So it's only been a year or so since my last post. Seems about time.
What's shaken me to comment? A couple of my favorite podcasts have been talking lately about how iOS and the App Store have affected gaming.
On the Accidental Tech Podcast, Casey Liss, Marco Arment, and John Siracusa turned a sponsorship spot for Optia into a larger discussion about how many games in the App Store seem to be up-selling users towards in-app purchases . The hosts couldn't help but comment on how novel it was to find a game that wasn't trying to dip back into a player's wallet. (It doesn't hurt that Optia is really fun and totally worth the $2.99 sticker price.)
Last week's episode of The Talk Show had John Gruber pick up that discussion with Mr. Arment pretty much where it had left off on ATP. John made an interesting point, though, that hadn't occurred to me before. He observed that while it feels a little smarmy for an iOS game to keep asking for more money, many of us in our 30's spent time whiling away our allowance by shoving quarters into arcade machines. Is there really that much of a difference, Mr. Gruber asks?
Marco rightly points out that gaming on an always-on Internet appliance , which leverages an efficient backend for credit card payments, is a little different than a kid visiting the local Aladdin's Castle with a pocket full of quarters. I myself have always felt that so-called Free to Play games that go after in-app upgrades are a little smarmy. I couldn't help but feel a little hypocritical myself as John made his observation, since I have clear memories of feeding quarter after shiny quarter into Dragon's Lair. I wanted to see Dirk rescue Daphne soooooo bad. (And now I have, since I replayed DL on my iPhone.)
There's one thing to be remembered about a lot of the classic arcade games though, and it's something they may have in common iOS up-sell games: there wasn't always quality gameplay hiding behind the recurring cost.
Not long after getting my PlayStation 2, I discovered the Midway Arcade Treasures series. I was in heaven! I got to play some of my favorite coin-op games in the comfort of my home, and I could save my quarters for the laundromat. But once I took on Smash TV and Rampage armed with unlimited continues, I realized that there wasn't much depth to some of these games. Many classic arcade titles relied on steep difficulty ramps to hide their shallowness--it only took me 45 minutes to finish Smash TV when my wallet was no longer on the line. Many other games could only be defeated by pattern memorization, something that would force players to make a costly investment of time in the olden days.
Home gaming started out by attempting to replicate the arcade experience, but as the technology and the economics evolved, we saw a new type of game appear...games that offered story alongside gameplay and demanded skills above and beyond deep pockets. John Siracusa's beloved Journey is not a game that the arcade would have fostered--not enough of a recurring money maker--and that title is likewise above a lot of the tactics for generating recurring income that so-called Free to Play games use in the App Store.
My feelings have come around to this, though: if a game is rewarding for its players...then perhaps I shouldn't second-guess how its developer chooses to monetize. Isn't that the promise of the App Store? A good game will have good reviews and be recognized, and bad games that leave customers feeling ripped-off should be poorly reviewed and fall into disfavor. That's what is ultimately best for gamers...a market that supports quality experiences--regardless of revenue model.
Header image courtesy Flickr user PT Money.
