Why Doesn’t iTunes Have Game Trials?

Nothing is more annoying than going into iTunes to see what video games are available for the iPod Touch and iPhone to find it cluttered with hundreds of duplicate games. Developers seem to find it most useful to release two games instead of one single game: a full version and a “lite” version.

itunesDevelopers know gamers want to try before they buy, so many will create a game they’re hoping to sell, then a limited “lite” version with partial levels or stripped of features. They’re obviously trying to work around the fact that Apple released a half-assed game shopping experience. These pro and lite versions assist in cluttering the shopping space.

iTunes App Store should allow users to trial a game by allowing them to download a neutered version of the game title or using a time-trial like many other downloadable game services. Electronic game downloads are usually non-refundable because you can never give back a product which you can make infinite copies. The solution to getting users to buy into your product is to allow them to try before they buy.

Apple’s obviously enjoying the immense game sales from the application store but they may be able to increase their sales by allowing gamers to see what they’re buying before they walk away empty handed. This would also limit the total products found in the App Store because developers won’t have to post to revisions to their game title to allow gamers to try before they buy them.

There are some obvious downsides, Apple wouldn’t be able to boast the thousands of products in their store because many would be substituted for a real game download system. Okay, that’s really the only download I can think of… any others?

Developers may opt out of a trial system, forcing gamers to buy it before they try it based on the text and screenshots or utilize a time trial or limited featured version.

Thoughts?

0 thoughts on “Why Doesn’t iTunes Have Game Trials?”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Post

Episode 534: Epic ExclusiveEpisode 534: Epic Exclusive

There was a lot of shocking news in the past week — unfortunately, Jonah was at PAX East, so last week’s episode ended up not being published. But there’s still more news this week.

The news includes:

  • Borderlands 3 might be an Epic Store exclusive
  • Videogame news subreddit closes for 24 hours to protest bigotry
  • John and Brenda Romero working with Paradox on new strategy IP
  • Sony unveils PSN refund policy

Let us know what you think.

Episode 280: Episode 280: Full of Drugs and an XCOM ContestEpisode 280: Episode 280: Full of Drugs and an XCOM Contest

Jordan Lund can’t make Episode 280, but fortunately, Paul S. Nowak makes his triumphant return, albeit pumped full of medication. Enjoy his drug-fueled babbling as he waxes poetic on the virtues of playing social networking games while high.

He was lucid enough to discuss the following news items with the gang, however:

  • Cryptic calls for new MMO review system
  • BioWare Mythic “can’t make all Ultima fans happy” but hope they “enjoy nostalgia”
  • PS3 version of Black Ops 2 includes optional hi-res texture install
  • Wii U gamepad won’t be sold separately at launch

Gaming Podcast is also running a new contest to win a free Steam code for the hotly anticipated XCOM: Enemy Unknown remake. All listeners have to do is answer the Question of the Week in the comments section, “What is your favorite game from the 1990’s?”

Imagine a Free World of WarcraftImagine a Free World of Warcraft

Once upon a time the folks at Blizzard Entertainment thought they could support the entire world of World of Wacraft by ad revenue. This would have created an MMO experience which would cost you nothing but a bit of annoyance by ad providers; what would the total audience be if the game was free?

Had WoW launched free of charge they would probably have significantly more users playing the game, but the ad revenue from the sheer amount of people would be nothing compared to a monthly charge for eight million subscribers.

Although only a small number of those subscribers are US based, they’re still raking in the cash compared to an ad-based model, even if they were to have triple the subscribers.

However, the Blizzard exec noted: “We didn’t want to charge a subscription, but as we researched market conditions, we realized that wouldn’t support us.”

It’s possible, perhaps, that Blizzard would have fallen under its own weight had they created a world where anyone could play for no charge. Imagine the server utilization, the volume of traffic and the support calls they would get for triple or quadrupal the player base with only ads paying the checks.

Granted, a free system would be excellent in theory, but in practice, making us pay is the only way to throttle our addictions. Sad, but true.

(Thanks, gamasutra)