Hacker News Reader

Comment by diziet | Hacker News Reader

This is silly. At the end of the day, game developers need to get paid for their effort and time spent. The days of $49 boxed games are over (on mobile). The iAP model is proven again and again across different platforms and the majority of the top grossing apps are following it.

It costs money to develop games and apps. A quality title might cost over a million dollars in development. What makes the consumer believe they deserve to get it for free?

iAPs are not necessarily evil - they are a great and perfect way of pricing things for different subsets of people. If you reduce iAP revenue, you make developers more driven toward ad revenue.

View on HN

I don't think anybody was saying that games should be free or that iAPs are about to be illegal. But labeling something "free" that isn't really "free" is misleading customers. Games shouldn't be free since games aren't free to produce. But it's a reasonable expectation that games that are not free are not labeled as "free".

How can you claim that this is a reasonable expectation, when the most popular and top grossing games on all platforms for several years have been dominated by so-called "free" games with in-app purchases? For someone to expect "free" to mean "no in-app purchases" would require complete ignorance on the state of electronic gaming, which is hardly reasonable.

It might be "hardly reasonable" to you, but most people _are_ completely ignorant about the state of electronic gaming. The article itself clearly says that complains about this have became common enough that EC needs to take action. So it happens and is common. That is a fact, not an assumption. The only question is whether to allow it, or try to find a solution.

Personally I would like games with in app purchases to be in the "paid" category with a price "0" (or "0+"). Maybe even include how much the average player pays for it. I don't much care whether this is achieved through regulations, or done by companies themselves.

It is about transparency of pricing and being able to compare the actual cost of games.

Apple has featured a game today that they have listed as free. The largest IAP is $55, but that price is hidden behind extra clicks. This means that when a consumer is comparing two apps they have extra work to do to compare true prices.

This hidden pricing has cause harm.

Developers cannot advertise a game with an honest price. An app sold at £5.99 would struggle in todays app store. So devs have to list games as free but with IAPs.

True price of IAP-enabled app depends on whether consumer use that IAPs. What's a true price of "free" e-bay bidding app? What's true price of "free" Amazon shopping app?

And you don't need to buy IAP to beat most game. This is like saying I can't list my shop as having "free" shipping because people prefer to pay more for overnight delivery.

Ebay took measures to prevent people shifting the cost of tems from the item to the post and packing. If the seller pays £1.99 for p&p they can charge £10 and reduce the cost of their item by £8.

Your point about overnight delivery is reasonable. Some games are playable without IAPs. But some games have a degraded experience without IAPs - timers that the player need to wait for is one example - and some games are going to be unfun without IAPs.

Are apps without iAPs but with ads to be considered 'free'?

Sure. The experience is the same for all users. Paying money doesn't change it.

"Free" as opposed to "paid" refers to one specific resource (money) being paid by the user to the developer. So yes, they are free in that regard. Otherwise you could start to argue that loading screens make an app non-free because they cost you time.

I personally don't consider them free. But I think most people do.

In app purchases are fine, but be HONEST about it. Not being upfront about the costs of your game directly misleads the customer and, in my opinion, is a terrible and abusive way to earn revenue.

1. iAP are obviously not evil. 2. How the industry uses them probably is. 3. Your game isn't free if you have to pay to enjoy it. 4. "Developers gotta eat" doesn't have anything to do with it.

> Your game isn't free if you have to pay to enjoy it.

I've enjoyed many free games that others complained they had to pay to play. PvZ2, for example.

And then let's apply this thought process to every startup out there offering a free tier. How quickly people would turn around if I put conditions: "Your Free tier ain't free if I can't use it for real business."

I have enjoyed many F2P games without paying, Candy Crush as a matter of fact. I just stop playing when it gets too tough to go on.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com