I was going to write a long post how I think Jason Howell and Gina Trapani are coming down to mu...

[G+_Marlon Thompson]

I was going to write a long post how I think Jason Howell  and Gina Trapani are coming down to much on IAP and really its the implementation that's the problem. Changing the title from free to something else isn't going to solve that. Also casting all IAP as inherently bad is wrong, I am sure Ron Richards has no problem with comixology or Play books having IAP, how else will people be able to get Image's Walking dead and Saga comics. I personally think the EU is off base here and the focus should be on encouraging Google, Microsoft and Apple to implement proper policies. Frankly Apple is way ahead of everyone else. Developers have to make money and I oppose anything that creates an  unnecessary barrier to that.

 

http://thenextweb.com/dd/2014/07/25/developers-must-make-app-purchases-morally-responsible/

http://thenextweb.com/dd/2014/07/25/developers-must-make-app-purchases-morally-responsible

[G+_Richard Cohen]

Well, you're right and you're not right...

 

I was going to make this point to the hosts myself, but, too lazy :)

 

The issue is not IAP itself - IAP is just a payment method, generally simpler to use and with less friction than paying for something from the Play Store. It can be used, as you say, to purchase content - rather than either having a separate app for each comic, or having to send people out to a website to make a purchase, IAP makes things fast and easy, meaning happier, satisfied users, and more spending.

 

Something which we all know and understand implicitly, but you might not get explicitly unless you're a developer who has looked at IAPs, is that some are consider 'consumable', some aren't. The difference is very simple - a consumable IAP can be bought more than once, because it gets used up, while a non-consumable IAP is bought once and is permanently 'owned' by the user from that point. A comic? You buy it once. A game unlock? You buy it once. 500 gems for US$25? You can buy it again and again and again and again... A 2 hour game boost? You can buy it again and again and again...

 

It may be a bit more complicated to explain than the simple "IAP/no-IAP" line, but I think the "consumable/non-consumable" line is far more important. Non-consumable IAPs have an inherent cap, they cannot get addictive, but they still allow devs to make money. They are not the IAPs that everyone is getting upset about, and it's a pity that it's turned into "anything with IAP is evil" when that's just not the case.

 

Okay, maybe I'll email this in now :)

[G+_Marlon Thompson]

Richard Cohen  Actually that is the line I was going to go down but like you I got lazy, thanks for expressing the point I wanted to make however. And I think you should email them

[G+_Alan Char]

To my mind, the problem is less about labeling and more about unethical developers taking advantage of user confusion and poor default settings.

 

While the labeling is one way to help reduce user confusion, to me the biggest thing that Google did was make the default behavior for permitting purchases to apply only to that purchase and not any future purchases. From what I understand (and this is only from reading media since I don't have an iOS device), Apple still leaves the permission live for 15 minutes.  I would bet that a lot of parents who buy stuff for their kid probably don't really understand how that works. They may think they're buyting a $0.99 add-on, but Johnny is going to buy all kinds of stuff for the next 15 minutes until it stops working.  And if Johnny is young enough, he may not even realize he's spending money.

 

I also think that the kind of developers that are luring children to spend money would probably have no qualms about getting around any consumable/non-consumable distinction.  It certainly seems possible to create 100 non-consumable items that do the same thing as one consumable one.

 

I guess I'm saying that the issue is complicated, and while the EU requirements may not be ideal, I'm not sure that Apple's response is necessarily ideal either, since it's basically hiding behind TOS and RTFM, oh, and look at this shiny thing over here (kids zone).

[G+_Jason Howell (raygun01)]

Personally, I feel like IAPs are fine, again, if done responsibly. If you make a game that (in reality) requires a person to purchase IAPs in order to progress, then its not really free. Its more like a demo. If, on the other hand, you offer IAPs that don't hinge the functionality of the app or game around them entirely, or offer extended features, then the purchaser is getting what they expect when they see Free in the listing. Yes I realize its  VERY fine line. Ya know, for me, seeing "Free" and then the "in-app purchases" blurb underneath it in small print like has been done for quite a while is enough. But I know to look for that. Not everybody sees that.

 

I'm not necessarily saying I think that renaming it from free to something else solves the problem. But its a no bull way to get people to recognize the difference and make up their mind from there.

 

Yes IAPs are ESSENTIAL in this modern age of selling apps. Heck, its how most of the highest paid developers make their money AND continue to after the initial download. I wouldn't propose that we get rid of them, no way! But yes, devs need to be responsible about how they implement. And if the app stores themselves can help facilitate a better marketplace that places a better understanding in the eyes of potential downloaders, then why not? Its not a case of the app stores parenting its users, its the case of the app stores creating a better environment for its users. Do stores NEED to print if food products are GMOs or not? No, but some choose to because they want to create a better environment and choice for their best customers. That's all I'm saying. It is too bad that it takes politics to make it happen, though.

[G+_Jason Howell (raygun01)]

Not to mention, changing the presentation in the app stores isn't simply a matter of holding the app stores responsible. It also holds the developers feet to the fire. If they actually don't like the end result of putting in some crappy IAP implementation into their app from a marketing standpoint, then maybe they'll rethink how they do it.

[G+_Alan Char]

Jason Howell I would love it if the Play Store somehow distinguished between games that require in-app purchases to play, and those where they were just additional. I think Gina Trapani 's idea of average amount spent per user is a good approximation, but it seems unlikely that Google would publish those numbers, especially on the store.  But as long as we're talking about numbers that Google won't publish, I think if we knew these, it would help:

 

- Average amount purchased over the first day, week, and month of ownership.

- Average time spent in game before first purchase.

- Percentage of users who did (or did not) make an in-app purchase.

 

Another possibility would be simply to say which side of the very fine line the app falls: whether or not IAP is required to play the game.  Unfortunately, that would require both explaining the criteria and humans deciding, which seems even more unlikely.

[G+_Marlon Thompson]

Alan Char from one study .15 percent of mobile users account for  50% of all in game revenue. 49 % of them  make one payment in a month while 13 %make 5. Most purchases are within the first 24 hours and the time between the first and second payment is just about 2 hours. Note this does not necessarily take into a account the purchases a child might "accidentally" make but it reveals a bit about the timing in apps to prompt you to make a purchase.  http://venturebeat.com/2014/02/26/only-0-15-of-mobile-gamers-account-for-50-percent-of-all-in-game-revenue-exclusive/

[G+_Marlon Thompson]

As an aside it this good or bad IAP , Plants vs Zombies 2, which I finished and didn't spend a dime and play about 5 minutes every day and I have over 100000 of the in game currency and over 250 gems, has a daily event (hence my daily habit), where they usually feature a plant that you can purchase for real money,. You do not need the plant to finish the game but you usually see the benefit of having to plant to make things easier.  So you do the daily event which rewards you with coins and gems but get harassed every day with a prompt to purchase a plant that can help but really is not necessary. That could even be a feature on Android app arena Jason Howell    Good and bad IAP. 

[G+_Alan Char]

Marlon Thompson Thanks for all the great numbers. Of course what we would really like is numbers for each game, rather than in aggregate.