The flipside is the market clearly doesn't think mobile games are directly worth enough to pay for making them.
But it doesn't necessarily follow that mobile games have to be digital crack. If a game can't survive on <$100 of IAPs per user, I'd be happy to see that game not exist.
Why not just ignore the existence of it? I have a feeling that the way this conversation is headed is toward app marketplaces having separate categories for with-IAP apps and without-IAP apps. It's clear to me that many consumers are very happy with the IAP option, whereas many are completely repulsed by it. Apple and Google should help both groups find the apps that appeal to them.
You're asking why have consumer protection systems at all, more or less. And the answer is that some people make poor choices that hurt society as a whole - both by putting themselves in vulnerable positions, and by rewarding the exploiter's bad behavior.
Here's the simple measuring stick: If spending money on IAP is a substitute for skill in terms of game progression, it's a societal negative.
It exploits those least able to make good decisions. And it ruins what may have once been good games for the rest of us. What might be a really good game is distorted by the IAP market. You are monetarily rewarded for adding subtle gates that are very difficult to pass without spending money.
And worst thing about all this? Ask the people who spend a bunch of money if they really think the game is fun. Go ahead - ask them.
I suspect that an element of (for example) Candy Crush's success is that it is actually very close to what people are looking for out of a game. People who self-identify as "gamers" are likely repulsed by it, but they are generally not the people who Candy Crush was made for.
But it doesn't necessarily follow that mobile games have to be digital crack. If a game can't survive on <$100 of IAPs per user, I'd be happy to see that game not exist.