Hacker News Reader

Comment by gtirloni | Hacker News Reader

It would prevent the tsunami of stupid titles from showing up. Companies would get into the game (pun intended) only if sure they had a decent product. Just as always.

The amount of trickery I have seen in IAPs is disgusting.

View on HN

This is like arguing that Walmart should be banned. You might think the products are stupid, but there are enough people that don't spending money on their preferences to create the current situation. If there is a problem it is with consumers.

Admittedly this does poison the well for many other game developers, but the reality is getting attention in the current mobile market is close to impossible without an enormous spend, so conservatism of business model is going to rule the roost now.

It also doesn't help that self professed hardcore gamers undervalue mobile titles enormously, and that touch controls just aren't good enough for many purposes either.

Could you imagine a Walmart that had fast checkout lanes that charged a few dollars extra, and regular checkout lanes that didn't have baggers and deliberately went slowly, even if there wasn't anyone ahead of you in the line?

You kind of do already. You have the choice between convenient places near you which cost more or drive to out of town big box stores where things are supposedly cheaper.

Or you can buy online, and wait until tomorrow for your items but pay less again.

I'd love a store that offered that. Sometimes I go to buy something then just walk out because they're processing so long. Sometimes I'm tempted to throw down cash and walk out but I figure that might cause a security incident.

But being able to skip the line for a few bucks is great. I do the same when flying, too.

Except to make this analogy complete the store would make you wait 30 minutes to check out even if there was no one else in the store. In other words, the wait is artificial to begin with.

Paying to be prioritized in a system with limited resources is one thing, paying to get rid of an entirely artificial restriction is quite something else.

It's a video game. Everything is artificial. Following the reasoning here I would expect that a proper game would be beat when I started it and any interaction I have with it is some kind of artificial barrier that should be removed.

This logic doesn't follow. Most video games don't optimize their gameplay mechanics for conversion to micropayments - and the ones that do are widely under attack.

Sure, all mechanics in all games are man-made, but to continue the analogy, we're talking about an entirely artificial wait time to check out that's been specifically optimized to make you pay for the "express" checkout. In other words, the wait exists for no reason except to extract more money from you.

The whole core of the argument is that developers used to optimize the mechanics of the game for fun and enjoyment, and now instead optimize the mechanics for how frequently and continually they can suck money out of your pockets. There is now a gigantic philosophical and developmental gap between the "pay once" and "pay monthly" business models and the "pay always" business model.

They kind of already do this with their pharmacies.

Agreed on the checkout, but the flying thing always struck me as stupid. You spend some extra dollars so you can skip ahead and... spend longer on the plane? It's not like that's any more fun than standing in a queue.

Well...if you know you can skip the line ahead of time, you don't have to get to the airport quite as early. I'd imagine that's the main draw for Clear and the other programs. Plus not having to take off your shoes etc.

Not getting molested comes at a price: $85 for pre-check status. That said, you also have to hand over your social media history and web browsing history. Its required for your KTN.

Handing over social media and web browsing history for KTN... sarcasm? If not, I'm curious to see a source - never heard anything about that sort of screening and a quick google didn't pull anything either.

First, at the security line, there's no benefit for hanging around outside. And you can go later - I usually show up an hour before boarding, even for international. Skipping security lines means unlikely to miss boarding.

Being able to skip boarding line means a: I can hang out in the lounge until a bit later, or b: get on the plane earlier so I can order drinks, get comfy and start sleeping or reading or whatever.

Being up front also means getting in before a ton of people at customs, sometimes. So that might be another 30-40 minutes of standing around in some cases (or worse).

Surely all foot traffic should be considered equal, and we shouldn't be both paying for a product and then paying again for how we get out of the store!

Footwork Neutrality! (/s)

They have this in South America, it's called "preferred checkout." Seems pretty standard as far as I can tell (they don't go deliberately slow, but they're deliberately understaffed).

My guess was this is more likely to offed American consumer's egalitarian sentiment and the revenue from membership would pale in comparison to the PR hit. Or maybe it's just inertia from early grocery store practices.

If it were the only grocery store around I might see it as wrong, but personally I'd just shop somewhere else.

I could imagine that, and it would be a bit silly and (I'd guess) not too successful, but I certainly wouldn't find it offensive or somehow morally wrong.

Great idea actually.

This isn't limited to games, though. My experience is that people see "app on my phone" and think "disposable, like kleenex--and should cost about as much as a single sheet of the stuff."

One shouldn't underestimate the sheer effort required to get even trivial revenue from any one app, regardless of genre or quality.

* Companies would get into the game (pun intended) only if sure they had a decent product. Just as always.*

You highly overestimate the ability to judge a winner ahead of time. If only the products we knew we're going to be "decent" got made, we'd have a considerably less innovative society.

Not to mention that this is all just completely subjective. I know plenty of people hat are legitimately happy with their "trash games" (just like certain tv...), and who am I to explain to them what they should actually like?

Your trickery is someone else's fun game, though. It's a larger philosophical question if you have the right to stop someone from "being taken advantage of" if they are a willing, informed, enthusiastic participant in the process.

Nopes. Crappy games would just cost more.

See: every generation of video gaming.

The trickery is definitely an issue. But I don't have any problem with allowing users to watch an ad or watch a video promoting another app in exchange for more coins, or more 'points' in order to continue playing a game.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com