Pocket Gamer Court: The people vs in-app purchases

In-app purchases (also know as IAPs, or perhaps 'daylight robbery') - you stand accused of ruining the fun for mobile gamers. You have pleaded not guilty.

The good people of the Pocket Gamer readership have presented their arguments for and against in-app purchasing, and a weighty body of evidence it is, too.

It's now time for Judge Jon to deliberate (you can't see, but I've got my deliberating face on. No wig, though: it's far too hot for that.)

For

Pocket Gamer reader Rich1982 doesn't see what all the fuss is about. He believes that "weirdly there is this sense of entitlement that comes from paying something even if it is a little as 69p which is actually a tiny amount of money." As long as he gets a decent amount of game for that measly 69p, he's happy.

WhackAMuffin is similarly anti-cheapskate and pro-developer. "Most apps are less than a pound," he points out. "If the developer wants to make a little more money so they can justify all the hard work they put in, then why not!"

PROFESSIONAL OPINION

We call to the stand Will Wilson, Pocket Gamer deputy editor and all-round games maestro, to explain his developer-schmoozing pro-IAP views.

"I can ignore 'cheat' IAPs, as, you know, some people want to do that - that's fine," he says. "I also don't mind it when you get a complete game and then have the option of buying more stuff."

In fact, all Will minds is "when a paid game takes on the same 'look' as a freemium" with 'Buy Now' buttons and the like jumping in his face.

The honorable Hjdoom for the prosecution likens in-app purchasing to "ordering a meal in a restaurant and discovering that cutlery will cost you extra. Sure you can still eat the food with your fingers, but it'll take forever and you'll wind up covered in gravy."

Nice analogy. Judge Jon likes analogies, especially when they concern food.

Hjdoom also raises the issue of balance: "Is the game balanced so that those with average abilities will be able to complete it comfortably, or has it been balanced so that only the very best will be able to complete it without chucking cash at it?"

There's no doubting which side of the argument Pebo49 comes down on. "NO IN APP PURCHASES PERIOD", he proclaims. He could maybe ease up on the capitals, and throw a food analogy or two in there, but we hear what he's saying.

PROFESSIONAL OPINION

We call to the stand Paul Devlin, Pocket Gamer contributor and all-round Android whiz kid, to froth rabidly at the mouth while condemning IAP.

"Essentially, this is an issue so serious it could cause the collapse of Western Civilisation as we know it - or my massive enthusiasm for mobile gaming, anyway." Way to get dramatic on us, Paul.

"I generally just don't buy anything that has IAPs listed unless it's for a review or massively discounted ('Hullo', EA Sports), but fear my tiny protest isn't having much impact."

Thanks Pau... oh, he's not finished.

"Don't get me started on pricey Android games that spike in difficulty just after the 15-minute refund window and suggest you buy Gold or - despicably - leave a 'positive' comment in return for some free loot."

PG reader Dodger reckons that "if you pay for a game, it should be complete," but also believes that charging for extra content is fair game.

There's a major caveat, though: "If, however, you are charging people for a game and leaving chunks of it out just to get more money, then you are a thieving blighter" (highlighted word replaced with softer epithet in the interests of political correctness). Chivas77 agrees with Dodger's assessment: "If some developer wants to charge extra for in-game gold / currency in an app that I have already paid for, then frankly I won't buy anything from that publisher / developer again. However, something like Where's My Water? offering additional content is again perfectly fine in my view." There's another important exception. Chivas77 believes that changing paid apps to freemium apps via an update is "Another Douchebag Dave move." We think that means it's bad. Excelsius thinks it's all about the quality of the purchases themselves. "I don't mind in-app purchases if they're for something like a new level or character or weapon," he says. "Something where you can easily gauge how much you're likely to spend and something which extends the longevity of a great game." He also believes that Apple "should change the way the Top 25 chart is calculated to basically be top grossing but without in-app purchases being factored in." This may discourage price fiddling in a bid to top the chart. PROFESSIONAL OPINION We call to the stand Mark Brown, Pocket Gamer features editor and walking Nintendo encyclopaedia, to explain his sickeningly balanced views. "I don't really like IAPs in paid games," Mark says, "for I worry that the majority of designers will 'engineer' the game so that it becomes a horrible experience if you don't pay." "I also don't like devs hiding away small bits of content that are available at launch behind paywalls." He cites Dead Trigger as an example, which holds back the best gun in the game in such a way. "When I get a game with no in-app purchases, I know that I'm getting a game that's perfectly balanced." However, Mark is perfectly fine with "bits of content that are made AFTER the app goes live," so extra levels, with new artwork and the like. "If the dev wants to charge for that, then that's perfectly acceptable."

Final Judgement

I've taken all your opinions into account, and mixed in a healthy dose of personal bias to boot. Hey, if you don't like it, take it to the European Court of Arbitration (please don't). In the case of in-app purchasing ruining the fun of mobile gamers, I find the defendant.... GUILTY. It's all very well charging us for extra content - games have been doing that for some time now. But, too many developers have taken it too far, forcing purchases down our necks in order for us to get a complete gaming experience. Worst of all are the devs that charge an initial fee, then have the gall to demand additional payments to complete the experience. This practice - to use a complex legal term - stinks. So, stop. Now. Court is adjourned.