Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[cactus]

... well It will be on Thursday by my count.

This posted on the MF forums yesterday by Jeff:

"Submitting it for the third time this coming Monday. In a nutshell, an app where you login to something other than Game Center and purchases are already available on a new device without having to restore is not something that fits in with Apple's pre-existing models of how an app needs to work. All this despite the existence of some other apps like Hearthstone that act the same way."

*sigh*

I wonder what that realistically means in terms of time until we might actually see it in the App Store?

[LastFootnote]

an app where you login to something other than Game Center and purchases are already available on a new device without having to restore is not something that fits in with Apple's pre-existing models of how an app needs to work. All this despite the existence of some other apps like Hearthstone that act the same way.

Translation of Apple's response: "We think we can get you to charge your customers again in order to give us a cut of the revenue. Your app isn't a system-seller like Hearthstone, so if you don't like it you can f*** off."

[Accatitippi]

an app where you login to something other than Game Center and purchases are already available on a new device without having to restore is not something that fits in with Apple's pre-existing models of how an app needs to work. All this despite the existence of some other apps like Hearthstone that act the same way.

Translation of Apple's response: "We think we can get you to charge your customers again in order to give us a cut of the revenue. Your app isn't a system-seller like Hearthstone, so if you don't like it you can f*** off."

I'm not really familiar with Hearthstone, what do you mean by system-seller? Are you referring to the payment model, or to the fact that people will buy iThings to play HS, or to something else?

[Kirian]

an app where you login to something other than Game Center and purchases are already available on a new device without having to restore is not something that fits in with Apple's pre-existing models of how an app needs to work. All this despite the existence of some other apps like Hearthstone that act the same way.

Translation of Apple's response: "We think we can get you to charge your customers again in order to give us a cut of the revenue. Your app isn't a system-seller like Hearthstone, so if you don't like it you can f*** off."

Yep.  Imagine the fallout if Apple had told Blizzard that; as soon as they'd gothen the Android app out, the switches to Android would have started.  For that matter, I assume Blizzard didn't have to "submit" to the App Store the same way that small companies do.  The drive from Irvine to Cupertino isn't that bad, and I'd bet their respective business directors are golf buddies.  Hearthstone's appearance on the App Store was likely approved before Blizzard even began the porting process.

In other words, Making Fun is screwed unless they cough up some cash to Apple.

[LastFootnote]

an app where you login to something other than Game Center and purchases are already available on a new device without having to restore is not something that fits in with Apple's pre-existing models of how an app needs to work. All this despite the existence of some other apps like Hearthstone that act the same way.

Translation of Apple's response: "We think we can get you to charge your customers again in order to give us a cut of the revenue. Your app isn't a system-seller like Hearthstone, so if you don't like it you can f*** off."

I'm not really familiar with Hearthstone, what do you mean by system-seller? Are you referring to the payment model, or to the fact that people will buy iThings to play HS, or to something else?

Basically what Kirian said. If iOS didn't have Hearthstone, some folks would convert to Android. Enough that Apple cares.

[Deadlock39]

Yep, definitely a dictatorship on the Apple side of the wall.  My company had to redesign a feature in a significantly worse way because Apple decided the right way of doing it was against their app store policies.

It might not have anything to do with the fact that our products might compete with theirs, but it is hard to look past the conflict.

[Cave-o-sapien]

I have a hard time believing this is anything other than naivety and/or a failure to plan appropriately on the part of Making Fun.

In any case, this issue should have been addressed long before now. There should have been a legitimate iOS edition of this game ages ago.

[LastFootnote]

I have a hard time believing this is anything other than naivety and/or a failure to plan appropriately on the part of Making Fun.

In any case, this issue should have been addressed long before now. There should have been a legitimate iOS edition of this game ages ago.

Well certainly there should have been an iOS version of Dominion a long time ago. But this sort of bullshit is 100% Apple's doing. What Apple objects to is customers being able to buy expansions on non-Apple platforms and then play with them using iOS. They insist on all transactions going through them so that they can get a slice. Making Fun could create a separate iOS version that doesn't interact with the other versions (purchases don't carry over; you can't play with non iOS users), but obviously that's not their first choice.

[Cave-o-sapien]

I have a hard time believing this is anything other than naivety and/or a failure to plan appropriately on the part of Making Fun.

In any case, this issue should have been addressed long before now. There should have been a legitimate iOS edition of this game ages ago.

Well certainly there should have been an iOS version of Dominion a long time ago. But this sort of bullshit is 100% Apple's doing. What Apple objects to is customers being able to buy expansions on non-Apple platforms and then play with them using iOS.

And why should Apple do that? You're suggesting they should let people leverage their store and access to millions of devices without securing themselves any bit of revenue in exchange?

Seems like a poor business decision to me.

[LastFootnote]

I have a hard time believing this is anything other than naivety and/or a failure to plan appropriately on the part of Making Fun.

In any case, this issue should have been addressed long before now. There should have been a legitimate iOS edition of this game ages ago.

Well certainly there should have been an iOS version of Dominion a long time ago. But this sort of bullshit is 100% Apple's doing. What Apple objects to is customers being able to buy expansions on non-Apple platforms and then play with them using iOS.

And why should Apple do that? You're suggesting they should let people leverage their store and access to millions of devices without securing themselves any bit of revenue in exchange?

Seems like a poor business decision to me.

Well they can insist that Making Fun charge for the app itself. Doesn't sound like they're doing that.

[Cave-o-sapien]

Well they can insist that Making Fun charge for the app itself. Doesn't sound like they're doing that.

That seems like a reasonable approach. I wonder if they could offer a "credit" via a code in the iOS app that would be redeemable  some amount of coins in the Making Fun store.

This way Dominion users wouldn't be out any money.

I don't know if this would solve Apple's other complaints about the purchasing model.

[blueblimp]

an app where you login to something other than Game Center and purchases are already available on a new device without having to restore is not something that fits in with Apple's pre-existing models of how an app needs to work. All this despite the existence of some other apps like Hearthstone that act the same way.

Translation of Apple's response: "We think we can get you to charge your customers again in order to give us a cut of the revenue. Your app isn't a system-seller like Hearthstone, so if you don't like it you can f*** off."

...except that isn't how it works. It's not just Hearthstone. For example, I have the Audible app (for audiobooks), and I can log in with my account in the app and listen to books that I purchased on the Audible website, and as far as I know, Apple gets 0% of that.

What _does_ exist is that if you sell something _in the app itself_, Apple requires a cut of that, so maybe MF ran afoul of that rule. Audible stopped selling audiobooks from within the app itself for this reason.

Alternatively, the app store reviewing process is notoriously inconsistent, so it could just be the particular app reviewer they drew got confused.

[werothegreat]

Compare this to Android, where it's just "yeah, sure, whatever, do whatever the fuck you want"

Hot damn Apple is shitty

[popsofctown]

an app where you login to something other than Game Center and purchases are already available on a new device without having to restore is not something that fits in with Apple's pre-existing models of how an app needs to work. All this despite the existence of some other apps like Hearthstone that act the same way.

Translation of Apple's response: "We think we can get you to charge your customers again in order to give us a cut of the revenue. Your app isn't a system-seller like Hearthstone, so if you don't like it you can f*** off."

...except that isn't how it works. It's not just Hearthstone. For example, I have the Audible app (for audiobooks), and I can log in with my account in the app and listen to books that I purchased on the Audible website, and as far as I know, Apple gets 0% of that.

What _does_ exist is that if you sell something _in the app itself_, Apple requires a cut of that, so maybe MF ran afoul of that rule. Audible stopped selling audiobooks from within the app itself for this reason.

Alternatively, the app store reviewing process is notoriously inconsistent, so it could just be the particular app reviewer they drew got confused.

Audible is a system seller though.    That app probably nudges a lot of middle aged Kindle + flip phone users over to iPhone.  I don't see how Audible debunks this particular "conspiracy theory".  On the other hand it's plausible the online Dominion app genuinely fails to sell a single iPhone.

[blueblimp]

an app where you login to something other than Game Center and purchases are already available on a new device without having to restore is not something that fits in with Apple's pre-existing models of how an app needs to work. All this despite the existence of some other apps like Hearthstone that act the same way.

Translation of Apple's response: "We think we can get you to charge your customers again in order to give us a cut of the revenue. Your app isn't a system-seller like Hearthstone, so if you don't like it you can f*** off."

...except that isn't how it works. It's not just Hearthstone. For example, I have the Audible app (for audiobooks), and I can log in with my account in the app and listen to books that I purchased on the Audible website, and as far as I know, Apple gets 0% of that.

What _does_ exist is that if you sell something _in the app itself_, Apple requires a cut of that, so maybe MF ran afoul of that rule. Audible stopped selling audiobooks from within the app itself for this reason.

Alternatively, the app store reviewing process is notoriously inconsistent, so it could just be the particular app reviewer they drew got confused.

Audible is a system seller though.    That app probably nudges a lot of middle aged Kindle + flip phone users over to iPhone.  I don't see how Audible debunks this particular "conspiracy theory".  On the other hand it's plausible the online Dominion app genuinely fails to sell a single iPhone.

This sent me down a hole trying to figure out what is/isn't allowed and I only came away more confused.

One bit of info is that there are definitely some situations where expansions _can't_ be transferred:
http://www.daysofwonder.com/en/contact/walled-gardens/?tab=digital

The Google Play Store, as well as the Apple App Store and the Amazon Store are "walled gardens". This means that their business terms specifically forbid us from granting an app or an expansion ("DLC", "IAP" items...) based on a purchase made on another store.

Interesting that this also applies to the Google Play Store and Amazon Store, so werothegreat's troll post above is incorrect when he claims there's no restriction on Android.

Looking at the app store guidelines themselves, audiobooks are one type of content which is specifically exempted from some rules, so my example of Audible was irrelevant:
https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#purchasing-currencies

Apps can read or play approved content (specifically magazines, newspapers, books, audio, music, video and cloud storage) that is subscribed to or purchased outside of the App, as long as there is no button or external link in the App to purchase the approved content.

But then on the other hand, Hearthstone is not the only CCG which shares purchased cards across platforms. Solforge also works this way, although I could only find a statement implying it:
https://solforgegame.com/forum/general-discussion/solforge-early-access-with-existing-account-question/

Once Booster Packs go live, you should get a code for 20 Booster Packs (Early Access deal on Steam). You link that code to your SolForge account and you will be able to play with the cards in those Booster Packs on both iPad and PC.

Problem is, I can't figure out _why_ CCGs like Hearthstone and Solforge can allow card purchases to be used on every platform, while Days of Wonder apparently can't do the same with expansion purchases. My only guess is that for the cases that are allowed, you're really just using a client to connect to an online service. It's not like you're transferring purchases, because they were never stored locally anyway. For DoW, which expansions you've bought _is_ local data of the app, so that might be why it falls into a different category.

[Burning Skull]

So it feels like there is a severe contradiction between what MF have and what Apple demand from developers.
The adequacy of such demands is the question of it's own, but these requirements are probably public, right?
So why not implement it according to them in the first place, especially if MF rewrote everything from scratch.
I mean, they had plans to support iOS from the very beginning and all.

[blueblimp]

The adequacy of such demands is the question of it's own, but these requirements are probably public, right?

The requirements are public, but notoriously vague and inconsistently applied. I linked them in my previous post if you want a crack at parsing them.

I think it's very likely that MF doesn't need to change anything major. It might be more a matter of lucking into a reviewer who understands how card game payment models work.

[popsofctown]

Why don't they just charge you to buy the expansions again on the iPhone?  That seems to solve the problem. Same account name, but to play with expansions on your phone you have to make the in app purchase to enable them.

[Donald X.]

Why don't they just charge you to buy the expansions again on the iPhone?  That seems to solve the problem. Same account name, but to play with expansions on your phone you have to make the in app purchase to enable them.

Well... maybe I'm not understanding, but it sounds like that would suck. Or could they be a penny if you'd already bought them? I mean a centiducat.

[DStu]

Interesting that this also applies to the Google Play Store and Amazon Store, so werothegreat's troll post above is incorrect when he claims there's no restriction on Android.

That might apply to the play store, but that doesn't apply it to Android automatically, as you can easily get apps from other stores to your Android device. Afaik, this is not true for ios.

[pedroluchini]

Or could they be a penny if you'd already bought them?

...That's an interesting loophole. Are app developers really allowed to charge different amounts depending on the user?

[popsofctown]

I don't think buying the expansions for the iPhone after you've already bought them for the PC sucks anymore than buying the expansions for the PC after you've already bought them once in cardboard form.  Assuming at least a couple lines of code were necessary to adapt the application so it would work on iPhones after the pc form was finished, it's pretty much the exact same justifications going from cardboard to pc as it is going from pc to phone. 

Perhaps the inconsistency in where the paywalls go is the source of confusion for the reviewers.  This is a board game?  If you paywalled them when they wanted to play their board game on their PC, why don't we paywall them together when they want to play their board game on their phone?



My "left field" feelings on IP aside, charging a dollar or two per expansion isn't a bad way to give Making Fun some income and a dangling carrot to keep things going, and also a metric about how many people are using the iPhone version and whether they are having so much trouble using it they've bought fewer expansions than they have on the PC.  If setting the prices differently for individual users doesn't work, maybe you can sell the expansions for cheap no matter what, but only free the account to play with non-bot opponents with sets that they also have purchased on PC.

[Watno]

Well, both Goko and MF promised purchases would carry over to the iOs/Android versions, they can't simply charge us again.

[LastFootnote]

Well, both Goko and MF promised purchases would carry over to the iOs/Android versions, they can't simply charge us again.

They may have to.

I think their most realistic option is to have their mobile versions and computer versions be completely separate, ill-thought-out promises be damned. They'd charge very little for each expansion ($1 for Guilds, $2 for Intrigue, $3 for Dark Ages) and make it up in sales volume because that's how board game apps on mobile devices work. At those prices I'd even buy all the expansions again.

[SCSN]

They could make the Dominion app somewhat of a system seller by making Adventures iOS exclusive.