Hacker News Reader

Comment by leggomylibro | Hacker News Reader

One of my favorite mobile games (an old Popcap title) used to have a version which cost ~$10 and was just a no-frills port of the original.

No ads, no permissions beyond file storage, no issues working offline.

But you can't buy that anymore; now the only option is a 'free' version which has ads that you cannot pay away.

Fortunately I can still download the old version from the app store; now it is called 'zzSUNSET <game>' in the list of purchased apps. But I'm amazed at how consumer-hostile game companies have gotten; I guess the ads must pay out the wazoo. It makes me really hesitant to try any new mobile game, especially since I don't really have much time for them these days. I'm not going to spend 30 seconds out of every 1-5 minute diversion watching an ad, that's ridiculous.

View on HN

I think it's partly that the kind of person that pays $10 for an app is also the kind of person that advertisers actually want. So even if your average revenue/user for a free app is <$10, revenue/user for people willing to pay $10 for the app might be >$10.

The average advertising revenue/user for users who are unwilling to be interrupted by ads is $0.

If there's a heaven, and if I get to go there, and if God gives me a phone with all of the mobile games that could have been, I'll want to play the version of Plants vs Zombies 2 that would have existed if EA hadn't bought Popcap.

Your best option by far for mobile gaming (if you're on Android) is to install an emulator for an old console/handheld and download/rip some games.

It's unfortunate how bad the state of mobile gaming is, considering how powerful today's phones are.

So much this... I had paid for an ad-free version of risk (which was great, could play a few turns at a time and no messing with all the setup and pieces) that started adding ads in. Well, mobile gaming isn't much use to me if it isn't something I can do a few minutes at a time, and I'll be damned if 1/2 of that time is wasted on ads.

Ive just taken to replaying old JRPGs from my childhood, they're very compatible with that playstyle. Sure, a battle may take 2-4 days to complete, but it's much more entertaining.

I think this is a huge reason a game like Clash of Clans has done so well. I could never get into it, but my brother has been playing steadily for 4 years. He likely only spends 10-15/year, but the devs haven't annoyed him enough to quit. It's the worst sort of pay-to-avoid waiting game, which is why I couldn't stand it, but somehow still less exploitative than most of the competing mobile games.

I'm just so disappointed that I'm carrying around a far more powerful device than even a PC from my childhood, and some of the best gaming experiences are old console games.

> I'm just so disappointed that I'm carrying around a far more powerful device than even a PC from my childhood, and some of the best gaming experiences are old console games.

My theory of the awfulness of phone games is that it's more about the fact that phones don't have any input devices. So you see things like endless runners where the only possible command is "jump", which works well with the hardware where the only input you can provide is "I touched the screen". If the game had two commands, it wouldn't work on a phone.

I put ScummVM on my phones. It works fine; the only input an adventure game needs is mouse clicks with no time pressure. Interestingly, the current version is a huge step backwards in usability from the much older version available through f-droid -- the older version takes a screen tap to mean "click in the location of the cursor", and you move the cursor by dragging your finger around the screen. But the current version takes a screen tap to mean "click under where I tapped the screen", making clicking almost impossible.

> My theory of the awfulness of phone games is that it's more about the fact that phones don't have any input devices.

My theory of the awfulness of phone games is that awful, cookie cutter games on phones can make lots of money, so lots of firms are happy to churn them out on an assembly line, knowing that a certain percentage will succeed.

There's enough not-awful phone games to establish that the platform doesn't inherently mandate awfulness, so it's about the market not the inherent platform features.

> If the game had two commands, it wouldn't work on a phone.

There's plenty of games with multiple commands on phones (one or two virtual directional sticks plus a handful, often contextually switched so the total number is greater than is onscreen at any one time, virtual buttons is not uncommon.

> My theory of the awfulness of phone games is that awful, cookie cutter games on phones can make lots of money, so lots of firms are happy to churn them out on an assembly line, knowing that a certain percentage will succeed.

They can only do this in the absence of competition from non-awful games. You claim that those games exist, but you don't support that claim in any way. Why do you think they haven't displaced the awful games?

There's an infinite number of terrible games being constantly turned out for the PC too; the difference is that the PC also has good games.

You don't seem to follow the PC gaming industry that closely, otherwise you'd see it transforming. It started out with a strong tradition, so changes will take time, but loot-box-gambling, season passes, and similar predatory tactics in AAA games are a recent development and strongly on the rise.

Saying there are no good games on mobile is just ridiculous. Not just because quite a few decent PC games were closely ported to mobile, usually without predatory bullshit. But everything with a price sticker has to compete with "free". Saying the market will sort things out in favor of good games is just as ridiculous. Predatory tactics seem to work quite effectively, seem to make money for the industry and as such wont disappear anytime soon. Maybe if they go overboard and we consequently get some decent regulation.

There are a number of good reasons PC gaming is still a lot different from mobile, like how it started in a widely different position and still has quite different target audiences. But there is no indication it will stay that way, at least in terms of awful business practices.

> They can only do this in the absence of competition from non-awful games.

No, they can only do this because there's actually a solid market for what I (and I assume you) see as awful games for extremely portable handheld devices; essentially, I think they are pretty much digital fidget spinners.

"> It's unfortunate how bad the state of mobile gaming is, considering how powerful today's phones are."

Pretty simple reason. There's enough games that charge $0 up front that products asking for even $1 up front, get negligible downloads. Consequently, everybody has to charge $0 up front which immediately constrains you to advertising or mostly coercive business models. And this business model then ends up meshing into the game itself. It's not easy to have a game when you have this constraint of having to coerce the user into paying. It invariably lends itself to a sort of addiction + satiation pattern. And oddly what's most addictive is not necessarily the most fun; in many cases it's not really any fun at all.

Arguably it's the same reason console gaming is dying. Increasingly often now a days you're not buying a game for $60, you're buying a starter pack which is then filled out a la carte with DLC and various microtransactions. And once again this model directly impacts the game experience itself. It's stripped down to the bare bones to attempt to coerce purchase of the 'whole' game. But to further 'incentivize' people to buy the 'whole' game, the stripped out content is often not only necessary for a complete experience but also grossly imbalanced in the player's favor. It's a very myopic business model. Fortunately PC gaming is full of independent developers who've yet to grasp the sophisticated business strategy of MBAing yourself to death, and then blaming everything except your own actions for your deteriorating longterm results.

> Increasingly often now a days you're not buying a game for $60, you're buying a starter pack which is then filled out a la carte with DLC and various microtransactions.

Not just with consoles. This sort of thing is what made me stop buying AAA games altogether, and largely to stop gaming generally. Now when I occasionally want to play a game, I pretty much stick with the ones I bought a decade or more ago, or ones that I find on GOG.

I think my conscience would be more satisfied working in porn than mobile gaming.

It's similar to how prostitution seems more ethical than telemarketing - one involves voluntary exchange of value between two willing consenting parties, the other involves harassing people and, frequently, trying to scam them.

My understanding is that the people working in that industry prefer to call it "sex work."

"Prostitute" has negative historical connotations. For example, we will say that Mitch McConnell has prostituted himself to billionaires, but we would never call him a sex worker.

/ducks

"Sex worker" is a broader term than "prostitute". The former covers most every commercial activity whose objective is orgasm, the latter covers only those whose normal job is orgasm via insertion (although they may do it by other means at a client's request.)

> The former covers most every commercial activity whose objective is orgasm

I don't think that's technically true.

Certainly, a farmer manually collecting bull semen isn't engaged in sex work.

But I would say at the very least "sex work" covers dominatrices, pre-recorded and live-streaming porn performances, strip club and lap dance performances, as well as escorts. So "sex worker" isn't precisely equal to "prostitute"

The objective of fertility work is sperm/egg/embryo/whatever, not orgasm. If they could efficienctly stick a needle in the gonads and extract the reproductive cells, they would.

Strippers are sex workers, but most of them aren't trying to make their customers orgasm. At least, not in the moment.

Very well, but how do we accomplish this at scale? Email me if interested in discussing!

anytime you'd like to make a claim or an argument, please put it forth rather than simply eject ad hominems and make snarky vague claims.

We wouldn't call him a "sex worker" precisely because it is an unnatural and forced piece of language.

Organized crime has been really successful in spreading the "two willing consenting parties" myth. Trust me - there is only ever one willing consenting party. No woman on earth wants to @%$! a constant parade of scumbags.

I suggest you go out and talk to some actual sex workers, with an open mind. I know (socially) a few former sex workers, and they would vehemently disagree with your characterization. The world is way, waaaay more complicated than you seem to think.

Which characterization? I made two. I disagree with your characterization that "sex work" is "waaay complicated". Putting together a lego set is more complicated.

"there is only ever one willing consenting party"

This is demonstrably untrue.

"Trust me" isn't exactly a convincing argument...

I agree with your second sentiment (although I wouldn't generalize to "scumbags"), but there are a lot of people out there doing jobs that are extremely unpleasant, for far less money than prostitution can make.

If you don't have to fear your customer because the legal system has your back (making you independent of pimps and the like), prostitution is a possible way to make a significant amount of money - on your own conditions, in your own time, without the fear of being fired and all the other stuff a normal workplace imposes.

Okay, so now there's one consenting party instead of zero.

I'm sure the telemarketer consents.

Not really, they are under economic coercion.

My, aren't we all.

If one isn't rich one shouldn't be considered free..

Also consent can now be retro actively withdrawn, so if you don't keep your books, your hooks will bleed you.

I worked in mobile gaming at one point and the real "beyond the pale" moment was when I came in to work and one of our designers was reading a book titled something along the lines of "The Science of Addiction".

Noped out of that and started getting a lot more critical when it comes to where I work with regard to ethics.

There are similar books catered towards social apps. Btw is there an ethical corporation? Not even LOB apps are fully ethical today.

I’d say many corporations are amoral, while the mobile gaming business is totally immoral.

Neither is good, but the latter is worse.

I've worked in (mobile) porn and the gambling industries; porn was more ethical by far, even if the weirdos were slightly more common (there are a lot of really really weird/creepy 'punters' in the FOB industry)

I worked in mobile gaming and would never work in porn (unless it was like filtering or prosecuting creators). A coworker hard a good point to say what the people who are addicted to mobile games would be addicted/spend money on if they didn't play. It's possible they would be buying meth/booze with it.

We don't hand children meth so that they behave, but we do with mobile games.

In fact this is almost exactly what happens with many children being prescribed Adderall.

To counteract your bullshit...

If someone has ADHD, adderall slows them down so they can concentrate. It reduces mind-fog from too much stimulus.

If you don't have ADHD, its like a super cup of coffee, but in pill form.

My doctor was trying to figure out my cognitive issue. And for a time, I was on adderall. It was pretty easy to tell that I didn't have ADHD, since I started getting upper'd. Felt nice, don't get me wrong. But I'll stick with coffee.

More interesting question: How do we know regular drug users are not self medicating.

They in fact frequently are. There are huge communities dedicated to that on the Internet. BTW a lot of the previously illegal and unthinkable treatments these people used have just been legalised in the EU, using MDMA etc.

Indeed. And although I wouldn't recommend the self-medicating route, it's hard to deny that there are some people who get much better results doing that than getting "official" medical help.

Professionals can be found even though its illegal. I wouldn't recommend self-medication either.

> A coworker hard a good point to say what the people who are addicted to mobile games would be addicted/spend money on if they didn't play.

That is nothing like a good point at all. It sounds more like rationalizing questionable activity.

Unless the games you play are realtime, you can VPN out. When you have an IP of a country not interesting for ad networks, you'll essentially have ad-free internet. Very few ads in a language you don't understand anyway.

I've been running NetGuard with default-block on apps.... and I've been loving it. Most games don't need internet access, and no internet means no ads.

It boggles my mind that internet is not a revokable permission. Anywhere. I'd be happy to give X access to e.g. contacts, as long as it cannot upload that info, but until I ran a local VPN that hasn't been an option at all.

Why are (stock) mobile permissions so user-hostile?

The butcher owns the cattle farm? Android has googly eyes.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com