In-App Purchases are a Hot Topic

John Moltz had an interesting take on the topic of in-app purchases, summed up nicely by these quotes:

Well, sure. Ask a heroin addict and they’ll probably tell you the same. In-app purchases are just like the proverbial drug pusher, giving the first go round away for free in order to get you hooked with each subsequent high giving the promise of an even better one the next time.

...

What we should be asking is simply whether or not we’re spending what the app is worth. We’ve spent a lot of time decrying the race to the bottom in app pricing. Now we’re complaining because app developers have found a way to make more money.

I've previously written about in-app purchases and the culture of freemium and how both are hurting modern video game design (as well as apps in general). To be fair, I do think that there ways that in-app purchases can be designed in a way that isn't abusive towards users.

In his post, Moltz gives a fair assessment of in-app purchases. While they are often disdainful, in-app purchases are not inherently evil. He is correct when he makes the comparison to drugs and gambling. People with addictive personalities will be easy prey for exploitive tactics, while others will not be directly impacted much at all.

Folks, be mindful of the difference between good and bad in-app purchases (developers, this includes you too).

Pay for Your Apps, Folks, or We All Suffer the Consequences

Gentlemen! , available on the iTunes App Store and Google Play, is the latest example of how tough the app development business can be. The app has received some very good reviews for its unique style and gameplay. According to Killian Bell at Cult of Android, the developers of Gentlemen! have noted that the game "has over 6,000 players on Android". Sounds great, right? 6,000 players is a nice number for the early days of an app. The problem is that of all those people that have played the game, only 50 people paid for it.

Let that sink in for a while. Fewer than 1% of the people who downloaded and played the game were paying customers. To put it another way, over 99% of the game's players were freeloaders.

As I've noted before, creating an app isn't necessarily the path to riches. However, this is ridiculous. The game is priced at roughly $3 in both stores, which isn't a large amount of money by any measure. There really isn't a good reason for this game to be pirated so much when the price is low and the quality is high. By not paying for the game, the message sent to the developers is that it either isn't worth their time to develop the game or that they must employ the sleazy techniques used in many freemium games.

Folks, we all want to play good games. The best way to ensure that new good games are created is to pay for them.

DuckTales, Ooh-woo-ooh

Kyle Orland, one lucky duck at Ars Technica:

I wondered: did Capcom actually send a working NES cartridge to promote their game? There was only one way to find out. I stuck the cartridge in the top-loading system sitting to the side of my work desk. Holy crap, it works!

The folks at Capcom are issuing an HD remake of the old Nintendo game, DuckTales Remastered, and have sent some members of the press some very, very, very cool promotional items. This would make a great collectible for fans of the game.

For Developers, There is Buy-In and Then There is "Buy-In"

There is a strange phenomenon common to software development projects that shows its ugly head time and time again in a developer's career. It is a phenomenon that at worst will destroy a project (and sometimes a company) and at best will result in disgruntled developers. This phenomenon of which I speak is called "buy-in".

To clarify, I'm not referring to the traditional sense of buy-in, where parties involved in a decision not only agree to that decision but provide their support for that decision. Instead, I'm referring to "buy-in" in cases where a single party (usually in management or some other decision-making body) makes a decision and then applies heavy pressure to attempt to get the affected parties to agree to and support that decision. Thus, "buy-in" can be considered a form of fake or faux buy-in.

This problem usually manifests itself in the form of scope creep, schedule changes, or unpopular architectural or business changes. If you've ever been asked to 'take on one more thing for this sprint' or been pressured into fitting your development estimates into a particular prescribed timeline, then there is a very good chance that you've experienced a form of "buy-in". It seems as though the primary reason behind management striving for this faux buy-in is either some lame attempt at 'rallying the troops for a common cause' or an attempt to make it more difficult to pin blame on a specific person (after all, 'the team bought into the decision').

In any case, this sort of thing is not healthy for a development team. True buy-in is healthy since the team is involved and committed to something that they believe can be successful. "Buy-in" is unhealthy since it is something that the team does not believe can be successful or can only be successful via death march conditions. An unmotivated and overworked team is not a recipe for success.

Folks, be cognizant of when you are being asked for your buy-in to a decision versus being asked for "buy-in".

Apple is Wrong Even When It Does Something Positive

Diane Bullock wrote this dreck over at Minyanville:

Apple is providing this superior product and environmentally friendly service for the special price of $10 -- and all in the interest of the safety of its customers. How responsible. How beneficent. How -- wait, ten bucks? Is that actually a deal? How much does this thing normally cost? Try nearly double. In the interest of keeping its iPhone faithful free of electric shock, Apple is practically giving away this one-inch plastic cube at just half of what it normally charges ($19) -- and thus settling for a slightly less egregious markup.

The short story is that Apple is offering its own chargers, at a discounted price, as a replacement for potentially unsafe chargers made by other companies. This is in response to a woman in China who was electrocuted when she answered a phone call while her iPhone was charging using a knockoff charger. Bullock apparently takes issue with this move since her article seems to imply that Apple bears responsibility for this situation by maintaining a high price for its accessories. Mind you, Apple is under no obligation in these circumstances since it bears no responsibility in the case of knockoff chargers. This move by Apple is both a positive public relations move for the company and a positive move for consumers.

Folks, if someone offers you a sirloin steak for a nickel, please turn down the offer.

Concept Animation for a Legend of Zelda Movie

Shawn Depasquale, over at Nerdist:

The clip contains one minute and 37 seconds of pure, unadulterated, LoZ-filled goodness! In that short span, the animators managed to capture the mood, wonder and adventure of a Zelda game with slick animation that would put a smile on even old Zora’s fish-face.

The video (see the source link) is apparently a concept for a Legend of Zelda movie. The style of the characters and the animation flow is quite good for a concept video. The look and feel reminds me a bit of the look and feel of the Star Wars: The Clone Wars television series, but with a more 'anime' character design. I'm not convinced that a live-action Legend of Zelda movie could ever work, but this animation has me thinking of all the possibilities for an animated movie.

Japan Increases Its Lead in Virtual Girlfriend Technology with Hatsune Miku App for iOS

From the folks at Japanator:

Miku will dance with your music, communicate with you, play dress up, and give you presents to collect.

It won't be long before someone marries this virtual girlfriend, folks.

Usain Bolt Has Gone Temple Running

Tom Phillips, over at Eurogamer:

12 months have passed since the glory of London 2012. Jessica Ennis is now appearing in skin care ads. Olympic Park is being dismantled, and gold medallist Usain Bolt is now available to purchase as a playable character in endless runner Temple Run 2.

If you've ever had the desire to play as an Olympic gold medalist in Temple Run 2, then now's your chance. As for me, I remember having a lot of fun playing World Class Track Meet for the NES with my cousins.

'So You Want to be an Indie'

The fine folks that make the Penny Arcade - Extra Credits series have posted a video about what it means to become an independent game developer. If you are currently an 'indie' game dev, or are considering going that route (like yours truly), then check out the video. You might be surprised at what it takes to be an indie (hint: it's not just about programming video games)!

You Don't Have to Trick Users Into Buying In-App Purchases

I received some excellent feedback for my post on freemium's negative impact on video game design. Part of that post was about in-app purchases, and some folks had the impression that I was against in-app purchases as they relate to game design. That is not the case. I don't think that in-app purchases are bad per se, but I do recognize that they have been misused in recent years (especially in freemium games).

If freemium games are littered with examples of 'bad' in-app purchases, then what kinds of in-app purchases could be considered 'good'? 'Good' in-app purchases are the kind that add to the player's enjoyment without being detrimental to the player or to gameplay. To put it another way, game designers should always strive to make in-app purchases fun and fair .

Here are some examples of good in-app purchases. Please note that I am sometimes referring to a particular in-app purchase in isolation from other 'bad' in-app purchases.

Character Customization

The iOS game Punch Quest has a good example of in-app purchases related to customizing the player's character. By default, a player has a limited set of options to choose from (male/female and a few colors). If a player wants to use a different garment color, add a hat, or choose a different face then they can buy an in-app purchase for their character. Their character is not impacted by these selections in any meaningful way, thus maintaining balanced gameplay. People often want to customize their in-game avatar, and this is a good way for devs to fulfill that desire in a profitable way without resorting to tricks.

New Songs/Levels

Having in-app purchases that allow players to buy new songs or additional levels to play can be a good way to provide ongoing customer satisfaction. Magic Guitar comes with several songs preloaded, and users can purchase additional songs that they wish to play. These types of in-app purchases help keep players engaged in the game without going into addiction territory.

Unlocking Levels/Chapters

Another way to make use of in-app purchases is to let users unlock all of the levels/chapters in the game. Rock Runners, for example, normally requires users to complete levels in order to unlock new levels. There is an element of chance and choice to how its game map works when users unlock levels. An in-app purchase that lets the user unlock all levels is a good way to balance the needs of skillful players (who can earn their way to all the levels) and the needs of less skillful players (or players that don't have quite enough time to master the game). The latter can still gain access to all that the game has to offer, but without any significant sacrifice in game balance or fairness.

Folks, in-app purchases for games aren't all bad. In fact, some of them can be quite good for devs and players alike. Just remember to keep things fun and fair.