I don't mind at all when a game is free for the first few level but then asks you to pay to unlock the full version. It's basically the same as the old shareware model, giving you an option to try out the game before purchasing. It's only when paying money actually becomes part of the game that I start to feel ripped off.

I agree with you. However, most consumers just play the free part and then move on to the next game. Everyone's busy, and there are so many games to try!

Sadly I find myself feeling the same way (as a consumer). I don't really want to pay > $5 for a game. Yet, I don't like microtransactions... so I generally just play the free part of a game until I get bored and move on.

Yes, but then again, you're probably not the type that spends ANY money for IAP (not judging you, am like that too). Now consider people that DO spend money on IAP, wouldn't it be much better if that money is utilized properly? Wouldn't it be much better if those people aren't being scamemd and milked dry, but intead are being given a rich gaming experience for that money?

PS: i recently ran in to a game for people like you and me. They give you the premium stuff for unlocking a few (surprisingly achievable) achievements. Yay devs! (Its BADLAND)

I think $60 is pretty high price for a game. I'm a very casual gamer and I'd probably would never ever paid this much. OTOH, thinking about it I realize that I would pay like $15 for a movie ticket, to be entertained for like 2-3 hours, so if the game entertains me for 20 hours, I should consider $60 a bargain. But I guess linear extrapolation does not work here.

I'm curious why the very successful Apogee model of indie sales and development (first episode is free and later episodes (sequels) cost) hasn't really stuck around.

That's basically a demo, and demos are proven to reduce sales:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QM6LoaqEnY

The claim that demos are proven to reduce sales lacks context.

The Apogee shareware model was extremely successful in its day but was predicated on certain assumptions about marketing and distribution that are no longer true. A standard scenario is that you'd read about the game in a magazine, play the demo episode on the accompanying disk, order the full version by fax or telephone and then have it within a few days.

Games based on the Apogee model were designed from the ground up to demo well and hence monetize well.

I hear what you're saying, but I feel like their approach was a bit different. A demo is clearly an incomplete piece of a larger product, hopefully setting up the customer to see the steak, but never taste it. The Apogee model really was to give away a complete contained game, and if the customer wanted "more like that" they basically bought additional "episodes" which were more or less just a couple more complete games built with the same engine and style.

i.e. You can play through all of the Doom shareware episode and enjoy the entire experience of playing a complete game.

It's hard to say it didn't work, when it did work very well for many years. Today, games just aren't produced like that I guess. But I guess the equivalent would be say, a Grand Theft Auto Game set in NYC, with what's just the part of the game where you're locked onto one borough/island, and where you complete enough of the game the episode has a logical "conclusion" or "finish". If you want to play more missions and see more story arcs that include other boroughs you can buy episodes 2 and 3. (this is also different than the DLC approach in some important ways).

I am doing that, and the sales suck.

After buying mobile games for 3 years, at Christmas I bought a 3DS. The quality in games is comparable. While I would like to be wrong, at the moment I plan on never buying another ios or Android game.