I think this is an excellent idea that informs consumers and doesn't stifle developers. It would allow you distinguish between a one-time purchase game (maybe even with some DLC) from an endless money pit.

I see Game A and notice the maximum cost of play is, let's imagine, $30. I can then tap and see the base game costs $10 and there's some additional content I can buy. If I bought everything possible I'm out $30.

Next I see Game B. I can immediately tell that they'd willing take my entire life savings for some stupid candy-themed puzzle game and pass on it.

App store games don't get rated by the ESRB

A glaring oversight in and of itself. If you're going to have interoperability between mobile and console games, the ratings agencies should have jurisdiction across the spectrum.

The ESRB is a voluntary organization. They have jurisdiction over whoever volunteers to let them rate their games.

The ESRB is already a cancer, why would we want it to spread?

Why? ESRB is what protected the gaming industry from a heavy hand of regulation. Seems more like a win.

On android I believe there's a metadata piece for in-game purchases. I just avoid those entirely :)

That throws the baby out with the bathwater due to its coarse grained nature.

I'm fine with having a free game using an IAP to unlock full functionality, or to have a small! series of IAPs for it.

I think there's also a viable model for subscription gaming, mobile MMOs are plausible.

Requiring that all apps indicate their (enforced) maximum monthly and lifetime spend limits would work very well for me. An app with a $20 lifetime limit is a try-before-you-buy app, and one with a $20 monthly limit is a subscription app. One with "Unlimited" for monthly is a freemium casino, and is much more easily avoided.

Wouldn’t they all say “$10,000+” in that case? Are there really any games out there that stop you before you make a purchase saying “You already spent $100 this month. Please don’t give us any more of your money!”

For apps that have their own currency, it's of course possible to spend $10k+. But before every exploitative game hopped on the custom currency bandwagon, you used to be able to buy skins/guns/characters/etc. outright with real money. If my game allowed you to buy 5 characters each worth $10, then I could accurately claim the max IAP profit from each user for me would be $50.

But you're talking about one-time purchases, which is common for apps, but not so much for games. But even in apps you have monthly subscriptions that still somewhat skew the way you perceive the price. What's the max IAP profit for Netflix or Spotify? (Subscriptions bought through the app still net a cut to the store provider.)

Virtual currencies are a scam on its own, but even games without them can be exploitative. The monetization of games has become so frequent, that's it's basically accepted as something ordinary. I've noticed that some developers don't even bother creating a currency anymore, you just get the Playstore € prompt for the item you want to buy.

Most free games are built on the premise that it's never-ending or always expanding. Either you can upgrade to infinity or keep playing, because they keep adding new content. I don't think I've ever stumbled upon a game where you have limited things to buy.

The only solution I see, which is just plain unrealistic, is to put IAP apps into a seperate category. I've started doing this, by not downloading apps that have the "Includes IAP" and I'm pretty satisfied. I don't think any game/app should be qualified as FREE, if half of it is locked behind a paywall.

There really are still games out there that aren't built on the freemium model, yes.

There really should be freemium games that advertise a monthly ceiling on possible spend as a feature to attract customers who are wary of pay-to-win gaming or exploitative models.

Maybe not the app devs, but it would be nice if Apple or Google had a counter of how much money you've spent in IAPS on an app on the payment screen.

I think some apps have 'parental controls' that allow for this, but this kind of labeling would provide a strong incentive to set an upper limit.

I think this would benefit the game ecosystem greatly, because the effects of a relatively small proportion of the audience dropping 80-90+% of revenue really distorts game design to try to capture this upper end.

I suppose there are games that only spam ads for monetization and don't ask for your credit cards?