Apparently we can never finish developing a game now...

As if the current update, update, update mentality of gamers isn't bad enough and if you've not updated your game for a little while it's not because development is finished, no, it's because it's ABANDONED!!

Apple have now decided to start removing games from their App Store that have no been updated in 2 years. I can understand if they're not working but to insist we go back to out old projects after 2 years or more and update them to keep them on the store is ridiculous. It's never easy to open an old project in a newer version of Unity, something always breaks.

So apparently we can't make a game and finish developing it. It's not allowed!

 

Its a cue they want a sequel to your game, and that's lovely!

 

Yeah, sounds like we're gonna see even more apps with the following oneliner changelog every other month:
"- performance and stability improved"

Well you can always reopen in the old editor though. Even old LTS versions without support still work and can be downloaded from Unity's archive page.

 

Mobile app stores have been hostile towards non-GAAS games for around a decade now, with the regular OS upgrades which break existing apps and now this. It's worse on Apple, but Google is catching up. Makes it hard to maintain a long tail if the tail becomes heavier as it grows longer.

 

Except appstores often force any new updates to target latest SDK, which likely means new Unity version or if you are lucky latest LTS bugfix for your corresponding LTS series.

 

It's not just the mobile stores either. You have to constantly migrate to newer console SDKs and since different versions of the SDKs are tied to specific versions of Unity you have to update Unity too.

And with that in mind I am currently learning Unreal Engine because they don't do it that way.

 

Splitting hairs or not, it's worth mentioning that Apple isn't removing these apps; they are just being delisted from searches and will no longer be featured. Users who own these apps can still redownload them.

 

What I don’t understand is why they didn’t just weight down the old games in search results, making it almost impossible for someone to find them by accident, but still have new people be able to get them if they specifically search for them.

 

For now. Apple is hardly known for their preservation efforts.

 

Lets flip that around, though: you're expecting them to continue providing whatever support is necessary for millions of 2+ year old apps which the developers couldn't even be bothered opening for themselves.

 

This isn't a support factor at all though. They have the metrics for that. The apps work, otherwise they'd be getting entirely different reasons.

 

It's not true for consoles (at least for PS4, PS Vita, PS5, Xbox One, Xbox Series and Nintendo Switch; I haven't made Unity game for other consoles).

You have to use new SDKs only for new games. For patches you can use original SDKs and Unity versions. Of course you can use new SDKs and new Unity versions for patches but you don't have to.

 

They work now, but at some point there's functionality, libraries, etc. which arbitrary old software depends on which they probably don't want to carry forward forever. They can do the MS thing and roll that snowball on forever, or they can draw a line in the sand and make developers keep things up-to-date-ish.

 

Which stops earning money....

 

Yeah i do! I pay them a royalty percentage of my earnings! Let's not forget if it wasn't for us developers making games and apps they'd have a lot less money.

 

Which again makes more sense to only remove non working games.

 

That cannot really be the argument if they still allow downloading them for people who already own the product...

The intention is clearly to force the developers to keep putting work into the app. Effectively a "take it or die" attitude. Hence why Epic tried/tries to sue Apple (and subsequently google) over their potential misuse of position with the appstore.

 

As already said, Apple enforce their latest SDK for updates sometimes and this also sometimes means updating Unity versions. Had the same issue recently supporting 64bit.

 

Ahh sorry I did not mean to post that a second time. Didn't notice the mobile browser still had that at the top when I wrote the other comment.
Have removed that part now.

 

No worries

 

They take a whooping 30% off the game's revenue, pre-tax. If the games broke due to their new OS upgrades, "fine", but they still work. That's the least they could do.

 

If they could take 99% and offer almost nothing in return, they would. It's capitalism.

If you jump into the feeding frenzy where entrance is maximal don't expect dignity or fairness or even reason.

If you can do something that not so many others can do then you can set your own terms, to some degree.

 

So your justification is that, despite the fact these games are completely functional now, they haven't been updated and might break in the future? They aren't "drawing a line in the sand," they're saying something that hasn't seen an updated in 2 years has to be delisted for no reason other than the lack of updates.

This is a pretty transparent ploy.

 

I always assumed it was to ensure you were using continuously updated APIs in which various security holes are assumed to have been patched. Running "old unpatched stuff" is always a risk.

 

The problem with assumptions is that they often fly in the face of reality. As somebody who's dealt with that issue specifically, there's a whole other email for it. Apple is more than happy to send out messages about specific issues like that that show up in automated tests. This is a flat message that the software just hasn't been updated at all, regardless of that.

 

If your game is completely functional, and still has consistent activity (new downloads/sales), they won't pull it. They are just cleaning the shelves of broken and unwanted stuff. I would think most people would be happy with this. One of the constant complaints is "discovery", removing the unwanted bulk will help with that. Especially when you consider 2-3 years ago is when there was huge surge of crap games. Whether it was tons of noob pushing their first tries to the stores, or companies creating 1000 variations of the same thing loaded with ads.

Not to mention, that constant updates are pretty key to any level of success, even it the updates are QOL and/or marketing, if you aren't updating your game in two years, it isn't doing anything except cluttering search results. (and if it is doing well with no updates, Apple isn't going pull it).

 

This isn't true though.

I've seen (and gotten my own) multiple of these emails for applications that work flawlessly on the latest versions of iOS. Older applications like this are already severely deprioritized in searches dramatically because Apple already does that with titles that haven't gotten updates.

Here's the text of the specific email since apparently you think this isn't happening:

 

I didn't say it wasn't happening, It is not happening for apps that have significant traffic/sales. (and/or the notification is different). It's not a blanket automatic policy by time alone, it applies as they see fit. Old apps with low traffic/sales are getting those.

 

No. My justification is actually that it's their platform, so they get to set the rules. In regard to this particular rule and the words you're attempting to put in my mouth, no, it's about wanting to reduce the overhead of keeping backward compatibility for the sake of stuff where even the developer doesn't care enough to do a build once every two years.

(Edit: it could similarly, and still reasonably, be a broad phase attempt to remove junk apps. With the simple filter of "if the developer doesn't care enough then nor should we". And given that there are literally millions of them taking up infrastructure... I'd want to cut back, too.)

This isn't rocket science. Simple broad steps as proactive measures, more specific steps to react to the things which get through anyway. As someone mentioned earlier, just doing a build 2+ years later often involves updating Unity.

Even if there's nothing to change I don't see what's soo terribly unreasonable about "submit a new build every couple of years to show us you're still able to support your product".

 

No, it literally isn't. This stuff already works fine.

Sure there is! Why should a product that functions, is up to date to the extent it needs to be, and does not use any out of date APIs need to go through an completely needless update process?

 

Because game development/publishing literally hasn't worked like that for over a decade. Console/mobile/pc/whatever, updates are an expectation. Whether it is bug fixes, feature additions, new content, quality of life, it is just standard practice. Content updates drive re-engagement and new players. (It also allows game to grow based on performance, most large development is done that way). It is just how it works. The app store puts high value on updates, in editorials, user notifications and even in primary browsing. Games as service is the way things are, especially on mobile. An update to game that doing well is going to generate more revenue than 100 new rando indies. Why spend all the time and money to create a risky new game, when you can just do an easter update to angry birds and make millions?

As @angrypenguin said, it is their store, and they are going to focus on what makes revenue. Honestly if doing an update once a quarter or so is a monetary burden, then the game is tanking and should be should be dumped to make room for ones that are good (or have a chance to).

 

Games don't need constant updates. Games can be finished. That is literally the fundamental premise of the OP.

 

It takes significant effort from platform vendors to keep it that way indefinitely. That effort is reduced if software is kept up to date, and pushing it through the build process with whatever pipeline is being supported at the time is one way to encourage that.

Doing a rebuild-and-submit has two potential outcomes:
- No changes are required, so it's low effort and I would hope just generally not a big deal?
- Updates are required, in which case it's directly pushing you into newer, currently supported versions.

Either way, you're materially demonstrating that you're present and able to provide some level of support. You know, as someone doing business should be able to do. And if you can't / don't want to do it, then it's signalling that you don't care enough about your product, so why should anyone else?

I feel I've made most / all of those points already, though, and they're being ignored in favour of whinging about vendors.

Imagine for a moment that you're a multinational hardware and software vendor and need to maintain your everything over multiple decades. I don't think Apple (or other vendors who have equivalent requirements) are doing this because they're stupid.

I do think it sucks in terms of maintaining a history of the art form, because there's loads of stuff that isn't available or usable any more. But that's a different discussion. (Edit: And making people do cursory resubmits every 2 years might be helping that?)

 

Then put it on Steam / itch / whatever and walk away. This stuff is nothing new.

 

Because this is literally a vendor problem.

See above.

 

How would you do it better, while still addressing the other various concerns (revenue, overheads, legal requirements (which can in fact influence your codebase), development/maintenance/use of infrastructure, security, customer experience, software maintenance, etc.) of a business such as Apple, Google, Microsoft, Sony, etc?

 

Already addressed that, too. Have a good day.

 

You didn't address it because these measures can be properly proactive instead of a blanket "well it hasn't updated..."

Apple, as a platform holder, can test these things ahead of major updates. They are not doing that. What they are doing is driving product design through platform requirements because they make big money off live service titles compared to flat install ones.

 

Nah, when they want to do that they don’t do it in roundabout ways. In those cases, you get an e-mail saying “support X by date Y or have your App removed from the App Store”, so I don’t see why they would be shy and not cite their reasons directly and have arbitrary “you haven’t updated in a while” as opposed to “you need to build against at least SDK v.X by date Y”. So I don’t think your guess about the reasoning is valid here.

Also, arguments about it being their platform and them being able to do whatever don’t serve much purpose. No one’s arguing they are not allowed to do this, which is clearly evident from the fact that they are doing it.

 

That alone is too much when you consider that updating Unity forces you to update every package that is tied to a specific release like the SRPs. Updating the console SDKs wasn't that big of a deal but having to update HDRP was a not insignificant waste of time and resources since things kept changing.

 

I find this hostile to offline, single-player, non-services games. It's also a preservation nightmare (which the mobile market has always been, since before the iPhone). Updating a game every two years, on an engine you probably don't own the source code for, means the game itself will eventually need to suffer from changes imposed by the engine. Let's say your game is from when Beast was still around: now you need to re-bake all your scenes with a very different lightmapper. Or your game is using built-in, but it's been removed from Unity 2026 and you need to upgrade to URP.

Making remasters is something big publishers like to do but it can be a burden for small devs, which need to weight their time between making arbitrary updates to their old games or releasing new ones.

But again, the mobile market has been like that since pretty much forever: your games are considered disposable, just like the phone they run on that is doomed to a landfill in under 7 years. Personally I would never use mobile as a primary platform for "passion" games: I'd rather make them for something more durable like PC and consoles, and maybe make a mobile port for extra cash knowing full well it has an expiration date on it, because nobody likes to work on the same game forever.

 

Me too. I find mobile to generally not support that very well anyway, though.

 

Yes.

 

Yes.

Was anyone here under the impression that mobile was not this? This has been the way of mobile for a very long time, mobile is about rinsing people for money and nothing more. Are there some great games out there on mobile? Sure, but for ever 1 good game there are 1000 predatory verging on gambling machine games, which are making a killing in profit. And apple take a slice of said profit. You can probably see where this is going based on that.

A lot of the arguments in this thread centre on the fact that games as a whole do not need updates, can be complete etc. For games in general sure, but mobile is a different beast.

Im sorry but if you are putting games out onto mobile and this sort of pracitses seem surprising to you, well you really are just waking up to what mobile is about. Its never been about having good games, its about having games that make money.

If you want to be able to make a game and walk away from it (or indeed just make a good game free of predatory monetization practises and stores) then mobile is not what you want to be targeting.

Is it right that its that way? Absolutely not. But people, its 2022, how is it news that mobile is awful for developers? Its been awful for years now, move onto a platform that suits you if you have issues with it, apple are not going to change this late into the game, they have proven to themselves for too long that they can be very profitable by enacting practises like this and I absolutely guarantee you this wont be the worst thing to come.

TLDR: Welcome to mobile. I agree it sucks, but again - welcome to mobile.

 

I get what you are saying and agree, but that is a bit harsh (as a blanket statement). Mobile games are disposable, and largely short term experiential. They are for commuting or pooping or (for me at least) and nice mental wind down before bed. But ALL games are about making money (ultimately.. though there was whole game division at Disney that revenue was not a goal or metric).

It is the nature of the platform for mobile. EVERYTHING about developing on mobile is a growing and moving target, the hardware, software (os), application, broad market and demographics. two years ago on mobile might as well 20 years ago.

Though, thanks to engines like Unity, a game that is more than short mobile experience is not confined to mobile, and vice versa. Fortnight has very much become a mobile type game (eventually) but can live and on other platforms. And games like The Room have migrated to other platforms.

 

Or alternately... no.
Remember is isn't just an apple/store thing, there is a whole ecosystem involved. All that old junk just sitting there affects players and other developers. So much crap is pumped just to get a few ad views. (though much less on the app store than on google(s).). If the developer isn't actively maintaining it, give others the chance to float up. Currently you can search for and find stuff that won't run on your device because it is too old. (the reverse is sadly true as well, but that is a whole other can of worms). As a player, I don't want to see really old stuff the dev has abandoned, and as a developer, I don't want to share shelf space with it.

 

You are kinda gutpunching the whole retro games community right now xP

 

That's their damn problem in my opinion.

Given that at one point of time they wasted a billion to make an ipad chip, they certainly can afford a few extra server racks to store all the old stuff on it.

Ideally a device should support all software that was ever released to it. MS windows tried to do that and fairly successfully. It wasn't easy, but it could be one of the reasons why it is pretty much dominant.

 

Ah yes, because it's just server racks, and there's no such thing as technical debt.

Ideally, everything is perfect the first time, all tech is fully developed at the time of its inception, and security isn't a concern because we're all nice, honest people.

And Apple's strategy is every bit as dominant as MS's in their markets. Remember when MS tried to release their own latest mobile OS and then just quietly walked away..?