Slashdot Mirror
How Micro-Transactions Will Shake Up iPhone
Spanner Spencer writes "Talk to iPhone games developers, and the feature they're most excited about in the new iPhone 3.0 software is the ability to do in-game micro-transactions.
And while you might wonder if this is just an excuse to get iPhone gamers to dip into their wallets even more often, it's actually a hugely positive thing for several reasons.
Downloadable content, virtual items, subscription billing and fast-track social advancement are some of them, so Pocket Gamer looks into a bit more depth about what you can expect on the micro-payments side once iPhone 3.0 debuts."
iPhone has force-feedback too? Is there nothing this thing can't do?
Fuck iphone.
There's an app for that!
Why do none of those "hugely positive things" sound hugely positive, or even positive at all? Am I a bad, bad failure of a consumer, whose mere existence is dragging our economy down, or are the writers of TFA a bunch of koolaid-drinking frigtards who are cheerleading the advance of some of the worst aspects of traditional phone service into the realm of applications?
Probably no need to answer that.
I like my iPhone and I have 70+ apps installed but most of them are free apps that I'd live without if I had to pay for them. Only a dozen or so are paid apps that I actively tell people "you should get this, it's outstanding". I've paid for a couple of games but I would be really upset if I "accidentally" purchased something even if it's only a couple of dollars.
I hope Apple makes very sure that "micro-transactions" don't let developers try to keep slipping their fingers into my wallet quietly.
So now all those Pyramid Scheme style games (Mafias, Ninjas, Vampires, Knights) can be real Pyramid schemes, with Microtransactions filling in the $$$ glue?
Yeah, but it was never approved by Apple...
And while you might wonder if this is just an excuse to get iPhone gamers to dip into their wallets even more often, it's actually a hugely positive thing for several reasons. Downloadable content, virtual items, subscription billing and fast-track social advancement are some of them...
Um, in what way are any of these things positive? I look at these things and see only scams: more ways to nickel-and-dime gamers to death.
iFuck?
These micro transactions have some ok poential uses, but some of the uses are just down-right silly. Like that FPS game Apple demoed, where you can pay some tens of cents to get a rocket launcher to get an advantage. I, personally, can't wait to see the Slashdot story about a kid who racked up tens of thousands of dollars of debt with his parents credit card by trying to be the best on a silly FPS server.
You are out of lives.
Pay 20c to continue.
How long until we start seeing "lite" apps with all the buttons, but there's a tiny bit of text at the bottom "If you would like to click this button, you agree to pay $.25". /tinfoilhat
Back to reality though, I really like that the iphone app store was once a place where dev's could make a halfway decent program based on a really cool idea and make money as a reward. It also felt like the golden days of the old shareware scene before it got stale and people started depending on it and expecting it to pay their bills. While I have yet to pay for an app on the itouch, there are a few I might have if I had an iphone with it's mobile connection and gps (the geocaching app would be the first on my list).
However, I really don't like the idea of a microtransaction for iphone gaming. I think that the microtransaction system in gaming implies that someone has a heavy emotional attachment to the game and the majority of microtransaction items are prestige items. In order for those two criteria to work, you need two criteria: A game that someone will play for more than a few hours before buying another $1.00 game and persistent multiplayer. I.E. Why buy a coat for a character that you will play on a plane flight and never again? Especially if the only way that people will see it is if you show them the character on your iphone. ("Oh, that's nice, you paid extra for him to be lime green!"). By the way, if you're thinking of buying extra levels, how many labyrinth lite instances have you seen on iphones? How many full versions? The only difference is more levels, but I haven't met anybody that felt the need to buy more levels for a novelty game.
That and the other major types of apps that i've seen IT and casual people use are information access type apps (urban spoon, website readers like for fmylife, directories, directions, recipes, etc) and resource access type apps (ssh, remote login, and other IT based monitoring/remote tools), nobody is going to pay a quarter every time they want to look up directions or login to thier server, and they'll probably just buy the full app and expense it or eat the cost for making their lives "easier". So the only thing I can see is a feature list a la carte, i.e. if you look at the list of features that differentiate a lite and full version of an app, and you only charge a small amount per feature, you might get more money in the long run due to people not wanting everything, but only picking out what suits them.
Is it sad that I am more likely to recognize you and your posts by your sig than your name or UID?
A lot of people here can see no good from micropayments.
However, it allows the developer to make the initial game much cheaper, and thus gives you more of an ability to try a game for less - essentially you could replace the lite/full version with a single version that let you buy more levels.
Then as a gamer, if you liked it you could buy the rest of the game... or perhaps mid game you could decide the level design had gone to pot and buy no more.
in-game payments is just a tool, and like any tool it can be abused - but that does not mean the tool should not exist and cannot be helpful. In the end the companies that treat the consumer with respect will make the most of it.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
it's actually a hugely positive thing for several reasons [...]
Downloadable content, virtual items, subscription billing and fast-track social advancement
Sorry, the deafening Kerching! Kerching! Kerching! Kerching! drowned you out there..
iDontFuckPleaseHelpMe
I remember the good old days when there were no such things as DLC. They were simply called free patches.
I thought that Apple rejected that app??!!
Fuck iphone.
There's an app for that!
Yeah, but is there a hardware port for it???
Politics will sooner or later make fools of everybody... - Dick Armey
1. You are warned everytime an App charges you. I don't understand the people acting like "micropayments" means "happens automatically without your knowledge".
2. If you don't like the payment model a certain App uses, vote with your wallet. Stop using it. Developers are only going to make money nickel-and-diming you all if you LET THEM.
3. Free Apps will not go away. It isn't like people said "Oh gee, I wish we could only charge $0.50 for this. I guess we'll give it away instead of making any money". Those Apps are free because whoever made them had the ability and desire to release them that way.
So, calm the fuck down.
CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
You are out of lives.
Pay 20c to continue.
How, exactly, is the arcade model markedly different from the MMORPG monthly fee model? I guess the more things change, the more things stay the same.
Valve Software patches their games frequently, and not just bug fixes. Team Fortress 2 for example regularly comes out with "themed" update packs that will give new unlockable weapons and abilities to individual characters, new maps, and new gameplay modes. Seriously, they keep the content coming even almost 2 years after the game first came out, with no sign of letting up!
I think you and I must define "hugely positive" very differently.
And now the question we're all dieing to hear the answer to...
How long did it take to type that with one hand?
There is no -1 Disagree mod. Slashdot.org/faq defines mod options. USE IT.
I thought the whole point about the App Store was that you could BUY an app (as in, ONCE). This is very different than services such as Verizon's Get It Now, which allows you to get a SUBSCRIPTION to an app that you will pay for again and again each month for as long as you own the phone (or cancel the subscription). I understand about being able to "try" something to see if it's worth sticking with, but come on, most apps for the iPhone are a buck or two. You pick up a dozen for the cost of lunch. And how long is it going to be before the average "micropayment" starts creeping up to near what the greater percentage of apps cost now (.99)? Poof! You're Verizon again.
I was really pissed when Bitpass went down. Sure, I only ended up using it for a few webcomics passes, but it sure was worth it, and I wish I'd had more to spend it on. I like the system. I like being able to buy things for a quarter. I don't think that this is going to unleash a horrible torrent of games that need micropayments, IE "Want an extra life? That'll be five cents". However I sure wouldn't mind returning to the old shareware model where the next three episodes of Wolfenstein or whatever costs a small amount.
...Of course, I don't even HAVE an iPhone, but I like this on principle...
As long as my micropayments go toward something semi-permanent (more levels) instead of something transient (an extra life), I'm totally cool with it--and I'm also cool with other people liking the transient stuff. There's not enough ways to pay small amounts of money for things that are worth small amounts of money, so this sounds good to me. I'll always have my choice to play games that just don't use that feature anyway.
Mircotransactions would be fine if they didn't morph into macrotransactions. Xbox Live is a great example. Games and add-ons were routinely priced at $5. A little pricey, but doable. Then a few started charging $10. But these were just larger, premium items (sure...). These days, a $5 item is a rarity, most are $10, with a few reaching to $20. We will get to the same situation as we are with full price games (if we aren't there already), where you can pay $69-79 for a special edition game, and still not have all of the content (Resident Evil 5, Street Fighter IV). Micropayment, blech. Mine are going to be so micro that the publishers will never see them.
I'm not a gamer myself, but I can imagine a freely downloadable game that has additional levels available for a trivial amount of money (instead of a $5 app, a 50 cent to $1 pack of additional levels, up to $5 to get/unlock all levels). This would cost the gamer that wants all the levels the same amount, but others could play the game and would buy additional levels as long as the game is engaging...
I can easily imagine this increasing over-all revenues per game, as many people would download the free game, then large number might buy the first set of additional levels, a smaller number might get the second additional level, etc, with only a few paying for all levels.
Ken
Wow, I have noticed it for a while here on Slashdot, but the only reason that people seem to comment is to complain (this too may be considered a complaint). Cheer up basement dwellers, as an iPhone developer writing games aimed at young children I can assure you that its not as easy as people are making it out to be to profit off of little fingers making little mistakes. ...If it were so, people would abuse that and apple does a ton to make sure that no one gives them a bad name, many times even at the cost of not allowing very innovative and cool games to the market, or even very legit charity applications.
Apple plays a mean game of 'cover you ass' folks.
later,
-MG
Blah Ninja Pirate
Giddy on up
Giddy on Up
Blah Ninja Pirate
Giddy on up
Giddy on Up
2 cents and lookin all fly
gonna get a quick boost
gonna let her fly
Another 5 cents getting into a groove
get the ninja gear
and pwn some n00bz
Blah Ninja Pirate
Giddy on up
Giddy on Up
Blah Ninja Pirate
Giddy on up
Giddy on Up
Like fly wiseman once told me true
what you throw out comes back to you
for another 5 cents he'll show ya too
A buck now and 4 cents again
30+ life and I'm back again
Fighting like a pirate with a master plan
Blah Ninja Pirate
Giddy on up
Giddy on Up
Blah Ninja Pirate
Giddy on up
Giddy on Up
2Cold said again .25 cents was the master plan
but the Internet shrank the world again
No smokin no drink and the arcades are dead
so lets try somethin' like 4/10th a cent
and see if that money starts rollin in
Blah Ninja Pirate
Giddy on up
Giddy on Up
Blah Ninja Pirate
Giddy on up
Giddy on Up
Meh wtf lets sing it again
Blah Ninja Pirate
Giddy on up
Giddy on Up
say what?!
Blah Ninja Pirate
Giddy on up
Giddy on Up
Blah Ninja Pirate
Giddy on up
Giddy on Up
oh I luv ya baby say it again!
Blah Ninja Pirate
Giddy on up
Giddy on Up
MICRO HOLMES PEACE!
-=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-
At the point Apple starts acting as a money transfer agent for third parties, they need to start acting like a financial institution. Either they're a bank, or they're a money transfer company, both of which are regulated.
PayPal eventually had to register as a financial institution in Europe and in some US states. Apple will have to do the same.
Right, I'm going to need a fleshlight, a dock connector, the SDK and a few days.
cmd-q.co.uk - some sort of stupid fucking internet bullshit
Please publish more Apple/iPhone stories, no matter how pointless. Thank you.
You need content worth buying first.
I see some potential for micro payments, but the current and past initiatives seem to have some flaws:
Flaw 1: There is no limit. Micro payments would be nice in a way, that you deposit some amount of money on a micro-payment account (10-20 dollars for instance) and then use it until it is empty. Then you could reload it manually, for instance with an online banking account (no automatic loading of the account to limit potential losses, like with pre paid phones).
Flaw 2: Greed. Come on, 20-70 ct are not exactly micro, especially in the current environment. They are small at best. If you could get some premium content for like 1-5 ct, then people might be convinced to use it. The whole idea is to use the economics of scale. This would help small developers to create some content/service/whatever and get a compensation for it.
The current implementations seem to fail to adopt to real conditions. Wake me when we get something workable.
Horse Armor
...and it always will be!
i know that most of humans aren't actually beacons of rationality, but ppl are not that stupid either.
May I volunteer for the private beta? ;)
Suppliers call it "micro payments", Savy consumers call it being "nickle and dimed".
6.8SPC TR of 550, l xwind at 6, drift rt at 26" drops 77". AT has 503 ft-lbs at 1403 fps. FT 0.86
1. Nobody advertises a feature on an app as if it was included only to find out you have to pay extra for it
2. Its impossible to get "auto-charged"
How long before someone implements Zyngo on the iPhone?
"Micro Transaction" == "Regularly made payment" == "Rental model for all your media and games".
Never forget, Apple supports DRM, a leopard can't change its spots.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
Ummmm...this trial balloon gets floated about every 18 months. FAIL.
Seriously. It has worked well for the XBox and games like Rock Band. Since Apple is so insistent on making their phone a console, it makes sense that they would promote the same revenue model.
I think that's a great model for how micropayments can generally be used as good tools - there have been some abuses of the model on consoles but it's enabled new ways of expanding games that I think a lot of people like.
Of course, buying games by the level is as stupid as buying only the "hit" songs on an album.
That wasn't really a good example, I probably should have said something like "level pack" which is how most games seem to work it. Still, I think the idea might be accepted if each unit you bought was large enough... it's more a matter of feeling you got value for what you purchased and not interrupting game flow to make you buy more stuff too often.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
In that case Microsoft is forcing Valve to charge for content.
We don't have examples of Apple doing that at all, the examples we do have are of a huge number of free apps. There's no indication Apple wants to change that at all, so I don't think it's really that much of a danger... are you worried about some in-game content not being able to be free? That seems unlikely.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
It's still a free demo. You download the app for free, and what you can do is a demonstration of what the app/game will do for (or to) you generally.
It's also now an easier way to get the full version rather than having to launch the App Store and hunt it down. Being easier will make it more likely to be done...
As an example I point you to the PC game "Braid", where I played a few levels and suddenly decided "OK, yes I'd like to get the full thing". They had a number of unobtrusive in-game points where it would ask if you wanted to do so and I said yes at one, made the whole experience more seamless (though the actually mechanics of getting the game to realize it was unlocked were not as seamless as would be an in-game purchase of some kind of unlock or level block).
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
At the point Apple starts acting as a money transfer agent for third parties
How is Apple supporting in-game transactions for Apps any different than Amazon allowing you to buy books for a Kindle or buying upgrades for your kitchen from Target.
The simple fact is the app developer charges for SOMETHING, which you are buying. Apple is not "transferring money" beyond allowing the consumer to buy something someone else is selling. They are not a bank in any way shape or form.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Not sure why you were modded troll - it's got worse than daily now, in that there are two Iphone stories on the front page today that are nothing more than rumour or speculation, and a third story that probably wouldn't have been worth covering if it wasn't for the Iphone connection.
sLashdot - iPhone rUmours fOr nErds, sTuff tHat dOesn't mAtter?
Incidentally, I recently used my Motorola V980 to access a website - I'll have to submit a news story, as that's obviously news worthy, right.
The summary is terribly misleading. First, micropayments means literally "microscopic payments" like as in 1/1000th of a dollar. Second, this is not limited to games.
IMHO, micropayments is a huge thing. It would allow for a completely fair way for things like newspapers to charge for content. I don't want to sign-up for each web site that provides me content. Nor do I think advertisements is viable for all businesses. But as an information hog, I would not mind having access to various pay journals like Science, Nature, WSJ, New York Times, Slashdot, etc. - if all I had to do was sign-up in one place, and get charged something that barely adds-up to pocket change. A few dollars a day in premium services would not negatively impact me financially, but it would save me a heck of a lot of hassle.
But I digress... that isn't what this is. This is apps charging for content.
Saying that the reason you currently can't buy books from the Kindle app has anything to do with a microtransaction feature that doesn't exist yet is pretty bizarre.
"Can" is a defective verb. Please allow me to rephrase my previous comment with the proper verb tense:
As I understand it, $0.00 apps will not be able to call the microtransaction API. That's why you will not be able to buy new books in the updated version of Amazon's Kindle app; you have to close it and open Safari.
Don't worry! With the new release you can connect any third party hardware for use as a human interface input.
We're all hypocrites. We all have hidden parts, it's the contrast between them that make us more a hypocrite than others
How is Apple supporting in-game transactions for Apps any different than Amazon allowing you to buy books for a Kindle
Amazon is licensed as a money transfer agent in states that require it. So Amazon is, in fact, regulated by banking authorities.
Couple of things: Microsoft is a major shareholder in apple
Microsoft sold off the stock investment they made some time ago.
There's less of a difference than those Mac vs. PC Ads would have you believe.
I used Windows every day at work for a decade to do programming, and programmed at home on a Mac for about the last seven. There's a world, a giant world of difference with a yawning chasm between the two.
Also, Apple is a publicly traded company with shareholders and a need to turn a profit.
Yes but they are wildly profitable, have been for some time, and have a giant cash hoard. This gives them leeway to do whatever they like and shareholders will just assume it will work (which has been mostly right).
Shareholders and a need to turn a profit come before a company's conscience.
That totally ignores personality driven companies like Oracle, Microsoft, etc. They do stuff because the LEADERS WANT TO, not because of the raw need for profit.
Furthermore, no-one can say that any one direction is more profitable than another. Many thought them insane to make the iPod. Saying they "have a need to turn a profit" is therefore as meaningless as saying "I need to draw air to breathe" and therefor deducing what I will eat for breakfast the following Monday. Again, truly big companies do what they like even when the most rational among us can plainly see what a fiasco it will be (independent of it actually being a fiasco or not). Shareholders are there to punish poor performance, not drive future behavior.
All I'm saying is that Apple is less than generous with its service packs and OS upgrades and when faced with making money or not making money
That is not the case. They have the most lenient family software pricing around. They don't charge for iPhone updates, the only reason they charge for Touch updates is because of accounting rules which has been explained repeatedly. Even the OS updates are very reasonable in price, as are iLife updates (and of course you get iLife for free with new macs).
any business with shareholders and a need to turn a profit will make the obvious choice, because they can.
When you actually run a business (I have my own now) no choice is that obvious, all choices have tradeoffs. In the end there is vision and instinct to do what you want, and with luck money will come from the choices you make.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
That's pretty interesting, but I'm not sure it's a compelling argument that Apple would need to be considered a money transfer agent:
A) It's Amazon Payments, not Amazon.
B) They are not a "Money Transer Agent", they are a "Money Service Business", which is defined as:
"A retail store that enables a customer to do one or more of the following: cash checks, pay major bills (utilities, phone, cable, etc.), wire money to other locations, purchase money orders and in some cases to borrow against post-dated checks on a fee for service basis"
Apple does none of those things, certainly not by way of microtransactions.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
It's a dishonest means of hiding the true cost and/or milking more money out of people for a product they've already paid for.
Not if people are fully aware of other fees up front. Doubly so if the product was free to begin with, as they were out nothing if the product springs fees on them they do not accept - they have nothing invested.
Sure you can say the system can be abused and I'm sure it will be. But such apps would be savaged in the comments and ratings for the game, and sales would rapidly drop. The App Store is an ecosystem that quickly punishes bad behavior on the part of sellers.
The only way to make micro payments feasible is to have them sell unfair advantages
By feasable I assume you mean used.
This is not the case at all. Plenty of people for example are willing to pay for graphical bling, this imparts no advantage besides looking cool.
But lets say you can buy an advantage. That's annoying in a multiplayer game but why do you care if it's a single layer game, which the vast majority of iPhone games are? Are you also against the sale of game walkthrough guides, that's basically the same thing - it gives the player an unfair advantage over the game for money. I refuse to be upset over someone simply wanting to get through a section of a game they cannot due to a lack of skill, or of time to master an in-game skill.
I think you mean, in-game payments will be abused and abused in every way imaginable
Of course, and as I said those apps will be punished. But that does not mean this is a great tool to give developers and cannot ever possibly help the gamer. I'll bet you'd hear an awful lot of grumbling if you tried to shut down Live at this point!
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Now think for a moment, will this happen? Just like telco's advertising the per month cost of service instead of the total cost of the term or banks not advertising all their fees and charges until you accidentally run over them. The point of micro transactions is solely to obscure the total cost. People will not be aware of the cost up front.
I think you are counting on the "wisdom of the crowds" too much. Apple deliberately places certain apps up top, so called "staff picks" or some such. There is a direct correlation between the "staff picks" page and the number of downloads. It wouldn't take too much to see Apple placing favoured apps on this page. Most people will blindly accept if they think it is popular.
No by feasible I mean that it will lock the user up and perform The Cask of Amontillado. Of course I mean used, or more precisely purchased.
That is a self correcting problem eventually but it will cost a lot of players money. The publishers don't care about the longevity of the game so much as making a quick buck, this system should not be supported. There is a reason that micro transactions have failed every single time they've been attempted on the PC (this is not a new idea you know) PC players have better standards and a lot more competition and that giving the "premium" players and advantage quickly reduces the user base. Adding micro transactions is a quick way to kill the platforms viability as a gaming platform.
A Strategy Guide is not even close, A strategy guide will not make a bad player better by virtue of its existence, it may help the player learn to become better but it provides no advantage that could not be gained without the strategy guide or does not exist of all other players. Micro transactions select which players have the advantage, this is not equitable and deliberately slants the game towards those who have paid extra for "optional" content in order to get all players to pay extra in order to level the playing field again. Giving an advantage via micro transactions is akin to allowing certain players an AimBot, which is cheating and I am totally against it.
As I said before, this system will be abused, not just by game publishers, it is a terrible thing for gamers. Microsoft more or less force developers to produce DLC for Xbox games, DLC that is charged for so MS can gain additional profit and I wouldn't put Apple above this practice. As a PC gamer with many publishers whom create updates with additional content for free (Stardock, Valve) I would not care in the slightest if Microsoft shut down GFWL (Games For Windows Live) and I don't own an Xbox (or PS3, I do own a Wii) so I cant comment on Xbox live but I've said for a while GFWL just needs to go away, PC gamers do not want nor need paid for DLC or micro transactions.
Yes you would hear grumbling if Xbox live shut down, that's because Microsoft refuses to allow any type of competition for multiplayer on the Xbox, if you have an Xbox, you have to pay for Xbox Live or remain disconnected. If Live were shut down and a free or better alternative were available there would be practically no grumbling what so ever.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.