And I agree that lots of IAPs are ripoffs. And as it happens, I’ve never been at all sure that my tax collector raid will be an interesting enough addition to the game to be worth charging extra for. I just thought that discussion and decision would happen after people had read it… rather than being something so many people feel strongly about as a matter of principle.
To be clear, the hope is that I’ll have wrapped up the website purchase system sometime in the next month or so. If y’all were shouting “we love IAP and we wish we had it in Chrome apps!” I’d try to make it a priority. But that’s hardly the attitude I’m hearing, even among authors who do want to dabble in IAP.
I’m fine with paying for extra content. The only IAPs that I won’t buy are stuff like the guides in Heroes Rise, but those take all the fun out of playing anyways, so I haven’t lost anything if I don’t buy those.
@Havenstone As an adult with a debit card, I’ll say being poor sucks. Sometimes the little luxuries, those that cost $3/£2 make things more bearable. And if I’ve budgeted that much for a game, and then find out it wasn’t the full price up-front it can sting. Especially since it’s the same price I can pick up a second hand book for.
So, if you’re going the IAP route, I’d definitely like to see that announced, upfront, on the main page, so I know what the price of all the content is so that way I can decide whether or not it’s within the budget, if I need to wait until I buy it.
I think sometimes it’s not about the value of the authors work, but instead how much people can afford.
I know, back in my teens, if I’d wanted to buy anything with a credit card, I’d have had to ask my parents permission, explain what it was I wanted to buy, have them buy it for me. If I then found out it wanted more money, I’d need to go back to them again, ask them to get me the new thing, maybe have them say no. Of course I was a teen back in the dark ages before the internet really took off, so I’m not sure how it is nowadays. In my day it was shareware games, which would arrive, and not be the full versions and would need my parents to send off a check in the post to get the proper one.
Sorry sidetracked. I get where you’re coming from. That it’s content that’s not vital to the story, but just a bonus. It still means that by not purchasing it I’m not getting to experience the full game.
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with wanting to get as much money possible for what you’re selling and exploring avenues for doing so. In fact I strongly encourage it. It’s just, the method I guess, of being stuck with a “give me more money” sign in the middle of the game.
Yeah, i certainly burn all my money before buy the Heroes rise guide, certainly the type of thing if comes from other company i just never buy something from them.
But a dlc add story or even a alternate story like mendoza marriage tour for Iberia world or a side story about how julia collins become Cassie and What happening with Emma. that would spend my money in
@FairyGodfeather, I hear you. For years, secondhand books and tapes were all the entertainment I could afford, too. My bookshelves could still be mistaken for the bargain shelves at Uncle Hugo’s Fantasy/SciFi bookstore in Minneapolis, much to my wife’s dismay. I care about affordable entertainment.
And I’m not actually talking about a goal of making “as much money as possible”. It’s about making enough money for writing CoGs to be a viable livelihood – and ideally, not just by pushing out lots of short and/or linear games, but nice long ones like Sabres or Slammed that take a lot more writer-hours. (Me… I like my job, so I’ll settle for making enough to pay for the coffee consumed in the writing process. But I don’t think that’s good enough for others)
For writers to make a living on CoGs while still (a) not pricing themselves out of the app market/into the piracy zone and (b) having their work mostly accessible to people who can’t afford more than $2-3… well, as far as I can see, either we’ve got to sell to a LOT more people, or get some kind of IAP system working that brings the overall price of the game a little closer to the cost of the time that goes into writing it.
One should never offend carelessly. It should always be with full intention 
To clarify, I’m not against paying for additional content (i. e. expansions) or for slight perks (the WarningSys in Hero Project).
What I am against though, is Day-1 DLCs (or in this case, IAPs) that include (more or less) significant parts of the story.
This feels as if content that should already be in the finished product is deliberately withheld from me in order to compel me to pay another $1 (or whatever the rate for IAPs is).
I didn’t follow the thread for CoR, so I can’t say anything about how many people took issue with that or what was discussed about it, but I dare say that this sentiment was probably shared by those who took offense at that IAP option.
For me, it’s probably the mixture of “relevant influence on the story” together with “Day 1 IAP” that evoked that negative feeling.
To get away from the example of CoR, let’s make a comparison with some other titles:
Did you support the Day-1 DLCs for Mass Effect 3, Dragon Age, Assassins Creed 3, and whatnot? They all are additional content in their own rights and they offer further gameplay and/or slight perks. Sometimes they are already on the disc for the game you aquired and it’s simply not unlocked till you pay for it. Sometimes they even give it away for free as a Pre-Order Bonus.
I know I don’t. I’ve never bought them and I’m not planning to do it in the foreseeable future (though I still buy Bethesda games, and I’m eagerly awaiting Dragon Age 3 next year).
Opposed to that, I did buy Dragon Age: Awakening. It’s additional content apart from the main story and offers significant gameplay. That I do support.
To get the curve back to CoG games: I don’t like it when it feels like there is content missing right off the bat. Later expansions or small parks that don’t change the story itself? I’m okay with that.
For Choice of Rebels: I obviously don’t like that Tax Collector part. But if you offer a part along the lines of “You had a private Teacher during your childhood”, which in effect gives your starting stats a boost, I’d be all for it.
On that note, I do concur that the CoG games are almost laughably underpriced. But I don’t think charging extra for some of the storyline is the way to go.
And trying to hook the player to get him to pay for the full version… well, that’s what free demos are for.
I believe Cataphraks Sabres offers four chapters as a demo? Out of eight? (Though I never actually played the demo since I bought it outright. I only remember it from the thread when it was discussed where to put the cliffhanger).
In that regard, I recently gave an opinion at Cataphraks thread where he asked about what game he should make next. During the discussion he mentioned a major game with three different fiefdoms, each offering a different experience, that would be a huge pain to write, especially when it’s unclear if it will be a success or not.
For this instance I recommended just starting with one fiefdom and, if it is well received, to only then write the other two and offer them as IAPs (just to outline why I’m okay with that: Adds a different storyline, does not impact the experience from the original basic game).
On a side note, that part about boycotting future releases refers mainly to AAA-titles on gaming systems (for example, I have a strict policy not to buy any single-player game that requires me to be continuously online. Yes, I’m looking at you, Diablo 3. In the same vein, I won’t be getting a X-Box One because I refuse to support their concept of “stalk and harass the players as much as possible”. I can’t give any examples for Indie-Games though, since as of yet, none of them have crossed that line whereupon I see that as warranted ).
Also, as far as Chrome is concerned, in my experience the IAPs are usually made available for free (at least it was that way with Hero’s Rise and the soldier background in Zombie Exodus), so the users wouldn’t actually miss out on the content, but you wouldn’t get paid for it either (unless of course, we come back to my favorite model with the higher price up-front )
I misspoke. I was just saying in general that I don’t see the whole making money thing as evil. One of the things I respect about Choice of Games is that it teaches writers to value their work, to consider putting a price tag on it.
There’s so many sites out there that people just give it away for free. There’s so many amazing stories, amazing games, that are free. And the people who’re making those games, writing those stories are holding down other jobs, some that they might not love.
One of my favourite, most inspirational videos.
I’ll agree with you. I’d love to see these games be able to support people. For people to be able to make a living out of them. I don’t actually think that short games are that bad, if done well. Just as not all long games are amazing. I loved Choice of the Dragon, which felt epic to me even though it’s one of the shorter games. The Paradox Factor was brilliant and again it’s short, and I think so under-priced for what it is. I’m a huge fan of short stories mind you so that may influence.
What’s the ways to make more money?
Increase the price of the games. This one’s been already considered and the games are at their price point for a reason. To discourage people from pirating the games, as well as encourage people to purchase them. I’d be interested to know if the cheaper games do actually sell in greater quantities.
Increase the amount of IAP. That’s an extra 10% onto the revenues of the games? For Heroes Rise, which had $2 worth of IAP on a $3 game. That’s not a large proportion of the players actually purchasing the IAP. Sequels seem to do better, and I’d guess they have the added benefit of also increasing the sales of the first game.
Sell more games. That would involve more advertising, more reviews, finding new markets? I’ll say again, advertise on Project Wonderful. The ads are targeted and I see quite a few games advertising on the free web-comics I read. Web-comics that can pull in tens of thousands in kickstarter campaigns which means their readership does actually have money to spend if their interest is hooked.
Crowd-Funding. I’m just throwing that in there since it’s a current buzzword. Of course it still needs advertising and all. But some people seem to be having success at crowd-funding ideas first, and then making the game after. Can you tell I know nothing about crowd-funding? 
I do wonder sometimes if there’s a future in Choice of Games. If it’ll be left behind by other companies which are able to produce more polished games, and what’s happening in Twine and other interactive fiction. I would love to see them break through and become more popular. I love the games. I love the community. I love the whole ethos.
@Nasdaxow, as someone who’s never owned a games console and bought only secondhand PC videogames, I had to look up what Day One DLC meant. 
And I found this article, which to some extent replicates our discussion here:
While I grasp the author’s point about PR, at gut level I’m more in sympathy with the guy the author quotes:
The problem is I don’t care. I don’t care what’s on the little plastic disc I buy at the store, nor do I care when it was made. I don’t care what each developer was doing on any given day of the cycle, I don’t care when the game was finished. The physical disc is not what’s important to me.
What’s important to me is that anything I pay $60 for should be worth $60. That’s it. Most games aren’t worth $60, but that’s an entirely different problem. I’m no videogame producer, and if people in charge of production schedules can find a way to get me a $60 product and a $15 expansion on the same day, great.
If you think that the developer has unfairly locked its content away on the disc, the heart of that problem is that you don’t think that the available product is worth $60. In that case, don’t buy it. Or wait for a sale. That’s how consumer choices work.
Replace “plastic disc” with “app,” and that’s pretty much how I feel. If I think the overall content package is worth $10, in principle I’m ready to pay $3 up front and a couple more $2s along the way.
“And trying to hook the player to get him to pay for the full version… well, that’s what free demos are for.”
Doesn’t address the problem that the full version is still “laughably underpriced.” 
@FairyGodfeather
I don’t think CoG will be left behind. They’re the most prominent interactive fiction company, they include out side authors, they have a loyal fan base and they’re growing. All of the best IF is from CoG, and they have the most gamebooks that I know of, including Tin Man Games.
IMHO, the main question is “What adds to the experience?” A second question is “Does this require effort on the part of the developer?”
These generally lead to three general things for add-ons:
-Significantly different character options.
-Additional options/scenes within the existing plot.
-Alternate directions to go in-game.
The first would be something like the “Jewish” pak mentioned.
The second would include added subplots that you could pursue (or pursue substantially longer), such as actually pursuing a Church career in Vampire (which is within the Priest background).
The third would be something like being allowed to stay as the local patron in Vampire (if you end up in the small town rather than New Orleans) and then going west instead of north (Texas is one place that might be interesting to get involved in, and being in LA in the 20s would be different from Chicago at the same time), or (as the beef seems to be floating around on Fall of Memphis) permitting you to actually bail out the city and somehow manage to “fork” the plot from there (and possibly settle).
In the initial case (character options), I’d be less likely to buy unless it somehow altered enough of the game to make a somewhat different experience, not just trip another mix of stats. In the second and third, it would sort of depend on what was triggered.
In all cases, if the addition is substantial enough, I could see it being a case of “Look, if we added this in at the start, the game would have taken another year and we can’t keep games in development forever” and/or “This was only added because of player feedback.” I do get the need to keep players “on the railroad” to some extent, but at the same time if I’m paying more I’d like to be able to take a different line or pick another stop where I can hop off the train.
(For the record, I recently got an Andriod emulator and have purchased both Vampire+Fall of Memphis and Heroes Rise+the expansion now that I have a place to use them)
Good points, @Gray. (And thanks for making me aware about the Android emulator, yay!)
I think one issue with IAPs, for me, would be whether or not I was…
a) made aware of this in advance if IAPs already exist
b) was offered to buy existing IAPs from the get go, because if I arrive late to the scene then this “would take another year to make” argument (valid one) would not be in the past for me, obviously and it would probably annoy me to be asked to pay for it in the game
c) as you say, Gray, should add something worthwhile (i.e., your Vampire suggestions with career and branching)
d) did not (appear) to hold back content for the sake of selling it instead (this is the tricky one, perhaps)
I must admit, I am not into vampires normally, but CotV is my guilty addiction when it comes to CoG. To me, this is how COYA should be done, the replay value is insane. Marvellous job. And now I can finally buy CotV too, thank to you, Gray! :-bd
@JTAL:
Going through your thoughts:
(A/B) These could mostly be dealt with through organizing the game’s page differently as time goes on. To date, we don’t face any games with more than three separately-sold phases from what I can tell (Romance has three, Vampire and a bunch of others two), so this isn’t much of an issue, but if we get to the point of having games with 4-6 stages/content parts, then a main page with sub-pages for each of the content bits. I’d think that at that point, you might offer a full pack of the game and the DLCs for a bit less than the individual purchase price.
(D) This is tricky, but I think this is mitigated by the obviously small teams here. Most of the games have 1-3 people working on them and then some testers who might help write/rewrite a one-off scene, unlike most of the complained-about DLC situations (which involve more obvious situations).
@Gray - I agree about A/B. :-bd
I don’t, currently, see D) being an issue, merely something to consider down the line, and thus giving my opinion for consideration in plenty of time.
@Havenstone
Seeing as we both agree on the fact that authors should receive adequate payment for their work, and that the games are currently underpriced, our difference in opinion basically boils down to the question how to charge the people for it.
There is the possibility to block content and offer it as an IAP right from the outset.
For small story additions, it’s probably the most economical one, simply because the players can immediately purchase it. If it comes two, three or more months later, you will probably have players who either don’t want to bother to play it again for a little sideline, or simply don’t realize that an IAP has been released. I know I probably wouldn’t.
But then there is the risk with people like me (or even worse, those who actually write reviews at stores ). You run the risk to offend them by making them feel that content is deliberately withheld from them in order to garner more cash. While that is indeed the point of doing that, it’s bad for the reputation, the reviews and future sales.
At least that’s what I assume judging from @JimD reported experience with the reviews about ZE, your experience from the feedback on your thread, my own personal opinion about this concept, and biased opinions about various console games that do stuff like that.
Adding to that, I think that risk for the loss of future sales could even expand to CoG as a whole. At least judging from myself, I wouldn’t bother checking which author wrote what game and how far I was satisfied with that. I’d just delete the links from my favorites, unsubscribe from the newsletter and head to new pastures.
(That’s assuming that my only contact point with CoG were the occasional game I purchase and nothing more)
Second, you can offer some perks as IAP that make the story easier, but don’t change the content itself (ZE, Hero Project). That has garnered about 10 % added revenue, according to Jasons prior post.
Since I don’t see any potential negative fallout with that (i. e. disgruntled players), I think that’s definitely something to consider to add to the games.
For CoR maybe something like that Stat Boost due to intensive training in the childhood, thus helping when you have to take the missions to get your band through the winter.
My preferred solution would basically be to let me choose between either paying more upfront, which then includes all IAPs, but with a little discount for buying it in a bundle. This could also be a good option to garner more revenue, as I assume that most players wouldn’t usually buy all available IAPs by recurring single transactions (be it because they don’t see it as useful or because they don’t want to bother). As to say, in the bundle you could market players IAPs they usually wouldn’t buy simply because “You get everything! At a discount!”.
Or, in contrast to the bundle option, offer the base game for the standard $3 and let the players buy their IAPs individually.
While this solution wouldn’t remedy every problem, I think it would go a long way. For one, you’d show right off the bat how much you think your work is worth. Lets say $9 for the bundle with two story IAPs and one perk IAP.
So when people see that, and in comparison the same game for $3, it’s clear from the start that there is something missing in the “light” version. That could probably take off at least some of the negative feeling once people encounter the IAPs.
And just for comparisons worth, let’s say if they buy all the IAPs individually, the price amounts to $10,50 all in all, in order to raise the incentive to outright buy the bundle.
And for those who don’t care about the IAPs but have the cash to spare, they might even buy the more expensive version simply to support the author.
I realize that this system isn’t possible with the current structure, but maybe it’s worth considering once the CoG-store comes around.
@Naxdasow I like many people couldnt stand the cheat IAP i never purchase one by principle. So why i must pay for them in a Collect IAP If i want Stories IAP ? also you are supposing IAP expansion has to be launched same time game that could it be with Cheat based IAP but not for story based IAP .
But there would be a solution SEASON PASS i pay imagine 3 game And other 3 for the further IAP dlcs i pay in moment of purchase main game and iap would be free for me when appeared in market LA Noir Saint Row 3 4 Bioshock Infinite … all follow that politic and i certainly pay 8 or 9 euros for both Unnatural or @Cataphrack saga maybe Im a minority in that but i trust in @JimD and this guys and they would finish their work and then they would have money first hand to work more time or faster, i dont know
@MaraJade
You don’t have to purchase them. That bundle would be an option, nothing more. You could also purchase the basic game and buy the story IAPs individually. To stay with the example, you’d buy the base game for $3 and two story IAPs for $5 ($2,50 per IAP). That would bring you to a total of $8, so you’d actually save a dollar if you skip the bundle and the perk IAP.
Of course, since it’s only a dollar, you could also skip the hassle for purchasing them individually or just throw it in to support the author.
After all, we are all about choice, here at CoG
At this point I might add that the pricing is completely arbitrary and way to high for simple IAPs, but it serves to illustrate the point
I also considered the concept of the Season Pass, but I have concerns whether or not this would be fair to the authors in the long run. No matter how much IAPs they release afterwards, they wouldn’t get paid for it once the monetary worth of the Season Pass is reached. While there would still be a market for those who weren’t there at the release (I’d make that offer available at release only), they wouldn’t get any more from the “Seasoners”.
Of course, it can be argued that in return the customer runs the risk of not getting anything for their money if the author simply stops releasing IAPs, so the (possible) disadvantages on both sides remain about equal.
@Nasdaxow, well said. I’m entirely in agreement with the choice of upfront bundle v the basic version with option to pay as you go. If one thing is clear from the Rebels feedback, it’s that discovering a story IAP halfway through is a deeply alienating experience for many readers. Don’t know why that should be a surprise, but it was for me.
Now back to writing the tax raid, as opposed to writing about it…
Thanks for the replies. Its made for interesting reading.