For most platform owners, hacking is a big deal and it’s rapidly stamped on. This isn’t the case with Game Center, Apple’s system that provides high-score tables and achievements for iOS games. At WWDC 2011, Apple proudly boasted iOS was the most popular games system in existence and that Game Center had 50 million users. “We’re making it even better in iOS 5,” enthused the now-ousted Scott Forstall, who talked about adding to Game Center photos, achievement points, friend discovery, game discovery, and support for turn-based games.

Here’s one thing Forstall didn’t announce: a means of dealing with Game Center hackers. And right now, that’s something the system desperately needs.

As a case in point, I’ve been getting addicted to Impossible Road, an extremely pure high-score-oriented game. At the time of writing, here’s the high score table:

9,223,372,036,854,775,807 points? Chinny reckon.

I’m there at #5 (yay me!), Edge’s Jason ‘I can complete Super Hexagon while on the phone and eating lunch’ Killingsworth is at #4, and the game’s dev is at #3. And then two idiots have hacked the game with absurd and literally impossible scores, which they’ve helpfully also done across two other high-score boards on the game.

Such hacking makes a mockery of the system and, at best, is always-in-your-face spam. Other systems enable you to eradicate such idiocy, but not Game Center. There are no tools for developers that would enable them to boot the hackers from their high-score tables, nor are there tools that would enable someone to report an account for clearly hacked scores.

Frankly, I doubt Apple cares—it’s been pretty much oblivious to games for its entire history. However, gaming is a huge part of iOS, in terms of how people use the devices, the number of game created, and income that comes directly from gaming. Apple needs to start taking gaming seriously, and dealing with the mess on Game Center would be a good start.

Update: Developer Jeff Ruediger takes exception to the argument Apple provides no tools to aid developers. Via email, he says: “In iTunes Connect, Apple allows each developer to set a score range–min to max—per leaderboard”. This is server-side and can be changed without uploading a new binary. However, he adds: “Is it enough? No. I’d love the ability to remove scores by range or by Game Center ID. That being said, I’d much rather spend ten minutes making new features or fixing bugs than messing with fake leaderboard scores.”

I recently posted a well-received feature on IAP to this site. The gist was that IAP isn’t a bad thing, but it is often badly used. One of the worst culprits has been EA. iOS gamers will be familiar with its decision to turn premium title Real Racing into a freemium offering, but EA’s also happy to murder older gaming darlings.

A year ago, I wrote about EA’s work on the revamped iOS version of Tetris. At the time, I’d not played the game, but was baffled by the $99.99 IAP for 200,000 ‘T-Coins’ that could be used for in-game currency, and the laughable $29.99 12-month subscription that ‘awarded’ you (if that’s the right term) with 15 per cent more coins per game. For just 43 times more than the game itself cost, you could slightly speed up how rapidly you acquire in-game currency!

Safe to say, that aspect of the game didn’t make it on to iPhoneTiny‘s barg alerts. If anything, I was crushingly disappointed with what EA did, not because Tetris for iOS was bad, but because it was potentially really good. On playing it, I found the touch-based controls were a really interesting attempt to rework the game for iOS, and the puzzle mode was addictive. The problem was it fast became obvious you could only truly succeed by paying money rather than by learning levels and being skilful, and my interest rapidly waned.

According to a report by Pocket Gamer, EA has now outdone itself with freemium title Tetris Blitz, which includes a number of ‘boost’ power-ups:

The more powerful power-ups, like Lucky Spin—which optimises the next seven blocks to be the best fit—and Three Strikes—which gives you three game-changing I pieces in a row—cost £6.99/$9.99 a pop.

This reminds me a lot of Bejeweled, which I once considered a fantastic online game, but that was rapidly ruined when it became clear those willing to spend climbed the leaderboards, not those who mastered the game. Still, EA’s arguably taken things a step further with Tetris Blitz:

There are other handy options, which are only accessible after stumping up real-world cash. And they are super expensive. Want to see the next three Tetriminos? £20.99/$29.99, please. Need to hold two blocks instead of one? That will be £27.99/$39.99.

21 quid. For a power-up that unlocks what’s standard Tetris functionality in many modern versions of the game . That’s truly astonishing and deeply upsetting for any fan of gaming.

In an interview, Tetris creator Alexey Pajitnov once told me he was a little sad about how Tetris was being wrenched from its streamlined roots, not least with the then-current add-ons for the DS version that made the game simpler and that were almost akin to cheats. I can only wonder how he feels about his classic game now being butchered on EA’s alter to the gods of IAP.

Freemium, free-to-play and IAP are now entrenched in gaming for the iPhone, iPod touch and iPad. But is that a bad thing, or has the system just been too often abused? I ask developers whether micro- (and not-so-micro-) transactions are the future of the industry, and how that will affect the games that are made

Freemium iOS gaming is rarely far from the headlines. Recently, EA transformed console-like Real Racing from fixed-fee to freemium, irking long-time fans—the third entry in the series is packed with in-app purchases (IAP) to speed up enforced time-outs for car repairs. Things are no rosier in casual gaming, with newspapers regularly reporting on children getting hold of an iPad and blowing months of their parents wages on virtual in-game currency.

The Simpsons: Tapped Out made headlines after a child burned through thousands of disposable ‘boatload of donuts’ IAPs, each costing £69.99.

But with the App Store’s top-grossing chart dominated by free-to-play titles, is it any wonder developers find this payment model enticing? “Perhaps it would be a healthier world for game developers if the minimum price of all games was a fiver, but that world doesn’t exist and it’s pointless to pretend it does,” mulls Ste Pickford (Zee-3—Magnetic Billiards, Naked War). Like others, Pickford believes digital distribution led to an “inevitable” drift towards a purchase price of zero; he suggests developers “get on with working out how to make good games—and a living—within this landscape, rather than clinging to old business models”.

Those already immersed argue freemium can bring benefits. Bob Koon (Binary Hammer—ChuChu Rocket!) sees it as a way to combine a trial and full app: “This means the developer only has a single version to manage.” Richard Perrin (Locked Door Puzzle—Kairo) says it “removes the hurdle of getting someone to try your game,” which Erick Garayblas (Kuyi Mobile—Streetfood Tycoon) adds is particularly important when the App Store doesn’t allow demos of paid apps.

Drawing in more players is key. “If you’re not free, you’re competing against free, which is becoming a de-facto standard,” argues Stephen Morris (Greenfly Studios—Drop That Candy). “End users have a very binary choice: a small outlay or free—and we know how fickle users can be! But given the opportunity to try a game for free, they might be willing to reciprocate generosity down the line.”

This is an aspect of freemium that chimes with Pickford: “At its best, freemium contains the ability to allow your biggest fans to spend more money on a game they’re really enjoying than otherwise, and that can incentivise developers to make better games”. Tracey McGarrigan (Amuzo Games—LEGO Hero Factory) thinks similarly. She says Amuzo frequently has new ideas for existing games but no budget for implementation: “But a freemium title enables continual investment. Those who love it and want more can pay. We can add new content and optimise the game, meaning old and new players alike get a better experience.”

Pickford notes there are subtler benefits, too, not least eradicating the “worst aspect of console game development—the constant pressure for better visuals over gameplay”. He explains console games are often optimised to look fantastic in screen grabs and promotional videos, to justify a big-ticket entry price; but freemium games have to hook you with gameplay, which Pickford hopes will result in “developers focusing on engaging game mechanics rather than spectacular set pieces”. That said, he is concerned genres that can’t be smashed into a freemium model might disappear, and Dan Gray (ustwo—Whale Trail) admits freemium has forced changes to how games are designed: “We’re more competitive for a user’s attention in the opening stages—there aren’t slow-burn build-ups to later rewards, because there’s no up-front cost that will commit someone to seeing it through. Instead, freemium games offer bursts of player rewards that fit into spare moments.”

Freemium, though, also has a dark side. “I think in theory freemium can be done well, but it hasn’t been implemented well yet,” asserts Rami Ismail (Vlambeer—Super Crate Box, Ridiculous Fishing). The problem, he says, is for the IAP model to be viable, you need to attract as many people as possible, constantly nudging them towards purchases that have no maximum. One might argue developers should simply be more ethical, but Ismail draws attention to Gasketball: “It was a fun multiplayer game that tried to implement IAP in a non-evil way, with a low maximum spend, and the game wasn’t limited or rebalanced to force you to choose between ‘proper’ gameplay and not spending.” The game was downloaded hundreds of thousands of times but made barely any money. “They weren’t being evil enough,” proffers Ismail.

Gasketball tried to implement IAP in a non-evil way. Despite many downloads, it was a commercial flop. The problem: not being evil enough.

Punch Quest was a similar story: highly regarded and playable, and seemingly popular, but not profitable—to the point the game later ended up with a small price tag for a while in an attempt to recoup costs. More often, though, you hear about, as Ismail puts it, games specifically designed to be “less fun unless you pay, but just addictive enough that you want to play”. Money and research is poured into analytics, metrics, monetisation and behavioural targeting. “The difficulty for me is you’re then no longer designing the most engaging experience for a player, and are instead designing mechanics around getting people to drop money as often as possible,” says Perrin, who likens this system to the gambling industry. “Those games exploit addictive tendencies, while others aren’t so much pay-to-win or even pay-to-play but pay-to-not-play, with timers and resources you can buy your way out of, making the game shorter. What does it say about your game if people are paying to play less of it?”

The common conclusion is there’s potential in freemium, but it’s too often abused. Those we spoke to were especially critical of its use in children’s games. “Targeting kids—who might not appreciate the value of money—with £69.99 consumable IAP isn’t right,” asserts Pickford. Gray agrees: “I’m an advocate of a ‘dad mode’, basically ‘give me everything now’ for a reasonable fee! This should be an amount morally fair for your user and it’s certainly not £69.99! There’s a sweet spot where everyone wins.”

But with the industry often aiming for greed, the risks are great. McGarrigan hopes the industry will start taking IAP responsibility seriously and look into the issue in greater depth. Otherwise, she thinks there’s a danger of a “noticeable percentage of the prospective audience disabling IAP on family devices”. Others are more pessimistic: Perrin believes “sooner or later there’s going to be an incident so egregious that questions will be asked whether these games need regulation like the gambling industry has”. Without a shift in attitude from the industry as a whole, Kris Jones (Thunder Game Works—Trenches 2) warns “companies will be seen as predators and its gamers as victims,” and if mainstream companies—such as EA—are considered culpable, “the entire industry will be scrutinised”. Without change, Pickford adds the industry will end up “alienating gamers with inappropriate, anti-consumer monetisation”.

In turning Real Racing from premium to freemium and adding timers for car repairs (which can of course be skipped using real cash), EA alienated many iOS gamers.

So what’s the solution? Jones posits more companies could follow the lead of a game he worked on, Trenches 2; that title enables players to earn all unlockables without spending, and has reasonably priced IAP for those who don’t want to commit too much time to playing. As good examples of freemium, others cite Temple Run 2, which lacks artificial timers and again provides a basic grind/pay alternative, and fantasy board-game Hero Academy, which has no barriers at all and instead charges for new teams and player customisation. As Jones puts it: “If I want to spend £5 on a virtual car, let me—just don’t make me spend another fiver to fill up its gas tank and rotate its tires!”

For Morris, the key is for developers to recognise gamers are often buying experiences and feelings rather than content: “You don’t buy a Santa hat because it’s a hat, but to celebrate. If we can supply such experiences in an ethical manner, we’ll capture the best parts of what a freemium title can be.” Gray, though, thinks the solution is simpler, in being all about balance: “I’ve spent tons of money on certain freemium games, not because they’re ‘grindfests’ but because they’re good enough to spend money on. Make a game enticing enough and people will pay. Garner trust in your users by offering value and development in the free content, so trust is returned in the purchase of great new content.”

Garayblas agrees: “The focus should be on the product itself, its main essence and providing a great experience to the end user. Nail those aspects and money will come along easily.” And Perrin notes that this aspect of gaming is still in its infancy and so still has time to evolve into something better: “My hope is gamers will soon get wise to the cheap tactics many use and force developers to make better games. Also, although freemium will continue to be a part of the wide gaming tapestry, I don’t believe it will be the only valid model. I see the future as one of diversity, both in platforms and also in business models.”

This article originally appeared in Swipe magazine for iPhone

I recently interviewed a number of game developers for an article on freemium gaming. Ste Pickford, co-creator of Magnetic Billiards (buy it now if you have an iOS device), was, like most developers I spoke to, broadly positive about the concept of freemium, free-to-play and IAP, but more guarded about the current realities. He was worried about the abuse of the system by certain companies, and said:

At the moment, the main danger is that the industry is implementing free-to-play poorly in many products. We risk alienating a lot of gamers with inappropriate, anti-consumer monetisation, which is a shame. We should be bringing all gamers along for the ride.

It feels like accountants are in charge at a lot of the developers making successful free-to-play games, where whatever is most effective at generating revenue is implemented, without considering whether this is revenue generated by people enjoying themselves, or generated by tricking, frustrating or exploiting players. I think the distinction matters in the long run.

I don’t think targeting kids—who perhaps aren’t spending their own money, or don’t appreciate the value of money yet—with $100 consumable IAPs is right, and will inevitably lead to heavy handed government legislation that will make things harder for all developers, even the ones behaving responsibly.

Said legislation hasn’t happened yet, but the BBC today reported that the UK’s Office of Fair Trading is now looking into games aimed at children that include IAPs, to ascertain how aggressively content (and, by extension, payment) is pushed, and to

find out if the games are “misleading, commercially aggressive or otherwise unfair” when they give people the chance to buy extras.

I imagine this will turn into an almighty scrap between lobbyists from gaming companies, parents who believe (rightly or wrongly) that they have been ripped off, and a British media always looking for a story that will drive traffic. But the knock-on effect at best is further erosion of trust in mobile gaming. As Pickford said to me, this kind of thing impacts not just on those developers who are exploiting players, but every developer that utilises in-app purchases.

As Pickford concluded:

At its best, free-to-play contains within it the ability to allow your biggest fans to spend more on a game they’re really enjoying than they would otherwise; while most console games are overpriced, I’ve had way more than $60 worth of entertainment from a few games that I played to death. That’s a good thing, when done correctly, and can incentivise developers to make better games. But free-to-play at its best is still a rarity.

That last point is something that needs to change—and fast—if mobile gaming isn’t to be irreparably damaged.

Vlambeer did a Reddit AMA (ask me anything) and were asked about IAP. Their response:

We know IAPs are the best and everyone loves them, but we decided not to put them in the game and instead charge outrageous up-front prices because we hate gamers and love money.

I think I’m in love. (Also: buy Ridiculous Fishing—it’s fab.)