[sixothree]

I downloaded a puzzle game for iOS and was enjoying it. I was maybe 5 or 8 levels in and of course it got harder. But the last level was literally impossible to complete without some additional purchase. I tried a few ways just to prove that it was a trap. And it was.

I have literally not played an iOS game since that moment.

[dumpsterdiver]

> 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?

[nirvdrum]

I'm in a similar boat. I'll just play on a handheld gaming system (e.g., Nintendo 3DS, Nintendo 3DS). I realize that's not convenient when waiting in line wherever, but I cope.

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.

[MichaelZuo]

People who get addicted to playing the ‘Unity slot machine’ would have just gotten addicted to something else, porn, drugs, real slot machines, online poker, sports betting, etc…

So it’s not clear if it’s a net negative at all.

[effingwewt]

Not true.

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'.

[MichaelZuo]

How is this relevant if Apple didn’t create this ‘race to the bottom’? And the fact that even if they disappeared tomorrow, it will still continue.

Likely with even lower average scruples among the ‘racers’…

[nirvdrum]

It's relevant because you claimed if these people didn't get sucked into games that they would just be degenerates in other walks of life. I don't think it's all that debatable that people are addicted to their phones. Most people that are addicts wind up there out of casual exposure. And, hey, it's unregulated and the one tech company that has your back is making it so easy to do.

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.

[danielbarla]

This is a problem highly targeting mobile OSes, to the point where sites like [1] exist. The norm is superficially free / cheap games which are pay to win-ish, and the days of simply paying a slightly larger price upfront and just getting a full game seem to be behind us, for these platforms at least. It's hard to make the same statement, to the same degree, for PC games or console games; there are _tons_ of full games one can buy, it's pretty much the norm on anything except the two main mobile platforms.

[1] https://nobsgames.stavros.io/