Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 2nd Feb 2014 18:08 UTC
Games

I don't like writing negative articles that don't include a solution to the problem, but in this case, there is no solution. The state of in-app purchases has now reached a level where we have completely lost it. Not only has the gaming industry shot itself in the foot, hacked off their other foot, and lost both its arms ... but it's still engaging in a strategy that will only damage it further.

Why are these gaming studios so intent of killing themselves?

Because massive application stores created a race to the bottom - as well as a huge pile of crap to wade through. Ten to twenty years from now, we won't look back favourably upon the App Store or Google Play.

Permalink for comment 582299
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
acobar
Member since:
2005-11-15

Make something as simple as it can be, but no simpler.


That must be the most abused of the quotations ascribed to Albert Einstein (the more used form been "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.")

First, we have to have on mind that it can be or not true, depending on which human activity it is applied and who is applying it.

On science, specially on physics and math, it has a very powerful appeal and a way to judge it: we should look for a model capable to generate all the "observable" (present and, hopefully, new ones) "phenomena" and yet, it should have the lowest number of fundamental entities. That is what physicists and mathematicians strive to achieve when they establish the bases of their work.

Now, how can it be applied to art and tools (what programs are, after all)? Perhaps, what you see as excess is exactly what makes some app so useful to me, or a music so appealing.

On my view, and I guess to others too, some people are using this "truism" to justify actions that are perceived as unjustifiable to others, i.e., removing previous functionality and/or altering radically the interface. They self-proclaim they are right and follow their goals ignoring how their modifications affect their users.

On FOSS it sometimes goes to radicalism: patches that could restore some functionality (because, after all, if you rewrite the basic blocks you may be forced to rewrite the implementation of the functionalities and you very well, may not have the time) are refused for no other reason than "it is not a fundamental thing", for who? Luckily, on some cases a fork or the patch goes public.

On binary only apps, we may be forced to look to alternatives, when they exist, and, may the user base be huge and the dissatisfaction big, get the "developer" to surrender and correct course.

Reply Parent Score: 2