#but its all worth it if it means less money in ea's pocket <3 | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

mycsgoaccounts-blog · 5 years ago

Text

The War on Used Games

Once we prepare for the coming wave of next generation systems, we should be anticipating improvements on all the good stuff we associate with the current crop of systems. Moving forward we expect: better graphics, faster processors, more fascinating games, you get the idea. But not everything that we're anticipating will be a progressive movement for gaming. At least, as far as Sony and Microsoft are concerned, you can wave goodbye to playing used games on their systems. Although these are simply rumors at this point, it wouldn't be surprising if they came to fruition. It's very plausible, especially when taking into consideration that a few game publishers have already fired shots at the used game market. Most notable is Electronic Arts(EA), who grew to be the first publisher to institute the practice of charging gamers, who bought used games, a charge to access codes that come with the game. To elaborate, Downloadable Content(DLC) codes are included with new copies of a certain game and only with those codes, can that content be accessed. EA expanded its project to provide playing used games online. Gamers would now have to pay $10, in addition to the cost of the used game they will purchased, in order to have access to the online components of their game. Ubisoft has since followed suit, requiring an internet pass for its games as well. You can identify the games which require an online pass as they uncovered the, "Uplay Passport", logo on the box. Ubisoft decided they'd take things a step further and additionally implement Digital Rights Management, a practice more often associated with DVD or CD anti-piracy efforts. Assassins Creed 2 was the first game to be effected by this practice. In order to play the PC version with Assassins Creed 2, gamers are required to create an account with Ubisoft and remain logged into that bank account in order to play the game. This means that if you lose your internet connection, the game will automatically pause and try to improve the connection. However , if you're unfortunate enough to be unable to reconnect to the internet you'll have to continue from your last rescued game; losing any progress you may have made since then. This will be the case for all of Ubisoft's PC titles, irrespective of one playing single-player or multi-player. While Digital Rights Management has been used to combat DVD and DVD piracy for quite some time now, this will mark the first time it's been used for a video game. In light of Ubisoft's guidelines of DRM, Matthew Humphries of Geek. com, cautions that it's feasible that eventually even console activities will require online registration in order to play them. So what's the reason for all of this? According to According to Denis Dyack, the top of Silicon Knights, the sale of used games is cannibalizing the profit of the primary performance market. He also claims that the used game market is somehow causing the price of new games to go up. His proposed solution is to move away from physical disks and embrace digital distribution. Essentially he'd wish to see services like Steam or EA's Origin replace traditional hard copies. There are even rumors that X-Box 720 will embrace the exclusive use of digital downloads and not use disks at all. Whether Ms will actually follow through with that plan remains to be seen. One could argue that Sony has already laid the bottom work for preventing used games from functioning on their future system. At the very least, they've already made quite hard work to make used games significantly less desirable. Kath Brice, of Gamesindustry. biz, reported that the latest SOCOM sport for PSP, SOCOM: U. S. Navy SEALs Fireteam Bravo 3, will require customers who purchase a made use of copy to pay an addition $20 dollars to receive a code for online play. I'd like to see a few quantifiable evidence to support the claim that used games are in fact hurting the sales of new games in any respect. Without some actual facts, it sounds to me like a whole lot to do about nothing. Case in point, within day Modern Warfare 3 sold 6. 5 million copies, grossing $400 million dollars in sales. Proper me if I'm wrong but you haven't heard Infinity Ward complaining about the used game market therefore affecting their bottom line. That's likely because they're too busy counting their money earned by constructing games that people actually want to play. Imagine that. Maybe the problem isn't that used games have a negative impact on that sale of new games but, the problem is instead that game developers need to make better games that people are willing to pay full price for. In my opinion, not every game is worth $60 simply because it's the suggested retail price. Considering things objectively, not every game is created equally, therefore not every game is worthy of costing $60. Whether it's since that particular game failed to meet expectations and live up to the hype or because it lacks any sort of replay benefits. It's ludicrous to argue that gamers should pay top dollar for every game especially when they all too often end up horrible disappointments, like Ninja Gadian 3, or they're riddled with glitches like Skyrim. I know that the War on Used Games is nothing more than a money grab by developers, upset that they're helpless to cash in on a very lucrative market. To put it in dollars and cents, in 2009 GameStop reported nearly $2. 5 million dollars in revenue from the sale of used consoles and used games. And not an individual red cent of that profit reaches the pockets of game publishers. Greed as the motivating factor for any declaration of War on Used Games is transparent. Especially when you consider that when GameStop began separating ones own revenue from new games and used games in their financial statements, EA thereafter instituted their $10 dollar fee for used games. In the absence of empirical evidence, I'll have to settle for anecdotal. I'll employ myself as an example. I'm planning to purchase a used copy of Ninja Gaidan 2 . I've never been a giant fan of the series. I didn't play the first one because I didn't have an Xbox and when it was an Xbox exclusive. And I never played the original version. Needless to say, I was never clamoring to play Ninja Gaidan 2 . However the innovation in the second incarnation of the game, which allows you to disembowel your enemies, is enough of a novelty that I'd like to play through it at some point. I can buy it today, used, for about 10 dollars. If it was only being sold at full price I would more than likely pass on playing the idea altogether or maybe rent it. My point is that game developers are not losing money because of used video game titles; you can't miss money you weren't going to receive anyway. They're simply not getting money they weren't visiting get to begin with. Unless you have a significant amount of disposable income and a considerable amount of free time, you're probably enjoy me and you prioritize which games you plan to purchase and how much you're willing to pay for them. You decide which often games are must haves and which games you'd like to play but are willing to wait for a price drop in advance of getting them. Then there are the games which you're interested in, but they tend to fall through the cracks because they really are not all that high on your radar and you'll maybe pick them up several months later, or even years when their release, if you ever pick them up at all. I find it ironic that the looming death of the applied game market could likely spell the demise of GameStop who, ironically, push their customers to help pre-order new games and purchase them at full price. One would think that game publishers would be appreciative about this product and not detest GameStop and treat used games with such scorn. Pre-orders not only help promote your games but they function as a forecast of potential sales as well. Even Dave Thier, a contributor with regard to Forbes Online, who describes GameStop as, "a parasitic bloodsucker that doesn't do much besides mark in place discs and sit in the mall", recognizes the folly of passing the burden of the used game sector onto the consumer. I've only once pre-ordered a game myself. At the behest of J. Agamemnon, I pre-ordered Battlefield 3, which is ironically a property of EA. I paid full price for this game and was happy to do it. In large part because I was granted access to several weapons and maps that I would have must wait to download had I not pre-ordered it. I propose that instead of punishing gamers for hoping save their hard earned cash, the gaming industry needs to learn to incentivize gamers into wanting to pony up to that will $60 dollar price tag. I titled this article The War on Used Games in an effort to be tongue-in-cheek in addition to poke fun at how whenever the government declares war on drugs or terror or whatever it usually is, they only succeed in exacerbating the problem. It should come as no surprise seeing as how the government tends to take probably the most asinine approach possible trying to "solve" problems. The end result is always the same; precious time and resources are wasted, along with the issue is that much worse than it was before they intervened. If the gaming industry does indeed drop this path; they'll only hurt themselves in the long run, fail to share in the revenue they so greedily covet and worst of all, hurt their customers, who keep the gaming industry abreast with currency. It's very ironic and actually very fitting that it's EA who are spearheading the effort to attack the used game market right after they themselves are one of the largest beneficiaries of used games. Chipsworld MD Don McCabe, told GamesIndustry. biz that EA has what he referred to as a "franchise software house" in that they "upgrade their labels; FIFA, Madden; all of these are effectively the same title upgraded each year. And people trade in last year's for this purpose year's. " He went onto say that those titles are the ones which are most often traded with. Shutting down the used games market effectively destroys a tried and true method in which fans of EA's franchises keep up-to-date with each of EA's annual releases. Aside from nostalgia, what would be the point of keeping FIFA 11, when FIFA 12 is right around the corner? Don McCabe, an executive at Chipsworld, teaches that, "consumers won't prosper under this new system, as copies of the game will lose their reselling value". He goes on to say that retailers will "just readjust [the price] bearing in mind you must buy the voucher. " The CEO of SwapGame cautions that "customers who trade in for cash and credit do so to acquire new games they could otherwise not afford. " This means that ultimately it will be the founder who ends up losing money because when retailers adjust their prices to reflect the increase in charge for used games, the resale value of the game will drop and new games are not as likely to be purchased.

1 note · View note

caseopening-blog · 6 years ago

Text

The War on Made Use Of Gamings

As we plan for the coming wave of future generation systems, we need to be expecting renovations on all the good ideas we connect with the existing crop of systems. Moving on, we anticipate: much better graphics, faster CPUs, more appealing games, you get the idea.

Not everything that we're preparing for will be a progressive activity for pc gaming. A minimum of, as for Sony and also Microsoft are concerned, you can swing farewell to playing utilized games on their systems.

Although these are simply rumors at this point, it wouldn't be surprising if they came to fulfillment. It's possible, specifically when taking into account that numerous game authors have already discharged chance ats the used video game market.

Most noteworthy is Electronic Arts(EA), who became the first publisher to set up the method of billing gamers, that bought made use of video games, a fee to access codes that feature the game.

To clarify, Downloadable Content(DLC) codes are included with new copies of a particular video game and just with those codes, can that web content be accessed.

EA increased its job to include playing used games online. Players would certainly currently have to pay $10, along with the price of the used game that they purchased, to have accessibility to the on the internet elements of their video game.

Ubisoft has given that followed suit, requiring an on the internet masquerade its video games too. You can determine the games which require an on the internet pass as they are the "Uplay Passport," logo design on the box.

Ubisoft determined they would certainly take things an action additionally and carry out Digital Rights Management, a method more often associated with DVD or CD anti-piracy initiatives.

Assassins Creed 2 was the first video game to be impacted by this practice. To play the PC variation of Assassins Creed 2 gamers are called for to create an account with Ubisoft and also continue to be logged right into that account to play the game. That implies that if you shed your net link, the game will instantly pause as well as attempt to improve the connection.

If you're unfavorable adequate to be unable to reconnect the net you'll have to continue from your last conserved video game; shedding any development; you may have made because after that.

That will certainly be the case for every one of Ubisoft's COMPUTER titles, despite one having fun single-player or multi-player. While Digital Rights Management has been used to battle DVD and CD piracy for fairly time currently, this will note the very first time it been made use of for a video game.

Due to Ubisoft's application of DRM, Matthew Humphries of Geek.com, warns that it's viable that at some point also gaming console games will certainly require on-line enrollment play them.

According to Denis Dyack, the head of Silicon Knights, the sale of utilized video games is cannibalizing the earnings of the primary video game market.

He also declares that the made use of the video game market is somehow causing the cost of new video games to rise. There are also reports that the X-Box 720 will certainly accept the exclusive usage of digital downloads as well as not make use of disks at all.

One might argue that Sony has currently laid the ground help stopping utilized video games from working on their future system.

At the minimum, they've already made fairly an initiative to make used video games substantially less preferable. Kath Brice, of Games industry.biz, reported that the most up to date SOCOM game for PSP, SOCOM: U.S. Navy SEALs Fireteam Bravo 3, will certainly call for customers that purchase a utilized copy to pay an enhancement $20 bucks to get a code for online play.

I would certainly like to see some measurable proof to sustain the case that made use of video games are in reality, hurting the sales of brand-new video games at all.

Correct me if I'm incorrect however you haven't heard Infinity Ward grumbling concerning the made use of the game market as well as it affecting their bottom line.

Possibly the problem isn't that used video games have an unfavorable impact on the sale of new games but, the trouble is rather that game developer require to make far better video games that gamers are willing to pay full rate for.

In my point of view, not every game is worth $60 simply because it's the recommended retail price. Looking at points fairly not every game is produced similarly. As a result, not every video game is deserving of costing $60.

I think that the War on Used Games is nothing more than a money grab by developers, distressed that they're unable to capitalize a very financially rewarding market.

To put it in bucks and also cents, in 2009 Game Stop reported almost 2.5 million dollars in income from the sale of utilized gaming consoles as well as utilized games. And also not one red cent of that profit gets to the pockets of game authors.

Greed as the encouraging factor for the statement of War on Used Games is transparent. Especially when you think about that when Game Stop began separating their profits from brand-new video games as well as used video games in their economic declarations, EA after that instituted their 10 dollar cost for utilized video games.

The development in the 2nd version of the video game, which allows you to disembowel your opponents, is sufficient of a uniqueness that I 'd like to play via it at some point. I can acquire it currently, utilized, for regarding ten bucks. My point is that video game designers are not losing cash cause of used video games; you can not miss out on loan you weren't going to receive anyhow.

Unless you have a significant quantity of non reusable earnings and a significant amount of leisure time, you're possibly like me, and also you focus on which games you prepare to purchase and also how much you're eager to pay for them.

You determine which video games are should riches and which video games you 'd such as to play yet agree to await a rate decline before getting them. Then there are the video games which you're interested in, but they tend to fail the cracks because they're not all that high up on your radar as well as you'll maybe select them up a number of months later, or even years after their release, if you ever before picking them up in all.

I find it ironic that the impending death of the used game market can likely mean the death of Game Stop that, ironically, push their customers to brand-new pre-order games and also acquire them at full price.

One would think that game authors would be appreciative regarding this service as well as not dislike Game Stop and also treat utilized video games with such refuse. Pre orders not only help advertise their video games; however, they work as a forecast of possible sales too.

Also Dave Their a contributor for Forbes Online, that explains Game Stop as, "a parasitical bloodsucker that does not do much besides mark up discs and being in the shopping mall," acknowledges the folly of passing the problem of the utilized game market onto the customer.

I've just as soon as pre-ordered a game myself. At the wish of J. Agamemnon, I pre-ordered Battlefield 3, which is paradoxically a residential or commercial property of EA.

I paid full cost for this game and more than happy to do so. In big part, since I was given access to several weapons as well as maps that I would have had to wait to download had I not pre-ordered it. I suggest that instead of penalizing players for wanting to save their difficult-earned cash, the pc gaming industry requires to find out to incentivize players into intending to bet to that 60 dollar price.

I labeled this write-up The War on Used Games in an initiative to be jokingly and poke enjoyable at how whenever the government proclaims battle on medications or horror or whatever it might be, they only succeed in intensifying the problem.

If the gaming sector does indeed go down this path; they'll only harm themselves in the long run, fall short to share in the profits they so greedily fancy as well as worst of all, hurt their consumers, that keep the gaming industry abreast with currency.

It's extremely paradoxical and also in fact very fitting that it's EA that is heading the effort to assault the used video game market when they are one of the biggest beneficiaries of made use of games.

Chips world MD Don Mc Cabe informed Games Industry.biz that EA has what he referred to as a "franchise business software application home" in that they "update their titles; FIFA, Madden; all of these are effectively the same title updated each year. Shutting down the utilized video games market efficiently ruins a tried and real technique in which followers of EA's franchises maintain updated with each of EA's annual releases.

Don McCabe, an exec at Chipsworld, discusses that "customers won't flourish under this new system, as duplicates of the game will certainly shed their resale value.

That implies that ultimately it will be the publisher who ends up shedding money because when merchants readjust their prices to show the rise in price for made use of games, the resale worth of the game will go down and also brand-new games are much less most likely to be purchased.

I'm a follower of numerous EA franchises; I appreciate Ubisoft's Assassin's Creed, and also I'm a resist Sony PlayStation enthusiast. As their client, I'm annoyed and also upset by their current methods. I am afraid wherefore future techniques they may utilize to more suppressor perhaps kill the utilized video game market.

That claimed, I'm confident that these firms will certainly be responsive to the outcry of their clients and also abide by our wants. I beg them to stop punishing their customers for catching what they regard as missed revenues.

They take the chance of not just alienating their customers however, they run the risk of discovering themselves with significantly fewer clients and also significantly fewer earnings. As well as at the end of the day, that's the lower line.

2 notes · View notes

skydemonizark · 5 years ago

Text

Okay but the video game thing is way more complicated than websites using ad revenue to line the ceos pockets. Mind you I’m not an expert on the subject so pardon my decision to share my opinion anyways.

See video games were pretty cheap to make back in the day, especially compared to how expensive they can be to make nowadays. Of course you can say they should spend less money making them? and for indie titles that might work, though they don’t tend to have microtransactions (unless of course you count apps but I’ll get to apps in a bit). However AAA titles have to live up to certain expectations for people to consider the 60$ price tag worth it, even though based on the cost to make AAA games should cost more to offset the cost of making them. It’s one of the reasons big game developers make games that appeal to the largest amount of people possible, cause if they can’t charge more for the game they have to at least sell more.

Then you might say they should instead make the game cost more, which is a reasonable suggestion. The problem is that places like steam that have so many sales, or just the lower cost of indie titles have devalued video games some. And even if they hadn’t been devalued when you can buy 3 indie games for the price of one AAA game 9/10 times you’d get the three indies. And that's for people who CAN afford to drop 60$ on a game at all most don’t have the funds for that so the pool of people who will by this expensive to produce game for the full 60$ is so low game companies have to play it as safe as they can just so they don't go under.

Thats where microtransactions come in. If a game has microtransactions then instead of having to sell millions of units they just have to hook a couple of whales (people who spend thousands of dollars on a single app) to pay for the cost of making the game. This means that people with less money have the option of playing and enjoying the game.

Problem is a lot of game makers are greedy and don’t care if they bankrupt their users. They design their game to squeeze every last drop from the players that they can with psychological tricks, pay to win design, or paywalls. the most egregious AAA example is probably the EA game Star Wars Battlefront II where their most advertised characters in the game were either locked behind a paywall or hundreds of hours of play. But its worse with apps.

Now your point about microtransactions being about greed can definitely be applied to phone apps. I don’t personally know how much it costs to develop a phone app but I highly doubt its the same cost as a AAA game. But they still have microtransactions out the wazoo, with the most expensive tending to be 100$ which is a crazy huge amount to be spending on a single app, especially since what you get for that can last for maybe a few days before the game design makes you feel like you need to spend more. and while “free” apps have made people reluctant to pay anything for apps let alone more than like 5 bucks it still doesn’t justify the exploitative designs most apps use.

Lastly I want to say that microtransactions can be okay, they can be used is a consienciese way that doesn’t exploit players. Micro transactions can let poorer people play games they might not be able to play normally since most of the finance would be coming from a few who can, hopefully, afford to spend bank on micro transactions.

People who are old enough to remember ad free YouTube, FB, Twitter and Instagram believing that capitalism drives innovation are fucking hilarious.

Like, all of those platforms were still profitable...massively profitable before they had targeted ads on your feed and unskippable ads before videos. They didn’t need to bring them in. They weren’t going to go under, their CEOs weren’t living in the backseats of their cars, they were living in mansions already. They just wanted more money.

Greed was the only reason. Capitalism is the reason they made their platforms and the user experience worse. That’s it.

113K notes · View notes

douglassmiith · 4 years ago

Text

Is Redesigning Your Mobile App A Bad Idea?

About The Author

Suzanne Scacca is a former WordPress implementer, trainer and agency manager who now works as a freelance copywriter. She specializes in crafting marketing agency, web … More about Suzanne Scacca …

The Scrabble GO, Instacart and YouTube mobile apps have recently undergone disruptive redesigns. Were they worth it in the end? Judging by their users’ reactions, the answer to that is “No”. But that doesn’t mean that redesigns or design tweaks are a bad idea after launch. Let’s take a look at the mistakes made and the lessons we can extract from them.

I’m all for updating and upgrading mobile apps. I think if you’re not constantly looking at ways to improve the user experience, it’s just too easy to fall behind.

That said, a redesign should be done for the right reasons.

If it’s an existing app that’s already popular with users, any changes made to the design or content should be done in very small, incremental, strategic chunks through A/B testing.

If your app is experiencing serious issues with user acquisition or retention, then a redesign is probably necessary. Just be careful. You could end up making things even worse than they were before.

Let’s take a look at some recent redesign fails and review the lessons we can all learn from them.

Lesson #1: Never Mess With A Classic Interface (Scrabble GO)

Scrabble is one of the most profitable board games of all time, so it’s no surprise that EA decided to turn it into a mobile app. And it was well-received.

However, that all changed in early 2020 when the app was sold to Scopely and it was redesigned as an ugly, confusing and overwhelming mess of its former self.

Let me introduce you to Scrabble GO as it stands today.

The splash screen introducing gamers into the app looks nice. Considering how classically simply and beautiful the board game is, this is a good sign. Until this happens:

The Scrabble GO home screen is distraction overload. (Source: Scrabble GO) (Large preview)

I don’t even know where to start with this, but I’m going to try:

The colors are way over-the-top and there are too many.

Since “Start New Game” is the primary action users want to take, it should be the only button in that color, but “Level 5” and “Level 6” distract from it.

The interface is so cluttered that it’s hard to focus on any particular part of it.

There’s no sense of control or priority within the design.

The navigation has gated pages! And I’m not sure what that icon on the left is supposed to be… gems and rewards? Why then is there a gem counter in the top banner?

Beyond the UI of the homescreen, the UI and UX within the game board have been altered, too.

Take, for instance, this plea from @lageerdes on Twitter:

Twitter user @lageerdes asks Scrabble GO why the old functionality is gone. (Source: Twitter) (Large preview)

It took Scrabble GO over a week to tell @lageerdes something that could’ve easily been spelled out in a game FAQ or Settings page. These aren’t the only classic features that the new app has either complicated or done away with.

Now, Scopely took note of the negative comments from users and promised to revamp the app accordingly (which was promising). But rather than revert back to the old and much-loved design, it just added a new mode:

Scrabble GO added new ‘Mode Settings’ to appease users. (Source: Scrabble GO) (Large preview)

You’d think that the mode switcher would be more prominently displayed — like in the menu bar. Instead, it’s buried under the “Profile Settings” tab and there’s no indication anywhere in the app that the classic mode even exists.

Sadly, classic mode isn’t much of an improvement (classic is on the right):

The new Scrabble GO home screen versus the newly designed classic mode home screen. (Source: Scrabble GO) (Large preview)

The colors are toned down, some of the elements in the top-half have been cut out or minimized, but it doesn’t address any of the users’ issues with the app or game play.

Worse, many users are reporting the app crashes on them, as this complaint from Twitter user @monicamhere demonstrates:

Twitter user @monicamhere complains to Scrabble GO about the app crashing. (Source: Twitter) (Large preview)

I suspect this is happening because the developers jammed a second overloaded mode into the app rather than simply refine the existing one based on user feedback.

So, what’s the lesson here?

For starters, don’t mess with a classic. The old mobile app closely resembled the physical board game and it was a huge part of its appeal. When you throw out an old design for something (seemingly) more trendy, you run the risk of alienating once-loyal users.

Also, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. Previously, the app was very easy to use and came with all the features and functionality users were familiar with from the board game. Now, they’re left with a non-intuitive and distracting mess.

If your users are telling you to ditch the redesign, listen to them. Who are you building this app for? Yourself or the users who are going to play with it and put money into your pocket?

Listen to what your users have to say. It’s valuable feedback that could make a world of difference in the user experience.

Lesson #2: Never Mislead Users At Checkout (Instacart)

This is an interesting case because the people who objected to this particular Instacart UI update weren’t its primary users.

Here’s why the change was an issue:

Users go onto the Instacart website or mobile app and do their grocery shopping from the local store of their choice. It’s a pretty neat concept:

Instacart users can do virtual shopping with grocery stores like Wegmans. (Source: Instacart) (Large preview)

Users quickly search for items and add them to their virtual shopping cart. In many cases, they have the option to either do curbside pickup or have the groceries delivered to their front doorstep. Either way, a dedicated “shopper” picks out the items and bags them up.

When the user is done shopping, they get a chance to review their cart and make final changes before checking out.

On the checkout page, users get to pick when they want their order fulfilled. Beneath this section, they find a high-level summary of their charges:

Instacart checkout sums up the total costs of a user’s order. (Source: Instacart) (Large preview)

At first glance, this all appears pretty-straightforward.

The cost of their cart is $174.40, which they already knew.

There’s a service fee of $9.99.

Sales tax is $4.11.

And the total is $197.22.

But before all that is a section called “Delivery Tip”. This is where Instacart’s shoppers take issue.

They argued that this is a dark pattern. And it is. Let me explain:

The first thing that’s wrong is that the Delivery Tip isn’t included with the rest of the line items. If it’s part of the calculation, it should be present down there and not separated out in its own section.

The second thing that’s wrong is that the tip is automatically set at 5% or $2.00. This was the shoppers’ biggest grievance at the time. They believed that because the “(5.0%)” in the delivery tip line wasn’t there in 2018, users might’ve seen the amount and thought “That seems reasonable enough” and left it at that. Whereas if you spell out the percentage, users may be inclined to leave more money.

For users who take the time to read through their charges and realize that they can leave a larger tip, this is what the tip update page looks like for small orders:

Instacart enables users to change the way they tip the delivery person. (Source: Instacart) (Large preview)

It’s oddly organized as the pre-selected amount sits at the very bottom of the page. And then there’s a random $6 tip included as if the app creators didn’t want to calculate what 20% would be.

That’s not how the tip is presented to users with larger orders though:

Instacart enables users to customize the tip they leave the delivery person, from 5% to 20% or they can customize the amount. (Source: Instacart) (Large preview)

It’s a strange choice to present users with a different tip page layout. It’s also strange that this one includes an open field to input a custom tip (under “Other amount”) when it’s not available on smaller orders.

If Instacart wants to avoid angering its shoppers and users, there needs to be more transparency about what’s going on and they need to fix the checkout page.

Dark patterns have no place in app design and especially not at checkout.

If you’re building an app that provide users with delivery, pickup or personal shopper services (which is becoming increasingly more common), I’d recommend designing your checkout page like Grubhub’s:

The Grubhub checkout page recaps the user’s order and provides tip amounts in percentages. (Source: Grubhub) (Large preview)

Users not only get a chance to see their items at the time of checkout, but the tip line is not deceptively designed or hidden. It sticks right there to the bottom of the page.

What’s more, tips are displayed as percentage amounts instead of random dollars. For U.S. consumers that are used to tipping 20% for good service, this is a much better way to ensure they leave a worthwhile tip for service workers rather than assume the dollar amount is okay.

And if they want to leave more or less, they can use the “Custom” option to input their own value.

Lesson #3: Never Waver In Your Decision To Roll Back (YouTube)

When the majority of your users speak up and say, “I really don’t like this new feature/update/design”, commit to whatever choice you make.

If you agree that the new feature sucks, then roll it back. And keep it that way.

If you don’t agree, then tweak it or just give it time until users get back on your side.

Just don’t flip-flop.

Here’s what happened when YouTube switched things up on its users… and then switched them again:

In 2019, YouTube tested hiding its comments section beneath this icon:

The Verge and XDA Developers report on a new placement of YouTube comments in 2019. (Source: Verge) (Large preview)

Before this test, comments appeared at the very bottom of the app, beneath the “Up next” video recommendations. With this update, however, they were moved behind this new button. Users would only see comments if they clicked it.

The response to the redesign clearly wasn’t positive as YouTube rolled back the update.

In 2020, YouTube decided to play around with the comments section again. Unlike the 2019 update, though, YouTube’s committed to this one (so far).

Here’s where the comments appear now:

The YouTube comments redesign puts the comments above the ‘Up next’ section. (Source: YouTube) (Large preview)

They’re sandwiched between the “Subscribe” bar and the “Up next” section.

If YouTube users go looking for the comments section in the old spot, they’re going to find this message now:

A notice appears when YouTube users go looking for comments in the old location. (Source: YouTube) (Large preview)

This is a nice touch. Think about how many times you’ve had to redesign something in an app or on a website, but had no way of letting regular users know about it. Not only does this tell them there’s been a change, but “Go To Comments” takes them there.

With this tooltip, YouTube doesn’t assume that users will zero in on the new section right away. It shows them where it is:

YouTube users see tooltip that shows them where the new comments section is. (Source: YouTube) (Large preview)

I actually think this is a good redesign. YouTube might be a place for some users to mindlessly watch video after video, but it’s a social media platform as well. By hiding the comments section under a button or tucking them into the bottom of the page, does that really encourage socialization? Of course not.

That said, users aren’t responding well to this change either, as Digital Information World reports. From what I can tell, the backlash is due to Google/YouTube disrupting the familiarity users have with the app’s layout. There’s really nothing here that suggests friction or disruption in their experience. It’s not even like the new section gets in the way or impedes users from binge-watching videos.

This is a tricky one because I don’t believe that YouTube should roll this update back.

There must be something in YouTube’s data that’s telling it that the bottom of the app is a bad place for comments, which is why it’s taking another stab at a redesign. It might be low engagement rates or people expressing annoyance at having to scroll so much to find them.

As such, I think this is a case for a mobile app developer not to listen to its users. And, in order to restore their trust and satisfaction, YouTube will need to hold firm to its decision this time.

Is A Mobile App Redesign The Best Idea For You?

Honestly, it’s impossible to please everyone. However, your goal should be to please, at the very least, most of your users.

So, if you’re planning to redesign your app, I’d suggest taking the safe approach and A/B testing it first to see what kind of feedback you get.

That way, you’ll only push out data-backed updates that improve the overall user experience. And you won’t have to deal with rolling back the app or the negative press you get from media outlets, social media comments, or app store reviews.

Further Reading on SmashingMag:

(ra, yk, il)

Website Design & SEO Delray Beach by DBL07.co

Delray Beach SEO

Via http://www.scpie.org/is-redesigning-your-mobile-app-a-bad-idea/

source https://scpie.weebly.com/blog/is-redesigning-your-mobile-app-a-bad-idea

0 notes

riichardwilson · 4 years ago