Google will stop calling games 'free' when they offer in-app purchases
theverge.com
theverge.com
It will probably come as terrible news for manipulative game developers. From first-hand experience working at a company that did this and first-hand developer testimonials, IAP in "free" games and its design has long been associated with forcing emotional, heat-of-the-moment-spurred buys from consumers - ie. You were so close to beating the level that time but you lost your last life :( Get an extra life right now and you'll kill it this time around!!!.
Sadly, a portion of total players (1-2% from what I've seen) will fall for these emotional tactics and spend the money, often more than once. Even worse is when they later convince themselves that the money was well spent (say, for an extra life in Candy Crush).
I hope Apple also follows suit, as some sources allude to.
I still don't get why mobile games are aimed at "I want a game, but I only have $0.99 to spend." Computer games cost $60+.
I guess as more people go mobile-only, there will be a bigger market for higher priced mobile games, but I can't imagine anyone who considers themselves a gamer right now doesn't have either a console or a relatively high-end computer. (And I don't see anyone who doesn't consider themselves a gamer dropping more than $5 to play a game.)
I agree with your general point, but I want to point out that the last sentence doesn't have to be true. Like tools in a toolbox, some platforms are more well-suited than others. The reasons vary for this, but in games it usually it comes down to control schemes. Mobile has its advantages as well- you always have it on you, likely has network connectivity 24/7, its unique control scheme, etc. I think mobile's biggest problem right now is creators are still trying to shoehorn last decade's games on a platform that was not designed for it. They may be different games than we're all used to, but there's no reason why mobile can't come into its own.
That all said, I would rephrase your last sentence to "...generally expect a better experience than mobile currently provides."
For what it's worth, I feel a game like Clash of Clans uses mobile's strengths very well (although I personally find it boring and its revenue model distasteful)- it makes good use of mobile's control scheme, makes good use of its platform's always-on mentality by delivering notifications of attacks, etc, and is social.
- people who pay nothing
- people who pay about a full game's worth
- people who pay astounding sums
This works out because almost all AIP games sell cheats, which excert a different draw (or sometimes even a push) on players.
Making it free and marketing it as such lowers customer acquisition cost, while still retaining a low to decent CLV (and this is discounting the extreme case users who pay a lot higher than would be expected of a mobile purchase as well)
In these games, you can say there are three kinds of payers:
80%: LTV of $5-10, or people who would have bought the game for $1-10 up front. A significant amount of additional revenue is earned from these users when you change from paid to free-to-play, because they end up paying not the $2.99 you charge at the door but the $9.99 they're actually willing to pay.
20%: LTV of $50-$1,000, or people who really like your game and understand how the mechanics of paying and playing tie together.
~1%: Unobservable LTV, people who will keep spending until your game dies, not until they get bored. These are your diehard fans, they'll buy your limited-run art posters from Kickstarter, they'll play all your sequels simultaneously, they will clamor for you not to shut down your servers, they'll ask you to make more of the same.
A game like Clash of Clans has generated a cohort of people whose lifetime value is longer than the likely age of the game. If you play it, and appreciate how the mechanics of the paying integrate with the mechanics of the game, you'd understand how it differs significantly from your typical psychologically-manipulative casino.
Suffice it to say, it is extraordinarily hard to make a Clash of Clans game.
With regards to your specific example, I think Blizzard with Hearthstone and Valve with Team Fortress 2 both showed unequivocally that, even for people who are willing to spend $60 (or TF2's case, $25), you earn 5x more (Valve's numbers) with a free-to-play title with no pay-to-play mechanics (like TF2). I don't know how much more Hearthstone has earned by being free-to-play, but TCG mechanics tend to earn very well in this setting.
We tried selling a game - it doesn't work. We have a free (ad-supported) and paid version of our game, and we make 95% of our money on ads.
Adding removing ads as an iAP to the free version, instead of having multiple versions of the game on the store, saw that go from 5% to 15% or so.
It's RARE to have any true success in the mobile game market. It's even RARER to have that come from a game that has an up-front cost.
iAP is the new shareware. Anyone that bitches about iAP has to get their head around this. The market dictates how people are willing to spend money, and it's via iAP, not up-front costs.
We love making games. We love our job, and our company, and we want to keep doing it. But there's a hard truth that ad-supported free games have very, very low ARPU - for us, in the $0.20 range. We're lucky to have millions of downloads and hundreds of thousands of daily active users, but very few game studios are.
Someone that buys the ad-free iAP is worth 5x our average ARPU. So selling people customizations or whatever else iAP is the only way to raise ARPU to anything sustainable. Gamers don't (and never will) spend $60 on a mobile game again, and we have employees to pay and families to support. Yes, it can get exploitative, but if you have a better idea of how small game companies should survive - real ideas, not trolling - we'd love to hear them, because we would implement them immediately.
Edit: grammar.
As a consumer, I really don't like being asked to buy things in a Free game. I'm more than willing to shell out for a quality game upfront, and do so without hesitation.
The "free" games upselling me at every turn has honestly made me a bit burnt out with the Play store. If your app/game is of high quality, let me try it for a few minutes and I'll buy it if I like it, no problem. No need to badger me about "optional" extras.
People like me may or may not be a large chunk of the Android-using population, but I figured I'd share.
clearly you are in the tiny minority
>Free game
no such thing. people need to make money, they don't just have time to make great games and give them away. I understand not wanting to "pay to win" but IAP isn't at fault here. Also, these games are very obvious. if you don't want to do it, just don't play those games.
>If your app/game is of high quality, let me try it for a few minutes and I'll buy it if I like it, no problem.
wait wait wait. you JUST said you were willing to shell out for a quality game upfront. After downloading it free and playing it is not in fact upfront.
> wait wait wait. you JUST said you were willing to shell out for a quality game upfront. After downloading it free and playing it is not in fact upfront.
Sure it is:
https://support.google.com/googleplay/answer/2844909?hl=en
If I don't ask for a refund after the first 15 minutes, it's a done deal. Most app authors would probably prefer that I get a refund instead of buying their app and leaving a negative rating.
No, it doesn't. Hit Buy, open the app. Don't like it? Open Play store, hit Refund within 15 minutes of purchase. Done.
> No free demo refund on iOS. What would you propose for iOS games?
I don't propose anything for Apple/iOS. I have an Android. This article is about the Google Play store.
In a way, non-exploitative apps (with or without IAPs) are probably victims in current situation. I guess I'm not alone who simply do not trust anything with "offers in-app payments" label and avoids it as much as possible. There is no way for me to distinguish between "real game company" and exploitative company.
The problem of small game companies is that customers have no way to distinguish between good and crap game before buying and most of what is found in app store is of very little quality. I do not know how the company can solve it without better app discovery features from app stores themselves.
However, at least when I get shareware, I know they are going to pull the rug out from under me 1/4th the way through. As a result, I usually don't play shareware because I know I will be unsatisfied, I know I wont enjoy the experience.
Now shareware is "free" and I can't find any actual free games, actual free applications. I can't find anything that isn't trying to use or manipulate me.
The set of applications that were made because someone wanted to solve a problem and share the solution are obscured by wolves in sheep's clothing. I can't trust anything on the app store. The signal has being completely drowned out by the noise.
I hate, truly truly hate, the current condition of the android market. My phone is only good for making calls and playing the Simon Tanthem puzzle collection. I don't understand how you could defend it. I don't understand how anyone could defend it. It's so openly hostile.
* Bought a $500K house over a $400K house, or over a $25K house that was completely livable? Seems like the buyer fell for emotional tactics and peer and/or realtor pressure. Later they convinced themselves the money was well spent.
* Upsold on a new phone? Apple used emotional tactics to compel you to spend that money when you weren't really interested.
In games:
* Spent $200 during the Steam Sale on games you never actually played? How manipulative of Valve.
* Spent $1,000 buying Magic Cards after-market so you could win at a local tournament? It's a psychological sickness that you'll later convince yourself was just you "having fun".
There's a serious problem when people analyze any customer's behavior as being different from their own, and therefore irrational. I do think that there are many companies that trying to take advantage of consumers, but to another commenter's point, there are also many companies doing this responsibly. You could argue that many industries or businesses work on irrational behavior of consumers, but I think it's a slippery slope to categorize it as irrational - it's just behavior. People spend their income on all forms of entertainment good and bad, and frankly I was unhappy a lot of the time buying console games for $60 that never lived up to expectations. At least with free-to-play games I can choose what I'm paying for.
In most free-to-play games I have seen, player does not really know the real value he is paying for. At least when you do first buys, you usually do not know how far you can get with that item and when you will have to buy another one.
Paying $200 for a bunch of Steam games might be fine, as long as you know what you're getting... Or, you might feel scammed if you thought you were getting a complete game and later discovered you had to pay more via IAP to get what you thought you paid for in the first place.
This change (not calling IAP apps "free") is part of trying to inform the consumer. I'm not sure if it's the best solution as IAP seems like its own category, but that's the goal.
There are also varying degrees of IAP: - Should a "free" game that offers ads be considered free? You're paying for it by being forced to watch interstitial ads. (ex: Flappy Bird) - Should a "free" game that has IAPs for purely cosmetic items that have no impact on the game be considered free (ex: TF2 model)? - Should a "free" game that has IAPs that are optional that help you win be considered free (ex: Candy Crush)? - Should a "free" game that has IAPs that have a pure pay gate 20 minutes into the game be considered free?
Personally I think there are a ton of varying degrees here, and putting a "if you have IAP in the game, PERIOD" it's not considered free, makes a black-and-white statement about something that has many shades of gray.
A free game with ads should be considered free. That's simply how free services are categorized on the internet (facebook, twitter, reddit, etc).
Purely cosmetic items not affecting a game is a hard one to classify. Could go either way. A free game with optional IAP's is also hard to classify.
A game with a pay GATE is definitely not free.
So the hard to classify cases, if they are more pronounced to show that they are in fact, not completely free games, but free game with in app purchases available, the description or reviews can then go on to describe how that works. At the moment, the "offers in app purchases" in small subtext and a huge FREE DOWNLOAD button is insufficient and cause for much of the (I would argue, intentionally designed) confusion.
IAP created a breed of game developers that preys on spur of moment purchases on the part of the consumer. Yes, this exists in other businesses, but that doesn't make it acceptable or non-manipulative of consumers. A Lite version of a game, clearly specified, followed with a Full version paid version, is currently my preferred method of selling a game. No confusion is created on the part of the consumer, and they know what they're getting in either case.
Second, there's nothing wrong with "irrational". If I describe someone's behavior as irrational and I happen to be right, it doesn't automatically mean that I'm criticizing them. I might be, but just the use of that word doesn't automatically imply criticism. Humans don't make completely rational decision all of the time and that's okay.
Third, your examples are pretty much a mixed bag. At least three out of those four examples are about irrational decisions -- the first one might be completely rational, because we don't know all the details -- but that's the only characteristic they share. Dealing with an aggressive salesman who manages to convince you to get that new phone is very different from buying a bunch of Steam games because you thought you would like them and there was a bargain on them. That, in turn, is radically different from pouring $1,000 into Magic Cards alongside the time and dedication that go hand in hand with that level of enthusiasm for a hobby.
Fourth, spending $60 on a game you ended up not liking is a pretty good motivation for wanting to improve the process in order to avoid repeating the same mistake. Not all process improvements are legislative, of course. The sixty-dollar console game scenario, for example, doesn't deserve a law that decrees that all reviewers should be as critical as Yahtzee ;)
It all comes down to whether IAPs are a problem and, if they are, how much of a problem they are and how it can be solved. Personally, I find that the level of manipulation involved in mobile games with IAPs can sometimes be unacceptable [1] and that something should be done about it.
[1]: http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/RaminShokrizade/20130626/1949...
It appears that you're making a value judgement about behavior being rational or irrational, when it's just how human beings make decisions. If we all operated as purely rational individuals, unswayed by emotions, the vast majority of consumerism that exists in society would be gone. Singling out IAPs and free-to-play titles specifically while not going after basically every single consumer-based industry in the world is inconsistent and unfair to one specific sector.
We all make decisions based on our emotional responses to the information we're given - some people value certain things more heavily than others, and I don't think any individual or set of individuals can be the arbiter of whether a decision is rational or not. That's entirely up to the person making the decision.
Why is this a bad thing? You decided to download and to play the game. You put yourself under the "game" rules. You are an adult, not a child.
>Even worse is when they later convince themselves that the money was well spent (say, for an extra life in Candy Crush).
This is a highly subjective claim to make it pass as an argument. I may personally agree that every money spent on games is money not well spent but that is just my opinion.
Users are not babies. As long as no gun is pointing at them (i.e. the game gives you any content for free but also offers you more if you pay ), every purchase they do is legitimate.
Maybe I'm losing the point of this whole debate, I don't understand what you think users need protection against.
Google (and Apple) calling my apps "free" did bring in massive amounts of bad reviews.
I think this is good news for any developer that wants to offer a "free-to-download" app with non-exploitative IAPs. Think of a magazine-app: People should get the app itself for free to be able to choose which issue they want to buy. There is no emotional engineering going on. You don't want to trick people into believing this app is useful if they don't spend money - in fact, you don't even want people to download your app if they won't spend money anyway. But the app store says FREE...
We had/have major problems with getting tons of bad reviews like "THIS APP IS NOT FREE, ASKS FOR IN APP PURCHASE!!11".
We played with the description, so it would start with "buy" or "purchase" (e.g. "BUY THE NEW ISSUE ABOUT XYZ"), which helped a little (although most people seem to skip the description). We tried screenshots of the point where one needs to purchase... which is sort of fine for iPad screenshots, but a waste for smaller phone screens. We do now also offer a lot more content for free initially, which seemed to have helped most.
I'm hoping for a consistent labeling of all apps (not only games!) that sets correct expectations for the user when downloading an app.
I have actually seen devs do this, but I can't remember any exact cases.
Are there any drawbacks? Would this miss some of the cheaty games?
- apps that are entirely free
- apps with ads
- apps with removable ads
- apps with premium features
- apps that are demos (unlockable to the full app by paying)
- apps that sell cheats (99% of IAP games, the ones that disguise their cheats as "energy" or "coins" or "gems")
Sure, the bulk of apps with IAP appear to be spammy and simply attempting to "cheat" customers into spending money. But for apps like mine, that offer players a "preview" of fuller functionality and then offer them the ability to unlock those features for a one-time fee, it feels like morally-balanced developers are getting the short end of the stick.
I'd love to hear more discussion around this though, from both the perspective of other developers as well as customers and their experiences with paid, free, IAP, ad, and "trial" apps.
Frankly, it all boils down to: Almost without exception, any app on the appstore that has free in the name or description, lies to the user, because it's still trying to sell something.
And if you can't sell as well without a lie to hook costumers, you need to rethink what you're doing.
https://developer.apple.com/appstore/resources/approval/guid...
For example if you sign up for a free MMO trial, you can either cancel it or just buy subscription - you don't need to re-install the game and reapply any customization you have done.
Also if it's a kid-game, and your kid is small, they might be super happy with the one or two free levels, and you wouldn't need to upgrade to full game.
- Games where each purchase can only be made once: Most games where purchases are used to add extra content
- Games where the same IAP can be made multiple times: Spammy games with consumable purchases
The two categories can have text indicating they include expansions (DLC) or that they contain consumable purchases (pay-to-win).
I think this Google move is more targeted at the sort of games that don't fall into the trial/paid category, rather the sort that constantly try to bill you for microtransations.
It might be nice for developers too if it starts to train people to expect to pay more than $0-2 for a game.
I wonder if part of Google's reason is to push people toward advertising instead?
Between the restricted profiles in 4.3 and this it's finally reasonable to hand the tablet over to a child.
Beyond this, I'd really like to see something added to provide a straightforward alternative to ad-support for apps. Something like a trivial option to generate ad-free builds for an ad including app.
More than a few times I've encountered a solid app which I would gladly pay a couple of bucks for, but it's only available as ad-supported.
Building in the IAP mechanism isn't trivial, and worse, IAP purchases can easily be hacked (especially on Android). Both platforms recommend you run your own server that verifies purchases with Google and Apple's servers, because even client-based validation is easily hackable.
We have IAP removal of ads, but we're VERY successful compared to the average developer, and actually run our own servers. For the average dev, it's a non-trivial task. (Apologies for repeating myself.)
I'm not suggesting that these things are trivial, exactly the opposite actually. I'm assuming that they aren't and suggesting that they should be - that all the validation and heavy lifting is something that ideally Apple/Google would handle and enabling the functionality would be trivial from a developer perspective.
I wonder if conversion of free to ad-free would be better if the offerings were truly separate?
I'm somewhat distrustful of IAP for this purpose as it has been flaky in my experience (likely to due to the seller run validation services as you describe). I'm much more inclined to try a 'Free' app followed by purchasing the ad-free 'Premium' version than I am to buy an IAP to convert one to the other.
So new categories of apps:
Free, no IAP, no cost, ads or something else
Demos, IAP to upgrade
Full, could be free but use IAP consumables, ads, whatever its all yoursThere are games out there that are deceptively unplayable without shelling out.
Might want a refinement where it's possible to have whole-game access and the purchases are only cosmetic in nature.
The Play Store only recently added "Offers in-app purchases" as small print next to the device compatibility info.
Not sure if Android users will embrace any form of hybrid pricing that doesn't say "Free".
The absurdity of calling "its free to download bits to your computer but you have to pay us to use them" free was too much.
remember the history about why ctrl f in outlook is not search? this is the same.
probably someone was working a smart system to see when the game either had purchases or players dropped, and was working out a clever way to weed out the pay to win one... then one founder got fed up on pay to win bejeweled and dictated everything with in game purchases is now paid, even if it's just a donate button or skins.
I know people get attached to the ludicrous narratives they construct about different companies, but this is beyond hilarious.