Hacker News Reader

Comment by waterlesscloud | Hacker News Reader

When I read a user review stating a game has In App Purchases, I don't buy it. Period. No matter how good it looks otherwise.

I'm probably just old, I guess.

View on HN

I'm not that old—27, so, maybe—but I do the same thing. In-App Purchases signal to me that the game is likely to begin ransoming my pleasure as soon as I invest time into it. It's a very frustrating feeling.

There are too many things out there that don't do that to waste time on a computer game that plays mindgames.

EDIT: I should add the caveat that if it's clear about what the IAPs do—i.e. they're clear addons or a shareware model of an otherwise good game, rather than "this game will progress untolerably slowly unless you pay"—I'm not a stickler on principle. Without more information, though, the presence of IAP is a strong negative signal.

You're old enough to know better. The problem is that for younger kids, this kind of stuff is normal. There are even IAP for fully paid games on consoles/PC (are DLC considered IAP?). IAP are everywhere now.

I've started talking to my kids about IAP in the exact same way I talk to them about drugs - without even realizing it till just now.

A small minority of games have optional IAP which does not detract from the game. They basically do "expansion packs" via IAP, or skinning and nothing more. And that's OK by me, it's essentially freeware for platform which does not really provide a good path for demos/trials. So just "IAP = bad", I don't think that works. If an F2P game looks good but turns out to be unplayable without IAP, or to have IAP up the ass, that's a removal and a negative review, but having IAP is a broken criteria.

IAP can be "pay for more content", or "pay for useless shit to support the developers" and that's fine. It's not fine when it's "pay to actually play" with the intent that having downloaded the software, having a foot through the door, is sufficient an investment to get people to pay.

What's the difference between in-app purchases, and what Quake did (the first episode free, pay for the other three)?

There is a big difference between in-app purchases for extra content (paid DLC, basically) and the model that Candy Crush is such a despicable example of, i.e. pay for access.

Although you could even argue that pay for access IAP is no different than the coin-operated arcade games from last century.

Quake was one time fee. Which is fine for me. Arcade coins - they were roguelikes all of them and the fee was per game and there was no savegames.

If CCS you pay 1 cent per play it is ok. but they should charge it directly and transparently.

Not to mention in an arcade you're playing on someone else's machine, using their electricity, their space, their air conditioning, and occupying a spot that could be used by another customer. It's very much not the same thing as playing a game on my own phone.

Comparing that to IAPs is like justifying a coffee maker that makes me put in $4 for every cup because that's what it costs at Starbucks.

From what I have read, and from what I know of my limited experience, most of the money on IAP games are made from "whales". Most people will download and just play the free levels. Others will spend a little. Some people spend a lot, and from what I know, many of them can afford it. If you offer a $100 super sword they will buy it. This is something to bear in mind as to how these companies structure pricing.

That’s awfully shortsighted. IAPs are not the enemy. IAPs can be pretty awesome, if used correctly.

For example, the Carcassonne app on iOS is the base game (a board game), but you can buy expansions through IAPs. That mirrors how the physical game is sold (you buy the base game and add expansions as you want).

Expansions are basically new tiles and figures that add new game mechanics.

It’s fair for both buyer (they only buy the expansions they actually want but still don’t have to buy the game multiple times in different permutations) and the developer (they make money for the additional time they put in adding expansions).

Actually, I think IAPs are the only way to correctly solve this problem (short of the ridiculous expectation that developers should not make money from expansions), especially since it’s also possible to combine expansions (something not possible if you were to sell different Carcassonne+River, Carcassonne+Princess, etc., apps).

It’s really a shame that stupid smurfberries are ruining the fun for everyone.

I'm working on a game data project and one of the things I'm trying to figure out how to track is exactly this difference.

How can you tell whether a game with IAPs has "good" IAPs -- and the critical path of the game remains free -- or "bad" IAPs, paywalls/gating/pay-to-win? Also, how do you decide whether a content gate is a "bad" IAP or a "good" one?

I'm coming at it from a value-for-money angle at the moment, but I've learnt that people's definitions of "value" vary wildly. Some folks are more than happy to boast about completing Candy Crush without giving a cent to the developer.

It's simple.

IAP of extendable resources is a sham.

IAP of shortcuts and powerups is a sham.

IAP of extra game levels, something that extends existing game universe without changing the rules (and that also maps onto a non-trivial work on developer's end) is NOT a sham.

Easy-peasy.

Agree 100%.

I would add that IAP that are have no effect on gameplay (skins, announcer packs, etc) are not a sham.

This jibes pretty well with me, in regards to most games. However, where do games like EVE Online fit in, where (IIRC) a month's subscription is an item in the game world that you can pay real money for and trade with others (who are using their in-game wealth to pay for their game subscription)? Technically it does confer advantages to people with cash to spare (who can bypass normal progression through trade), but the way it links the in-game economy to the real world and the fact that it's an organic, player-driven process and not some "pay2win shop" makes it seem more legitimate to me.

I've never actually played the game, so I don't know how well it works for them, but it's always seemed like an interesting idea to me, and EVE has a lot of hardcore fans that don't seem bothered by it.

So, if I can IAP to get an extra 5 moves in a puzzle game, or infinitely replay the same level and get stuck, never playing the game again, that's a sham?

What about currencies/powerups that I can either get via IAP vs social obligation? I'd rather pay than bug my friends.

(Of course, one argument is that none of these mechanics should exist in the first place. But they do.)

My guideline would be that any IAP you can repeat is a bad IAP. If you're buying a consumable that's obviously bad; if you're buying a completely different additional game that's obviously ok. In between there's a spectrum; an expansion that requires its own development is mostly ok, pay to level up is mostly bad even if there's a cap on how many times you can do it. And so on.

So if a game is free to download, but you have to buy the last 10 levels after playing 5 already. Would you consider that an in-app purchase? Is this a deal breaker for you?

You should be able to play the game, and beat the game, without any in-app purchases. It can beg you for add-ons all it wants, but gameplay shouldn't be affected.

I think IAP's to upgrade trails are ok. IE play two levels for free, buy the rest.

That's just one model. Personally, I'd much rather pay for levels than pay for resources that make the game less tedious.

That's not bad - that's more like a free trial. My issue with in app payments is that they create game breaking incentives and it's hard to know if that's what they're going to be when you see 'in app purchases' on the main screen.

Most that I've seen seem to require purchases to unbreak the game or make it so that progress isn't artificially restricted by time. I think this effects some people more than others (WoW, farmville, clash of clans players who pour thousands of hours/dollars into the game).

> WoW

Hold on for a minute. WoW is almost the exact opposite of this model, and for that reason I still respect it as an MMO compared to others I've seen.

In WoW, at least when I played it heavily during the Lich King expansion, you pay for the game and for a monthly subscription fee and that's it -- there was no other use for real money other than maybe buying a faster computer or a vent server, but that's outside of the game environment. Buying gold, while possible, was heavily discouraged and bannable.

This policy made WoW feel very fair to teenage me and I ended up putting a considerable amount of time into the game as a result. I realized that it was plausible for me to be the best simply by putting enough time into it.

Additionally, WoW's social environment is typically what keeps the long-term players going (as opposed to ingame objectives, although objectives are important for keeping players engaged), and that's another story entirely.

Right now though, there's an in game Shop button for purchasing stuff in WoW. It's just vanity items, mounts and pets. They do balance a very very fine line - if they let you buy stuff that has a genuine in game advantage, they cross the line, though they're probably quite aware of that.

Actually, I don't know if you've caught the news, but they're in the process of implementing a "automatic level 90" token as an IAP, which will probably hit their store before their next expansion comes out.

I don't personally have an issue with it, but their IAP is encroaching subtly on the gameplay, and it might not stop there.

That's a "feemium" model which also has problems, but different problems.

IAP is open-ended. It targets certain types of personalities. It is exploitative in that you can respond to calls to "help" other players. Addicted "whales" dominate revenue.

That is at least a negative indicator for me, and a deal breaker in many cases.

I've played demos in the past and sometimes that has led to a purchase of a full game, and sometimes not. A difference/problem with this newer model is that paying could lead me to being asked for more payments: I don't necessarily know.

If the game was advertised at free, but then charged me after a point (i.e. if I didn't know in advance that it was a demo), that would be an immediate deal-breaker.

Unless it was clear exactly what I was paying for, I would be unwilling. Will I have to pay for level 16? If it was possible I would be asked repeatedly for more money later, I would be unwilling.

Just so you know this is exactly how many games were distributed in the 90's, under the shareware model. Like DOOM and Quake. The first entire level was free, and was a substantial amount of content. Then you paid for the rest.

Yep. I think there's a difference.

When you had to physically get your software out there and into people's hands, that was perhaps a good model.

Now, it's more awkward. Asking me for payment for partial content is a dangerous indicator that you might ask me for more, later.

There's also reasonable evidence that demos reduce sales figures (i.e. that demos act as negative indicators):

http://uk.ign.com/articles/2013/02/11/jesse-schell-releasing...

The payment is for the full content of the game, not partial content, and there is no chance of asking for more later since there is no additional content. That's the way demos and shareware worked in the past.

This is definitely the best model. But it doesn't matter.

Up-front, I have no way to know which exploitative model is going to be used. Just seeing IAPs are involved is enough to turn me off. It's not worth the effort to investigate.

If they called it a demo, which is what it really is, then no, I would not call it a deal breaker.

If however, they called it the full game, then yes, it is a deal breaker.

This happened to me with FF4: After Years in the Wii. It was advertised as a full game and then I learned that most chapters had to be paid separately (and they weren't cheap). That made me really angry, but now I know better: research absolutely any game I purchase (digital or physical) so that it never happens again.

Same here, I hate the idea of IAPs and never ever consider even downloading a game that has IAPs. I would rather pay more to have a full game than to be constantly nickeled and dimed. I know a lot of my friends feel the same way.

I'm 21 and I do the same thing. I just don't feel like either having to pay $30 for a simple app to get all the features I want, paying to win, or paying just to play the game.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com