fees
Latest
Amazon adds in-app purchasing to Appstore for Android devices, Kindle Fire
Amazon's Appstore has offered a typical application acquisition experience, save for one important detail: in-app purchasing. Beginning today, devs can now take advantage of the familiar revenue booster already available in the iOS App Store and Google Play, through the use of the Amazon Appstore In-App Purchasing API. The service will enable Android device and Kindle Fire users to pick up expansion packs, virtual gaming currency or manage subscriptions from within individual applications, with the same one-click purchase experience available in Amazon's online store. A handful of top devs like Disney and Conde Nast have already hopped on board, but those of you who haven't received an early nod from AMZN can now join in on the fun as well. Click past the break for a brief video intro from the e-tailer, along with a handful of testimonials in the full press release.
Verizon halts dubious third-party billing on landlines, years after landlines were 'in'
Okay, okay -- landlines are still useful. But rapidly growing, they are not. That said, Verizon is caving to congressional pressure in a relatively minor way, announcing that it'll be banning certain third-party charges on landline bills. In political circles, the process is known as "cramming," where customers (oftentimes unknowingly) submit their number to certain third-party add-ons that have generated some $10 billion in revenue over the past five years. Sen. Jay Rockefeller from West Virginia is applauding the move, and also encouraging Congress to make this commonplace across all carriers. Curiously, there's no mention of mobile blocking, where consumers are regularly duped into subscribing to recurring fees via text-based competitions and contests. Perhaps when we've all moved on to telepathy, the feds can get right on that.
AT&T service in the works to let app developers pay for users' data use
AT&T has been making news all over MWC in the past couple of days. The most recent report from The Wall Street Journal says that Ma Bell is planning a service that will enable app devs and other content providers to pay the carrier for subscriber's data usage. AT&T's head of network and technology said today that "A feature that we're hoping to have out sometime next year is the equivalent of 800 numbers that would say, if you take this app, this app will come without any network usage." Donovan goes on to say that interest is swirling from companies that offer services like streaming music and video that feed on a steady diet of data and that the carrier's rollout of LTE would make the new service possible. Imagine if your Spotify habit didn't eat up a chunk of your precious monthly allotment. Sounds pretty good, eh? We're going to withhold judgment to see what mobile services adopt the new plan and continue to keep our Yacht Rock playlist(s) to a minimum.
Verizon announces then kills extra $2 fee to pay bill by phone or online
Good news for iPhone owners on the Verizon network. A day after announcing a plan to charge customers a $2.00 fee for telephone and online bill payments the plan has vanished without a trace. Could it be the announcement today from the U.S. Federal Communications Commission today saying it was going to look into the fees on behalf of Verizon customers? Verizon said it was dumping the fees after the company was met with a storm of criticism, including an online petition signed by 95,000 people. Whatever the reason, the fee has evaporated as quickly as it appeared. Many outraged customers threatened to dump the company and take their business elsewhere. There is no official announcement of the change on the Verizon website. It is being widely reported in major news outlets. The reversal on the fees follows the widely reported Bank of America debacle in September where the company tried and failed to implement a $5 fee for customers to use their debit cards. Other companies have quickly changed policies after an online outcry, often quickly spread via Reddit, Twitter and Facebook. [via Reuters]
Ask Massively: This is a sneaking mission edition
Let's get something straight: Even though I'm late to the party with Metal Gear Solid 4, I'm a fan of the series. It's not perfect by any means, but it's one of my favorite franchises of all time. That having been said, why is it always a sneaking mission? Just once, I'd like to be told that this is a march-in-with-an-automatic-gun-and-shoot-people-in-the-face mission. But no, solo sneaking mission, every single time. I know, it's the series hallmark, but since my second playthrough is already going to be a bloodbath with a stealth unit equipped, part of me wants to do that on the first playthrough. Just once. Appropriately enough, this week's questions for Ask Massively involve stealth in MMOs. They also involve subscription fees, but that doesn't really segue naturally. If you've got a question you'd like to see in a future installment of the column, feel free to leave it in the comments or mail it along to ask@massively.com.
The Mog Log: Non-reactive
As pretty much everyone reading this column knows, there was a big bombshell dropped on the community on Friday of last week. As at least a few people reading this column also know, this column is written on Thursday. This isn't the first time that this has been relevant to the discussion, but what might seem a bit unusual is that last week's column did not discuss 2.0 or the billing cycle at all. It just continued on with my impressions of 1.19. To be quite honest, my actual Friday was spent at the local casino for dinner and some shopping. I could have, of course, written a new column for last week by virtue of that breaking news. Certainly it was big. But as it stands, I looked at it, considered it, and realized that I didn't actually have a strong reaction to what had been announced. I was vaguely excited about 2.0, of course, but for the most part all of the big sweeping announcements about the future of Final Fantasy XIV didn't make nearly the impression that one might think. And there's a good reason for that, I believe -- it's because these announcements weren't as sudden or shocking as they look at face value.
Square-Enix announces end of Final Fantasy XIV's free play and roadmap for next year
The latest patch for Final Fantasy XIV brought some major changes with it, but there are more coming. In a new series of announcements, Square-Enix announced that the unbilled period of the game will be coming to a close between late November and early December in recognition of the large-scale work done by Naoki Yoshida and the game's team. But the announcement was more far-reaching than that -- no, the entire game is going to undergo a major process of changes well through next year, including a graphical engine and UI overhaul as well as major changes to the game's maps. Several design documents have been posted along with this update, making it clear that the changes will be observed and influenced by players taking part in content during this time period. And these changes will be massive -- the new UI will not only look much cleaner but also be able to support player add-ons. With a promised redesign of maps, changes to the landscape, the upcoming PlayStation 3 version, and major updates to the battle system and armoury system, it's going to be very busy over the next few months as Final Fantasy XIV moves toward version 2.0.
Early adopters penalized $85 for sticking with AT&T
So we're hanging around in the TUAW back room, drinking coffee and comparing iPhone 4S war stories when I point out that I could have saved a bit of cash by cancelling AT&T and hopping over to Verizon. AT&T penalizes many of its first-day-iPhone 4 customers by $250 for buying the first-day iPhone 4S. Verizon and Sprint do not. If you stood on line to buy your AT&T iPhone 4, your current cancellation penalty (your ETF) is likely to hover around $165 unless you're a preferred customer. (You can calculate that value over at Wolfram Alpha.) That's a good deal less than the $250 AT&T will add to the base price of their units. Loyal first day iPhone 4 AT&T customers are being penalized by about $85 for sticking with AT&T and not canceling and moving to Verizon. So Steve and Megs encouraged me to contact AT&T and see if they would do anything for me as a loyal (albeit somewhat unwilling) customer. I called up 611 on my iPhone, and went through the whole range of robots until being put on hold for about 45 minutes. Finally, a human picked up. After being transferred to someone who handled this kind of matter, I was told in no kind terms that no, AT&T would not make any adjustments. Their reply was along these lines: Even if it were cheaper to dump us and go to Verizon, you didn't so we will not make any adjustments. Harsh but realistic. So if you didn't stay up all night and place your order as I did, let me give you a few recommendations. First, call their sales department and make your case before placing any orders. Second, be willing to walk away from any call and try again. As Chris Anderson pointed out to me, a lot of this may depend on who you talk to. "Just keep trying," he suggests. "You'll get help eventually." That extra $85 would have been welcome but right now, I don't have the time. I have kids I have to take care of and work to do. If you do pursue this for yourself, and have any luck, do let me know. Drop a note to the tip line or leave a note in the comments. TUAW contacted AT&T for a statement on this post. Spokesperson Seth Bloom replied, Existing iPhone customers who are upgrade eligible will qualify for our best pricing now ... and of course many will qualify in the near future if they don't today. We want to help customers upgrade to a new device as quickly as possible - exact timing can depend on several factors unique to each account (length of contract, payment history, etc.). More details here.
The Daily Grind: Do you like the idea of monetizing third-party utilities?
Between licensing issues and the general way of the internet, we've gotten used to the idea that MMO services outside of the company don't cost anything. World of Warcraft players might rely on Wowhead's database services, but that's free to anyone who knows where to look. But with the recent EVE Online move to allow third parties to make money on applications and services, there are some interesting questions to be asked about the way things work now. On the one hand, charging money for services means that it's possible for good services and databases to go professional, helping to ensure a higher level of quality. On the other hand, no one likes paying money for something that used to be free, and the idea that said free services may not always be free is a bitter pill to swallow. So what do you think? Are you happy with the idea that independent developers can make money off of a game, or does the EVE Online change fill you with apprehension? Every morning, the Massively bloggers probe the minds of their readers with deep, thought-provoking questions about that most serious of topics: massively online gaming. We crave your opinions, so grab your caffeinated beverage of choice and chime in on today's Daily Grind!
Third-party development acquiring monetization options from EVE Online
If you're running a service in EVE Online at the moment, you're running it for free. If you're developing an application for the game, you're doing it for free. This isn't unusual, really -- pretty much any fan-developed application or service is done free of charge. But that's soon to change for fans of CCP's cutthroat game, as a new developer blog outlines upcoming changes that will allow developers to charge for services, applications, and website access. For a $99 license fee, developers and service providers will be able to sign up and start charging money for their products while having full access to the EVE Online API. The entry itself goes into more details on the restrictions of the program and what it will mean for non-commercial sites (which will not be required to pay any sort of fee). It's an interesting move, one that means that the game will be able to develop a more robust real-world economy to complement the in-game activities.
PSA: AT&T DSL and U-Verse landline internet caps begin tomorrow, if you can see this website
Tomorrow is May 2nd, 2011, and you know what that means -- tomorrow is the day that AT&T will impose data caps on DSL and U-Verse Internet, and begin tallying up overage fees. At least, that was the plan on March 18th -- when the company formally announced 150GB DSL and 250GB U-Verse caps -- but even if you're a paying customer who chows down several hundred gigabytes in a month, you may not have to worry about paying extra right away. AT&T specified that folks like yourself will have access to an online tool to self-police your usage before the company even begins to calculate the cost of your formerly all-you-can-eat bandwidth buffet, and as you can see in the picture above, the tool isn't quite ready for public consumption across the entire country. Scoot on over to our source link, enter your AT&T ID, and if you see the same, perhaps you won't have to cancel your 700-hour Star Trek marathon quite yet.
Verizon waives Xoom and Galaxy Tab activation fees on contracts from March 1st in a limited time offer
In an unforeseen act of generosity, Verizon has decided to scrap the $35 activation fee it charges with purchases of the 3G-equipped Motorola Xoom and Galaxy Tab tablets, leaving customers' wallets a little heavier and hearts a little lighter. This change will be effective on month-to-month contracts starting from the first of this month or later -- meaning a nice little refund for anyone acquiring an Android tablet through Big Red after March 1st -- however we're also hearing it'll be a limited time offer. The intel has been communicated via email to Mobile Burn, and Droid-Life has also obtained a document saying as much, while we're in the process of confirming it ourselves. All the same, it looks safe to get the (modest) celebrations going.
AT&T will cap DSL and U-Verse internet, impose overage fees (update)
Ladies and gentlemen, the days of unlimited broadband may be numbered in the United States, and we're not talking wireless this time -- AT&T says it will implement a 150GB monthly cap on landline DSL customers and a 250GB cap on subscribers to U-Verse high speed internet starting on May 2nd. AT&T will also charge overage fees of $10 for every additional 50GB of data, with two grace periods to start out -- in other words, the third month you go over the cap is when you'll get charged. DSLReports says it has confirmation from AT&T that these rates are legitimate, and that letters will go out to customers starting March 18th. How does AT&T defend the move? The company explains it will only impact two percent of consumers who use "a disproportionate amount of bandwidth," and poses the caps as an alternative to throttling transfer speeds or disconnecting excessive users from the service completely. Customers will be able to check their usage with an online tool, and get notifications when they reach 65 percent, 90 percent and 100 percent of their monthly rates. We just spoke with AT&T representative Seth Bloom and confirmed the whole thing -- rates are exactly as described above, and the company will actually begin notifying customers this week. He also told us that those customers who don't yet have access to the bandwidth usage tool won't get charged until they do, and that AT&T U-Verse TV service won't count towards the GB cap. Update: What prompted this change to begin with? That's what we just asked AT&T. Read the company's statement after the break.
Verizon charging for one month's data with Samsung Galaxy Tab, too?
Looks like Verizon's idea of levying mandatory data fees on tablet buyers may be a global thing -- not only will new Xoom owners have to activate and pay for a month of data, but an eagle-eyed tipster sent in this image of a Best Buy price tag that confirms the very same for Samsung's Galaxy Tab. There's nothing to suggest that WiFi-only versions of either tablet would be subject to the surcharge -- with these cellular variants, we can almost understand -- but we don't see 3G iPads carrying mandatory activations, so what's the deal, Verizon? [Thanks, Brian R.]
The Daily Grind: Are multi-month subscriptions worth it?
When Trion Worlds offered RIFT pre-order packages, all of them granted players the option to buy into special "Founder's Subscription Plans." While pre-orders players could opt for the normal $14.99/month pricing, by purchasing multiple month subscription packages, they could get a decent discount. So if you pay $35.97 for a three-month package, you're effectively getting a $11.99/month subscription price; likewise, a $59.94 payment for a six-month block translates into a $9.99/month fee. RIFT is hardly the only MMO that offers discounts on multi-month subscriptions. DC Universe Online and Warhammer Online tempt players with discounted fees when game time is purchased in bulk, for example. While the studios stand to lose some revenue from these discounts, they can come out ahead by enticing customers to purchase time they may or may not actually use, especially when you consider that the average retention rate for an MMO is around six months. So what do you think: Are multi-month subscriptions worth the cost up front in exchange for the discount? Or is it a risky proposition that locks you into a game you may not be interested in after a few months just to save a few bucks? Every morning, the Massively bloggers probe the minds of their readers with deep, thought-provoking questions about that most serious of topics: massively online gaming. We crave your opinions, so grab your caffeinated beverage of choice and chime in on today's Daily Grind!
Apple will drop restocking fees on January 11th
9to5 Mac reports that Apple will drop its 10 percent restocking fees on January 11th. We've confirmed with our own sources that this is true. January 11th happens to be the day that Verizon will hold a mysterious event in New York City, presumably for the Verizon iPhone. While this certainly isn't incontrovertible evidence that the Verizon event is actually more of an Apple event, this definitely adds some tinder to the flaming rumor mill. Then again, Apple could merely be following Best Buy's lead, with the 1.11.11 date pure coincidence. Either way, we're fans of open return policies for expensive products, so if you ask us, it's more of a good thing.
Best Buy nixes restocking fees
With just five days left for Christmas shopping, Best Buy has enacted a most welcome plan to get you in the door -- effective immediately, it's abolished the infamous 15 percent restocking fee that the company traditionally charged for a wide variety of product returns. The Consumerist reports that computers, tablets, projectors, camcorders, digital cameras, radar detectors, GPS units, in-car video systems and audio equipment will no longer carry the fee, and that iPhones (which incurred a 10 percent restocking fee) are exempt as well. Only special orders will still carry the charge. What's more, the company will allegedly refund any such fees charged since November 17th. Bravo!
Activision will 'never' charge for Call of Duty multiplayer, Hirshberg says
"Are we going to be charging for multiplayer? The answer is no," Activision's Eric Hirshberg, CEO of the Publishing division, told IndustryGamers in what we could only hope was a Stuart Smalley staring-in-the-mirror moment. "The experience you have out of the box, connecting with the online community to play Call of Duty is absolutely integral to the experience, and we'll never charge for that. It's not going to be something we'll attempt to monetize; it's part of the package." As if his point wasn't clear, Hirshberg further insisted that he could say "unequivocally" that Activision will "never, ever charge for the multiplayer." Earlier this month, statements from both Hirshberg and CFO Thomas Tippl hinted at vague plans to better monetize the franchise next year with more digital content, which in turn renewed speculation about the long-considered Call of Duty subscription model.
The Daily Grind: What do you think about lifetime subscriptions?
Champions Online made a bit of a splash when the development team announced that lifetime subscriptions would become available once again... albeit at the rather steep price of $299, right as the game is preparing to go free-to-play. It's not that it's a bad reward for players, but the price is a bit steep for many, and requires quite a bit of expected playtime for one to make back the investment. On the other hand, permanent access to a game is always tempting, and lifetime subscriptions always carry some weighty perks. Not many games offer a lifetime plan, but those that have done it have received mixed reviews. The up-front investment is a bit daunting, but the result is never having to worry about how you'll pay the subscription fees. Of course, some players prefer having that fee in their minds to help ensure they make the most out of their in-game time, rather than knowing the game is always there for whenever. Would you purchase a lifetime subscription to your favorite game? How much would you be willing to pay? Every morning, the Massively bloggers probe the minds of their readers with deep, thought-provoking questions about that most serious of topics: massively online gaming. We crave your opinions, so grab your caffeinated beverage of choice and chime in on today's Daily Grind!
OnLive ditches monthly fees altogether, makes the world a freer place
OnLive's cloud gaming service has just become exponentially more appealing with one simple move: monthly fees for its use have been scrapped. Company CEO Steve Perlman has gleefully dished the good news, garnishing them with the explication that such was the plan all along -- though it couldn't be announced in advance as there was uncertainty about whether the economics of the nascent on-demand service would work out to support its fee-free operation. So now that the beans have been counted, Perlman and co have done the best thing possible by under-promising and over-delivering -- all an OnLive user will need to pay for now are PlayPasses, which offer you three- or five-day access to a game, or you can buy the game in full, which comes with a minimum three-year guarantee of support after its release on OnLive. Paying only for the content you want to use? Now that truly is a revolutionary idea. [Thanks, Kevin S.]
