Which is actually awesome.
My first games were Quake, and Quake2. I enjoyed shilling out the cash just once. Bought expansions as budget allowed and was always excited to.
More power to you honestly.
Edit: duck ads.
I understand what you mean, and i think the model pursued by old games was less toxic. They simply released shareware ... just 10% of the game for anyone to try.
Freemium/Ads works well for addicting things, and im not sure how the negative effects of what’s done there can be honestly counter acted.
So its not that i don’t think that the model generates less money, its just burning down the house.
I'll ignore anything that is shown to have any IAP.
At least in theory, maybe there's been a few cases where it hasn't worked. I'm not aware of any, though.
I don't know how that works on Android. That might not be supported.
That sounds a lot like old-school shareware. The free version was a full copy of the game that only included the first few minutes/hours of the missions/worlds/characters. Paying got you the whole thing.
This reminds me of the Cloverfield series. It would be interesting if you didn't know the games are related at the start or if you know they're related but they're not necessarily the same format or storyline. They just happen to exist in the same world.
Well, in 90s, this was called shareware. The limited version (i.e. first level/episode) was legal to copy/share between users and who paid got full version.
What's a better model for this? A single app with a one-time IAP; or two apps, where one is free with no ads or IAPs, but there's a link to a separate paid app with no IAPs?
It seems there's no way to distinguish easily when you're looking at the App Store whether IAP means a reasonable one time purchase for the full game, or a series of predatory IAPs. So having any IAP at all seems to turn off a lot of people. But I'm not sure two separate apps is the best approach either.