NorrenRadd
Member
How kind of you. :|
So you won't spend any money on a game you're enjoying until you're basically done with it? And then you have to *really* have enjoyed it, not just think it's good? How much would you say you typically throw the developer and how many times have you done this with F2P games?
I (and I presume others) get significant happiness out of beating a game without paying for IAP boosts. That's part of the challenge and part of the fun. If I pay before I feel like I've won, there is less challenge and fun because I feel like I cheated. If I pay after I've played for awhile, I don't feel like I have cheated. I think its a personality type or a mentality. I'm not out to screw developers and I am happy to support them to make more games. I have enjoyed these games and contributed money to the developers:
Hero Academy - Bought all of the teams and colors, will continue to buy all the teams.
Tiny Tower - Bought Bux for the wife to help her get started. I would buy Bux for myself but the value of them drops so significantly in the late game (I feel that's a design problem).
Pocket Planes - Waiting for them to fix the achievements/bugs before throwing them $10
Carcassonne - Bought the main game and all expansions. Will continue to buy the expansions.
Triple Town - Bought unlimited moves, but it killed the fun of the game for me :-(
'With Friends Games' - Bought the upgraded versions to remove advertisements.
This type of thinking frustrates me because it's exactly why so many F2P games *have* to have their hand out at every point otherwise most people won't pay. So the players that will have to pick up the slack, otherwise the game may not make its budget back. And that's why the most successful F2P games (hey, CSR racing) ask for money very frequently.
I don't consider it a 'type of thinking' as much as a design challenge. How can developers capture money from people like me, people who enjoy the challenge of beating the game without feeling like they paid and cheated?
With a content-driven game, this is easier. Carcassonne can release a new expansion and I'll pay. With a consumable driven game, the design challenge is harder. They have to give me value for my money but not make the game trivial. They need to make it acceptable for people to buy the intro pack.
People have decided they don't want to even spend 99 cents on games in great numbers. Amazing Alex, the #1 Paid App on iTunes is the #14 Top Grossing App. Where's My Perry, at #2 Paid is #21 grossing. And most of the apps on that Top Grossing chart are indeed free and beg for $$$. What do you expect, that's where the money seems to be.
You can't say that people don't want to spend 99 cents based on just the rankings data. Top paid applications are often inefficient in terms of capturing revenue from their customers. For example, I love Cut The Rope. I would have paid $20 for it, but it only cost me $1 and I can't pay for more. Their revenue numbers are lower than the amount of money customers are willing to pay.
F2P games don't have that problem as much, because they offer a method for people to continue to pay. Those apps aren't top grossing because they beg for money; rather, they are there because they are good F2P games with good monetization hooks that create the capability of grossing more revenue than a traditional fixed up-front cost application.
I get it; as a consumer - free is the best price ever! But, it did cost money to make what you're playing. If you can't even kick 99 cents to a developer of a game you think is good then I wouldn't expect them to make many more. I have never seen people so stingy with $2 as I do on the App Store. :\
I do kick $ to developers. Everyone who enjoys good F2P games should as well, so that we can get more goodness.