Let's go even further and have them ban consumable IAPs. There's almost no legitimate use case for them other than creating pretend currencies that make people hit the skinner box lever harder and spend more money.
"Indeed, a major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it ... gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself."
Sure, Apple can do with its platform what it wishes, but the arguments I see being put forth here are troubling. "The ignorant masses are making the 'wrong' choices for themselves, and we in our benevolent wisdom should substitute our preferences for theirs." Where does that sort of thinking end?
The flipside is the market clearly doesn't think mobile games are directly worth enough to pay for making them.
The dominance of IAPs is not something engineered by the game makers, it's just that it is so much more lucrative it is what enables the production values of modern mobile titles to be what they are. Many game makers would prefer it if you could charge somewhere around $5 per title and make a decent amount from honest players, but unless you have some uberbrand crossover from console land that's not going to work.
Free-to-play games aren't going away anytime soon and neither are IAPs. Consumers just don't pay for games anymore and a developer has to make money somehow. I like what Apple is doing by forcing developers to make more ethical games.
Large media catalogs need consumables. Every in app purchase item has to be approved by apple individually making it extremely impractical to list an IAP for every single item.
I'm hoping that the Family Sharing features that require the person with the credit card to approve purchases will be the death knell for games that require IAPs.
But I agree with everyone else, IAP's are the meth in the AppStore ghetto.
These ads pushers are already circumventing the app store. FreeMyApps uses a website and iOS device profile instead. Will Apple revoke their certificates?
http://welcome.freemyapps.com/howitworks-ios.html
Two of my favorite games at the moment use consumable IAPs, and I think it they have a good model.
Real Racing 3, and Trials Frontier both offer consumable IAPs that mostly remove waiting, or a boring portion of the gameplay. One can compete in game to earn the same money, and wait for repairs... or they can spend money and keep playing. So far I have not spent any money on these games (I am not a good target market for much of anything, so don't read too much into me playing free games), but I enjoy them a lot, and the developers are making a decent business out of it.
Consumable IPAs give developers a chance to get as much money as possible from each person playing. From me that might be $0, but many people are likely to spend more than the $4.99 that would otherwise be the target app price. This seems like the ideal business model to me.
> [W]here a confused developer wonders, “so we can’t encourage users to share stuffs [sic] on social networks anymore? This is one of the oldest tricks in the book and even Candy Crush uses it.”
"Even Candy Crush uses it" is not the best argument for this developer's point. It is the best argument for Apple's shift in enforcement.
I don't agree with the example about Candy Crush integration with facebook for asking friends for lives. I don't think it's in the same category with "share on facebook to earn free gold" kind of practices, which are what Apple is after for in my opinion.
Great but as many have pointed out the biggest problem with the App Store is that IAP has made pricing completely opaque.
The whole experience is completely untrustworthy as an app which requires an average spend of £20+ to use properly is considered more "Free" than an app which costs £2.99.
It's made a complete mockery of prices.
Fixed prices are popular for a reason and I hope Apple learns this and starts properly surfacing information as well as categorising based on the reality of an App's "price."
It would be interesting if the app store displayed the median total expenditure for any application that includes IAP. How would buying behavior be affected when suddenly that "free" game includes a note like "$59 median total spent"?
The "free" one can at least be tried at no cost. I'm quite annoyed with the iOS App Store keeping my money for several apps that are entirely non-functional.
I take a coffee break and fire the addictive social game "Boom Beach".
My troops are ready and I am ready to attack the neighbors.
I buy a 5 USD tea + 3 USD water bottle (both I can get free at my office).
The attack doesn't go well. One little error. My break is about to end, but I want to try one more time. Just that, it will take 2 hours to train my troops.
Or Wait, 1.99 USD to speed that up. Hours of planning, that went for the attack and just 2 USD to find out if I was right or wrong. Is it worth it ? I look at my coffee and water, the time, the ending break, the distractions till this is resolved. It's worth it. And while I am putting in 2USD, might as well take the 10USD deal for next 20 battles. Better spent than "expensive-than-movie" popcorn. Ban that first.
What I find annoying is that they did this with no warning. I got an app rejected a few days ago. I have a coin model in my apps. The users can a) Complete actions within the apps to earn coins b) Purchase coins through IAPs c) Watch video ads for coins d) Complete offers for coins. Many users have expressed that they were happy with the system, especially the video ads, with reviews such as "I wish there was more videos to watch for coins". With only around 2% of users spending money on IAPs, offers and videos are a good way to monetize at least a portion of the remaining 98%.
Your type of app is the reason why the App store is full of spammy garbage. Good riddance! I hope Apple actually encourage better apps without these skeevy practices.
Here is the complete rejection text for any app with AdColony rewarded video ads. The ads may not even be for apps:
Reasons
3.10: Developers who attempt to manipulate or cheat the user reviews or chart ranking in the App Store with fake or paid reviews, or any other inappropriate methods will be removed from the iOS Developer Program
3.10
We found that your app, or its metadata, includes features or content that can have an excessive influence in the listing order or ranking on the App Store, which is not in compliance with the App Store Review Guidelines.
Specifically, we found your app provides users coins for watching a video or trailer and subscribing a third party service. It would be appropriate to remove this information.
Please refer to the attached screenshot for more information.
While your iTunes Connect Application State is Rejected, a new binary will be required. Make the desired metadata changes when you upload the new binary.
Wow, are you serious? People will watch ads for game credits? Thank goodness I was a kid in the 90s before this wackiness pervaded the gaming industry.
I'm not knocking you BTW - the market will bear what it will bear - but, wow I had no idea this was a thing.
I'm surprised anyone is willing to pay money for these video ads to be included when the process for them being 'viewed' includes the person putting their phone on silent and doing something else for the 30 seconds or so the ad plays
My wife plays a game and she doesn't mind the "watch video ad for in game credits" model. I'm honestly not sure what the hate is about. If you don't like it, don't play the game.
My guess is that the restriction originated with pressure from advertisers. It is hard to determine if a user is actually interested in an add if there is an incentive for clicking and watching.
I see that you report your advertisers are aware, but if Apple chooses this for the ads they manage then I am not surprised they would enforce it universally so that developers don't move away from iADs.
This is a change I wholeheartedly agree with. The prompts in games to make you watch advertisements or download other apps for game credits was always to me a bit iffy. I am glad to see Apple officially forbidding these kind of moves. Developers of free-to-play games will just find other clever ways of making money off of free users, whether that be prompting you to spend real money on in-app purchases or even forcing you too at some point: who knows what will happen.
Interestingly, Google seems headed in the opposite direction. They've even released an app that lets users complete surveys in exchange for Google Play credit.
I feel bad for all the developers who are going to see a substantial drop in revenues from incentivized video ads. But as a user, I am happy to see this change. Developers have been very abusive with in-game credits.
Interesting how the normally libertarian HN is very much against a "free market" in apps, preferring that Apple get to dictate who earns money instead.
HN is not one homogeneous mass of people. There are libertarians who write pro-free market comments and there are authoritarians who write the opposite.
They are supposedly now banning keywords in titles so you won't be seeing more title like Floopy Bird - incredibly fun additive threes 2048 game. Good.
As for banning incentivized social actions: that really sucks if you aren't one of the companies (like King, Zynga, etc) that have really benefited from the growth of using those incentivized actions. Developers that came before you won't be punished and you are now going to have to spend your way to the top. Good luck with that.
One rumor is that they are banning some incentivized video ad networks because ads were coming up with Google Play logos. Oops.
Anyways - the long and short of it is, while the policies are probably net positive for the consumer, the people that gamed the system early still win.
It's about time. It's not only games that do this, even brand name companies pay for positioning via incentivized downloads from these marketing companies.
So where do you draw the line between viewing advertisements to play the game, and viewing advertisements to enhance the game? What makes a video view for gold coins different from an ad view to proceed to the next screen? I don't fully understand the distinction here?
The clause of being able to promote apps that are made by the same publisher will have a very significant impact on the industry and could even lead to more consolidation and a significant disadvantage for independent developers. In fact, I think this could lead to a business opportunity for publishing as a service whereby a developer can host their app with a partner and get paid based on the number of ads clicked, impressions, etc.
Overall, an unfriendly move for developers. I think it might be time to buy some Zynga ;-).
Good. Start with Angry Birds Star Wars telepods and don't let them back in if they remove it. Rovio really ruined the good thing they had going by getting way too greedy.
[+] [-] gergles|11 years ago|reply
Let's go even further and have them ban consumable IAPs. There's almost no legitimate use case for them other than creating pretend currencies that make people hit the skinner box lever harder and spend more money.
[+] [-] ataggart|11 years ago|reply
"Indeed, a major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it ... gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself."
Sure, Apple can do with its platform what it wishes, but the arguments I see being put forth here are troubling. "The ignorant masses are making the 'wrong' choices for themselves, and we in our benevolent wisdom should substitute our preferences for theirs." Where does that sort of thinking end?
[+] [-] fidotron|11 years ago|reply
The dominance of IAPs is not something engineered by the game makers, it's just that it is so much more lucrative it is what enables the production values of modern mobile titles to be what they are. Many game makers would prefer it if you could charge somewhere around $5 per title and make a decent amount from honest players, but unless you have some uberbrand crossover from console land that's not going to work.
[+] [-] dmalik|11 years ago|reply
This Gamasutra article on ethical free-to-play gaming comes to mind and foreshadowed Apples move - http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/207779/ethical_freetop...
Edit: I'm referring to mobile - "New research shows free-to-play on mobile isn't slowing down" http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/211333/New_research_shows...
[+] [-] dangero|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tomelders|11 years ago|reply
But I agree with everyone else, IAP's are the meth in the AppStore ghetto.
[+] [-] w1ntermute|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gearoidoc|11 years ago|reply
http://themodernprogrammer.com/post/app-store-dollars-dont-g...
[+] [-] freemanios|11 years ago|reply
These ads pushers are already circumventing the app store. FreeMyApps uses a website and iOS device profile instead. Will Apple revoke their certificates? http://welcome.freemyapps.com/howitworks-ios.html
[+] [-] chrisBob|11 years ago|reply
Real Racing 3, and Trials Frontier both offer consumable IAPs that mostly remove waiting, or a boring portion of the gameplay. One can compete in game to earn the same money, and wait for repairs... or they can spend money and keep playing. So far I have not spent any money on these games (I am not a good target market for much of anything, so don't read too much into me playing free games), but I enjoy them a lot, and the developers are making a decent business out of it.
Consumable IPAs give developers a chance to get as much money as possible from each person playing. From me that might be $0, but many people are likely to spend more than the $4.99 that would otherwise be the target app price. This seems like the ideal business model to me.
[+] [-] chollida1|11 years ago|reply
Google is of no use here and wikipedia links to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IAP
None of which look right:)
[+] [-] adamio|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hackerboos|11 years ago|reply
No chance whilst Apple gets a 30% cut.
[+] [-] trollingineer|11 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] xienze|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] minikites|11 years ago|reply
"Even Candy Crush uses it" is not the best argument for this developer's point. It is the best argument for Apple's shift in enforcement.
[+] [-] jbigelow76|11 years ago|reply
Step 2, charge developers for "sponsored" placement in the App store.
[+] [-] mrtksn|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lhnz|11 years ago|reply
The whole experience is completely untrustworthy as an app which requires an average spend of £20+ to use properly is considered more "Free" than an app which costs £2.99.
It's made a complete mockery of prices.
Fixed prices are popular for a reason and I hope Apple learns this and starts properly surfacing information as well as categorising based on the reality of an App's "price."
[+] [-] redler|11 years ago|reply
[Edit: clarity]
[+] [-] lucian1900|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jarsj|11 years ago|reply
I take a coffee break and fire the addictive social game "Boom Beach".
My troops are ready and I am ready to attack the neighbors.
I buy a 5 USD tea + 3 USD water bottle (both I can get free at my office).
The attack doesn't go well. One little error. My break is about to end, but I want to try one more time. Just that, it will take 2 hours to train my troops.
Or Wait, 1.99 USD to speed that up. Hours of planning, that went for the attack and just 2 USD to find out if I was right or wrong. Is it worth it ? I look at my coffee and water, the time, the ending break, the distractions till this is resolved. It's worth it. And while I am putting in 2USD, might as well take the 10USD deal for next 20 battles. Better spent than "expensive-than-movie" popcorn. Ban that first.
[+] [-] sprite|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sergiotapia|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sprite|11 years ago|reply
Reasons
3.10: Developers who attempt to manipulate or cheat the user reviews or chart ranking in the App Store with fake or paid reviews, or any other inappropriate methods will be removed from the iOS Developer Program 3.10
We found that your app, or its metadata, includes features or content that can have an excessive influence in the listing order or ranking on the App Store, which is not in compliance with the App Store Review Guidelines.
Specifically, we found your app provides users coins for watching a video or trailer and subscribing a third party service. It would be appropriate to remove this information.
Please refer to the attached screenshot for more information.
While your iTunes Connect Application State is Rejected, a new binary will be required. Make the desired metadata changes when you upload the new binary.
[+] [-] increment_i|11 years ago|reply
I'm not knocking you BTW - the market will bear what it will bear - but, wow I had no idea this was a thing.
[+] [-] bobbles|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wvenable|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chrisBob|11 years ago|reply
I see that you report your advertisers are aware, but if Apple chooses this for the ads they manage then I am not surprised they would enforce it universally so that developers don't move away from iADs.
[+] [-] spada|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] DigitalSea|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jfoster|11 years ago|reply
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.google.and...
[+] [-] ashbrahma|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pjc50|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] iand|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bigdubs|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] threeseed|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] curmudgeon224|11 years ago|reply
They are supposedly now banning keywords in titles so you won't be seeing more title like Floopy Bird - incredibly fun additive threes 2048 game. Good.
As for banning incentivized social actions: that really sucks if you aren't one of the companies (like King, Zynga, etc) that have really benefited from the growth of using those incentivized actions. Developers that came before you won't be punished and you are now going to have to spend your way to the top. Good luck with that.
One rumor is that they are banning some incentivized video ad networks because ads were coming up with Google Play logos. Oops.
Anyways - the long and short of it is, while the policies are probably net positive for the consumer, the people that gamed the system early still win.
[+] [-] coldcode|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] seanalltogether|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pratyushag|11 years ago|reply
Overall, an unfriendly move for developers. I think it might be time to buy some Zynga ;-).
[+] [-] justplay|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jasonkostempski|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mikeash|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ceejayoz|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|11 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] finalight|11 years ago|reply