
Is Premium Mobile Gaming Viable? - prostoalex
http://techcrunch.com/2015/02/08/is-premium-mobile-gaming-viable/?ncid=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Techcrunch+%28TechCrunch%29
======
fidotron
At least part of this is the amount you leave on the table by not doing
freemium.

Freemium costs more to make, and to run, but the returns are higher - if it
works. The logic goes that the more you spend (generally on
branding/marketing/external IP) the surer a bet it is. This does mean
investments are huge (tens of millions to get started now) but returns are
potentially massive.

Frankly, given the exposure Monument Valley received, such as being used by
Apple and others in ads, the revenue is disappointing. Steam and the console
indie markets are much safer.

Part of the problem here is that freemium has devalued the mobile games
experience for the 90% of players that play but don't pay. They now largely
won't pay.

~~~
themartorana
Because there is no viable "try-before-you-buy" experience on mobile - thanks
entirely to the refusal of Apple and Google to build in such systems -
"Freemium" is the new "Shareware."

It turns out, however, that putting an absolute time-lock on a game that is
removed with a single IAP is far _less_ lucrative than building in a recurring
consumable purchasable IAP model that some players will buy over and over.

So developers were forced in to a marker without a viable shareware solution,
where downward market tends still pushed the initial value to $0 (as was
shareware) with little recourse except IAP, where an even better model was
discovered.

So I not only disagree with this article, but I believe IAP isn't quite as
evil as it's made out to be (except in a few rather blatantly manipulative
examples).

Source: I own a successful casual mobile game development company and follow
gamer market trends closely.

~~~
soylentcola
As a potential customer and not a developer, IAP can be a great implementation
of that same "shareware" model or it can be the equivalent of many old arcade
games where the only confounding factor to progress in a game was how many
quarters you fed in.

By far my favorite way to find and buy games is to have a free app with the
first (x) levels and then a single IAP of $1-10 depending on the game to
unlock the full package.

That way I get to see if I enjoy the game and if it runs well before hitting
that "buy" button and I'd imagine this helps to get people to try out a title
in a marketplace full of free options.

The only issue from a my standpoint is how so many games are designed to be
seriously unplayable (or at least un-fun) unless I keep paying a dollar or two
every day. Whether it's time limits (less annoying) or needing in-game
currency to progress, so many games start to feel like the only thing holding
you back isn't skill, practice, or puzzle-solving but the fact that you
haven't spent $10, $20, or $50 on IAP.

I can only imagine that this has proven to be the more profitable setup since
that model seems to have taken over the Apple and Google app stores and I
doubt developers would be doing it if it wasn't for a reason.

Still sucks for somebody like me who has no problem paying $5-10 (I mean, come
on...it's the equivalent of eating lunch at a restaurant instead of packing
one at home) for a game as long as I can play a few levels first to see if
it's something I'd be interested in. Instead I end up buying the few I can
find like that and when I finish them, it's back to the pile of time-limited
freemium titles I have installed and cycle through any time I want to kill
more than 5 minutes screwing around on my phone.

------
CmonDev
If Microsoft would incentivize Steam game builders to make their products
touch-friendly, I would rush to buy a Surface... The only thing worth looking
at on mobile at the moment is Vainglory.

