GameKit/In App Purchase

Solar2D Daily Builds and Public Releases
#101

You seem to be missunderstanding my comments. I’m not advocating for Corona to support only iAds instead of IAP, I’m saying that add support should be up there in the short list of critical features to be added.

I still think it’s much easier to implement adds well than IAP. Most of the games I’ve seen here wouldn’t really benefit from IAP (certainly none of the ones I’m thinking of developing would). It’s not trivial to partition a small casual game so people are willing to buy upgrades.

I think we can all agree that right now doing a free game with Corona is sort of unthinkable. Supporting IAP AND adds would make it much easier, it doesn’t have to be and either or thing.

Like you said, it’s better to have more options. [import]uid: 10835 topic_id: 475 reply_id: 10870[/import]

#102

I totally understand what you’re saying, but I think you may be forgetting that IAP can also be used to unlock additional levels, extended gameplay, etc. You can release a free game with 10 levels and the user can choose to purchase the rest of the levels for $0.99. Better yet, they can buy level packs. If your game doesn’t have levels, then limit the play time to 10 minutes and unlock unlimited play for $0.99. I’m sure there are much more creative ways to monetize your game with IAP than I have described.

I hear what you’re saying about having both options - IAP and ads. I just think that Ansca has limited resources and they are focusing on features that benefit their users (us). In the long run the only thing that is going to benefit us is getting (and keeping) our games/apps into more hands. IMHO, ads provide no added value to our users nor to us from a revenue perspective.

Some people might be making a little money from ads, but have you ever clicked on an ad within an iPhone or android app? Have you used Google AdSense on your website? I don’t know about you, but I don’t make any money from mine… Granted, I have some pretty crappy websites. :slight_smile: [import]uid: 8194 topic_id: 475 reply_id: 10873[/import]

#103

So, IAP… any updates or date estimates for any updates? [import]uid: 8145 topic_id: 475 reply_id: 10874[/import]

#104

I think it’s a hard sell to make users buy more levels for most apps. I’d certainly buy more levels for say Cut the Rope, but not all games are level based. Think of something like Fruit Ninja. IAPs would be a hard sell for something like that, even though it’s an awesome game.

Also I think people find value in having a complete game for free, even if it has adds, with the option to buy the full version with no adds.

Think of an application that uses the LED light of the flash as a flashlight. It has no business with IAP. What could you possible sell? However it can make money with adds, because it still offers something users find valuable (flashlight for free) and they don’t mind the adds (and would be much less likely to pay even .99 for such an app.

Here’s the link: http://www.macrumors.com/2010/07/08/developer-earns-nearly-1400-in-one-day-with-iads/

This is an extreme case, but I’m sure you can see how in some situations adds can make much more sense than IAP. In fact I’d be willing to say that most Corona developers would benefit much more from adds than IAP, they just don’t know it yet. [import]uid: 10835 topic_id: 475 reply_id: 10876[/import]

#105

Ads in games = bad. I would rather play and develop games with no ads.

Given the fact that we’re waiting on IAP for some time and still need to wait, I’d rather Corona not feature anything new until IAP is out.

Games like fruit ninja should cost money, and not feature ads. Ads really would hinder an application like Fruit NInja, and instead of being awesome it would be… deleted. :slight_smile:

Also, the inability of one individual to see a creative solution for a problem does not mean that solution doesn’t exist, I’m certain if one were to set off on a quest to plug IAP into Fruit Ninja - a good solution would present itself :). [import]uid: 8145 topic_id: 475 reply_id: 10877[/import]

#106

Maybe Fruit Ninja was a bad example, since we have to speculate about how adds would be handled. However they work quite well in something like Chess With Friends. I use it regularly and feel no need to buy the full version with no adds. The banner adds are usually small and unobstrusive and sometimes they let me know about games I might actually enjoy. The adds you get after making a move can be easily skipped.

Now I don’t know how much money they make on adds vs paid versions, but I’d certainly like to experiment myself what works better for my apps. Also click throughs are not the only way to make money, you still get something when the add is shown as far as I know. So the longest people play your game the more you make. That certainly seems like a proper incentive to make addictive games.

Currently being limited by what Corona offers is a shame. And after putting some thought into it I’ve concluded that for ME, IAP is of little use and I could make better use of iAds (and others). In fact whether or not this one feature is implemente might very well decide if I renew my membership down the line. I understand this is not the case for most of you, and I really look forward to your implementations of IAP when it becomes available.

[import]uid: 10835 topic_id: 475 reply_id: 10892[/import]

#107

I don’t really see the point of this discussion. Ads can already be implemented via Admod. You can find out how to do it in the forum.

If you would like to use adds to monetize your app or game go ahead. Words with Friends revenues over $1 million per month on their ads. And Backflip Studios (Paper Toss) business model is over 60% based on ads and they have stated they revenue more than $500k per month. There are plenty of articles on this online. PockeGamer.biz is a great source for this info.

It seems that most developers are adopting IAP. Personally. I don’t like to see ads if they are bothering the game play. It also seems that keeping the ads makes more money than having the ads removed. Ideally you would have ads that are non obstrusive, since it seems that ads on mobile phones are still paid by impression.

In the end all options are available and IAP will be available soon. So you can choose and mix as you wish. [import]uid: 8192 topic_id: 475 reply_id: 10909[/import]

#108

Let’s just have both :smiley: [import]uid: 11041 topic_id: 475 reply_id: 10936[/import]

#109

Now this is interesting!

http://openfeint.com/developers/ios/ofx

in App purchases with not need for release? Anyone has thoughts on this? [import]uid: 8192 topic_id: 475 reply_id: 12782[/import]

#110

Wow that’s truly awesome news! Especially since IAP won’t be in the next release.
Would still very very much like IAP supported in Corona though, but as long as that’s not here it looks like there might be an alternative.

Ansca guys, I’m sure this is relatively easy to implement amiright? Pretty please?

(Ignore the next line please)
WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOT!!! [import]uid: 7980 topic_id: 475 reply_id: 12785[/import]

#111

I looked all over that OpenFeint X link and the get started link only points to the developer setup page. I have 3 apps live with OpenFeint support, and I don’t see anywhere in the developer back-end that mentions OpenFeint X.

How do you go about implementing OFX? You’d think there would be a link somewhere in the developer panel… [import]uid: 7849 topic_id: 475 reply_id: 12788[/import]

#112

Sorry, but I don’t see much to get excited about (regarding OFX). Apple’s In-App purchase model already supports the concept of “unlocking” content that already exists in the app, so this isn’t something unique to OFX in any way.

With native in-app purchase, you can normally do consumable, non-consumable, and subscription purchases. You can choose whether the data is local, or remote (i.e., downloaded after purchase). I think it’s cool that openfeint has their own service, but I think it would make a lot more sense to continue working on a general solution to in-app purchase rather than to spend time on the openfeint solution, which locks everyone into one vendor.

Actually, I think the real answer would be for Corona to support native Objective-C/Java development (with a bridge to Lua of course). That way we can all do whatever we want in terms of in-app purchase (and this would give us access to many other existing features/libraries). I’m sure that’s a difficult problem to solve, but I think it would truly make Corona an unbeatable solution. [import]uid: 10488 topic_id: 475 reply_id: 12791[/import]

#113

@jonbeebe. I looked everywhere too. It seems it’s a private beta but It’s weird how they put up the marketing page with no way to look at the info. I always thought that OpenFeint docs where tough to get to. I suggest sending them an email through the contact link.
[import]uid: 8192 topic_id: 475 reply_id: 12792[/import]

#114

@amigoni: you have to use their “new” developer backend, log into openfeint and then paste this in your address bar:

https://api.openfeint.com/dd/

That’ll take you to the new openfeint developer backend and there’s an ofx tab.

After giving it some thought, I still think NATIVE IAP is still the way to go and here’s why:

Sure it’s nice to have OpenFeint host your downloads and provide a little interface for you; however, on top of the regular 30% cut Apple gets, OpenFeint will also take 15% of your IAP … That’s not worth it to me. Just embed the local content within the app and “unlock” it when they make their IAP… that’ll save you from having to pay OFX 15% on top of Apple’s 30% of IAP revenue.

So while I think it would be nice to have the OPTION to use OFX, I don’t think it should be implemented before native IAP within Corona.

Just my two cents. [import]uid: 7849 topic_id: 475 reply_id: 12794[/import]

#115

You make a good point, but so do they. If your content is local it can be easily hacked. If it’s on their servers it’s unhackable. That means you can even turn pirates into customers. That sounds good I’d say. Also instant updates without having to go through Apple sounds a little too good to be true. I wonder how that works, how does “We Rule” do it? They have something new every week.

The site says it’s 15% over the net IAP revenue, which I take it to mean it’s after Apple’s cut, so in reality it’s only 10.5%, which is not so bad if you consider you don’t have to deal with the hassle of setting up your own servers.

Since this should be faster to implement than IAP proper, I think it’s a nice compromise in the mean time. [import]uid: 10835 topic_id: 475 reply_id: 12807[/import]

#116

honestly guys, we are dropping this feature. just not enough feedback, no humph… really…this is the best you could do? disappointed in all of you…
C.

LOL !!!

Just Kidding !
[import]uid: 24 topic_id: 475 reply_id: 13155[/import]

#117

LOL

So, any news about that? Or you just wanted torture all of us?

:wink: [import]uid: 6005 topic_id: 475 reply_id: 13181[/import]

#118

Hi Everyone

Please read this forum post. In App Purchases scheduled for next drop.

http://developer.anscamobile.com/forum/2010/12/10/app-purchases-scheduled-next-drop

c. [import]uid: 24 topic_id: 475 reply_id: 13587[/import]