
Honest In-App Purchases - eeirinberg
http://david-smith.org/blog/2013/07/23/honest-consumable-in-app-purchases/
======
error54
What got me about in app purchases was that in many games, the moment you
purchase anything, the difficulty level ramps up thus forcing you keep buying
items just to keep progressing[1]. This is known as 'coercive monetization[2]'
and is the reason that I recommend people never buy anything in app.

"According to article, 'once a consumer has been marked as a spender, the game
difficulty ramps up massively, shifting the game from a skill game to a money
game . . .'"

[1]- [http://valleywag.gawker.com/there-is-no-evil-scheme-
behind-i...](http://valleywag.gawker.com/there-is-no-evil-scheme-behind-it-a-
q-a-with-candy-c-756419949)

[2] -
[http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/RaminShokrizade/20130626/1949...](http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/RaminShokrizade/20130626/194933/The_Top_F2P_Monetization_Tricks.php)

~~~
moogleii
Article 1 is citing speculation from article 2 with that particular quote.
They later update, "Note that the difficulty ramps up automatically for all
players in CCS when they pass the gates I discuss later in this paper, the
game is not designed to dynamically adjust to payers."

~~~
derefr
In effect, what it's describing is more like a base game with low-level
challenges, and a purchasable "expansion pack" of areas with much higher-level
challenges. Except that instead of having to gain skill to a point where you
qualify for the higher-level challenges, or grind experience to a point where
your character qualifies, you have to pay to show that your _wallet_
qualifies.

After all, in a pay-to-win game, your wallet is effectively your sword, used
to slash through the game's obstacles--so having an area hidden behind a
(monetary) obstacle--a rock you can only crack with a Level 10 Wallet, so to
speak--where everything in that area requires at least a Level 10 Wallet to
defeat, sort of makes sense; it's isomorphic to the same sort of game logic
we're all already used to, just in a much more cynical/pragmatic world.

...now I'm imagining a game made for company-owners, where the goal is
actually _to be able to pay_ certain amounts of money at a time, so your
leveling curve and progress in the game matches a rise to riches in reality...
hm. Probably the only people who could afford to play it, would have too much
sense to. :)

------
RyanZAG
_" On a more personal level it also worries me that this is drawing away money
from the rest of the eco-system."_

This fear is likely completely unfounded on multiple levels.

Firstly, nobody is spending all of their money on iTunes. Generally, most
people won't even budget for it. That means that most purchases on the app
store are 'spur of the moment' in which a consumer will see something they
want and buy it. That's also why cheap purchases work best there. So no matter
how many $1 in app purchases someone makes, the chance of them 'running out of
money' and stopping purchases of all app store products is somewhere close to
0.

Secondly, once you start charging 19.99, someone is far less likely to just
say 'eh, let me try it'. People will still buy this if they can work out that
they need/want it, but it will be a longer process involving searching for
reviews and/or getting feedback from people around them. The number of in-app
purchases that consumer makes is unlikely to affect this process. In effect,
large apps and small apps are probably completely different markets.

On a completely unrelated note though: if you try to sell me required items in
the game for real money, I'm uninstalling your app on the spot. This seems to
be a growing trend among a small share of consumers, so we'll see how it goes.

~~~
nirvdrum
Your last point is why I've basically stopped trying new apps at all. I've
been burned a few times now. And it really sucks to put X hours into something
only to be beaten over the head by a hidden cost.

I'm hardly a mobile app power user, but I've dumped around $150 on apps.
Almost all of that was before in-app purchases. Now even paid apps can have
in-app purchasing, making it impossible to know what you're actually paying
for without thorough review. So I no longer make impulse purchases and I
hardly spend any time doing app discovery. I don't mean to speak for the
author, but maybe this is what is meant by drawing money away from the
ecosystem.

------
derefr
You know, arcade games were sometimes freakishly hard so that you'd stand
there pumping quarters in to try again and again. Nobody called that immoral.
I don't think there's anything wrong with charging for continues (or health
potions, or clean bombs, or whatever.) Telling you how much money a game makes
off people, and how much you've spent on it, won't help you to decide whether
the tactics it's using to get you to _give_ it that money are ethical.

~~~
ricardobeat
Games have their own dynamics, the expectations and rewards are different.

Now, when you download a 'free' drawing app and then find out the _pen costs
$5_ , it's just an annoyance; it builds resentment and lowers your trust in
the app store. There is no reward other than what you already expected to be
there, and even when done well (eg Paper) it still feels a tad bit dishonest.

~~~
w4
That sort of thing is a reaction, by developers, to Apple's unwillingness to
add demos (and consumer's unwillingness to shell out when there's no demo).
Calling it a "pen" is probably not the best way of marketing it, but basically
you're buying the full version. The free install is a trial.

If Apple added demoing all of that would vanish pretty quickly, I suspect.

------
baddox
It seems like one of the foundations of this article is that customers tend to
regret their in-app purchases. I don't doubt that this could be the case, but
I'd love to see studies done on this topic. I would think that, even if you
assume game devs are greedy or motivated primarily by profit, at least some of
them would think that the best long-term play would be to _not_ make users
regret their purchases.

~~~
sillysaurus
I'm a game developer. I want to make one thing clear:

The people who make these sorts of games aren't gamedevs. They are social
engineers.

It's unfortunate that the distinction hasn't been very clearly defined. It's
not true that just because they've created an interactive loop that they've
made a game.

~~~
pico303
I agree. We shouldn't call these things games. They are predatory social
assaults on the unsuspecting.

~~~
philwelch
If by whiskey...

~~~
andrewingram
no true scotsman...

------
proexploit
Both of the proposed solutions are against the goals of the a store so I
suspect it's highly unlikely they'd ever be considered. #1 lowers the amount
of downloads of a free app simply because it contains in-app purchases and #2
lowers revenue by reminding consumers how much they've spent and convincing
them not to spend. Absolutely ridiculous.

Edit: I just wanted to add that I think the two proposed solutions target in-
app purchases in general, rather than just hidden or dishonest in-app
purchases. A good solution would be one that doesn't affect positive uses of
in-app purchases but does combat negative uses.

~~~
voltagex_
It's not ridiculous if your motivations aren't purely business-driven.

~~~
droopyEyelids
Or, like the point I believe the author was trying to make, it's not
ridiculous if it aids in your long term business goals.

The quality of Apple's App Store is one of the key differentiators in the
smartphone/tablet market. In-app purchase based software can reasonably be
seen to reduce the quality of an app-store for a couple reasons.

1) The low barrier to entry puts f2p software at an initial advantage. This
hurts the market for complete software.

2) Competition for profits then becomes based on extracting the most money
from users in hard to quantify ways, leading to insidious tricks.

3) Consumers become disenfranchised with the idea of an app, after they become
burned a couple times, and trying to look for quality complete software, but
finding that it has failed to thrive in the face of free+ alternatives.

Remember that old Columbia Records CD-by-mail thing? It made money because it
offered a low initial cost that a kid could sign up for. Then CDs were sent
monthly, and eventually a big bill would follow. Can you imagine a quality
music discovery service competing with the free one that spammed kids and then
left their parents to foot the bill? I suggest no. First, the up-front, honest
service would require a reasoned commitment, while Columbia's appealed
directly to people's instincts. Second, Columbia poisoned the water. No one
could trust the technology of the day (catalogues and mail) to be beneficial
after they were hit with a huge surprise bill from the big name in the
industry.

I'm not saying that is a perfect analogy, but I think it reasonably fits. The
difference here is that Apple is in full control of their destiny- and they
can't afford to let things go to shit.

~~~
je42
Why would a paid app be in a better place ? I personally refrain from paying
upfront for any app. When there is a paid app I usually need to find reviews
and watch video before I buy the app. That's a lot of effort. If it is free I
can simply download and most importantly play it, no need to find reviews, and
then decide myself if I want to buy some InApp items.

------
bobbles
My biggest issue with these In-App purchases schemes is that I have had apps
where I've paid for the non-free version, only to have updates come through
maybe 6-12 months later that introduce advertising popups AND in-app to win
purchases.

At least dont screw over the ones that supported you at the start. It's a real
'fuck-you' to the ones who took you from nothing to where you are today.

------
mikesena
So agree with this article.

I'd love to give developers some money for the games they put a lot of time
into making. Plants vs Zombies 2... I'll probably buy a plant to make them
receive some of that.

I quit Clash of Clans after I realised there is no way it's even remotely
possible to get better at the game by skill. It's purely down to how much
money you're willing to throw at it.

~~~
nwh
Plants vs Zombies 2 is atrocious. There's not a single "fun" attribute, it's
all just various ways of making money from the users.

• "power ups"

• "plant food"

• the plants themselves

• keys

• stars

All are just methods of juicing money out of the user, and are generally quite
time consuming to gain organically. It's a nasty experience given how good the
original one was to play while traveling.

------
mbesto
> _There seems to be a culture developing around designing games and apps that
> are intended to intentionally mislead and coerce customers into making more
> and more purchases._

You could argue this for almost _anything_ in the commerce world. Should we
start putting signs up in malls that say "Warning! Stores that offer deep
discounts are most likely trying to up-sell you to other products"?

------
phaus
If you create a 5-star app that has in-app purchases that impact gameplay,
congradulations, you have just earned 1-star.

I'll drop $20 dollars on a decent game in the app store, as long as the
playing field is level. But when you begin to link performance to bank
accounts, you ruin the game. It's way more intrusive than advertisements,
because advertisements don't give anyone an unfair advantage.

~~~
derefr
You're looking at this from the wrong perspective. These are a distinct class
of games--so-called "pay-to-win" games. The playing field isn't uneven;
_everyone_ has to pay to win, and those who pay the most, win the most. It's
exactly like a grindy MMO-game, but instead of rewarding the people with the
most disposable _time_ , the game rewards people with the most disposable
_money_.

Not to say there aren't games that try to make you think they're skill-based
and then reveal their pay-to-win nature later on--but the current trend in the
market is against this, and moving toward a more bald-faced "yeah, you win
this game using your wallet; want to play?"

~~~
phaus
As far as the concept of a game goes, it's uneven because ultimately, someone
is going to have more money than everyone else.

From my experience, games that involve skill are the only ones worth playing.

~~~
derefr
The thing is, everyone playing those games _knows_ that they're being ranked
on how much time they (can) spend on the game. It's part of the social
contract of the game. This is why I would dispute saying it's "uneven." Every
game ranks people somehow; some people prefer to be ranked given different
criteria than others.

\- A skill-based game shakes out as a ranking based on skill, so players with
high technical aptitude for these sorts of games enjoy participating in skill-
based game communities.

\- A grind-fest game shakes out as a ranking based on "temporal capital", so
people who have a lot of time (and perhaps not a high capacity for skill)
enjoy participating in the grind.

\- A pay-to-win game, finally, shakes out as a ranking based on, well, money.
People who have a lot of money (and perhaps not a high capacity for skill,
_or_ time to invest) _enjoy_ paying to win. (I met a "whale" for one of these
games, an oil tycoon from a middle-eastern country; he was very happy to be
able to basically play a game of fiscal chicken against his tycoon
friends/rivals, using the game to prove who was willing to waste more money to
get what they want.)

These three game "classes" are each totally sensible on their own, for the
players who want to play them. The danger comes almost entirely in trying to
sell one class of game as if it were another class, or trying to mix classes
of players within a single game.

~~~
chii
the problem comes when one class of game vastly outperform financially
compared to the others. You end up getting tonnes of pay to win games because
it nets the creator/publisher more money, where as skill based games tend to
be non-existent anymore because, lets face it, there are way less people who
are disciplined enough to play these sorts of games compared to instant-
gratification games that gets you to pay for that feeling.

~~~
derefr
And so you suggest... what? That developers make skill-based games, and then
trick pay-to-win players into playing them to make their money? How would that
work, exactly? If they can't pay-to-win in the game, they won't be paying at
all, and then they'll lose and quit. You'll end up with the same sort of
environment you get from a bait-and-switch seems-to-be-skill-but-is-really-pay
game: an entrenched upper class who has already "won" the game, and a flow of
newbie players who come in expecting to compete on axis X, but end up being
exploited on axis Y (in this case, by being beaten to a pulp by those with
greater skill.)

------
ryanackley
Personally, I try to stay away from free apps/games because I'm never sure
what it's really going to cost me.

~~~
baddox
I don't get that mindset. If you avoid a free app because you might later
_choose_ to pay for something inside the app, then why not avoid the app store
altogether, since you might also choose to buy a non-free app from there?

~~~
eps
Because free apps typically employ monetization tactics that are tacky,
annoying and insulting, tactics that are generally not found in paid apps.

------
noelwelsh
One of the issues with the app store is the "power of free". A number of
studies in psychology and behavioural economics have shown that people over-
value free stuff. You can read an example here:
[http://danariely.com/2012/02/05/audience-with-a-dragon-
tatto...](http://danariely.com/2012/02/05/audience-with-a-dragon-tattoo/)

Once you allow free apps they become too attractive -- the simplest way to
dominate a category full of paid apps is to offer your app for free. Then we
see the race to the bottom that currently afflicts the app market. If there
was a minimum app cost, say 99c, free-to-play would not be the issue it is
today.

BTW, I originally heard this point made by Dan Ariely (linked above.)

------
undantag
According to Tim Rogers[1] in-app purchases are already being regulated in
Japan. As far as I understand it there must be a finite number of purchases,
leading to a "maximum spend" per title, which can be shown in-store.

Not sure how this ties in with that, but it seems several companies are also
self-regulating by imposing a spending-limit based on the customers age[2].

[1]
[https://twitter.com/108/status/292004594555449345](https://twitter.com/108/status/292004594555449345)

[2]
[http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/169254/report_social_gami...](http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/169254/report_social_gaming_networks-
dena)

~~~
je42
Complete gacha is forbidden. Not the max number of purchases. The spending
limits for minors are self regulated. Also see this doc from gree what
complete gacha is:
[https://docs.developer.gree.net/zh/assets/file/doc/en/Exampl...](https://docs.developer.gree.net/zh/assets/file/doc/en/Examples_of_Complete_Gacha_20120702.pdf)

------
richforrester
Imagine if the government showed you cumulative tax paid. Or the energy/water
companies.

Or ISP's.

~~~
megablast
In Australia this happens. For phone, elec, gas and water, it shows you how
much you have paid over the last 6 quarters (or months) as well, so you can
compare, and see if there has been a big change.

~~~
richforrester
Hm. I would've known this if I didn't let the lady sort stuff like that out.
Ignorance is bliss.

------
mattront
The option to offer Free trials in the app store would remove the need for in-
app purchases for a lot of non-abusive apps and games. That would definitely
be the case for all the apps we publish [1].

Users simply don't want to pay money to try out paid apps, unless they have
tons of 5 star reviews or are recommended by friends or media. And why should
they?

In the absence of free trials we are stuck with offering "free" apps with in-
app upgrades.

[1] [https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/life-is-beautiful-get-
daily/...](https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/life-is-beautiful-get-
daily/id607999197?mt=8)

~~~
cubicle67
These aren't the sort of in-app purchases that are the problem. I've happily
purchased each expansion pack in Galaxy on Fire 2 and similar for loads of
games. I don't see a problem with this, or for having to pay to unlock the
full version

What I do have a problem with, and have refused to spend a single cent on, are
anything going by the name of "coins", "gems", "gold" etc. These are the
disease the app store needs a way to remove

~~~
chii
basically, the tldr is that you (and most people, incl me) are willing to pay
for real value (i.e., real content), where as these virtual items (which costs
nothing to create) is obviously worth nothing and so no one should pay for
them.

------
damian2000
These ideas are well overdue. Games like Candy Crush Saga are little more than
mini Las Vegas slot machines, requiring only limited skills to play and with
no possibility of a payout. The present day is probably going to be recognised
in the future as the gold rush for these type of addictive games.

------
damian2000
There's a similar situation in PC gaming too - traditional upfront paid PC
games vs free to download MMO games which require payments for in game
features/characters, e.g. League of Legends, Lost Saga. If you don't pay it
becomes difficult to impossible to compete.

------
lvturner
Making the UX/UI changes mentioned in this article, would be a bit like a shop
owner telling me how expensive their shop is, or how much I've previously
spent in their shop every time I went in... I'm not really sure how that
solves a problem

------
shubber
I just wish that various app stores had an "in-app purchase" filter. I'd spend
more time browsing them if I could filter out the noise of not-actually-free
apps.

------
f137
When I read proposals to limit the in-apps because they hurt gamers, I always
wonder if this is the kind of proposals that lead to prohibition in 1920s.

