IAP is not meant for selling bombs. IAP is meant for selling full version of an app from within a demo.
I would argue that this is what Apple had in mind initially, before it got re-purposed by "inventive" marketers as an in-game milking mechanism. You can say all you want that "it works" and "everyone's doing it", but it's a very tacky and inherently disrespectful way to treat your users. Not too much unlike the gym membership and telco contracts. These works too, but it's a predatory model that everyone hates. I mean... c'mon, selling bombs to nuke zombies didn't work that well? What a surprise.
The bombs ended up being about 45% of revenue, so I think that financially that's a "success". Of course the total revenue is still not great, but I think that has more to do with the overall appeal and/or visibility of the game than saying that bombs failed.
But yes, the bombs still bother me from an ethical point of view.
I think freemium / consumable IAPs can work, in a way that leaves players feeling like it was worth their money. However I don't think they really suit the 'gameplay' of ZOS (it's not even really a game - more of a toy).
In the next update for ZOS I'm planning to make the bombs free. I think they were an interesting experiment - they earned a bit of money and were an interesting learning experience. However ultimately I've learned that IAPs don't make sense for the type of game that ZOS is.
Apple is sometimes very strict about enforcing the way things were meant to be. With the number of apps using IAP for buying items within the game, I would wager that Apple meant IAP to be able to buy just about anything that exists within the app.
They wouldn't want to kill the hen that lays golden eggs, would they?
As I said in another comment - if you look back at how software licensing worked before the AppStore time, it's a long stretch to assume that Apple could foresee the current use of IAP, that's of purchasing small expiring upgrades for the apps. It's really a new and largely unexpected development.
> It's really a new and largely unexpected development.
Not really, pay to play gaming has been around for a lot longer than smart phones and the associated apps. However, it's questionable how much Apple tried to foresee what the future use of IAPs would be.
Before the first highways were built, I doubt people would have expected hotels and fast food restaurants to become an almost parasitic infection around off ramps, but they did.
It's often more about the idea than what the idea can do.
Disagree. IAP in games can be used to offer premium fun stuff that users want to pay for like boosts, or getting ahead in the game. Nothing wrong with it, as shown in the massive success of games with IAP. Majority of games allow you to earn everything yourself over time without spending money, but if you want to spend money to get them earlier, you can. IAP being used for full version of an app from a demo is slowly dwindling down in games, in favor of the Free to Play model.
This developer added it later and it's more of a fun thing to do, so not the best way to do IAP, but there's more to IAP outside of demo --> Full version.
You simply repeated what I said and stepped around the main point - "everyone's doing it" and "it works" doesn't make this practice any less tacky.
C|Net repackaging installers and stuffing them chokeful of 3rd party malware clearly works great! Nothing wrong with it.
Norton Antivirus scaring the shit out of unwitting users with its messaging also works wonders for subscription renewal. Nothing wrong with it too. See, even other AV vendors are now adopting the practice. Who we are to question it, right?
You want them to pay, you must create a pain point, which is fine and this is what demo/shareware/nagware models are based on. But if your plan for monetizing your game is to continuously discomfort your users, then your product is basically a perpetual crippleware and the ethics behind it are inherently repulsive.
It absolutely makes sense. And I don't find it tacky at all. When you consider the cost of creating a game, especially a really good one you have to do what you must to make it profitable. If users are overwhelmingly showing that they prefer to pay for a game only after they have gotten into it and invested themselves in it, who are you to say that this is a tacky business tactic? You do realize that in this new freemium era, the games that do well are constantly getting updated with more content, more levels, etc etc offering a lot of value to users. There must be a reason that the highest grossing apps in the app store are using this model... It's actually refreshing to see that making games can still be profitable, as it was looking grim there for a while with all apps in the app stores racing to the $0.99 price point.
Its not just in the app stores either. Look at games like League of Legends. Personally, I much prefer a system where I can decide to buy content that I want, than a system like WOW where I'm forced to pay a $15.00/month payment just to connect. By your standards though, we should probably just assume that our users are idiots that can't resist our slimy business methods of enticing them with content that they want to buy. Comparing it to the scare tactics of AV software is just ridiculous. These are games, that people are playing for fun. If they want to pay more to have more fun, let them!
Which part of "I would argue" has hinted you that there's a supporting documentation? If you rewind back to the AppStore debut time and remember at how things worked then (and tens of years before that), it'd be the most plausible conjecture.
I'm trying to figure out why you think IAP was "meant for" this and not that. And you keep dodging it, even though you made a factual statement that you should be able to back up.
Don't know about the "I would argue" part but this part, "IAP is not meant for selling bombs. IAP is meant for selling full version of an app from within a demo" looks like a claim.
I would argue that this is what Apple had in mind initially, before it got re-purposed by "inventive" marketers as an in-game milking mechanism. You can say all you want that "it works" and "everyone's doing it", but it's a very tacky and inherently disrespectful way to treat your users. Not too much unlike the gym membership and telco contracts. These works too, but it's a predatory model that everyone hates. I mean... c'mon, selling bombs to nuke zombies didn't work that well? What a surprise.