游戏邦在:
杂志专栏:
gamerboom.com订阅到鲜果订阅到抓虾google reader订阅到有道订阅到QQ邮箱订阅到帮看

Pocket Gamer:滥用IAP设置将破坏游戏玩家体验

发布时间:2012-08-09 15:49:03 Tags:,,,

作者:Jon Mundy

应用内置付费(游戏邦注:In-app purchases,以下简称IAP,指玩家花钱购买游戏内的物品)被指控破坏了手机玩家的游戏乐趣,但不服罪。

Pocket Gamer读者中的玩家指控IAP,并提交了大量证据。

现在由法官Jon开庭审判(你虽然看不见,但我思考的表情是很深沉的。不过,我没戴律师的假发,因为这天太热了。)

支持

Pocket Gamer读者Rich1982不觉得对IAP有什么好大惊小怪的。他认为“真正奇怪的是,人们得有一种得到消费权利的感觉,即使这东西廉价得只要微不足道的69便士”,只要花少得可怜的69便士,他就能玩到游戏的绝大部分内容,那他就高兴了。

WhackAMuffin同样是个反吝啬派和亲开发商党人士,他指出:“大多数游戏价钱不会高于1英磅。如果开发商想挣点钱报偿自己的艰苦工作,这有为什么不可以呢?”

专家的意见

传Will Wilson(Pocket Gamer副主编,全类别游戏大师)入庭,他要解释赞成IAP的亲开发商派的观点。

“我可以无视‘便宜的’IAP。有些人想那么做——那没什么的,我不介意存在IAP,只要他们得到完整的游戏,有购买道具的选择权。”

事实上,Will的想法是“当一款付费游戏披上与免费游戏相同的外衣时”,“现在购买”的按钮就是它的钮扣。

反对

Hjdoom将IAP类比为“在餐馆点了餐,却发现餐具要收额外的费用。你当然可以用手指取食,但遇上汤水,你总得付费了吧。”

好比方。法官大人喜欢打比方,特别是与食物有关的比方。

Hjdoom还提出平衡问题:“如果一般水平的玩家能轻松地完成关卡,这样的游戏平衡吗?或者说,只有非常强悍的玩家才能不砸钱就完成关卡,这样的游戏还平衡吗?”

毫无疑问,我们都知道Pebo49的立场是什么了——他主张“没有IAP的时代”。

专家的意见

传Paul Devlin(Pocket Gamer撰稿人兼Android专家)入庭,他要痛批IAP。

“本质上,这是一个严肃的问题,可能导致西方文明的崩溃——或者摧毁我对手机游戏的热情。”。

“我一般不买游戏里列出来的东西,除非是为了写评论或有大量折扣。我的小抗议恐怕不会有多大作用。”

“不要让我说昂贵的Android游戏,这类游戏把关卡的难度节节拔高,才玩了15分钟就弹出消费窗口,建议玩家购买金币或更卑鄙地让玩家留下‘积极’评论换取免费道具。”

pg-court-shell(from pocketgamer)

pg-court-shell(from pocketgamer)

(下载《Shellrazer》需要支付69便士,但你会因为游戏币而花更多钱。这是否公平呢?读者对此有分歧意见。)

中间派

Pocket Gamer的读者Dodger认为“如果你购买了游戏,那就应该得到完整的游戏体验”,但他也认为游戏让玩家为额外的内容付费是公平的。

这里,读者们要擦亮眼睛了:“如果,你让玩家为游戏付款,自己却扣下游戏的大半内容留着收更多钱,那么这就是赤裸裸的偷窃。”

Chivas77同意Dodger的说法:“如果有开发商想对我已经购买的游戏中的金币额外收费,那么恕我直言,我不会再从发行商或开发商那里购买任何东西。不过,像《Where’s My Water? 》这样提供追加内容,我认为完全是可以的。”

这里有个重大的例外。Chivas77认为通过升级将付费游戏变成免费游戏是“另一种无耻行为”。我们认为这里的“无耻”指的是“很糟”的意思。

Excelsius认为问题的关键是道具本身的质量。“我不介意IAP,如果那是新关卡或新角色或新武器之类的东西。这些东西,你很容易就能估计该花多少钱,能延长好游戏的寿命。”

他还认为苹果“应该改变Top 25排行榜的评估方式,应该以购买游戏的净利为标准,不包含IAP。”这可能会使防止某些作弊挤上排行榜的行为。

专家的意见

传Mark Brown(Pocket Gamer特辑主编和“任天堂百科全书”)入庭。他将解释他那套令平衡观点。

“我确实不太喜欢付费游戏中的IAP。因为我担心绝大多数设计师会这么“设计”游戏:如果你不消费,游戏就会非常不好玩。”

“我也不喜欢开发商在发行时先将小部分内容隐藏起来,直到玩家花钱了才能看到。”他以《Dead Trigger》为例,这款游戏就是这样把最好的枪藏起来的。

“当我买到一款没有IAP的游戏时,我就知道这款游戏平衡性非常好。”

然而,Mark完全赞成“在游戏运营之后再放出一点儿内容”,如新关卡、新图等等。“如果开发商想对这些收费,那是完全能接受的。”

终审

我将你们的意见通盘考虑后,再合理地加入了我个人的偏好,作出如下审判:

在IAP破坏玩家的游戏乐趣一案中,我判定被告有罪。

为额外的内容收费是完全合理的——游戏这么做已经有一段时间了。但是,太多开发商做过头了,他们的行为使为了得到完整游戏体验的玩家被迫接受IAP。

最可恶的是,已经收取购买游戏费用的开发商,居然还要求玩家为完整的游戏体验支付额外的费用。这种行径——用一个复杂的法律术语就是:令人发指。

现在,本案已结。休庭。(本文为游戏邦/gamerboom.com编译,拒绝任何不保留版权的转载,如需转载请联系:游戏邦

Pocket Gamer Court: The people vs in-app purchases

by Jon Mundy

In-app purchases (also know as IAPs, or perhaps ‘daylight robbery’) – you stand accused of ruining the fun for mobile gamers. You have pleaded not guilty.

The good people of the Pocket Gamer readership have presented their arguments for and against in-app purchasing, and a weighty body of evidence it is, too.

It’s now time for Judge Jon to deliberate (you can’t see, but I’ve got my deliberating face on. No wig, though: it’s far too hot for that.)

For

Pocket Gamer reader Rich1982 doesn’t see what all the fuss is about. He believes that “weirdly there is this sense of entitlement that comes from paying something even if it is a little as 69p which is actually a tiny amount of money.” As long as he gets a decent amount of game for that measly 69p, he’s happy.

WhackAMuffin is similarly anti-cheapskate and pro-developer. “Most apps are less than a pound,” he points out. “If the developer wants to make a little more money so they can justify all the hard work they put in, then why not!”

PROFESSIONAL OPINION

We call to the stand Will Wilson, Pocket Gamer deputy editor and all-round games maestro, to explain his developer-schmoozing pro-IAP views.

“I can ignore ‘cheat’ IAPs, as, you know, some people want to do that – that’s fine,” he says. “I also don’t mind it when you get a complete game and then have the option of buying more stuff.”

In fact, all Will minds is “when a paid game takes on the same ‘look’ as a freemium” with ‘Buy Now’ buttons and the like jumping in his face.

Against

The honorable Hjdoom for the prosecution likens in-app purchasing to “ordering a meal in a restaurant and discovering that cutlery will cost you extra. Sure you can still eat the food with your fingers, but it’ll take forever and you’ll wind up covered in gravy.”

Nice analogy. Judge Jon likes analogies, especially when they concern food.

Hjdoom also raises the issue of balance: “Is the game balanced so that those with average abilities will be able to complete it comfortably, or has it been balanced so that only the very best will be able to complete it without chucking cash at it?”

There’s no doubting which side of the argument Pebo49 comes down on. “NO IN APP PURCHASES PERIOD”, he proclaims. He could maybe ease up on the capitals, and throw a food analogy or two in there, but we hear what he’s saying.

PROFESSIONAL OPINION

We call to the stand Paul Devlin, Pocket Gamer contributor and all-round Android whiz kid, to froth rabidly at the mouth while condemning IAP.

“Essentially, this is an issue so serious it could cause the collapse of Western Civilisation as we know it – or my massive enthusiasm for mobile gaming, anyway.” Way to get dramatic on us, Paul.

“I generally just don’t buy anything that has IAPs listed unless it’s for a review or massively discounted (‘Hullo’, EA Sports), but fear my tiny protest isn’t having much impact.”

Thanks Pau… oh, he’s not finished.

“Don’t get me started on pricey Android games that spike in difficulty just after the 15-minute refund window and suggest you buy Gold or – despicably – leave a ‘positive’ comment in return for some free loot.”

The wonderful Shellrazer costs 69p to download, but you can spend more on extra currency. Our readers are divided on whether or not this is fair.

Somewhere in the middle

PG reader Dodger reckons that “if you pay for a game, it should be complete,” but also believes that charging for extra content is fair game.

There’s a major caveat, though: “If, however, you are charging people for a game and leaving chunks of it out just to get more money, then you are a thieving blighter” (highlighted word replaced with softer epithet in the interests of political correctness).

Chivas77 agrees with Dodger’s assessment: “If some developer wants to charge extra for in-game gold / currency in an app that I have already paid for, then frankly I won’t buy anything from that publisher / developer again. However, something like Where’s My Water? offering additional content is again perfectly fine in my view.”

There’s another important exception. Chivas77 believes that changing paid apps to freemium apps via an update is “Another Douchebag Dave move.” We think that means it’s bad.

Excelsius thinks it’s all about the quality of the purchases themselves. “I don’t mind in-app purchases if they’re for something like a new level or character or weapon,” he says. “Something where you can easily gauge how much you’re likely to spend and something which extends the longevity of a great game.”

He also believes that Apple “should change the way the Top 25 chart is calculated to basically be top grossing but without in-app purchases being factored in.” This may discourage price fiddling in a bid to top the chart.

PROFESSIONAL OPINION

We call to the stand Mark Brown, Pocket Gamer features editor and walking Nintendo encyclopaedia, to explain his sickeningly balanced views.

“I don’t really like IAPs in paid games,” Mark says, “for I worry that the majority of designers will ‘engineer’ the game so that it becomes a horrible experience if you don’t pay.”

“I also don’t like devs hiding away small bits of content that are available at launch behind paywalls.” He cites Dead Trigger as an example, which holds back the best gun in the game in such a way.

“When I get a game with no in-app purchases, I know that I’m getting a game that’s perfectly balanced.”

However, Mark is perfectly fine with “bits of content that are made AFTER the app goes live,” so extra levels, with new artwork and the like. “If the dev wants to charge for that, then that’s perfectly acceptable.”

Final Judgement

I’ve taken all your opinions into account, and mixed in a healthy dose of personal bias to boot. Hey, if you don’t like it, take it to the European Court of Arbitration (please don’t).

In the case of in-app purchasing ruining the fun of mobile gamers, I find the defendant…. GUILTY.

It’s all very well charging us for extra content – games have been doing that for some time now. But, too many developers have taken it too far, forcing purchases down our necks in order for us to get a complete gaming experience.

Worst of all are the devs that charge an initial fee, then have the gall to demand additional payments to complete the experience. This practice – to use a complex legal term – stinks.

So, stop. Now. Court is adjourned.(source:pocketgamer)


上一篇:

下一篇: