maybe that's why I don't feel the pressure you're describing. I have also gotten an item and been hesitant to spend the currency to identify it, but it didn't really bother me because my character is not currently under-powered at all, so I don't feel any need to identify it right now. I can understand being irritated by that though, since I did already find the item so why should there be another barrier to using it.

I agree with all this. I also find it irritating when a game gets difficult, and I can't decide whether that's because it's just supposed to be hard and maybe I haven't discovered the right technique or secret, or if it's just designed that way to push me toward IAPs. It would be especially irritating in a very difficult game like Wayward Souls, so I'm really glad that game doesn't offer IAPs. It just hurts the integrity of games on the platform. Honestly, I'd personally prefer that most games were purely premium games with no IAP. I do realize though that if that were the case on iOS, like it is for PS Vita, PSP, or 3DS, the prices of iOS games would also need to be similar to the prices on those platforms. $20 and $30 games would be a lot more common than $2 and $3 games. When $7 is considered expensive though, then I just accept that most developers are going to put IAPs in their games, and I accept that I'll have to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the integrity of the game has been spoiled by the IAPs.

I totally agree with this, and have argued the same a number of times on these forums. It always irks me when people point out that you can complete a game without buying anything as evidence that it wasn't designed around IAPs. I think we need some new terminology. Developers can often make the technically true claim that a game doesn't include any paywalls, even though it's obviously designed around IAPs. I think we should distinguish between hard paywalls and soft paywalls. Hard paywalls are when part of the game is inaccessible without spending money. Soft paywalls are when part of the game is accessible, but requires passing some obstacle that many users will find irritating, such as excessive grinding or waiting for timers. Most F2P games now use soft paywalls, and they use evasive language when describing their games to avoid admitting that.