With that said, it's obviously not in the end user's best interest in terms of seeing a true rating prior to download an app. It merely helps the developer to achieve higher ratings, more users as a result, and if they actually care about the feedback, then improving their product as well.
Nice, lead with a statement designed to belittle the opposition akin to killing an argument with the term 'fanboy'. Only slightly subtler.
This is a UX antipattern. If I want to leave feedback, then I'll leave feedback. If I want to rate the app, then I'll rate the app. What this is doing is facilitating 5 star reviews and taxing 1-4 star reviews with extra clicks and potential user confusion. It's anti-consumer, as negative reviews are likely filtered out. EA's repeated anti-consumer choices are why I hate EA. I couldn't care less if it was 'cool' to do.
It's cases like these that make me think there should be an ethics code for software developers.
I would definitely not encourage other devs to do the same, rather I think Google should crack down on those behaviours for the good of the users.
I assume at this point you don't need to pay anything to progress correctly in the game, so they want you to rate it before you get to see the pay2win aspects.
I think what EA is doing is different from us because they're using stars, which are linked to App Store ratings for users, because it's 5 stars or nothing, and it looks more likely that they truly are trying to avoid sending detractors to rate the app.
But if you squint a little, they are basically the same thing. And it isn't a pattern I want to see takeoff. So, I'm conflicted.
For example ask how do you like our app (without even a hint that it's a Google Play rating) and then either ask user to rate the app or provide feedback, depending on whether they liked the app or not.
People keep saying "this isn't preventing anyone from rating," but that's total nonsense. If one user can get to a rating in one click while the other has to exit your app and go hunt it down in the store, you are filtering the latter out even if your filter is not 100% effective.
I’m quite shocked at the warm embrace this sort of immoral behaviour seems to be getting on HN. Google has to explicitly ban such behavior, remove this app from the store and EA needs to be publicly shamed. How could anything else be acceptable?
That's short-sighted thinking. This kind of manipulation will only condition people not to trust you and destroy your brand and reputation.
As a consumer, I want ratings to reflect what people actually think about the product, because that's a valuable aid for my own purchasing decisions. As a developer, I _also_ want ratings to reflect what people actually think about the product, because that means I'll be competing on the actual merits of my app, rather than how good I am at deception.
What we're seeing here is good for neither consumers nor (other) developers, it's only about manipulating ratings for EA. I really can't understand how anyone would portray this as a positive thing.
Hating on EA for this sort of shenanigan isn't "cool", it's having a modicum of sense.
> With that said, it's obviously not in the end user's best interest
I think you mean, "a great idea for developers who don't mind abusing their users"