Dredd vs Zombies on iPhone/iPad

[Something Fishy]

This is a great fun little game.  Very enjoyable.

[Mark Taylor]

I actually buy loads of Android apps, thanks very much. However, games where you have to spend 'real-world' money to purchase 'in-game' money just piss me off... so it's unlikely I would play this even if it were on Android. In these precarious economic times knowing (as far as possible) the costs involved in any given activity in advance is essential to good budgeting - especially in the case of non-essential activity like idle entertainment.

These type of games to me seem like a regression back to the 80s when folks went to the arcade and pumped endless amounts of coinage into the various games machines. I wonder how many people playing these kind of games bother to add up the total amount of money they've spent on them over time? I have no idea of the costs involved in playing JD vs. Zombies on a regular basis and that is the very thing that would put me off.

On the other hand, if it were available (on Android) for a one-off cost I'd probably be prepared to pay up to around £6.50 for it. Let's face it, compared to price of full-scale PC/PS3 titles anything more would be excessive. There's no way I'd change to the iOS platform for any reason, unless certain fundamentals were to change.

It doesn't surprise me that iPhone users spend more money on apps though. iPhone users buy into the system because of the apps - Apple's advertising has pushed the whole "there's an app for that" tagline pretty hard so for people who want apps, iPhone seems the obvious choice. OTOH a lot of people who have Android phones simply have whatever phone their provider happened to be promoting at the time when their contract came up for renewal. The fact that it has Android on it is of little interest to them - they just know they're getting something new and shiny once every 12/18/24 months (however long their contract happens to be).

In that sense I'm almost certainly a non-typical Android user - I got my phone knowing in advance exactly what phone I wanted and why.

[radiator]

You're completely overstating it.

I think the in-app purchase model is great and makes perfect sense. Remember that you are getting the game for little or no money in the first place - essentially you only end up paying additional money if you especially like that particular game. If developers try and charge too much for IAPs then no one will buy them so in some respect it's self-policing, and the times I have paid for additional content in games like Plants Vs Zombies and Jetpack Joyride (no more than £1.99 on each occasion) I have been more than happy to do so becuae they were great games. Surely that makes more sense from an economic standpoint compared to the traditional business model of games where you must pay a (usually substantial) one-off sum for a game that you may not even like or play enough to get your money's worth?

These type of games to me seem like a regression back to the 80s when folks went to the arcade and pumped endless amounts of coinage into the various games machines. I wonder how many people playing these kind of games bother to add up the total amount of money they've spent on them over time? I have no idea of the costs involved in playing JD vs. Zombies on a regular basis and that is the very thing that would put me off.

The arcade comparison is inaccurate - it's not as if you are charged every time you want to play it - and the IAPs are 100% optional. As I have said before, I fully completed Dredd Vs Zombies and didn't have to pay out for any of the upgrades. It was difficult, and I wouldn't have minded paying more as I loved the game, but I enjoyed the challenge of doing it without the payed advantages. People are so impatient these days that they might want to use the option of paying a little money to make the game easier - that's their choice.

[Mark Taylor]

You're completely overstating it.

I think the in-app purchase model is great and makes perfect sense. Remember that you are getting the game for little or no money in the first place - essentially you only end up paying additional money if you especially like that particular game. If developers try and charge too much for IAPs then no one will buy them so in some respect it's self-policing, and the times I have paid for additional content in games like Plants Vs Zombies and Jetpack Joyride (no more than £1.99 on each occasion) I have been more than happy to do so becuae they were great games. Surely that makes more sense from an economic standpoint compared to the traditional business model of games where you must pay a (usually substantial) one-off sum for a game that you may not even like or play enough to get your money's worth?

These type of games to me seem like a regression back to the 80s when folks went to the arcade and pumped endless amounts of coinage into the various games machines. I wonder how many people playing these kind of games bother to add up the total amount of money they've spent on them over time? I have no idea of the costs involved in playing JD vs. Zombies on a regular basis and that is the very thing that would put me off.

The arcade comparison is inaccurate - it's not as if you are charged every time you want to play it - and the IAPs are 100% optional. As I have said before, I fully completed Dredd Vs Zombies and didn't have to pay out for any of the upgrades. It was difficult, and I wouldn't have minded paying more as I loved the game, but I enjoyed the challenge of doing it without the payed advantages. People are so impatient these days that they might want to use the option of paying a little money to make the game easier - that's their choice.

So release a free demo version with a couple of playable levels and make people pay for the full version, people still get to try before they buy and at least then the costs are up-front and known.

The fact that you didn't need any IAPs to complete the game just illustrates my point - you don't know this until you HAVE completed the game - the costs are unknowable in advance.

The same applied to many coin-op acrade games, hence my comparison. Until you have played enough to gauge the difficulty of the game you don't know whether your next coin will last you 30 seconds or half an hour.

Only on one or two occasions have I ever paid for a game I didn't like, for two reasons - a) I'm aware enough of my own tastes to know what I like and b) I'm prepared to research what I'm buying before I spend the money. I read reviews, comments and watch gameplay videos on YouTube. If there is a playable demo I download and play it first. As a result I very rarely make a bad decision about what to buy.

[Richmond Clements]

So release a free demo version with a couple of playable levels and make people pay for the full version, people still get to try before they buy and at least then the costs are up-front and known.

The Dredd game, and most of these games, cost 69p! That's about the same as a bag of crisps. You don't ask for a free sample every time you buy a bag of crisps, do you?
At the fact that it was then available free a few weeks after release kind of makes your argument redundant here!

[radiator]

Your point seems rather confused and self-contradicting to me - surely if you've researched the game in question so thoroughly you'll be well aware of the extent/usefulness/necessity of the IAPs before you download the game?

Only on one or two occasions have I ever paid for a game I didn't like, for two reasons - a) I'm aware enough of my own tastes to know what I like and b) I'm prepared to research what I'm buying before I spend the money. I read reviews, comments and watch gameplay videos on YouTube.

I'm a very discerning consumer and have bought many games in my time that have got strong reviews etc that for some reason just didn't click with me, or I got bored of very quickly. It's a horrible feeling chucking away a load of money on something you end up not enjoying.

There's the other advantage of pricing games low as many apps are - the punter is much more willing to buy games on impulse, or check out things they might not otherwise bother with, leading to a greater diversity of games in the long run. Witness the conservatism and creative stagnation of the mainstream console boxed game market - higher prices, higher risks = developers playing it safe. There is also the issue of piracy - if apps were fully featured but full-priced then I'd imagine piracy would increase substantially.

We're talking about a very small amount of money here - if publishers were deliberately abusing the IAP system - making them impossible without players having to fork out unreasonable amounts of cash, they would get called out on it. They include those ridiculous £30 IAPs in games because at the end of the day, some idiot somewhere will buy them. Doesn't mean they expect everyone will.

[Mark Taylor]

So release a free demo version with a couple of playable levels and make people pay for the full version, people still get to try before they buy and at least then the costs are up-front and known.

The Dredd game, and most of these games, cost 69p! That's about the same as a bag of crisps. You don't ask for a free sample every time you buy a bag of crisps, do you?
At the fact that it was then available free a few weeks after release kind of makes your argument redundant here!

Where did I say every game should have a playable demo? I don't recall saying or even implying that. As I said in my post IF a game has a playable demo I will always try it out before paying for the game. IF it doesn't I will do whatever research I can, YouTube gameplay videos usually being a pretty good indication.

Radiator suggested that a game where you pay for in-game content was a good thing because you get the chance to try it out before you commit to spending more money. I merely suggested a playable demo would be an alternative which also lets people try a game out before they commit, but without the accompanying disadvantage of unknown costs.

Also to say the game only costs 69p is utterly missing the point of what I posted in the first place... the point being that in-game content will cost you extra and those costs are unknown in advance.

The fact that you don't actually need the in-game content is also beside the point - because the fact is you don't know that until you get that far.

[radiator]

Oh, and another thing - a lot of apps actually do offer what you are suggesting, to a certain extent.

There is a free 'Lite' version, that tends to be ad-supported and/or requires an IAP to unlock further content/level caps etc.

Alternatively there is the 'full/premium' version, which costs a small amount up-front but is either ad-free or has additional content already unlocked.

[Mark Taylor]

Your point seems rather confused and self-contradicting to me - surely if you've researched the game in question so thoroughly you'll be well aware of the extent/usefulness/necessity of the IAPs before you download the game?

The extent/usefulness/necessity of the IAPs depends on the difficultly level of the game in relation to the player's own skill... which is by far the most difficult aspect of a game to judge through research without actually playing it, in my experience. Difficulty is extremely subjective. I'm generally more inclined to buy a game that has a variable difficulty level so if I find it too easy or too hard, I have the reassurance of knowing I'll be able to adjust it in the game options.

I'm a very discerning consumer and have bought many games in my time that have got strong reviews etc that for some reason just didn't click with me, or I got bored of very quickly. It's a horrible feeling chucking away a load of money on something you end up not enjoying.

Well, I generally don't have that problem and not because I'm not a discerning consumer. Quite the opposite. When I look over the month's game releases for PS3 (which I do regularly as it's my main gaming platform) it's rare to see more than one that interests me. Maybe five or six games released each year interest me and I buy maybe three or four... which for me is more than enough. Out of those I do buy I enjoy almost 100% hit rate.

Each to his own.

[Mark Taylor]

Oh, and another thing - a lot of apps actually do offer what you are suggesting, to a certain extent.

There is a free 'Lite' version, that tends to be ad-supported and/or requires an IAP to unlock further content/level caps etc.

Alternatively there is the 'full/premium' version, which costs a small amount up-front but is either ad-free or has additional content already unlocked.

I know this. I'm not sure what, if anything, I said which would lead you to believe I didn't.

[Mark Taylor]

BTW If I really like a game (like I really like the Motorstorm series for PS3) I might even buy some additional DLC... but at least with full price games like these you have the assurance of knowing in advance the DLC truly is entirely optional.

[strontiumdawg]

The game is free at the moment creeps!

[COMMANDO FORCES]

Free updates available. You now have extra arenas (I-Block 188 - Chem Plant - Sump Clinic) and a PSI Division area where you can earn extra goodies.

Mr Wells, get ready to watch me stroll through these areas with commendations 

[Goaty]

Free updates available. You now have extra arenas (I-Block 188 - Chem Plant - Sump Clinic) and a PSI Division area where you can earn extra goodies.

Mr Wells, get ready to watch me stroll through these areas with commendations 

Niceeeee!

[COMMANDO FORCES]

Drokk! These zombies are bloody fast