[thatsethnz]

> "No free games or games with In-App Purchases"

This is a great rule. As a father of similarly aged kids (10, 9, 4) this is exactly what I would like to have happen at my house. Unfortunately, I have found games like this difficult to surface on the app store. Is there a decent source for games like this?

Also, Apple needs to think of the impact that the prevalence of these kinds of apps has on their revenue - I spend money on steam, epic, ps4 games etc. mostly because this isn't an issue. (Or is very clearly signposted) But I am unwilling to spend money even on iphone games that are really enjoyed because the antipatterns discussed in this post have made it difficult to trust the vendor. The bottom line is, if I could trust them, I would spend more.

[easton]

Apple Arcade is exactly what you want[0]. No in-app purchases, Apple picks the games and gives them exclusivity so there's always good quality ones. It's a good deal if you like playing games on the iPad.

0: https://www.apple.com/apple-arcade/

[encom]

A cynic would say that Apple manufactured the problem, and is now selling the solution.

[cableshaft]

Yep, companies love to do that.

See Ubisoft and selling EXP boosts so you don't have to grind as much in Assassin's Creed. They decided to make it a grind to encourage you to buy the "solution".

[Spivak]

Aside from offering the ability to collect IAP in general I’m not sure what the case against Apple is here. Did they do something specific to incentivize the creation of these kinds of games?

[yoz-y]

Not really, mostly "the market" happened. For productive applications one could argue that the lack of upgrade pricing and trials has fueled the race to the bottom but this was never really a thing with games (as one could easily have a free demo and a paid full game on the store).

[imtringued]

AmazonBasics is also like that. Let scammers on your platform. Then sell a trusted brand that is guaranteed to be scam free.

[hinkley]

Not an Apple App Store vendor, so my information is sketchy at best, but it sounds to me like in-app purchases are only a little more complicated than listing something on the app store in the first place. If the money is the same, and the dopamine hit for the latter is greater, of course everyone is going to 'race to the bottom' with in-app purchases.

Apple has not provided any incentive for people to retain customers by any other mechanism than in-app purchases. Not on iOS, and now not on OS X. Strictly speaking, Steam also doesn't have a way to give a discount to people for upgrading, and yet I've bought several sequels at a modest discount because they support bundling and the bundles are prorated.

However, while a bundle of Red Dead Redemption 1 & 2 might not need an explanation, a bundle of Photoshop N and N+1 is only good for giving a discount for upgrades.

If Apple is interested in turning back this Doom Clock, then support for bundling, and taking a smaller cut of app purchases than in-app purchases would, I think, function as a carrot and stick combination.

[0xCMP]

I think I've heard some developers of popular apps which have done this who say it's a pain to support the users who do not understand this is for upgrading and then get confused which app to use.

The fact that they can't handle refunds also does not help.

They really should just support paid upgrades. Just provide a framework/system for it and make it a normal thing.

[yzmtf2008]

Bundles have been a thing on App Store for years.

[hinkley]

Like I said, my information is spotty, but good to know, thanks. Looks like they also have pro-rated bundles (at the same time or later, I can't discern).

However, a search suggests that this feature was announced 2 years ago next month. Which is one of those grey areas where advertisers say "hundreds" and the potential customer thinks, "347" whereas the advertiser means "147".

So, you're right, and thank you for the update, but also I'm keeping an eye on you...

[yzmtf2008]

I believe it’s about 2 years on the MAS, but on iOS, it’s been a thing for 6 years: https://appleinsider.com/articles/14/09/18/save-money-with-n...

[candiddevmike]

With the kids having remote learning, the school district has them playing this game called Prodigy. It has a really insidious "premium" model that it is constantly throwing up in front of my kids. New dance moves, costumes, all things kids want. I'm tempted to complain about it, the district shouldn't be using apps that push crap like this.

[thatsethnz]

It makes me furious that this kind of dynamic is introduced to a digital learning space at all.

Why delineate between the haves and the have nots? Between the kids with access to disposable parental income and the kids that don't? Why make that part of online life of children at all?

[tomc1985]

Because there is money to be made, and leaving it on the table is just downright unamerican

/s

[sibartlett]

Not trying to convince you otherwise, but rather maybe explain some of the rationale for prodigy using the freemium model.

Education is a hard market to break into and build adoption of a new product. Budgets are very constrained or virtually nonexistent... in America some teachers even have to purchase classroom supplies or tools with their own wages.

With that in mind (and maybe other reasons that I do not know), Prodigy took the decision to offer their service to schools and teachers at no cost, otherwise it would’ve been much more difficult to build adoption in that market. It’s very hard to convince teachers, schools and boards to allocate budget on a new initiative, when they are already spread so thin.

Now to build a service like prodigy, it takes game artists and developers to build the game, web developers to build the website and teacher dashboards, teachers to build the prodigy math curriculum, and then all the supporting teams too; data scientists, product owners, testers, operations, etc.

They either need some sort of investment or revenue stream to make the company run; and this is where they adopted a freemium model.

[keyboard_smash]

What about Apple Arcade? It's not free, but Apple guarantees that none of the games in it have ads and a single subscription can be shared through Family Sharing.

[p1necone]

All these comments suggesting Apple Arcade make me sad that Apple chose to fix their problem with garbage store discoverability with a subscription games service rather than you know, actually fixing the garbage discoverability problem.

[dave84]

Apple Arcade should have a good range of games for your kids. No IAPs, no up-selling. It's worth the money for my family.

[thrwn_frthr_awy]

We have Apple Arcade for our family as well, but I do wish they had more games for younger children. My little ones (4 & 6) enjoy Crossy Castle, but that is really the only age appropriate game for them.

[TedDoesntTalk]

In-app purchases are important for non-gaming apps like audio book stores, ebook stores, and anything that has pay-as-you-go content.... and anything with a free trial like VPN apps which give you a free week tor whatever before billing you monthly.