Slashdot Mirror
Study: Half of In-App Purchases Come From Only 0.15% of Players
An anonymous reader writes "Have you ever seen a goofy microtransaction for a mobile game you play and wondered, 'Does anyone actually buy that junk?' As it turns out, few players actually do. A new study found that only 1.5% of players actually spend money on in-app purchases. Of those who do, more than 50% of the money is spent by the top 10%. 'Some game companies talk openly about the fact that they have whales, but others shy away from discussing them publicly. It costs money to develop and keep a game running, just like those fancy decorations and free drinks at a casino; whales, like gambling addicts, subsidize fun for everyone else.' Eric Johnson at Re/code says he talked to a game company who actually assigned an employee to one particular player who dropped $10,000 every month on in-app purchases."
Meanwhile, in-app purchases have come to the attention of the European Commission, and they'll be discussing a set of standards for consumer rights at upcoming meetings. They say, 'Games advertised as "free" should not mislead consumers about the true costs involved.'
1.5%* Top 10% is 0.15%... which is what the title is referring to. Please read full summary before ripping title.
Here I am, trying to sell the Golden Gate Bridge on the street and I could be selling it in a game.
I've got to get caught up on synergies of new technology, to coordinate my vision of business core-competencies with the emerging paradigm.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Only 1.5% spend any money. 1 in 10 of those spend 50% of all the monies. So 0.15% spend 50%.
Were you told there would be no math? RTFS and DTFM.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
A person who spend 10,000$ a month on a game has a problem and someone who's trying to exploit someone's problem in order to become rich is nothing but a thief. The man behind that company should be put behind bars.
Any time I "buy" all the microtransaction purchases, I feel like I'm cheating. There's no challenge anymore and I usually delete it. Not just games either is the weird part. A paint program for my 2 year old, after he couldn't bring up the "type in your password to buy this thing" screen anymore he was bored of it.
Perhaps it's just that as a general rule, apps that have microtransactions suck in other ways, and even if you pay nothing for them, it's not worth it.
I consider playing the game without doing in-game purchases part of the game. It's a good challenge and if you work it right, you can use it to teach children about economics. No, I'm not kidding. It's all about allocation of resources and also setting goals and priorities (and sticking to them). You just need to show them how to do it properly in the game.
The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination
- Douglas Adams
The problem with in-app purchase is that it is destroying the games. I agree with this article.
I think the suggestion by the EU, that you cannot label apps with in-app purchases as free, is really good!
Except video game players are more accurately described, than even casino players, as whales.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
This is kind of an interesting number. I have have found a vast majority of the mobile games to be utter trash, that attempt to cash in on in game purchases while failing to implement a set of solid basic game mechanics. I would gladly drop $30 (or more) just to play a good mobile game that wasn't a poorly concealed slot machine. I wonder if the general shitty state of mobile gaming is causing a disproportionate number of players to not spend cash, or it is just the nature of people being cheap when it comes to 'free' apps. ('I am not going going to spend money on a game that is free', or 'I am not going to pay to win')
As an aside, the 'Freemium' model is really the scourge of the industry right now, with devs looking for easy ways to extract more money from the player base while providing no real product in return.There are a few people who do it right (WoT, LoL, and TF, for example) and a huge pack of greedy shills who are following in their footsteps.
A lot of the free to play model games basically let you pay to win, does this 0.15% number line up with the percent of the general population that is incapable of delaying gratification? I bet you could correlate this number with the result of some psychology study on the topic.....
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
There's actually two different numbers at play here:
So, half of all spending comes from 0.15% of all players, and only 1.5% of all players spent anything (and make up the other half of spending).
The rest of us refuse to hand over money for whatever in-game gimmick you have implemented which makes the game suck without it and end up uninstalling the damned game.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
I've played games like "Path of Exile" where I've enjoyed the game so much, I decided to drop $20 or so on in-app purchases, even if they weren't going to actually help me advance in the game. I've done the same for other apps that I've enjoyed. If you enjoy the game, it can't hurt to reward the developer. Now, $10,000, well that is a bit extreme.
I consider playing the game without doing in-game purchases part of the game.
So how did you pass the end of "Phobos Anomaly" in Doom? You know, the one where it asks you to buy the rest of the game to continue. My point is that there's a continuum between the shareware model and the abusive wait-barrier IAP seen in My Little Pony and Dungeon Keeper.
we should collaborate, make our own game that's nothing but microtransactions
I believe that game is called "Bitcoin". It even has a character named after the protagonist of Pokemon.
The rest of us refuse to hand over money for whatever in-game gimmick you have implemented
Speak for yourself. I am part of the 1.5%. When I asked my five year old nephew what he wanted for Christmas, he said he wanted, more than anything else in the world, a $5 bushel of virtual smurfberries. So I bought them for him. I am now his favorite uncle.
I downloaded that game for my kids when it first came out. I promptly deleted it when I realised how much nagging it does to get kids to make in-app purchases. In-app purchases in games aimed at pre-schoolers and elementary school age kids are unethical in the extreme, and should be the first thing regulators go after.