That the only way to get applications on your phone is going through Apple, or a gatekeeper approved by apple, is a problem in itself too.
That the first "app store" approved is built on predatory free to play gaming money is also a problem.
That the first "app store" approved is built on predatory free to play gaming money is also a problem.
That's how 70% of apple's revenue is gained. AKA, the biggest players who are capable of advertising their own store without visibility from the default mode of purchase.
I'm sure eventually we'll get FDroid equivalents on IOS, but Apple is still playing coy as of now. So nothing but the deepest pockets will challenge them.
That’s factually incorrect and a completely absurd figure. The make way more money from device sales
70% of Apples app store revenue comes from game MTX. This is pretty much public record thanks to Apple v. Epic.
I completely get why they are in their death thoes, but as you said: they have other lucrative revenue streams anyway. So I hope the EU keeps slamming down on them.
It's more of a choice between Apple, or Apple + third-party gatekeeper. Well, at least now – I fully expect this to be investigated by the EU.
Apple had no qualms about Fortnites monetization model when it was in the App Store either, other than the fact that Epic tried to cut them out of the payment loop.
Those are also the only guys who have enough money to compete with Apple's lawyers.
Most interesting is this section:
> Fortnite’s counterintuitive, inconsistent, and confusing button configuration led players to incur unwanted charges based on the press of a single button.
Apple is also taking aim at Epic here for using buttons and labels identical to the ones that they use - I’m curious to actually see these buttons, and I wonder if they are being used intentionally.
The game is very successful and well-made. It is AAA-quality. An AAA price for that kind of content would be $60 minimum, more likely $80-100. Anything under that price and you’re playing the game at a steep discount, compared to what the games market offers.
As for kids getting confused — yeah. That happens a lot, on the internet and outside the internet. Kids are confused about so many things. In fact, that is why they need to be parented. I feel like some parents should try and do that instead of waving fists at every tech/game company.
This reminds me a bit about the outrage GTA used to cause. Just don’t buy it for your kid if you think it’s too violent for them, you know? It’s not hard. Don’t give your kid access to Fortnite if they will be confused. Or use a bank with spending limits. Or just give your kid gift cards. There are so many options in the world for parents other than child-proofing the world itself.
Very, very many parents get this right. And it only takes 10 minutes to put some restrictions in place — bare minimum for parenting. Some others have the “government should do it for me” complex. Actions beget consequences. Neither Epic Games nor governments can fix bad parenting.
So is paying less for a game than it’s worth really predatory? Alternatively, if kids get confused by something made for a broad audience, is that predatory? I don’t know, it’s grey area at best for me. You could make a claim that marketing in Fortnite is predatory but it’s the same marketing psychology that’s used elsewhere. Is marketing predatory then?
Tencent didn't get all their investment money from Gacha in the asian market?
And please don't tell me Tencent is a minority investor or that there are non predatory IAPs or I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.
The owner of a game doesn't dictate whether the game is predatory or not, the behavior of the game does.
The free to play model isn't inherently predatory, either, although certain companies certainly are. Call of Duty seems especially predatory.
They design the game to not only fleece you for money, but to waste your time until you do.
There's a big difference between free to play and using as many dirty tricks as they can to fleece as much info as possible (and/or being pay to win), and a company that genuinely makes a free to play game and makes money off skins, because it made better business sense than charging $50 up front.
See below.
> genuinely makes a free to play game [...] because it made better business sense than charging $50 up front.
So the free to play model fleeces you for more money. It's not predatory. At all. Honest.
See above.
> So the free to play model fleeces you for more money. It's not predatory. At all. Honest.
Ah, I see the cause of the misunderstanding. You're assuming the free to play model fleeces people for more money always when that simply isn't true. It's obviously true when companies are playing dirty, but not all companies do. Consider little indie studios, for example.
Quite often, free to play can end up costing people less money. Case in point, I played CSGO for 10+ years and spent less than $5 on it. If I had bought the game when it came out it would have cost $20 or so.
The little indie studios that I buy my games from are all pay once?
> Quite often, free to play can end up costing people less money. Case in point, I played CSGO for 10+ years and spent less than $5 on it. If I had bought the game when it came out it would have cost $20 or so.
Someone else paid $2000 for hats or whatever CSGO sells in the same period to cover the $20 you and other 98 players haven't paid.
And the game design and development effort went towards making those hats so the whales can buy them.
Any free to play game would have been completely different if it were designed as a pay once game.
Why are you going out of your way to disingenuously interpret comments? It's strangely super-defensive, your comment history shows it isn't a rare occurrence.
No, maybe not the little indie studios you specifically buy your games from, but plenty of indie studios offer free to play games.
Go browse Steam or something before commenting more on this subject please.
> Someone else paid $2000 for hats or whatever CSGO sells in the same period to cover the $20 you and other 98 players haven't paid.
Because they probably had disposable income and wanted to. It doesn't mean they are being fleeced, anymore than Balanciaga is 'fleecing' people here.
I take 'fleecing' here to mean conning, and there is no con happening. It's an honest transaction that people can take if they want to.
> Any free to play game would have been completely different if it were designed as a pay once game.
No shit, business models evolve. That doesn't mean all free to play games are inherently predatory. That's honestly a very foolish assertion to try and make.
I don't look at free games, I'm not that rich.
> No shit, business models evolve. That doesn't mean all free to play games are inherently predatory. That's honestly a very foolish assertion to try and make.
But they are. And not only for the whales that pay 2000 for the hats.
Do you realize that any "free" title is designed to waste your time to keep you playing? Why do you think they are all endless $ACTIVITY or competitive multiplayer? Is your time worth that little?
Jesus christ lol. So, you're just confirming here you had no clue what you were talking about. You get that, right?
You're making very bold claims based on assumptions and misunderstanding, for something you don't even browser or participate in. Your initials aren't DK by any chance, are they?
> And not only for the whales that pay 2000 for the hats.
Sure, anyone that can afford it and wants it will. Most people might just pay for a few $20 hats though, and get more enjoyment out of it than say 3 of their $8 cups of coffee.
> Do you realize that any "free" title is designed to waste your time to keep you playing?
I mean, that'ss true in some cases, and I'd say that's true of the biggest free to play games pushed by the buggest companies with a history of being shady, but again (and this is key): that doesn't describe all free to play games.
You're doing the equivilant of insisting all operating systems must be unstable and crash because Windows used to.
> Why do you think they are all endless $ACTIVITY or competitive multiplayer? Is your time worth that little?
I play free to play games to jump on and have a break. I'v played FPS games since I was a kid and find it a good way to destress. I see no problem in doing something I enjoy and would hardly call that a waste of time.
They're right, some free to play models are predatory and some of them aren't.
Free to play doesn't imply whales, either.
Got some, but thinking Tencent got all their money from Gacha is like saying Google got all its money from Search. Tencent's reach is in nearly every industry in China.
>And please don't tell me Tencent is a minority investor or that there are non predatory IAPs
I won't, but do you really believe all add-ons are predatory?
This attitude is exactly why you can't make premium mobile anymore. No one wants to pay, and the minority that do will pay a lot. "Piracy is a service problem" is a very common thing touted in argument against such tactics, but when you can sell your service for "free" to get people in the door, that argument falls apart quickly.
Premium? Freemium? The few mobile apps that I bought since i got a smart phone are all pay once and most of them cost more than 0.99.
However, for example, I do not even bother to look at mobile games any more because I "know" they'll be an IAP crapfest.
And if i look at applications, it's because they have been mentioned and deemed useful by a third party i trust.
- ad supported, pay once to remove ads
- subscription model. Get basic features and maybe ads, pay some 2-5 dollars a month for premium features. These may or may not have a "lifetime" option which is basically pay once.
- the dying breed of "demo mode". You play X levels and then you pay once for a "full game".
- and then freemium models which is basically a free game with small and large tricks to encourage spending over time.This is probably where you are.
But outside of that, yes. There are still premium games you buy like a console game (they are often ports of console games). But it's a niche because they are competing against a sea of "free" games. And many mobile gamers do just want 10-20 minutes of a quick fix, not even long enough to get past tutorials in larger games.
All gaming IAP that are not full on expansions (not skins, not standalone characters, etc.hm) are predatory
Seems like a pretty blurry line in the sand. Even blurrier when price 100% has an impact on perception. Skins are an exception but if I told you some skins are $60, would that be predatory?