I may be misunderstanding the author's target for his rant, but why would Google or Apple want to turn off in-app purchasing? They make an immense amount of money off it, which has to outweigh any reason I can imagine for turning it off, including this one. Similarly, why would the developer want to hide their main source of revenue?
Apple already offer the ability to turn off in-app purchasing. It's a global setting (which can also be password protected if you're setting up the device for your kids, say) and does the job well. It sounds exactly like what the author needs.
I don't think this is what the author was talking about. I think his complaint is less about control over his spending, but about the intrusiveness and confusion the constant up-selling causes.
He's not afraid of Nana spending a boatload on IAPs (though that has happened...), he's frustrated that these games are bombarding Nana with bright flashing buttons that have nothing to do with the core gameplay which he has already bought (either upfront or via IAPs), and making it harder for her to play the game.
This is basically the native app equivalent of complaining about intrusive omnipresent banner ads, overlays, and interstitials. They're grossly damaging to the user experience. It's the mobile gaming equivalent of "okay, I clicked your ad and paid a subscription for your online magazine, can you stop bombarding me with even more ads now?".
But surely an "off" button for all those intrusive and omnipresent IAP buttons is what he is looking for, then? And this is what is provided in the iOS settings.
Does it actually turn off the IAP-promoting game mechanics? I think not - more likely you just get bounced at the point you actually try to make the purchase.
That's true, it doesn't do that. However, a good developer can simply check [SKPaymentQueue canMakePayments] and disable those IAP nagging screens (as they are now ineffective). I am unsure if any actually do this.
A user experience thing for his particular use case. I see why he'd want it, and can think of another reason why as well (see my post above), but it's not something that will be implemented IMO.
A lot of game developers are increasingly trying to milk every last dime out of their customers.
There was a time when you bought a game for about $50 and you got access to multiplayer servers that you could count on to be available for several years, and the initial $50 purchase was all the seller expected. So you can have your opinion that this won't be implemented, but obviously it already had been, and I'm hoping IAP are more of a passing fad.
With respect (and I totally agree with you), IAP not existing in the past isn't quite the same as expecting App Devs to implement a feature that turns off the IAP user interface. That's why I said that this wouldn't be implemented...
So, to be clear. He wants a game. A game that he knows is is fun and high quality. A game that Nana will enjoy for hours, hopefully months. And he wants it for free. Presumably with no ads. And, he already has exactly what he's hoping for except for one detail: he also want to hide all opportunities to give money to the creators of the game. But, without "breaking the fundamental experience" of the game.
Sounds to me like what he actually wants is to do the footwork (research effort) to find a high quality, pay-up-front game. And then pay for it, up front, so that Nana can enjoy the game without being confronted with iaps.
It is unfortunate that the vast majority of market apparently prefers instead to wade through 9 f2p games until settling on 1 that they like enough to pay into. That market environment makes it much harder to find a good game for Nana that does not involve iaps. I wish him luck in his search for that game.
But, as for hiding iaps in f2p games... I don't see how that is tenable in any way. Creating the game he wants requires a surprisingly large up-front and ongoing investment on the part of the creators. A major, if not the major, part of how the creators can expect to recoup their investment is in the opportunity to pitch you on iaps. Disabling that pitch changes the business model to "I'll pay them when I'm compelled by overwhelming guilt/appreciation". That's an incredibly idealistic business model which even the world-class awesomeness of Wikipedia has difficultly maintaining. Frankly, I doubt that any of the games he enjoys would survive it.
He paid for some of the IAPs in the game, but if those developers are monetising it correctly there will be dozens of other ways to buy more IAPs
Do you have kids? I don't, but I'm very close to my 5 and 2 year old cousins. My Aunty would love to be able to turn off IAP, temporarily, for a session so the kids can play and not worry. You can do that sort of already, but the buttons and UI being hidden would make it better.
Also, I've bought games, expensive ones, that have even more IAP in them that I won't be purchasing. This is not just free games we are talking about.
He doesn't demand free. In the TFA he states that he bought some of these games, and purchased in-app stuff in some of the others. He just wants control of spending. Doesn't seem like too much to ask for.
If anyone wants to see a good example of why you can't just toggle off IAP you should check out Jonathan Blow's talk about "Free to Play" games and how the business model deeply corrupts the game through the metaphor of bad 70's TV shows vs HBO:
The solution isn't to toggle IAP off in the game, it's the ability to toggle it off in the App Store. The difficulty is some IAP is legitimate and some is not. For example, Carcassonne has an IAP to upgrade the game into a slightly different game with additional tiles. It's only when the IAP is part of the core game mechanic that is troubling. I think categorising them and relegating them to a particular category like we do with FPS, RPG, RTS, etc.. would help.
This sounds to me more like "old person cannot understand the visual design language of user interface" than anything. Not that I'm pro-IAP, I just think the author pushes a very good idea based on completely wrong reasoning.
23 comments
[ 2.3 ms ] story [ 56.5 ms ] threadNot a commonly used acronym, at least in my circles.
I searched the article for a "first use" definition or expansion, to no avail. I guess the readership knows it well.
He's not afraid of Nana spending a boatload on IAPs (though that has happened...), he's frustrated that these games are bombarding Nana with bright flashing buttons that have nothing to do with the core gameplay which he has already bought (either upfront or via IAPs), and making it harder for her to play the game.
This is basically the native app equivalent of complaining about intrusive omnipresent banner ads, overlays, and interstitials. They're grossly damaging to the user experience. It's the mobile gaming equivalent of "okay, I clicked your ad and paid a subscription for your online magazine, can you stop bombarding me with even more ads now?".
There was a time when you bought a game for about $50 and you got access to multiplayer servers that you could count on to be available for several years, and the initial $50 purchase was all the seller expected. So you can have your opinion that this won't be implemented, but obviously it already had been, and I'm hoping IAP are more of a passing fad.
Sounds to me like what he actually wants is to do the footwork (research effort) to find a high quality, pay-up-front game. And then pay for it, up front, so that Nana can enjoy the game without being confronted with iaps.
It is unfortunate that the vast majority of market apparently prefers instead to wade through 9 f2p games until settling on 1 that they like enough to pay into. That market environment makes it much harder to find a good game for Nana that does not involve iaps. I wish him luck in his search for that game.
But, as for hiding iaps in f2p games... I don't see how that is tenable in any way. Creating the game he wants requires a surprisingly large up-front and ongoing investment on the part of the creators. A major, if not the major, part of how the creators can expect to recoup their investment is in the opportunity to pitch you on iaps. Disabling that pitch changes the business model to "I'll pay them when I'm compelled by overwhelming guilt/appreciation". That's an incredibly idealistic business model which even the world-class awesomeness of Wikipedia has difficultly maintaining. Frankly, I doubt that any of the games he enjoys would survive it.
He paid for some of the IAPs in the game, but if those developers are monetising it correctly there will be dozens of other ways to buy more IAPs
Do you have kids? I don't, but I'm very close to my 5 and 2 year old cousins. My Aunty would love to be able to turn off IAP, temporarily, for a session so the kids can play and not worry. You can do that sort of already, but the buttons and UI being hidden would make it better.
Also, I've bought games, expensive ones, that have even more IAP in them that I won't be purchasing. This is not just free games we are talking about.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxFzf6yIfcc
The solution isn't to toggle IAP off in the game, it's the ability to toggle it off in the App Store. The difficulty is some IAP is legitimate and some is not. For example, Carcassonne has an IAP to upgrade the game into a slightly different game with additional tiles. It's only when the IAP is part of the core game mechanic that is troubling. I think categorising them and relegating them to a particular category like we do with FPS, RPG, RTS, etc.. would help.