I was an App Store games editor – Apple doesn’t care about games | Hacker News Reader

I was an App Store games editor – Apple doesn’t care about games

theguardian.com

33 pointsjstutters30 comments

> If you want the best of mobile right now, try Marvel Snap, Song of Bloom, Beatstar, Brawl Stars, Royal Match, Among Us, Vampire Survivors, Mario Kart Tour, Archero or Scrabble Go. Try blockbusters such as Diablo Immortal and Call of Duty Mobile too

Ok, let's take a look at that list:

* Marvel Snap - Season pass/Gem ("gold") hell

* Song of Bloom - $1.99

* Beatstar - Gem hell

* Brawl Stars - Gem hell

* Royal Match - Lootbox/Gem ("coin") hell

* Among Us - Remove ads/Cosmetic

* Vampire Survivors - Free, no IAP

* Mario Kart Tour - Gem hell

* Archero - Battle pass/Gem hell

* Scrabble Go - Gem hell

* Diablo Immortal - Battle pass/Gem ("orb") hell

* Call of Duty Mobile - Gem ("COD Points") hell

So we have a slew of P2W games, one game with acceptable IAP (ad-removal/cosmetic-only paid), 1 paid game (acceptable), and 1 free game.

I seriously question anything this person has to say about the state of games if they think this is the cream of the crop...

The state of gaming on iOS/Android is terrible and filled with thinly-veiled casinos but this author is part of the problem from what I can see. Apple Arcade has been a nice ray of sunshine (along with a handful of paid or ad-removal-only IAP games that I have enjoyed). By and large you can and should write off a game if it has IAP and it's not only removal-ads or cosmetic-only, the incentives of the developers are too skewed even if they promise F2P.

I don’t mind paying for content on a monthly basis when it keeps the game fresh. To each their own though. I feel like Hearthstone for example is reasonably priced for what you get.

I don't mind monthly subscriptions alone but it looks like Hearthstone is full of lootboxes as well (via card packs) that feels pretty gross to me and like I said before, I feel it creates perverse incentives. I'll pay (and I do) monthly for games, but not if you are mixing that with lootboxes/gems/etc.

Hearthstone has two main game ‘modes’. The constructed Magic: The Gathering is card packs, the battlegrounds auto-chess team building auto-battler is subscription (although arguably that doesn’t affect much). The other incentives are cosmetic, and there are other game modes which are more niche. The problem with Hearthstone is that because it has a swath of modes, and all those modes price differently, it looks like you have this perverse overlap when in reality it’s pretty disparate.

Interesting, then my point might not apply to that aspect of Hearthstone. I'll admit I might be missing out on certain games since I use the IAP as a filter for games I will even try. I "judge a game by it's IAP" after being burned enough times (getting sucked into a game then realizing it has gross P2W/P2P/gambling/etc mechanics).

For me, new content is a net negative in competitive games. I like feeling like I get better, but that's impossible when everything keeps changing all the time. To each their own I guess.

Would you elaborate on what makes you feel the game is fresh ? Gem games constantly add new resources (=png+labels) to justify the subscription but the game mechanism and features remains the same. It’s like if to play the sims you have to buy every new single expansion pack every month.

The engine and rules are the same, but the track is different. You change enough things you get a different game - you don’t change enough, and people get bored. I’d compare F1 to NASCAR. Building a new track isn’t cheap. The rules change every season making the cars require redesigns and try to use the available rules to eke out their own advantages. Part of the fun of hearthstone is its deck building, and if the available card pool never changes or updates in large ways, that aspect of the game dies.

Thanks for the explanation ! Not used to “deck” games so this was very informative.

Marvel Snap is legitimately good, and you can play it without giving them any money and it's still a lot of fun. I only bought one of their season passes once because I was playing it so damn much already, I felt they earned my $10.

I normally don't play any F2P games at all, but this one appeals to both video gamers and board gamers (quite a few people who are into serious board games play it as well, including reviewers who normally stick to board games[1]).

It's a card game I expect will eventually have some sort of physical game adaptation, if not officially then unofficially (or some other game designer mimicking it). It's already kind of similar and likely inspired by the existing board games 'Air, Land, and Sea' and 'Smash Up'.

Even if you'd disqualify it for being F2P, I think it would be irresponsible for them to leave it off this list, as it is definitely one of the best games on the device right now.

[1]: https://www.dicetower.com/game-video/marvel-snap-review-3-mi...

F2P games don't scare me because of the money. I got to legendary on Hearthstone without ever spending a single cent. I never even bought the welcome package, even though it was a good deal, simply because I wanted to see if the game truly was playable if you didn't pay.

They scare me because they are designed like slot machines with intermittent reward cycles to get you hooked and craving your next splash of dopamine. And, as you said, Snap is a legitimately good F2P game, which is no surprise as it was designed by Hearthstone's former lead game designer Ben Brode.

And that's why I deleted it after just a few days. It was hard enough quitting Hearthstone and I knew I would get hooked on Snap if played for too long.

I played Brawl Stars for months without ever spending on the game and I unlocked everything non-cosmetic that was available. The option is there but it isn't required, if you pay to advance your level faster it just means you will be put against better players and hit your "skill ceiling" faster so I never saw the point. (caveat that this was a few years ago and these games always tend to get more predatory over time)

It's a very fun game, although the fast paced "just one more game" loop was definitely addictive.

TBH the state of apps has gone downhill, every single app now thinks it's entitled to a monthly subscription fee. I get paying to subscribe to Netflix, Spotify or HBO, but I see so many apps that seem to do so little yet want a monthly subscription. Like please tell me why your offline notes app of weather app that plugs into a free API needs a $1.99/month subscription.

Because people pay, that’s why. But you’re free to disrupt that economy by offering these simple apps for free!

First of all, Apple charges developers a yearly subscription for the privilege of publishing apps on the App Store. Secondly, with every year comes new APIs and deprecations. So developers need to constantly put in work so the app works when you upgrade your OS.

People complain about subscriptions forgetting that 20 years ago you didn’t update your OS yearly. It’s time for people to realise the landscape has changed. If you want someone to blame, blame Apple / Google for deprecating APIs and forcing developers to adjust their targets yearly to avoid reduced distribution.

How did pokemongo get left off this list

Nothing I can find in this article is specific to games. Nor can I find any information that comes from an "insider" editor viewpoint.

It's just the same general App Store complaints about 1) the 30% cut, 2) arbitrary app reviews, 3) copycats, and 4) search, that we've heard about for years.

Which are all valid criticisms, but we've been discussing them for years and there's nothing new here.

(Also, kind of hilarious that it complains about the “ask app not to track” popup as harming game companies. Which is a tip-off that the author may not actually be on the traditional side of consumers here.)

> Apple could have reinvested a greater fraction of the billions it has earned from mobile games to make the App Store a good place to find fun, interesting games to fit your tastes.

I think they did that, but not in the way the writer would like them to. If you open the App Store, and click “Arcade” on the bottom row, you get access to 200+ ad-free games of, AFAIK, decent quality.

And “reinvested” is the word to use, indeed, as those reinvestments bring in more money.

Of course, the existence of Apple Arcade also is an incentive for Apple not to keep the other side of the App Store look bad.

100% agree with this. I got it for my daughter and she happily plays games on Apple TV with an Xbox controller. No ads and no IAP.

Apple Arcade on Apple TV is pretty good for kids. There’s some really nice actual games there. My seven year old has enjoyed Sneaky Sasquatch, Assemble With Care, Simon’s Cat, Alba, Lego Builders Journey and What the Golf.

All have had interesting aspects to them. Exploration of large world maps, manipulation of 3D objects, spatial and physical reasoning. There’s plenty of reading too.

I got the free months of Arcade from purchasing a device and I've enjoyed it very much. I get to play, amongst others, FM23 Touch on my Mac.

A recent White House report [...] recommended that the tech giants open up their digital storefronts to outside competition

I want to see Steam take them on with their own store.

I want to see congress turn “steamroller” into an acronym, as in “The STEAMROLLER Act”.

I agree wholeheartedly with the conclusions of the article, but I already did so before I ever read the article. "I was an App Store games editor – that’s how I know Apple doesn’t care about games" doesn't seem to provide much if any insider info about the situation. It's not a tell-all article, as far as I can tell.

A more damning recent story is "Authenticator app advertising on App Store sends QR codes to developer" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34907226

I agree with the sentiments about App Review (and I worked there!), but everyone else does. It seems like the writer worked on the App Store content team, but just pointed their finger at App Review? That...doesn't seem fair? Why not point the finger at the editorial team too, since this writer would know those particular foibles best? Marketing is a huge part of the popularity of games, and App Review has nothing to do with it. There's a non-zero amount of that could have been surfaced here rather than repeating old trends of "boo App Review".

This is really just corporate politics of Apple making it into bleeding posts to generate clicks, but the issues are more top-down than just the App Review or App Store editorial teams. Oh, and an SEO land grab to establish a backlink to the writer's own website.

Do you have any stories or problems you observed while in App Review? To the rest of us, it is a black box and fiefdoms where your ability to get approved has a large amount of random change based on which reviewer's queue you're placed in.

I think Apple doesn’t care about high end 3D AAA games that much. On the other hand, I think that Apple Arcade is a fantastic value for a set of fun casual games to play on iPhones and iPads that don’t have ads or IAPs.

The the words “doesn’t care about game” in the title makes me identify to it as “_I_ care about game !” But the content is focus on game businesses, not game users.

> Recent privacy policies – including the introduction of that “ask app not to track” pop-up you will have seen again and again – have even actively harmed the mobile games business.

> […] free-to-play happened, and the mobile game gold rush was on.

>I was an App Store games editor

Title is kind of a bait. He doesn't discuss anything really from his experience as App Store editor.

I don't even bother with iOS/iPadOS/tvOS games anymore unless it's part of Apple Arcade. Plenty of great games in there for the amount of time I have to "waste" on games, and I know I'm not going to have deal with ads or gem/coin pay-to-win tactics.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com