Hacker News Reader

Comment by MBCook | Hacker News Reader

I wonder if more apps will go for, say 50¢, instead of free + $1.00 IAP.

I miss the pre-IAP days.

One thing that can be problematic with App sales is that apps will usually have new purchases dry up after a while. But unlike old desktop software where you could release, fix bugs for a while, and then just call done, for mobile apps you need periodically update them, or risk getting unlisted from the stores. Some developers may be ok with that, but others would prefer their older apps to remain available. Those developers now have ongoing maintenance costs, so how can they recover that money?

The old desktop approach of new major versions that people have to purchase periodically is not really feasible on IOS, since old versions would clog up the app store, and there is no way to offer the new versions at a discount to past purchasers, which desktop software likes to do to avoid annoying recent customers when a new version comes out.

So to recover for costs from ongoing development, an app developer will either need to 1) somehow increase the number of people who will purchase the app, 2) add a recurring revenue source like ads to the app (possibly with IAP to disable), 3) make the app subscription based (but only some types of apps can pull this off), or 4) make the app IAP based, and when updating add new features that can be purchased.

Now not every app does any of those. Some will just a single unlock IAP with limited functionality before that. But this is not all that different from the old demo or shareware approach, and the design of the app store makes it generally better to have the demo and full version be the same app, at which point IAP is the way to do that. Without a recurring revenue source though, such apps are likely to either change approach or get abandoned eventually once the costs of periodically upgrading the app exceed the remaining revenue coming in.

----

Also there is the abusive IAP single use item to bypass artificial cooldowns MTX garbage that mobile games tend to be full of, but I really cannot bring myself to accept that as a legitimate business model. Even the Gacha model (terrible as it is) feels somewhat more legitimate, but I have plenty of significant concerns about those too. But I'm really looking at this from the perspective of non-games, or at least not "F2P" games.

IAP is fine when I as a user am not sure.

To install, try and pay is as easy as to pay, install, and try

To install, try and uninstall is much easier then to pay, install, try, uninstall, and ask for the money back, if the latter us even supported.

What's really bothersome is no option to pay and remove ads. A subscription may be more costly but it's at least honest, and UX is not annoying.

Probably some. I think this change has more to do with emerging markets where users expect to make very small payments (and receive smaller benefits) than western users are accustomed too.

Isn't this IAP model better for both users and makers?

Which IAP model?

I think the free-to-play model has been destructive for many apps and games. The rush to the bottom with $1 price tier, introduced by Apple, was also destructive in itself.

The App Store is a huge market, fortunes have been built, but I know many indie developers who have been reluctant to adopt the F2P model.

As a user, I don't like it either.

Definitely not better for users. You used to buy an app and get everything it has to offer. You wouldn't have to worry about getting a useless app and having to pay another $1,000 to get it functional. And you'd know that any reviews of the app are inclusive of functionality you'll have access to.

With IAP, it's really difficult to know what you're getting and how much it will cost you in the end. And reviews may be discussing a completely different app experience. Plus the constant feeling that you're being nickel and dimed.

IAPs don't share over Apple Family, purchased-apps do. So I'm going to say no.

IAPs _can_ share for the family: https://www.theverge.com/2020/12/4/22154178/apple-family-sha...

It's the developer's choice, just like family sharing for the original purchase. This was a good move, since so many apps went from paid to free demo +IAP to unlock. I think a lot of devs who previously allowed family sharing for paid apps have turned family sharing on for IAP.

To be fair that wasn’t the case until maybe 2 years ago. So it was a real problem.

Let’s not pretend that the App Store is full of Indy “makers”. It came out in the Epic trial that 85% of App Store revenue came from slimy pay to win games and loot boxes.

I'd like to know what fraction today comes from Roblox alone.

In theory.

So I have no issue with subscribing to many apps I love to fund development, or maybe paying an extra “tip” through IAP. Or just IAP for more content.

But IAP and subscriptions enabled a few models I hate.

Free game (either with ads, IAP, or both) have flooded the App Store and destroyed the market for quality games. Even the better made ones (like Candy Crush) are still designed to wring money out of people.

On the subscription front there are so many scam apps. Buy a calculator app, and pay $5/week for it because they trick people into it.

I’d be happy with no consumable IAPs in games. Or just no IAPs in games at all. And Apple should probably review high subscription prices to find scams. Realistically is there any reason for weekly subscriptions? Maybe just monthly/yearly only.

> Even the better made ones (like Candy Crush) are still designed to wring money out of people

Arcade games may have been designed to deprive players of their quarters/tokens, but they have nothing on modern optimized monetization schemes, including many which bring mobile games much closer to slot machines, in the hope that gambling addict "whale" players will spend the sort of money that they might lose at a casino rather than a Chuck E. Cheese.

So many games that I might otherwise enjoy playing in are simply not fun for me because of the intrusive monetization schemes. F2P games add this annoying metagame of "fight against the obnoxious monetization traps" which I usually don't enjoy.

Bad monetization schemes set up an ugly conflict between developers and players that degrades the gaming experience.

It might be if they had better filters. IAP being used to effectively turn a demo into a full, paid version is one thing. Or IAP for some limited number of expansions in a game. IAP being used for "consumables" or to nickel-and-dime every feature is something else. But it's hard to distinguish between the two uses when browsing the store—and that's a big part of the reason I hardly game at all on iOS, browsing their games to sort wheat from chaff is too much of a chore and their games section in particular is a horrible mess because IAP exists and their filtering options suck. Problem goes away if the apps are simply paid or free, no IAP. Or if they'd create more categories for various uses of IAP, and let you filter by them.

I don't dislike some DLC purchases like new levels etc.. I'm happy to pay for major expansions to games as well.

But I have little interest in games that rely on scammy paid gacha/loot boxes/slot machine mechanics, monetized play-and-wait/energy systems, paid in game currencies, progress paywalls, etc. - not to mention intrusive advertising for monetization schemes. I'm not entirely huge on paid cosmetic options either.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com