[calico_pie]

I wonder what Apple should quote as the total cost of that one?

[Stuart_h]

Quote:

Originally Posted by calico_pie

I wonder what Apple should quote as the total cost of that one?

Its an odd one this. A game I am currently playing allows you to spend over £60 on a bundle of perks. And you could do that many times. People complained when console games crept up in price but £60 just for perks is crazy ! I know google allow you to specify whether a password needs to be added for each purchase (and I assume apple do the same), and I know that parents should take responsibility in many respects, but I would have thought that game creators should be governed by some code where there state that the will only take a maximum of £x per install. I'm not saying that has to be stupidly low but I would have thought that a maximum of, say, £100 per account would allow for those who want to buy extra strengths, would allow decent income for game makers, but would also prevent some of these crazy bills we see in the press.

I'd much prefer to pay a fixed fee upfront and have everyone on a level playing field personally .....

[kidspud]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stuart_h

Its an odd one this. A game I am currently playing allows you to spend over £60 on a bundle of perks. And you could do that many times. People complained when console games crept up in price but £60 just for perks is crazy ! I know google allow you to specify whether a password needs to be added for each purchase (and I assume apple do the same), and I know that parents should take responsibility in many respects, but I would have thought that game creators should be governed by some code where there state that the will only take a maximum of £x per install. I'm not saying that has to be stupidly low but I would have thought that a maximum of, say, £100 per account would allow for those who want to buy extra strengths, would allow decent income for game makers, but would also prevent some of these crazy bills we see in the press.

I'd much prefer to pay a fixed fee upfront and have everyone on a level playing field personally .....

That could be a better way forward. Cap the total amount that can be spent on an app.

One of the worst examples I've seen is when I bought EA Golf 2014 for the
PS3. It cost about £45 to buy and then they wanted you to pay more for additional courses to be able to play the tour

[calico_pie]

Capping is an interesting idea. And I'd certainly agree that £100 seems more than plenty for any game. If it was possible, maybe something like the way Oyster cards work, i.e. there is a maximum spend for unlimited play / unlimited extras. e.g. extras that might cost £1 a pop, or £20 for unlimited use.

Although sure as eggs is eggs, if Apple did do that something, people would complain that Apple were being too restrictive, and nannying their customers.

At the end of the day there does come a point where people have to take some responsibility for their purchases.

[jchamier]

Quote:

Originally Posted by calico_pie

At the end of the day there does come a point where people have to take some responsibility for their purchases.

Agreed. If its kids running up charges on parents credit cards, then give kids their own account with pre-pay credit. The adults are supposed to be in charge.

[grumpyoldbat]

Essentially, the vast majority of the 'free to play' games are possible to play entirely for free if you are patient enough to earn the in-game currency to make the upgrades that way. As long as that is the case, I don't actually object to the developers offering "short-cuts". I do think it's key that Apple, Google, Amazon and other app stores need to make it clear at the point of install how to turn-off in app purchases, or even demand of developers that they make in-app purchases for that game off by default.

As for buying games outright - whilst I and others on here might prefer it, from a developer point of view, it's a barrier to play. Yes seriously, some people won't pay less than a quid for a game. The developer I worked for previously went with the paid-for route, but with so many games offering free to play, you don't stand a chance of getting any attention when the app store charts and rankings are full of apps which are seemingly free. You get buried, and in app stores with millions of apps, your title is buried. If you don't have major amounts of money to spend on marketing, then it's game over.

Essentially, it's the public's reluctance to spend even a few pence on an app that has led us to where we are now.

[calico_pie]

I'd certainly agree wit that - people do seem to expect an awful lot for free these days. Its ridiculous when people complain that an app is even £3-5 as being expensive, given the amount of development work that could have gone into it, or how much something comparable might cost in a different media.

[Jamie_Bradley]

Great news.

Well done Apple for recognising a problem, fixing the problem and refunding all effected. Of course such a thing should not happen in the first. But at least an attempt is being made to address the issue.

[alanwarwic]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kidspud

...However, I'm a little confused about the 'font' argument because both the App Store and the play store use a smaller font...

You seem to imply that Google use the word Free.

Though more often as not what you imply is quite different from what you mean.
Normally I can spot what you mean but I'm quite stumped here. I can only the usual wrong implication.

[Jamie_Bradley]

Probably already posted but, google to no longer call these kind if games free.

http://www.technobuffalo.com/2014/07...um-games-free/

[Jamie_Bradley]

Commonsense says these practices benefited both company's. Had the EU not decided to take action niether company would of made any changes. Of course that leaves nothing to bicker about so lets just ignore that and keep bickering.

[swordman]

Policy by end of September, so what were we revisiting in Oct exactly?

[kidspud]

Quote:

Originally Posted by swordman

Policy by end of September, so what were we revisiting in Oct exactly?

It's reasonable to look at the changes made in October (that is the month after September).

Would you be happy with The Sim FreePlay example?

[alanwarwic]

At least Apple are true top form.
Rather than acknowledge the situation they use advertising speel.

They take no prisoners do they?

[alanwarwic]

Removal of in-app purchases here show the added profit value of it all to Apple.
This time, the in-app purchases were for more sensible stuff resulting in a reported consumer backlash.

http://www.theguardian.com/technolog...-user-backlash

The interesting thing here is that it looks like Amazon Comisology were even forced to remove referrals to other comics and any indication of what you ought to read next.
It is as if, on IOS you are forced to use in-app purchases in order to advertise anything within the app.

""By forcing readers to leave the app," Conway continued, "Comixology has replaced what was a quick, simple, intuitive impulse purchase experience with a cumbersome multi-step process that will provide multiple opportunities along the path for the casual reader to think twice and decide, ah, never mind, I don’t really want to try that new book after all""

There is scant mention of that 43% surcharge/Apple tax for using an in-app purchase.

[kidspud]

Quote:

Originally Posted by alanwarwic

Removal of in-app purchases here show the added profit value of it all to Apple.
This time, the in-app purchases were for more sensible stuff resulting in a reported consumer backlash.

http://www.theguardian.com/technolog...-user-backlash

The interesting thing here is that it looks like Amazon Comisology were even forced to remove referrals to other comics and any indication of what you ought to read next.
It is as if, on IOS you are forced to use in-app purchases in order to advertise anything within the app.

""By forcing readers to leave the app," Conway continued, "Comixology has replaced what was a quick, simple, intuitive impulse purchase experience with a cumbersome multi-step process that will provide multiple opportunities along the path for the casual reader to think twice and decide, ah, never mind, I don’t really want to try that new book after all""

There is scant mention of that 43% surcharge/Apple tax for using an in-app purchase.

There is mention of the well known 30% that apple and google add onto purchases from a app that has become popular and drawn customers because of the ecosystems provided. Funny, i've just been to my local waitrose and there was no mention anywhere of the profit they add to the purchase of others suppliers products.

I look forward to your thread on it

Does make you wonder why amazon wants to remove such a convienient payment option from its users.

[alanwarwic]

I say scant because obviously Comisology look banned from even recommending their other comics in the app, never mind selling it how they want.

If you have a Cosmisology account you cant get to use it from within the app !
It is this restraint of trade that also makes in-apps purchases so lucrative to Apple.

It is fair to say that Google Play had little to lose in being more compliant. There Cosmisology can have a relationship with their audience whilst also not needing that surcharge.

[kidspud]

Quote:

Originally Posted by alanwarwic

I say scant because obviously Comisology look banned from even recommending their other comics in the app, never mind selling it how they want.

If you have a Cosmisology account you cant get to use it from within the app !
It is this restraint of trade that also makes in-apps purchases so lucrative to Apple.

It is fair to say that Google Play had little to lose in being more compliant. There Cosmisology can have a relationship with their audience whilst also not needing that surcharge.

There is nothing stopping the account being used, and according to the story you linked to, there was no issue until the app was updated.

As I said, I sure users of the app are very disappointed in amazons actions.

Why on earth you keep referring to apple and google when it was the decision of amazon, I not quite sure.

[alanwarwic]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kidspud

...there was no issue until the app was updated.
..

Yes, they got 70p and Apple the remainder of every £ spent.

It is a 'accept it or leave' system from Apple, so they chose to leave.
Obviously those using the web to make further purchases might just benefit from a lower price.

[kidspud]

Quote:

Originally Posted by alanwarwic

Yes, they got 70p and Apple the remainder of every £ spent.

It is a 'accept it or leave' system from Apple, so they chose to leave.

So Amazon have decided to not use googles and apples in app purchasing system to the determent of their users. Not a very good way to treat your customers.

What they need to is create some sort of diversion to make google and apple look like the bad guys. Luckily the article you linked to clearly shows it is amazons greed here.

[alanwarwic]

It is Apple's monopoly at fault. Users will simply have to get used to using the app as a 'document viewer' only.
But maybe that is the norm now, there are loads of viewers there. If they want in-app purchase they get to pay that 30p extra per every 70p spent.

But like I said before, its Apple's monopolisation that makes in-app purchases such a lucrative business, especially for kids games.

[kidspud]

Quote:

Originally Posted by alanwarwic

It is Apple's monopoly at fault. Users will simply have to get used to using the app as a 'document viewer' only.
But maybe that is the norm now, there are loads of viewers there. If they want in-app purchase they get to pay that 30p extra per every 70p spent.

But like I said before, its Apple's monopolisation that makes in-app purchases such a lucrative business, especially for kids games.

Your bias is truly unbelievable. Amazon removed the in app purchase option and you are trying to blame apple for amazons greed.

Nice mention of kid games though, another low.

[alanwarwic]

I do get a lot of blame for continuing the OPS discussion.


So greedy consumers too, for not liking that 43% surcharge? (42.85 to be exact)
(No answer expected, for what after all, compliments your 'Amazon greed')

[kidspud]

Quote:

Originally Posted by alanwarwic

I do get a lot of blame for continuing the OPS discussion.


So greedy consumers too, for not liking that 43% surcharge? (42.85 to be exact)
(No answer expected, for what after all, compliments your 'Amazon greed')

What are you saying? Are businesses not allowed to charge for providing services?

If you think as a consumer, you should get everything for free then it beggars belief.

You clearly have never been near a business with some of the comments you make, and I can only assume that anyone you worked for never paid you. After all, where does all this magic money come from.

[Everything Goes]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kidspud

Your bias is truly unbelievable. Amazon removed the in app purchase option and you are trying to blame apple for amazons greed.

Nice mention of kid games though, another low.

Breaking news! Pot calls kettle black