Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Hmm - interesting. Two samples spring to mind:

One of my apps is called "Calculate" [1] which has you solving maths problems. There is always a solution which you can view. You start off with ten solutions and when you run out you can IAP more.

I recently played a game called "Pocket Rally". Download was free, but after the first few levels you had to pay to upgrade to the full version, which I did.

"Calculate" has zero purchases so far (although it was only released a month or so ago and only has about 50 users). With "Pocket Rally" I didn't seem to mind paying the £1 to upgrade. I think the key difference between the two is that with Pocket Rally I didn't know I was behind, so when I found out I was I upgraded. With Calculate I let people know from the off how many solutions they have left - they are well aware of the situation and not really experiencing loss.

So the key is to introduce restrictions after some time limit and not warn them beforehand. That way they truly experience loss-aversion.

Not sure if this is evil or just marketing.

EDIT: changed lots of spelling and grammatical errors

[1] https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.simplyappe... (and before anyone complains about the self promotion, this is also something you are supposed to do, right?)




Downloading your game right now. The fact that your app didn't require any extra permission is great. I wish more developers would follow this.


Yeah give them all the solutions and then take them away after a day or so.

If they had some complete percentage you could also reduce that once they are removed, that's an achievement loss right there.


Now I'm starting to laugh at all the evil ways I could treat my users!




Consider applying for YC's W25 batch! Applications are open till Nov 12.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: