Is this the end of virtual currency for Buildbox games? I just had a game made with Buildbox v2.2.2 get Rejected by Apple for the reason below. The game has the typical system of players either earning coins during game play or watching rewarded videos to earn coins. Those coins can then be used to unlock various characters. The game does not have a coin store. This issue was brought up earlier this year in this thread https://www.buildbox.com/forum/index.php?threads/character-purchases-using-coins.1963 by @AndyG citing 10.6 for rejection but Apple's new guidelines cite what's below. It's seems like their period of letting games slide has ended. I know it's luck of the draw when it comes to Apple Review and you might get your app through Review without this being a problem but this Guideline affects all Buildbox games using virtual currency in the standard fashion. 3.1.1 BUSINESS: PAYMENTS - IN-APP PURCHASE Business - 3.1.1 Your app uses intermediary currency to purchase items that function as non-consumable products but does not include a restore mechanism. Users restore transactions to maintain access to content that they've already purchased. Next Steps Please modify your app to include an optional user registration feature that allows users to restore their purchases to all of their iOS devices. We recommend indicating that account registration is necessary to restore previously purchased In-App Purchase products, and providing a way for users to register later if they wish to access this content in the future. ### One solution to the above issue would be if Buildbox was able to expose the unlocked/locked character information so hooks can be written in Xcode and Eclipse (and hopefully someday Android Studio) where we could link up our backends to be able to restore the purchases made with virtual currency.
Virtual currency does not equal intermediary currency. The only definition of "intermediary currency" I am aware, is basically this: Real money exchanged for virtual money (the intermediary currency) which in turn can be exchanged for goods (in this case virtual goods). If real money is not involved (indirectly) anywhere in the cycle then there is no "intermediary currency". If there is no intermediary currency then this guideline would not apply. Like we all know and you stated, Apple is VERY, VERY, VERY inconsistent in the enforcement of the "guidelines". I still stand by the "coin store" argument. But I guess we will get further clarification from Apple over the coming months in how they enforce this MOST of the time.
Hi @Andy. I'm hoping you're right. I want you to be right. I'm going to submit an update and with it I'll send part of your message and see what happens.
This has been an ongoing deelio at Apple, there is another thread that I think Greg mentioned that was a huge discussion on this very topic...
@Andy After resubmitting the game and presenting your points to Apple, the game was rejected again. "Thank you for your resubmission. After further review we have found that the previous rejection has not been resolved." Do you have any other ideas? It looks like In-Game Currency without a way to track what gets unlocked with it is going to be a major problem going forward.
I would try to focus on the definition of intermediary currency and argue that your game does not fit that guideline. Sometimes you can run into a stubborn reviewer and have to get creative (even though you are in the right). Will be interesting if we have a new rash of these types of rejections.
Ouch. Are there any other games you could use as examples that don't require you to have a 'restore' when using game currency to purchase items? Or, a work around to have a bag of coins as a restore with a generous amount in there to cover costs of 15% of unlocks and/or levels?
The problem is if they are doing something new (I still don't think so, but I digress) then it won't affect games already in the app store. Any Ketchapp game we've done with unlockable characters has not had an issue. Our new games will repeat this same behavior, but I don't know when they will be going through the review process.
That would be my guess. Guidelines are changing. This rejection used to be under a different section and now they have separated it and given it its own heading. Focusing on intermediary currency is the weaker argument because regardless of the classification of what type of virtual currency it is, it does not change the fact that the parts in bold red still hold true. Your app uses intermediary currency to purchase items that function as non-consumable products but does not include a restore mechanism. Users restore transactions to maintain access to content that they've already purchased. Next Steps Please modify your app to include an optional user registration feature that allows users to restore their purchases to all of their iOS devices. The Business 3.1.1 rejection is basically two parts: 1. Your game uses intermediary currency. We don't agree with Apple on that for the reasons we stated above. 2. Your game has non-consumable items that have no way to be restored. That's the troubling part for game developers and especially Buildbox users because it's true. Unlocking a character means that once unlocked you can use that character for as long as you own the game. So if for some reason you delete the app or loose a phone and have to reinstall the game, those characters you already unlocked shouldn't have to be unlocked again. Their stance is unlocking a character is a non-consumable item. Its hard to argue with that. They are requiring that those non-consumable characters have a way to be restored.
3.1.1 refers to Payments, specifically IAPs which is not what these are. There is no Payment or IAP involved anywhere with this virtual currency. https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#business The guideline just plain does not apply, IMHO.
@Andy I wish your opinion and my opinion mattered but unfortunately they don't because Apple has the final say on this and I see their point. We can all try to bury our heads in the sand and act like this shouldn't affect us or that it's not a big deal, but it is a HUGE DEAL that will lead to the rejection of any game trying to use virtual currency to unlock a non-consumable item that can't later be restored by the player on a new device or fresh install. I agree that all of the Featured games you've published with Ketchapp have been approved using virtual currency to unlock. I agree that a lot of Buildbox users slide under the radar and get their games approved using virtual currency to unlock. But sliding by or getting the luck of the draw that an Apple Reviewer doesn't catch the issue is not a long term solution. You're focusing on the currency part rather than the restore a non-consumable part and Apple is right about that. No Buildbox game has the ability for a player to restore items purchased with virtual currency. Buildbox needs a way to allow people to hook into the unlock character event or locked character event in the same way you can hook into GameOver and onSubmitScore events. If that were possible, it would be easy for me to build a back-end to log which non-consumable characters have been unlocked by a logged in user. I think you guys should connect with http://PlayFab.com ASAP and see how PlayFab and Buildbox can work together to easily integrate their service into an exported Buildbox project. You guys are going to need a way to head this off because my guess is that a lot more people will be getting this rejection.
Well, we are also basing this on what ONE reviewer is doing. I'd like to see where it goes from here. This happens all the time with all kinds of different issues with rejections. There is well established past history of the guidelines not being enforced correctly by every reviewer. IMHO, this is a one off by one reviewer until we see a rash of these things. I don't agree that any of the games using virtual currently (not as intermediary currency) to unlock in game content is flying under the radar. It is the norm and always has been, there is no basis in the guidelines to not allow this. There are several other points that support the argument: 1) Consumable / Non-consumable refer to a purchasability type (specifically for an IAP), there is no purchase in this case. 2) They also refer to transactions, there are no transactions involved. 3) The entire section 3 is about monetization... there is no monetization involved in this case. There is no payment, transaction, purchase or even monetization involved. The ONLY case I can see where there might be an issue is if you are using rewarded video, I could see that possibly (still doubtful though as there is no purchase) falling under this policy, but it's not been mentioned thus far at all or in any other similar case. I don't even know if you are using rewarded video. I hope I don't sound flippant, I/we truly want to do the right thing. We're evaluating ways to allow some of the things you are asking for in the future but it's not something that is going to be done quickly or in the near future.
Try submitting it again at a different time - maybe, just maybe you will get a different person review your app. I had a problem like this with Amazon once and it drove me insane because no matter how many times I pleaded my case, it fell on deaf ears. Then I sent it off again over a weekend, and woke up to an 'approved' email.
Actually they have announced recently that they will review all old apps that were not updated for a while and that might not accomodate the new guidelines. Many will be removed immediately if they crash on new iOS versions and some if policy changed in the meanwhile they will just drop a mail to the developers giving them 30 days to do the necessary modifications. EDIT: Oh and we are talking about 500k games according to the yesterday's Apple Event
