As far as I can see, the article doesn't give any examples of what the complaint is specifically about ("tricking consumers about the real cost"). I don't think the complaint is about 'in-app' purchases for skins etc in-and-of-itself.
This one give slightly more information.
"Today, premium in-game currencies are purposefully tricking consumers and take a big toll on children. Companies are well aware of children's vulnerability and use tricks to lure younger consumers into spending more,"
Gacha games.
Or the ones that offer a way to battle baddies with your friends but your weapons are just not quite good enough, but there's a premium upgrade...
I remember my kid playing a little "My Little Pony" game on iPad that was free and pleasant and then four levels in, suddenly "oh, you need Twilight for the next missions. Parents, Twilight costs $5."
I have literally not played an iOS game since that moment.
Do you still play games on other mobile operating systems? What does iOS have to do with the puzzle game interaction?
Apple created a race to the bottom and created the environment for these predatory games to take root. By pushing IAP and making the prices hidden for so long, it made it very difficult for games to make money on an up-front sale. Not having the ability to demo further pushed companies to a free download with an unlock later on. For a long time those prices were hidden, now they're just really annoying to find. To this day you can't tell what's going to be locked or not until you play the game for a while.
By hiding the prices up front and making transaction seem small and making the purchases incredibly easy to make, they encouraged developers to exploit human psychology in negative ways. Apple isn't particularly incentivized to fix it because they get to take 30% of all those whale purchases. And no one is going to dump their phone for a portable console and Android isn't any better, so they have a very captive market.
Many of us are addicted to our phones and/or need them for other things. They don't need to be great gaming machines. Game console manufacturers, on the other hand, need to ensure quality games or people just won't buy or use them. That market is seeing microtransactions creep in -- I think largely because of the profitability of mobile gaming -- but Nintendo/MS/Sony won't allow their platform to get flooded with garbage; it'd be the death of the brand.
I think Apple realized they could set the rules for this form of gaming, too. Plenty of people that wouldn't ever play a game on a console download games on their phones because it's convenient. They have no expectations of what a game should provide or how it should be priced. Free in attractive to everyone, even if the game turns out to not really be free. Every iPhone release Apple touts the latest GPU improvements and how it'll unlock 3D gaming, but they all but killed the market for console-like games. The reality is most gaming on their platform is some variation of a Unity slot machine.
So it’s not clear if it’s a net negative at all.
Sure some people may have addictive personalities but by and large these things are designed to get people addicted. Someone who was never addicted to, nor ever would have normally become addicted to anything can become addicted by trying something supposedly benign as a 'game'.
Likely with even lower average scruples among the ‘racers’…
I had an iPhone before IAP. There was a marked shift in the type and quality of games once IAP took hold. I suppose we can argue that the app store was in its infancy, but as a consumer I've never liked IAP. It was pretty clear to me it was a very easy way for company's to not be forthcoming with their pricing. Sometimes they want to exploit the sunk cost fallacy. In the mobile gaming space, it's often more nefarious. And we know it's by design because these companies hire psychologists specifically to find new ways to get people to part with their money.
The fact it's so easy and you never have to open a wallet also makes impulse purchases way more likely. And, unlike physical goods, there's no room for buyer's remorse. No returns, no refunds. You can try to do a chargeback, but say goodbye to the rest of your Apple account and enjoy owning a brick. Sure, for some people making instantaneous digital purchases it's a way to shave 30s off an infrequent activity. For many people it takes away their ability to consciously push back on impulses.
I don't think it's a given these sorts of games would have just happened without Apple making it so easy on devices people are already addicted to. We've had decades of popular video game consoles of all sorts -- computers whose only purpose is to play video games -- and this was not an emergent phenomenon. It seems to be pretty unique to mobile phones. It hasn't stopped game publishers from trying to port similar tactics to consoles, but it also largely hasn't taken root there despite their best efforts.
Undoubtedly, some people spend hundreds on skins and it may not be money they have, but I'd argue even that digital good is better than P2W mechanics like needing to buy hearts just to beat a level. A level that's impossible to beat otherwise, but the game will waste your time and build up your frustration thinking you might be able to do it. I think it's ugly and unethical. Apple makes a boatload of money from it and it's one area where Apple really hasn't stepped in to protect their customers. Meanwhile they've fought hard against alternative app stores and sideloading under the guise of protecting their customers.
FYI, Google's not immune from any of this criticism. They just were followers in the whole thing so I fault Apple. Google failed as a competitor to provide a better alternative and settled into also raking in 30%, enjoying the privilege of a duopoly.
Just that the other racers will nonetheless still compete to increase their share, likely with even lower scruples with Apple out.
https://turbine.games/2020/04/22/getting-more-with-less-6-hi...
Basically the MMO playbook.
Unfortunately my brain actually thinks some of these things are "fun". (Spending/losing $1M in a game is probably not fun however.)
The whole blog is interesting reading, if you have a strong stomach.
I honestly can't do it. This game is so shallow, I played it for two hours and felt like I've seen everything there is to see. Player's minds are incredibly different in the way they approach and consume media like that, including the willingness and ability to go through days of grinding for very small rewards.
when you put it that way, I feel like players of grindy f2p/mmo/etc. games could possibly be successful in embarking on grindy IRL activities like exercise programs, learning to play a musical instrument, studying for the bar exam, ...
I guess the trick would be to add randomized rewards and collectables to keep them (us?) hooked.
Ring Fit Adventure actually has a collectable aspect, as well as level grinding, component item farming, and non-uniform rewards. Leetcode and duolingo are gamified to a lesser degree, and I'm not sure it works as well, though maybe it doesn't need to. Duolingo's non-uniform gem rewards feel more annoying than exciting.
...some bicycle shops, some guitar shops...US stores (before tax price shown).