Rejected, 4.1: Copycats

I don't know. But I did notice when trying to find a little game I made, there was a bunch of games that looked like clones of each other with subtle asset variations and title changes all above mine. They may be legit. I didn't play them. Plus they had been there for a while. I suspect the store may have heard some flak about that kind of thing from other devs. They may now be sensitive to any hint of that kind of possible manipulation. You don't want your app buried under fifteen different versions of someone else's app after you spent a year or more on it. I just played your game. It looks legit to me. It's fun. Reminds me of Robot Unicorn Attack despite a different mechanic. But 4 does look like 3 and 2 to me. Same assets, mechanic, and everything game wise. I wouldn't expect review to deep dive into the differences. I'd probably merge some of these if they were mine. I think of "Improvements" as more for version numbers of the same title. Not different games entirely. Have "G-Switch" as the app and then just add features to it. And for different maps and storylines, add those as IAP as you develop them. Like V2, V3, V4, etc. All in one. Then for something different enough that it can't even use the same code or assets, that is when it needs to be a new app. That probably touches on what the reviewers are thinking to. If new features obsolete the old games then why host the old games? It's got to have something really different to keep people wanting to play the old game as well as drawing people to the new. If it's too subtle for that, it should be an update to an existing app. IMO.

Thank you for your post. We're investigating this issue and will contact you in App Store Connect to provide further assistance. If you continue to experience issues during review, please contact us.

I just played your game. It looks legit to me. It's fun.

Thanks!

But 4 does look like 3 and 2 to me. Same assets, mechanic, and everything game wise.

I feel like this is similar to saying that Mario Maker looks the same as other Mario games. Adding the possibility for players to create their own levels any way they want involved a lot of changes to how the game works internally. Most of the code was rewritten, and some features from G-Switch 3 were removed to better accommodate the changes. To just add on the new features to G-Switch 3 would involve many compromises and make development more difficult, with a likely more incoherent result.

Also, some players don't like that they need to be online for a lot of G-Switch 4's content, nor do they like the user content and are not interested in creating levels. I feel like these differences are reason enough for G-Switch 4: Creator to be its own app.

Besides, G-Switch started as a web game back in 2010, where sequels were more common. Players are nostalgic for those versions and expect sequels.

Anyway, if this is the reason, I would need to be sure. It wouldn't make sense to spend months changing the app without knowing if that's the reason it's not being approved.

Thank you for your post. We're investigating this issue and will contact you in App Store Connect to provide further assistance

Thank you!

That all sounds reasonable to me. I don't work for Apple so you can dismiss everything I say and probably should. I'm just guessing and putting myself in the reviewers shoes. Plus I played them on Poki which may be different than the mobile apps. Trying them again, I see 4 is more different than 3 than I initially gave credit for. But there is a key difference to a mobile app and most Mario games. They can't add a level editor to Super Mario 3 on NES. Most of their games are on cartridges and formats that can't be updated readily. And even if they could, they have no IAP method for getting paid for their new content. Versus an app on the app store where you can keep it fresh and easily add new features.

Sure, but it's possible that was the reason. I appreciate the input. I can imagine that, with a cursory look at the game, it may seem very similar to the previous one. But I guess we'll never know.

They finally reviewed the app, through the appeal it seems, and accepted it.