Hacker News Reader

Comment by neals | Hacker News Reader

So if a game is free to download, but you have to buy the last 10 levels after playing 5 already. Would you consider that an in-app purchase? Is this a deal breaker for you?

View on HN

That is at least a negative indicator for me, and a deal breaker in many cases.

I've played demos in the past and sometimes that has led to a purchase of a full game, and sometimes not. A difference/problem with this newer model is that paying could lead me to being asked for more payments: I don't necessarily know.

If the game was advertised at free, but then charged me after a point (i.e. if I didn't know in advance that it was a demo), that would be an immediate deal-breaker.

Unless it was clear exactly what I was paying for, I would be unwilling. Will I have to pay for level 16? If it was possible I would be asked repeatedly for more money later, I would be unwilling.

Just so you know this is exactly how many games were distributed in the 90's, under the shareware model. Like DOOM and Quake. The first entire level was free, and was a substantial amount of content. Then you paid for the rest.

Yep. I think there's a difference.

When you had to physically get your software out there and into people's hands, that was perhaps a good model.

Now, it's more awkward. Asking me for payment for partial content is a dangerous indicator that you might ask me for more, later.

There's also reasonable evidence that demos reduce sales figures (i.e. that demos act as negative indicators):

http://uk.ign.com/articles/2013/02/11/jesse-schell-releasing...

The payment is for the full content of the game, not partial content, and there is no chance of asking for more later since there is no additional content. That's the way demos and shareware worked in the past.

That's not bad - that's more like a free trial. My issue with in app payments is that they create game breaking incentives and it's hard to know if that's what they're going to be when you see 'in app purchases' on the main screen.

Most that I've seen seem to require purchases to unbreak the game or make it so that progress isn't artificially restricted by time. I think this effects some people more than others (WoW, farmville, clash of clans players who pour thousands of hours/dollars into the game).

> WoW

Hold on for a minute. WoW is almost the exact opposite of this model, and for that reason I still respect it as an MMO compared to others I've seen.

In WoW, at least when I played it heavily during the Lich King expansion, you pay for the game and for a monthly subscription fee and that's it -- there was no other use for real money other than maybe buying a faster computer or a vent server, but that's outside of the game environment. Buying gold, while possible, was heavily discouraged and bannable.

This policy made WoW feel very fair to teenage me and I ended up putting a considerable amount of time into the game as a result. I realized that it was plausible for me to be the best simply by putting enough time into it.

Additionally, WoW's social environment is typically what keeps the long-term players going (as opposed to ingame objectives, although objectives are important for keeping players engaged), and that's another story entirely.

Right now though, there's an in game Shop button for purchasing stuff in WoW. It's just vanity items, mounts and pets. They do balance a very very fine line - if they let you buy stuff that has a genuine in game advantage, they cross the line, though they're probably quite aware of that.

Actually, I don't know if you've caught the news, but they're in the process of implementing a "automatic level 90" token as an IAP, which will probably hit their store before their next expansion comes out.

I don't personally have an issue with it, but their IAP is encroaching subtly on the gameplay, and it might not stop there.

If they called it a demo, which is what it really is, then no, I would not call it a deal breaker.

If however, they called it the full game, then yes, it is a deal breaker.

This happened to me with FF4: After Years in the Wii. It was advertised as a full game and then I learned that most chapters had to be paid separately (and they weren't cheap). That made me really angry, but now I know better: research absolutely any game I purchase (digital or physical) so that it never happens again.

That's a "feemium" model which also has problems, but different problems.

IAP is open-ended. It targets certain types of personalities. It is exploitative in that you can respond to calls to "help" other players. Addicted "whales" dominate revenue.

You should be able to play the game, and beat the game, without any in-app purchases. It can beg you for add-ons all it wants, but gameplay shouldn't be affected.

I think IAP's to upgrade trails are ok. IE play two levels for free, buy the rest.

That's just one model. Personally, I'd much rather pay for levels than pay for resources that make the game less tedious.

This is definitely the best model. But it doesn't matter.

Up-front, I have no way to know which exploitative model is going to be used. Just seeing IAPs are involved is enough to turn me off. It's not worth the effort to investigate.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com