The answer is simple don't make a mobile game. Write a web app or desktop application.

It is the same as console games or anywhere someone else controls the platform.

I am generally following that advice.

IMO the fact that this is the best path is clear evidence that we need mobile app store reform. It's mind boggling to me that people still defend this status quo

If control was somehow wrestled from them a second golden age of mobile apps would emerge.

To what extend could one use a website instead of an app?

Depends on the app in question. OP is about a gaming company so using a website isn't a serious option.

> So if you want to write a mobile app, what are you supposed to do?

Not hire someone who had been banned before due to ad fraud.

This is some next level victim blaming for something that we don’t know happened, and can easily be handled by adults with communication channels.

It’s not as if devs go around with a visible scarlet letter for any malfeasance they get into. Nor is it reasonable brand people permanently.

TIL someone who bans you for life is forced to do business with you.

Google didn't tell this company "you can't let this employee do anything with us". Google told them "since you hired this employee, none of you can ever do anything with us again, even if you fire him now".

In some parts of the world, that would be discriminatory against ex-convicts. If a person has been convicted and has served their penance, you are not allowed to use that fact in decisions concerning them.

Besides, why should we allow corporations to run their own private justice system?

In which part of the world aren't you allowed to do this?

> In some parts of the world, that would be discriminatory against ex-convicts.

Please name the part of the world where I am required to hire a former bank robber to manage my bank.

Ah. That explains why job applications often don't have the line where you check next to a box to indicate if you've ever been convicted of a crime.

Oh wait. They do.

"In some parts of the world" is an important part of that claim, and even if common, it may not be legal[1]. For instance, consider the requirements in the UK:

> Most convictions or cautions then become 'spent' after a specific amount of time. This might be after a few months or years, or straight away.

> You only need to tell a potential employer, university or college about a spent conviction or caution if all of the following apply:

> * they ask you to

> * they tell you that the role needs a standard or enhanced DBS check

> * it’s not removed ('filtered') from DBS certificates

> You can check if the employer, university or college is allowed to request the standard or enhanced DBS check. They can only do this for certain roles, for example if you’re working with children or in healthcare.

> It’s against the law for an employer, university or college to refuse you a role because you’ve got a spent conviction or caution, unless it makes you unsuitable for the role. For example, a driving conviction might make you unsuitable for a job as a driving instructor.

https://www.gov.uk/tell-employer-or-college-about-criminal-r...

> Applicants do not have to tell you about criminal convictions that are spent. You must treat the applicant as if the conviction has not happened, and cannot refuse to employ the person because of their conviction.

https://www.gov.uk/employer-preventing-discrimination/recrui...

[1] https://www.peoplemanagement.co.uk/news/articles/one-in-five...

That's not a fair comparison. Court systems have due process that isn't there when Google decides to ban you.

How do you know if a person you hire was banned before?

Google isn't even telling you that that's what happened. Also as a developer who used to use ads until 5 years ago, I got a wrongful 1 month suspension claiming I was clicking my own ads even though I never did. It's obviously my words vs theirs but I know what my truth is. Yet Google claimed I was clicking my own ads and therefore gave me a 1 month suspension. That convinced me to stop using ads all together and since then, I have become even more reluctant to build Android apps. I just work on iOS apps instead. I hadn't built any android apps for past 5 years except last month when I finally built one because I was getting many user requests to have one.

I guess you missed all those stories of Apple doing the same thing to developers... even going as far as to shut down accounts when they want to use the features from their apps in the next version of iOS.

I have been making apps for both iOS and Android for past 10 years (I did take a 4 year break from Android though). While there's small bit of truth to your statement, I find dealing with Apple on pretty much every issue to be much better than dealing with Google. Maybe this is because of Apple charging the annual developer license fee.

With Apple, I always get to deal with an actual human when they reject an app or update and while their descriptions can be a bit vague, it seems to direct me in the right direction to fix the issue. With Google, it's a nightmare. For example, recently they banned DroidScript, one of the most popular IDE on Android accusing them of committing Ad Fraud, and the developer had to create a whole media storm to get them to re-instate the app after 25 days:

https://groups.google.com/g/androidscript/c/Mbh5TZ6YYnA

Do you think such people go around advertising that fact?

Don't