Patrick McKenzie (patio11) posted some thoughts about how significant this change is, specifically using the game Genshin Impact as an example for how the developer could take advantage of it: App...
Patrick McKenzie (patio11) posted some thoughts about how significant this change is, specifically using the game Genshin Impact as an example for how the developer could take advantage of it: App Store Payments Will Have Increased Competition
Am I the only one who was grossed out by his description of these game/pay mechanics? I've been avoiding in-app purchases for years, but outside of curated stores that specifically disallow them,...
Am I the only one who was grossed out by his description of these game/pay mechanics? I've been avoiding in-app purchases for years, but outside of curated stores that specifically disallow them, it's getting harder to find games that you just pay for and own. There's no way I'd ever willingly give my real email address to a game. I don't even allow notifications from games. But I'm probably in the minority.
For mobile games, it's basically non-existent. There will be some ports of console games, but otherwise the race to the bottom was settled long ago. Virtually no one makes "pay it once" games...
For mobile games, it's basically non-existent. There will be some ports of console games, but otherwise the race to the bottom was settled long ago. Virtually no one makes "pay it once" games anymore.
Or even regular apps. Some still have the "pay $3-5 to remove ads" model, but many apps also moved towards subscriptions. Very cheap ones, but it adds up if you rely on many apps.
This isn't really the case for console games, in my experience. A few huge games do this GaaS stuff, but many that do are "free" to begin with. Some "premium" franchises toyed with the idea (over watch, Call of Duty), but most have moved on. Sports games are the only big example I can think of still trying GaaS on top of an entry cost.
The debate in the console space is over the increase of ceiling price from $60 for new games to $70.
Previously: User downloads app, registers, can only pay in app for services, Apple gets 15-30% cut. Now: User downloads app, registers, gets email from developer saying here's how you can pay for...
Previously: User downloads app, registers, can only pay in app for services, Apple gets 15-30% cut.
Now: User downloads app, registers, gets email from developer saying here's how you can pay for services on our website, Apple doesn't get 15-30% cut.
Would it be better for the info to be directly in the app? Yes.
However it's a settlement to meet partway, the partway being devs can get payment from elsewhere, but can't say it in the app specifically.
They still have to ask for contact information, which most people will say no to. They should just let apps show a pop up that says, "Go to www.appwebsite.com to sign up for a subscription." I get...
They still have to ask for contact information, which most people will say no to. They should just let apps show a pop up that says, "Go to www.appwebsite.com to sign up for a subscription."
I get why Apple does it, but I think the pros of having other payment processors far outweighs any perceived advantages. It just comes across as greedy.
It seems like Apple feels they are entitled to a cut of every single transaction involving an iOS device. I see no reason why Apple should get a cut of a service that just so happens to have an iOS app.
I think you underestimate just how many people are willing to enter their email address to use an app/game. In fact I'm willing to be at least some of these apps will use the email & pay on...
I think you underestimate just how many people are willing to enter their email address to use an app/game.
In fact I'm willing to be at least some of these apps will use the email & pay on website setup will use Apple Pay to streamline the process and only end up paying the typical CC fees instead of Apple's 15-30%.
Independent developers will be allowed to tell iPhone users about ways of avoiding the “Apple Tax” on their apps for the first time, as part of an out-of-court settlement concluding a class-action lawsuit against the company.
The agreement, which is accompanied by a $100m payout from Apple to be distributed among App Store developers who have earned less than $1m over the past six years, represents a small but significant concession from the company, whose iron grip over the App Store has earned it billions in profit alongside accusations of unlawful monopolistic behaviour.
Patrick McKenzie (patio11) posted some thoughts about how significant this change is, specifically using the game Genshin Impact as an example for how the developer could take advantage of it: App Store Payments Will Have Increased Competition
Am I the only one who was grossed out by his description of these game/pay mechanics? I've been avoiding in-app purchases for years, but outside of curated stores that specifically disallow them, it's getting harder to find games that you just pay for and own. There's no way I'd ever willingly give my real email address to a game. I don't even allow notifications from games. But I'm probably in the minority.
For mobile games, it's basically non-existent. There will be some ports of console games, but otherwise the race to the bottom was settled long ago. Virtually no one makes "pay it once" games anymore.
Or even regular apps. Some still have the "pay $3-5 to remove ads" model, but many apps also moved towards subscriptions. Very cheap ones, but it adds up if you rely on many apps.
This isn't really the case for console games, in my experience. A few huge games do this GaaS stuff, but many that do are "free" to begin with. Some "premium" franchises toyed with the idea (over watch, Call of Duty), but most have moved on. Sports games are the only big example I can think of still trying GaaS on top of an entry cost.
The debate in the console space is over the increase of ceiling price from $60 for new games to $70.
Credit to Mojang - they have maybe the best mobile game out there and it's just a one time payment.
Here is a less positive take on this suit: https://world.hey.com/dhh/apple-s-new-settlement-is-a-corrupt-joke-bd8b9c1e
I don't see how this changes anything, honestly. They still don't let developers advertise their websites or direct subscriptions in the app.
Previously: User downloads app, registers, can only pay in app for services, Apple gets 15-30% cut.
Now: User downloads app, registers, gets email from developer saying here's how you can pay for services on our website, Apple doesn't get 15-30% cut.
Would it be better for the info to be directly in the app? Yes.
However it's a settlement to meet partway, the partway being devs can get payment from elsewhere, but can't say it in the app specifically.
They still have to ask for contact information, which most people will say no to. They should just let apps show a pop up that says, "Go to www.appwebsite.com to sign up for a subscription."
I get why Apple does it, but I think the pros of having other payment processors far outweighs any perceived advantages. It just comes across as greedy.
It seems like Apple feels they are entitled to a cut of every single transaction involving an iOS device. I see no reason why Apple should get a cut of a service that just so happens to have an iOS app.
I think you underestimate just how many people are willing to enter their email address to use an app/game.
In fact I'm willing to be at least some of these apps will use the email & pay on website setup will use Apple Pay to streamline the process and only end up paying the typical CC fees instead of Apple's 15-30%.
"Here's a 1-time coupon for 50% off via our website. Register now and permanantly recieve 5% off."
People love a good coupon.