#but its all worth it if it means less money in ea's pocket <3< /div>
Explore tagged Tumblr posts
softpine · 4 months ago
Text
friends don't let friends pay for sims packs
217 notes · View notes
mycsgoaccounts-blog · 5 years ago
Text
The War on Used Games
Tumblr media
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 · 5 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.
Tumblr media
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. 
Tumblr media
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
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
source http://www.scpie.org/is-redesigning-your-mobile-app-a-bad-idea/ source https://scpie.tumblr.com/post/623667673211060225
0 notes
scpie · 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
source http://www.scpie.org/is-redesigning-your-mobile-app-a-bad-idea/
0 notes
laurelkrugerr · 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
source http://www.scpie.org/is-redesigning-your-mobile-app-a-bad-idea/ source https://scpie1.blogspot.com/2020/07/is-redesigning-your-mobile-app-bad-idea.html
0 notes
matthoerig · 6 years ago
Text
E3 2018 Press Conferences – Something for Everyone?
 E3 began today, Tuesday, June 12th, with the official opening of the expo floor in Los Angeles. It feels, for those of watching from afar, like E3 ended this morning with the last of the publisher press conferences/presentations/ media briefings that began on Saturday and traditionally feature the biggest reveals and news about the coming years in games. Starting with EA on Saturday and through this morning's Nintendo Direct, here are my quick (editor's note: ha!) thoughts and takeaways from each presentation.  
EA kicked things off on Saturday and did every other company a favor by setting such a low bar to clear to appear interesting. Their sports lineup was represented with announcements for FIFA, NBA Live, and Madden. Madden 19 will mark the franchise's return to the PC, which immediately had me worried about hacking. It's no secret these games' Ultimate Team modes make EA tons of money via microtransaction-driven card collecting/team building and I imagine within hours of release the more creative members of the PC scene will have accounts with tons of in-game currency and/or the best cards available in the mode. There was also a bit of a lackluster showing of Anthem, the new game from Bioware that's poised to be EA/Bioware's Destiny. I enjoyed having the developers speak, but I didn't come away feeling like I have any idea if Bioware is making a game that I would expect and want from Bioware vs simply aping the model of Destiny. We also got a tease of Respawn's Star Wars game, with studio head Vince Zampella revealing the name (Jedi Fallen Order) and that it would be set between Episodes 3 and 4. No gameplay or trailer was shown, just a name given and a release date of "Holiday 2019" that I would already bet is actually more like "Spring 2019." Finally, the Star Wars Battlefront II team from DICE addressed overhauls to progression and upcoming content updates, saying on stage they got things wrong at release. It was nice to hear, but I'd bet all the money in my pocket against all the money in yours that NO ONE at DICE made the business decisions that led to Battlefront II launching with the broken, exploitative progression system and loot box set-up they took so much heat for. EA's CEO, Andrew Wilson, was there to say all kinds of nice things about the upcoming line-up, it would have been better to see him eat just a bite of humble pie for the disastrous decisions behind Battlefront II.  
Sunday was a much better day, with Microsoft and Bethesda having strong presentations outlining defined futures for their companies. Microsoft touted 50 games being shown and equally impressive numbers of "world premieres" and "exclusives" even if those phrases mean less and less and the market changes. Of the 50 games shown, the things I'm excited for are: Gears Tactics, an Xcom inspired strategy and tactics game in the Gears of War universe, Crackdown 3, which was delayed again until February 2019 but still looks like the open world toy box you want from Crackdown, And Forza Horizon 4, which brings changing seasons to the open world driving franchise. Some other announcements got my attention, like Chis Avellone writing Dying Light 2, a sequel whose predecessor didn't connect with me at all, very good trailers for Tunic, Shadow of the Tomb Raider, and Metro Exodus. Microsoft also announced they were beefing up their 1st party studio portfolio by acquiring 5 new studios, including Playground Games (Forza Horizon), Undead Labs (State of Decay franchise), and Ninja Theory who released the underrated Hellblade: Senua's Sacrifice last year. Even if some of the big reveals didn't connect with me (Devil May Cry 5, Sekiro: Shadows Die Twice), it was a strong showing for a company that's been on the defensive since the poor reveal and launch of the Xbox One. They ended with a trailer for CD Projekt Red's Cyberpunk 2077. That game has a look and a tone already that I'm into to the degree I'm almost prepared to say "Show me no more until I can download it and play it myself."  
Bethesda spent the first half of their event covering the bases they needed to: service games like Elder Scrolls Online and Elder Scrolls Legends (both of which I enjoy!) got stage time to mention upcoming content or changes, but those types of games see updates and changes so frequently that their communities are better served by dedicated streams or community events. Quake Champions is still alive and being supported. Wolfenstein; Youngblood was announced as more Wolfenstein, focused on BJ Blaskowitz's now grown twin daughters. Pete Hines also announced a VR Wolfenstein title, "Wolfenstein Cyberpilot" that is part of their "never ending mission to bring the message of 'Fuck Nazis' to every platform possible." Todd Howard then spent 30 minutes or so doing what I wish Bioware had done for Anthem, explaining what the game would be and how it would differ from prior, mainline Fallout experiences. I'm eager to play with friends after seeing what they had to say. And then they teased Starfield and The Elder Scrolls 6, which I'm imagining won't be actual products until 2020 and 2022, respectively.  
Square Enix kicked off Monday with a video presentation. They showed almost nothing new that interested me; I was already going to play Shadow of the Tomb Raider, Dragon Quest XI, and Octopath Traveler. It was still nice to see trailers for them. The Quiet Man was the only intriguing new thing to me, and even then I have no idea what the brief mixed live action/gameplay thing they showed was or what the game actually is. That's not a bad thing – sometimes a "teaser" does its job by "teasing" you with what may be.  
Ubisoft had a typical Ubisoft presentation, opening with a dancing panda bear accompanied by a marching band. I could tell you it was to promote the latest entry in the Just Dance series, but would it matter? It was still a dancing panda bear and marching band and was wonderfully weird with or without context. Beyond Good and Evil 2 made an appearance with an impressive trailer and some pre-alpha footage. Less impressive was the announcement of a partnership with Hit Record to crowdsource assets for the game. Don't do spec work, and multibillion dollar companies should pay the people who make their products. Also worth mentioning, The Division 2 got its first extended trailer after an earlier appearance of gameplay at Microsoft. I enjoyed aspects of The Division, and it sounds like the dev team is aware of less than stellar aspects of that game that were a drag, i.e. bullet sponge enemies. I have incredibly mixed feelings on The Division 2; the trailer includes the phrase "America is on the verge of collapse," and, like, maybe read the room in a nation hurtling towards being a fascist police state? Also, when your game explicitly focuses on a world where government-sanctioned agents operate as an ad hoc paramilitary organization, it's disingenuous at best for the developers to say the game is "apolitical." On the other hand, the shooting feels good and the loot treadmill sure was rewarding in the original The Division. It's out on March 15th, 2019, so maybe the impacts of the repeal of the US's net neutrality protections will be clear by then and help me make up my mind about playing an on-line only game. The pirate game Skull and Bones had a significant presence and looks intriguing since it's the boat combat from Assassin's Creed Black Flag turned into its own game. Assassin's Creed Odyssey also got a full reveal and while I was looking forward to more time to complete AC: Origins, that game was so good I'll happily play the next entry.  
Sony embodied the feeling of "something for everyone, but maybe not a lot for me" I felt during a lot of E3. They opened with The Last of Us 2 which is 100% my jam. The trailer/demo they showed opened with protagonist Ellie at a barn party for her community, clearly watching another young woman dancing with some guy. The music shifts to a slower song, and Ellie and her crush, Dina, then dance, having a genuine moment that showcases developer Naughty Dog's ability to do human interaction, emotion, and storytelling better than almost any other AAA developer. There's a kiss that's impressive in its techincal aspects and in Sony any Naught Dog being willing to show an openly queer character as the lead for their major tentpole release, and it fades into black and returns with a 7-8 minute gameplay section highlighting stealth and combat. Animations are fluid and natural, and the attacks, be they up close stabbings or gunshots, appear to have a weight behind them. It's technically impressive, but I worry about the balance between the story and character moments I enjoy from a Naught Dog game and these frankly brutal sequences of intense gore and violence and how they'll be balanced. While I have those doubts, the trailers ends by returning to Dina and Ellie, with Dina making a comment to Ellie that resonates in the context of the two contrasting scenes and Ellie's facial expression changing in an amazingly natural way, both in terms of the technical animation aspect and in the context of the small story we've seen play out. On the "fun violence!" side of the scale is the PS4 exclusive Spider-Man game that looks like a ton of fun with plenty of combat powers to explore and combine in protecting New York. Other big Sony exclusives Ghost of Tsushima and Death Stranding (from Hideo Kojima of Metal Gear fame) look technically impressive but just do nothing for me in terms of story or gameplay.  
Nintendo closed the presentation part of the show the same way EA kicked it off: disappointingly, at least for me. They did confirm a new Fire Emblem title is coming to Switch in Spring of 2019, which is great news, along with a remake/rerelease of The World Ends With You. Mario Tennis Aces and Octopath Traveler are out this month, and Captain Toad; Treasure Tracker hits for Switch in July. The rest of the show was mostly focused on Super Smash Brothers Ultimate, the latest entry in the Smash Brothers series. I have zero interest in Smash Brothers, and a good 30 minutes of the presentation were dedicated to revealing the entire roster – all 64 characters – and going into the minutia of every kind of change you could make to a fighting game. Details abounded about action animations and stages returning and new costumes for fighters and oh god please make it stop.  
Games are for everyone. Not every game is for every person. I'm glad I saw a number of things I can be excited about, and I hope the people who really love other franchises and styles of games get what they want from the titles that spoke to them. But boy am I excited for Cyberpunk 2077.  
1 note · View note
chynugh · 7 years ago
Text
The War on Used Games
As we plan for the coming influx of cutting edge frameworks, we ought to be envisioning upgrades on all the great things we connect with the present product of frameworks. Advancing we expect: better designs, quicker processors, all the more captivating diversions, you get the thought. However, not everything that we're reckoning will be a dynamic development for gaming. At any rate, the extent that Sony and Microsoft are concerned, you can wave farewell to playing utilized amusements on their frameworks. In spite of the fact that these are simply gossipy tidbits now, it wouldn't be amazing in the event that they happened as expected. It's exceptionally conceivable, particularly when contemplating that few amusement distributers have effectively discharged shots at the utilized diversion advertise.
Most striking is Electronic Arts(EA), who turned into the primary distributer to initiate the act of charging gamers, who purchased utilized recreations, an expense to get to codes that accompanied the amusement. To detailed, Downloadable Content(DLC) codes are incorporated with new duplicates of a specific diversion and just with those codes, can that substance be gotten to. EA extended its venture to incorporate playing utilized diversions on the web. Gamers would now need to pay $10, notwithstanding the cost of the utilized diversion that they acquired, keeping in mind the end goal to approach the online parts of their amusement. Ubisoft has since stuck to this same pattern, requiring an online go for its diversions too. You can distinguish the recreations which require an online go as they uncovered the,"Uplay Passport", logo on the case.
Ubisoft chose they'd make things a stride further and actualize Digital Rights Management, a practice all the more regularly connected with DVD or CD hostile to robbery endeavors. Professional killers Creed 2 was the principal diversion to be affected by this practice. So as to play the PC adaptation of Assassins Creed 2, gamers are required to make a record with Ubisoft and remain signed into that record keeping in mind the end goal to play the amusement. This implies in the event that you lose your web association, the diversion will naturally interruption and attempt to restore the association. Notwithstanding, in case you're sufficiently lamentable to be not able reconnect to the web you'll need to proceed from your last spared amusement; losing any advance you may have made from that point forward. This will be the situation for the greater part of Ubisoft's PC titles, paying little heed to one playing single-player or multi-player. While Digital Rights Management has been utilized to battle DVD and CD theft for a long while now, this will check the first run through it's been utilized for a computer game. In light of Ubisoft's execution of DRM, Matthew Humphries of Geek.com, alerts that it's attainable that in the long run even comfort amusements will require online enrollment keeping in mind the end goal to play them.
So what's the purpose behind the majority of this? As per According to Denis Dyack, the head of Silicon Knights, the offer of utilized amusements is tearing apart the benefit of the essential diversion advertise. He additionally guarantees that the utilized diversion market is some way or another making the cost of new amusements rise. His proposed arrangement is to move far from physical plates and grasp computerized circulation. Basically he'd get a kick out of the chance to see administrations like Steam or EA's Origin supplant customary printed copies. There are even bits of gossip that the X-Box 720 will grasp the restrictive utilization of computerized downloads and not utilize circles by any means. Regardless of whether Microsoft will really complete that arrangement stays to be seen.
One could contend that Sony has effectively laid the basis for keeping utilized diversions from working on their future framework. At any rate, they've officially tried to make utilized recreations altogether less alluring. Kath Brice, of Gamesindustry.biz, detailed that the most recent SOCOM amusement for PSP, SOCOM: U.S. Naval force SEALs Fireteam Bravo 3, will require clients who buy an utilized duplicate to pay an expansion $20 dollars to get a code for online play.
I'd get a kick out of the chance to see some quantifiable confirmation to bolster the claim that utilized recreations are in truth harming the offers of new diversions by any stretch of the imagination. Without some established truths, it sounds to me like a ton to do about nothing. For example, inside 24 hours Modern Warfare 3 sold 6.5 million duplicates, earning $400 million dollars in deals. Remedy me in case I'm wrong yet you haven't heard Infinity Ward griping about the utilized diversion market and it influencing their main concern. That is likely on the grounds that they're excessively bustling checking their cash earned by making amusements that individuals really need to play. Envision that. Possibly the issue isn't that utilized amusements negatively affect the offer of new recreations be that as it may, the issue is rather that diversion designers need to improve diversions that gamers will pay the maximum for.
As I would like to think, not each amusement is worth $60 basically on the grounds that it's the recommended retail cost. Taking a gander at things unbiasedly, not each diversion is made similarly, in this way not each amusement is deserving of costing $60. Regardless of whether this is on the grounds that that specific amusement neglected to get desires and live respectively to the buildup or in light of the fact that it does not have any kind of replay esteem. It's crazy to contend that gamers ought to pay as much as possible for each amusement particularly when they very frequently end up being appalling dissatisfactions, similar to Ninja Gadian 3, or they're loaded with glitches like Skyrim.
I presume that the War on Used Games is just a cash snatch by engineers, annoy that they're not able take advantage of an exceptionally lucrative market. To place it in dollars and pennies, in 2009 GameStop revealed almost $2.5 million dollars in income from the offer of utilized consoles and utilized diversions. Also, not one red penny of that benefit achieves the pockets of diversion distributers. Covetousness as the rousing component for the presentation of War on Used Games is straightforward. Particularly when you consider that when GameStop started isolating their income from new recreations and utilized diversions in their money related explanations, EA from there on organized their $10 dollar expense for utilized amusements.
Without observational proof, I'll need to make due with narrative. I'll utilize myself for instance. I'm wanting to buy an utilized duplicate of Ninja Gaidan 2. I've never been an immense devotee of the arrangement. I didn't play the first since I didn't have a Xbox and at the time it was a Xbox select. Also, I never played the first form. Obviously, I was never clamoring to play Ninja Gaidan 2. However the advancement in the second incarnation of the amusement, which enables you to gut your foes, is a sufficient curiosity that I'd get a kick out of the chance to play through it sooner or later. I can get it now, utilized, for around 10 dollars. On the off chance that it was just being sold at the maximum I would more than likely pass on playing it inside and out or perhaps lease it. My point is that diversion engineers are not losing cash in view of utilized amusements; you can't miss cash you wouldn't get at any rate. They're basically not getting cash they wouldn't get the opportunity in the first place.
Unless you have a lot of extra cash and a lot of available time, you're most likely like me and you organize which amusements you plan to buy and the amount you're willing to pay for them. You choose which amusements are unquestionable requirements and which diversions you'd get a kick out of the chance to play yet will sit tight at a cost drop before getting them. At that point there are the amusements which you're keen on, however they tend to become lost despite a general sense of vigilance since they're not too high on your radar and you'll perhaps lift them up a while later, or even years after their discharge, on the off chance that you ever get them by any stretch of the imagination.
I think that its amusing that the approaching passing of the utilized amusement market could likely spell the downfall of GameStop who, incidentally, push their clients to pre-arrange new recreations and buy them at the maximum. One would surmise that diversion distributers would be grateful about this administration and not hate GameStop and treat utilized recreations with such contempt. Pre-orders help advance their recreations as well as they capacity as an estimate of potential deals too. Indeed, even Dave Thier, a donor for Forbes Online, who depicts GameStop as, "a parasitic bloodsucker that doesn't do much other than increase circles and sit in the shopping center", perceives the imprudence of passing the weight of the utilized diversion advertise onto the shopper.
I've just once pre-requested an amusement myself. At the command of J. Agamemnon, I pre-requested Battlefield 3, which is unexpectedly a property of EA. I paid the maximum for this diversion and was cheerful to do as such. In extensive part since I was conceded access to a few weapons and maps that I would have needed to hold up to download had I not pre-requested it. I recommend that as opposed to rebuffing gamers for needing to spare their well deserved money, the gaming business needs to figure out how to boost gamers into needing to horse up to that $60 dollar sticker price. e.g
I titled this article The War on Used Games with an end goal to be offhanded and jab fun at how at whatever point the legislature announces war on medications or dread or whatever it might be, they just prevail with regards to compounding the issue. It ought to shock no one seeing as how the administration tends to adopt the most stupid strategy conceivable attempting to "illuminate" issues. The final product is dependably the same; valuable time and assets are squandered, and the issue is that much more terrible than it was before they mediated. On the off chance that the gaming business does surely go down this way; they'll just hurt themselves over the long haul, neglect to partake in the income they so ravenously want and to top it all off, hurt their clients, who keep the gaming business side by side with money.
0 notes
Text
New Post has been published on Pagedesignweb
New Post has been published on https://pagedesignweb.com/the-war-on-used-games/
The War on Used Games
As we prepare for the coming wave of next generation systems, we should be anticipating improvements on all the good things we associate with the current crop of systems. Moving forward we expect: better graphics, faster processors, more engaging 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 just rumors at this point, it wouldn’t be surprising if they came to fruition. It’s very plausible, especially when taking into consideration that several game publishers have already fired shots at the used game market.
Most notable is Electronic Arts(EA), who became the first publisher to institute the practice of charging gamers, who bought used games, a fee to access codes that come with the game. To elaborate, Downloadable Content(DLC) codes are included with new copies of a particular game and only with those codes, can that content be accessed. EA expanded its project to include playing used games online. Gamers would now have to pay $10, in addition to the cost of the used game that they purchased, in order to have access to the online components of their game. Ubisoft has since followed suit, requiring an online pass for its games as well. You can identify the games which require an online pass as they bare the,”Uplay Passport”, logo on the box.
Ubisoft decided they’d take things a step further and 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 of Assassins Creed 2, gamers are required to create an account with Ubisoft and remain logged into that account in order to play the game. This means that if you lose your internet connection, the game will automatically pause and try to reestablish the connection. However, if you’re unfortunate enough to be unable to reconnect to the internet you’ll have to continue from your last saved game; losing any progress you may have made since then. This will be the case for all of Ubisoft’s PC titles, regardless of one playing single-player or multi-player. While Digital Rights Management has been used to combat DVD and CD 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 implementation of DRM, Matthew Humphries of Geek.com, cautions that it’s feasible that eventually even console games 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 head of Silicon Knights, the sale of used games is cannibalizing the profit of the primary game market. He also claims that the used game market is somehow causing the price of new games to rise. His proposed solution is to move away from physical disks and embrace digital distribution. Essentially he’d like to see services like Steam or EA’s Origin replace traditional hard copies. There are even rumors that the X-Box 720 will embrace the exclusive use of digital downloads and not use disks at all. Whether Microsoft will actually follow through with that plan remains to be seen.
One could argue that Sony has already laid the ground work for preventing used games from functioning on their future system. At the very least, they’ve already made quite an effort to make used games significantly less desirable. Kath Brice, of Gamesindustry.biz, reported that the latest SOCOM game for PSP, SOCOM: U.S. Navy SEALs Fireteam Bravo 3, will require customers who purchase a used copy to pay an addition $20 dollars to receive a code for online play.
I’d like to see some quantifiable evidence to support the claim that used games are in fact hurting the sales of new games at all. Without some actual facts, it sounds to me like a whole lot to do about nothing. Case in point, within 24 hours Modern Warfare 3 sold 6.5 million copies, grossing $400 million dollars in sales. Correct me if I’m wrong but you haven’t heard Infinity Ward complaining about the used game market and it affecting their bottom line. That’s likely because they’re too busy counting their money earned by creating games that people actually want to play. Imagine that. Maybe the problem isn’t that used games have a negative impact on the sale of new games but, the problem is instead that game developers need to make better games that gamers are willing to pay full price for.
In my opinion, not every game is worth $60 simply because it’s the suggested retail price. Looking at things objectively, not every game is created equally, therefore not every game is worthy of costing $60. Whether it’s because that particular game failed to meet expectations and live up to the hype or because it lacks any sort of replay value. It’s ludicrous to argue that gamers should pay top dollar for every game especially when they all too often turn out to be horrible disappointments, like Ninja Gadian 3, or they’re riddled with glitches like Skyrim.
I suspect that the War on Used Games is nothing more than a money grab by developers, upset that they’re unable 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 one red cent of that profit reaches the pockets of game publishers. Greed as the motivating factor for the declaration of War on Used Games is transparent. Especially when you consider that when GameStop began separating their 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 use myself as an example. I’m planning to purchase a used copy of Ninja Gaidan 2. I’ve never been a huge fan of the series. I didn’t play the first one because I didn’t have an Xbox and at the time 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 now, used, for about 10 dollars. If it was only being sold at full price I would more than likely pass on playing it altogether or maybe rent it. My point is that game developers are not losing money because of used games; you can’t miss money you weren’t going to receive anyway. They’re simply not getting money they weren’t going to get to begin with.
Unless you have a significant amount of disposable income and a considerable amount of free time, you’re probably like me and you prioritize which games you plan to purchase and how much you’re willing to pay for them. You decide which games are must haves and which games you’d like to play but are willing to wait for a price drop before getting them. Then there are the games which you’re interested in, but they tend to fall through the cracks because they’re not all that high on your radar and you’ll maybe pick them up several months later, or even years after their release, if you ever pick them up at all.
I find it ironic that the looming death of the used game market could likely spell the demise of GameStop who, ironically, push their customers to pre-order new games and purchase them at full price. One would think that game publishers would be appreciative about this service and not detest GameStop and treat used games with such scorn. Pre-orders not only help promote their games but they function as a forecast of potential sales as well. Even Dave Thier, a contributor for Forbes Online, who describes GameStop as, “a parasitic bloodsucker that doesn’t do much besides mark up discs and sit in the mall”, recognizes the folly of passing the burden of the used game market 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 so. In large part because I was granted access to several weapons and maps that I would have had to wait to download had I not pre-ordered it. I propose that instead of punishing gamers for wanting to save their hard earned cash, the gaming industry needs to learn to incentivize gamers into wanting to pony up to that $60 dollar price tag.
I titled this article The War on Used Games in an effort to be tongue-in-cheek and poke fun at how whenever the government declares war on drugs or terror or whatever it may be, they only succeed in exacerbating the problem. It should come as no surprise seeing as how the government tends to take the most asinine approach possible trying to “solve” problems. The end result is always the same; precious time and resources are wasted, and the issue is that much worse than it was before they intervened. If the gaming industry does indeed go down 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 when 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 titles; FIFA, Madden; all of these are effectively the same title upgraded each year. And people trade in last year’s for this year’s.” He went onto say that those titles are the ones which are most often traded in. 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 holding onto FIFA 11, when FIFA 12 is right around the corner?
Don McCabe, an executive at Chipsworld, explains that, “consumers won’t prosper under this new system, as copies of the game will lose their resale value”. He goes on to say that retailers will “just readjust [the price] bearing in mind you have to buy the voucher.” The CEO of SwapGame cautions that “customers who trade in for cash or credit do so to acquire new games they could otherwise not afford.” This means that ultimately it will be the publisher who ends up losing money because when retailers adjust their prices to reflect the increase in cost for used games, the resale value of the game will drop and new games are less likely to be purchased.
I’m a fan of several EA franchises, I enjoy Ubisoft’s Assassin’s Creed and I’m a die hard Sony PlayStation enthusiast. As their customer, I’m outraged and offended by their current practices. I fear for what future methods they may use to further stifle or even kill the used game market. That said, I’m hopeful that these companies will be receptive to the outcry of their customers and adhere to our wants. I implore them to discontinue punishing their customers in an effort to capture what they perceive as missed profits. They risk not only alienating their customers but they risk finding themselves with significantly fewer customers and substantially less profit. And at the end of the day, that’s really the bottom line.
0 notes