Hey guys, with the release of software 3.0, I'm really concerned with games in the future that feature in-game purchases. Literally, in-game purchases is just a way of saying good bye to free updates. For example, Flick Fishing used to include free updates, which would add new fishing locations and new fish. Suddenly, with the new 3.0 update, we now have to pay $0.99 in order to get a new fishing location and new fish. $0.99 was the price I paid for the entire game! Furthermore, would this new update mean that we would see more and more incomplete game releases? Fieldrunners was released as an unfinished game - with no sounds and only one map. A few weeks after, a free update was released, which included sounds and two extra maps. Instead of free updates, would we start to have to pay for updates that are made to unfinished games? Would developers take advantage of this and release a game that is only half-finished in order to get more money? I'm happy to pay for 'extra features' to games, but not for required updates that would make the game 'complete'. Discuss.
Yeah, I feel the exact same way. I'm really worried how this is going to disrupt everything. Just take a look at Xbox Live and how that changed things. There was that whole horse armor issue with Oblivion then soon after all sorts of games started charging for near worthless content. It wouldn't be so bad if it were well developed, high quality additions but a lot of them weren't. The thing about that stuff though is that was all optional. We've been accustomed to some developers providing free updates with new content and bug fixes on the app store. With this new feature some developers will undoubtedly charge for what used to be on the house. If a huge company like ngmoco sells something bogus (which normally would've been free) there will be so many people bitching that I'm sure they'll think twice before doing it again. I want the developers to make money and stay profitable. I just don't want to have to pay for every single update or be charged for something that I know two months ago would have been complimentary. Just gotta let the developers know the content should be substantial and worth it. Hopefully they don't abuse the feature too much. Having said that! If a game DID offer something worth while for a small transaction I'd have no problem downloading and being happy with it. I don't take issue with the feature in and of itself, just when it's not being used how it's intended to.
The real question is: What happens with your in-app-purchases, when you remove/reinstall the app? What I read is, that the dev (!) can select whether you can redownload the additional content for free or have to rebuy it. This is a totally no-go for me.
I'm really happy to see that others are questioning this too. I guess all I want to know is whether Apple have set actual guidelines and parameters to dictate what can be deemed 'extra content' worthy and what not, or have they left it up to the discretion of the devs and gamers to just work it out for themselves? They really ought to let their customers know what to expect. I'm sure they must have written somewhere in the small print vague words to the effect of 'app pricing is subject to alteration', but I would personally appreciate some more detailed information. What, if anything, is this the beginnings of? I feel these are fair questions. In general, Apple seem (from my unprofessional consumers view) to be quite blasé about the app store. The infrastructure of the filtering system itself, making it incredibly hard for smaller devs with some really fantastic ideas to get the visibility they deserve, the amazing amount of pointless rubbish out there (Khalid Shaikh, yes, I'm talking to you), and now this, a lack of detailed information about a fairly big change. I am perfectly happy to pay for the extra content, whatever the original price of the game. I see it as the natural step to take in the advancement of the app store becoming more successful. But, I would like confirmation from Apple (or any dev come to that matter) how the system works. Is it the 'anything goes' approach, or a more structured set of guidelines? EDIT: Any dev out there who has already made use of the new system, please feel free to chime in on my musings. Much appreciated
QFT: Of course this systems gives developers the possibility to try and milk money from gamers, but then again no-one is forcing anyone to buy the extra content. It's not like anyone should expect developers to add content for free indefinitely, I actually think apps should be considered "finished" when they arrive in the app-store. Unless the developer actually promises future updates of course. As for using the Fieldrunner example. Sounds should be free, but frankly the quality of the first map alone was well worth a buck. It is O-N-E D-O-L-L-A-R. Complaining that additional stuff costs more is frankly ridiculous when the asking price is as low as this...
There is an option for content to be 'consumable' ie you buy it and it gets used up in game so you can buy more. Think poker chips or game subscription. For the normal, non-consumable in-app purchase content, like we use in Flick Fishing, you can re-download it for free if you have to re-install your app for any reason. The same as the apps and your songs. A lot of people are really overthinking and getting their knickers in a twist over nothing with the in-app purchases. What devs will or won't do in the future isn't worth panicking about. If they do evil things, you don't actually have to buy their games or the extra content. If you go on a witch hunt and declare in-app purchases evil before you've even used it, devs will think twice about it and drop plans to keep updating their current games. Without the option to add extra premium content to the games, there's absolutely no incentive for devs to keep adding content through free updates to a game forever. In fact we're already seeing a lot of games move on to "insert game name here" 2 or even 3 and leaving the previous version obsolete. With the option to keep the current game commercially viable by letting players buy added content, it's worth carrying on updating and expanding the game (with both free and paid content). In Flick Fishing for example, the game's still expanding its features and content in the free updates. The latest added GameKit peer to peer networking (and an extra mode to Fish Net that we didn't actually mention yet).
Hi Zwilnik. As a developer who has used the new feature, you must know the answer to my question. Would you mind telling me? Thanks in advance
That's all covered under our NDA, but as with everything Apple has pretty stringent guidelines on all the new features.
Hi Zwilnik. I like developers moving on to the 2 and 3. At least I have something to show for it. Correct me if I am wrong but, consumable or not, there doesn't seem to be a copy of the purchase saved locally. So we can re-download content as long as the developer lets us, the server is still serving and a Tim Langdell doesn't come along and tell us we can't have it anymore.
What does NDA stand for? EDIT: Never mind, I think it must mean Non-Disclosure Agreement. Well, that's a pity. I think if that kind of stuff were generally known, it would stop a lot of the problems people seem to be having with getting to grips with the new feature. But as you indicated, the rules are stringent, so that would indicate to me that we have no need to worry about inappropriate usage. Thanks.
Agree with Zwilnik. While everyone is focusing on the potential for evil... what's being lost are the opportunities that it opens for developers and players, such as true online multiplayer gaming. Server space and processing is expensive and most indie devs wouldn't invest the money into something that might not cover the cost of maintenance. But a scheduled payment system could help offset the cost. I believe any game you buy should provide enough game value indefinitely without additional payments. However, the opportunity to expand on that with in-game purchases or something like a "dollar monthly fee" for online gaming could increase the potential for some truly unique games to be created that might not have made it before. Again, the key is value. The cost to quality ratio needs to be high enough that users will feel it's worth it. Unfortunately the average iphone gamer appears to be fairly cheap when it comes to this ratio... so who knows if it will work. Many will pay $15 a month for an online PC game but may throw a fit at a dollar for a month's worth of iphone online gaming.
I think its a great idea so long as the app follows these guidelines: 1.The app is free and if you want additional content you have to purchase it. (Tap Tap Revenge) 2.An app that cost money but already has the content to be worth it's asking price, then addition content is sold to enhance and prolong the game's life (Star Defense) I think in game stores will generally be good because it will encourage developers to keep going with their projects. For example, World of Tunes is an amazing music game, and it was totally worth the $5 I spent on it. But now I'm done with the game and I want more songs. This is a perfect oppertunity for the developer to make some extra much, and to give me extra hours of gameplay. But all this doesn't mean that developers will take advantage of the situation. I can imagine the "99 cents per level" thing actually happening with certain games.
I plan on developing with the following approach: (1) Free updates for any bug fixes / some additional content. This would likely be the first say few maps/levels of a new mode. Some basic additional character items or abilities. (2) Paid updates but kept inexpensive - anything that changes/extends the game significantly or offers something significantly different. Character items or abilities that offer significantly more hours of gameplay/replay value to existing content. How does that sound to you, folks? Don't want to specify genres this early on but have some good concepts.
