Hi, This is a great discussion. I wanted to add an element that hasn't been discussed here yet. As mentioned: If the AppStore ranks by units downloaded, there is a stronger incentive for developers to release at a low price than if ranked by revenue. What hasn't been thought about enough, I think, is Apple's perspective on the issue. To Apple, the goal isn't so much sales revenue (although they do take 30%), it's the value-add on the iPhone hardware. Apple is hoping to increase the perceived value of the iPhone/iPod Touch hardware. Assuming that's the case, it's definitely in Apple's interest to keep App prices as low as possible. Since there is a fairly large volume of customers, it's difficult for developers to saturate the market. Going for volume with $0.99 games isn't necessarily bad, even if it's a big-budget game (something closer to Real Racing and not Flight Control). However, overall it would be a much more big-budget games friendly atmosphere if Apps were listed by revenue. While I'm sure consumers love having $0.99 games, I know consumers also want console-quality $4.99-$9.99 games. I personally think listing by revenue would be a very natural fit for both cases. It would give big budget games a better chance at the top 10 spots, but wouldn't simply cutout $0.99 games like I've heard some people fear. It's very possible that $0.99 games would sell at least 10 times the units as a $9.99 game of equal merit. Thus, both sectors would compete on very equal and natural grounds. But, again, the hardware value-add may still be Apple's primary interest. So long as that's the case, it's not in Apple's interest to rank by revenue instead of units sold - even if it's in both the consumer's and developer's interest.
See, I'm one who usually disagrees with the hysteria revolving around this 99 cent controversy. You however summed it up nicely and in a way I can agree with. Problem is, developers only seem to see two options - either the game costs $9.99, or 99 cents. Why don't we see more $2.99 or $3.99 games in the AppStore? That would be a reasonable compromise, I think.
Why do you guys worry about the App Store market so much? Whatever happens, happens. Peole are going to buy what they want no matter what you say on this forum.
I'm sure Apple were proud when the fart apps and whatnot were on the top 10 lists In other words, what you're saying is that Apple prefer quantity over quality? I understand that Apple want apps to be as cheap as possible, but also of very high quality. If you look at Apple's own products, they are all very expensive, but also of extremely high quality. Right now, in my opinion, many apps actually devaluate the products they run on.
I don't think Apple give a damn. If a dev goes another will take their place. Barrier to entry is low, attraction is high so why should they care? What I do think devs should do is develop sites for themselves to showcase and maybe even support their games. Right now you have the store, here, maybe other forums, a few blogs etc. And no SEO, no real presence from internet searches no central place you can point at and say "That's us". For some games you won't need that but for quality titles and a growing catalogue you will. And if for instance in a couple of years you decide to quit this stuff having an established domain to go with your work can only help sell it.
I think sorting by revenue would be the best, but also, why not just more Top 100 lists in iTunes: - $0.99 Top 100 - $1.99 Top 100 - $2.99 Top 100 - >$9.99 Top 100 ..etc...
The reason I don't want this directly is the way these forums tend to operate. Game released OMG THIS IS SOOOOOOOO GREAT (repeat above for several pages) Prices moans Game disappears Asking at any time in this phase what is the bestest game ever in the history of all gaming and the game will be there. I'd like them time limited so what you have but games that were released 12+ months ago, 6 months, 3 months. Quality games will shine through.
I find this discussion interesting, because we talk about that for more than half a year. And, guess what, we do have Assassin's Creed, Need for Speed, Real Racing, Toki Tori, Zenonia, Monster Pinball etc. Good looking, good performing and fun games. Currently, the Top 10 is a mess because of Gameloft, but even now (german AppStore) NFS ist 11, Sims 12, X2 Football 16. So, a problem seems not to exist. If your game is good or you have a good brand you can go for a higher price point and settle in the top 20. Or you go the Firemint way and produce a really really great game for a low price point and just hope that it works. I only have one problem with prices: They drop too soon. Even myself stopped buying a game for the "full price" most of the time, because it will take at max four weeks to drop the price to 79 Eurocents. And that's a problem, the devs created.
With that problem I feel as if Apple should add in a sub category. Once you click on the Paid section you get to see charts for 99, 4.99, and 9.99. Would help out and keep the real games on an easy to find list. I do hate that Apple won't recognize a game till after it starts selling like mad. When Doom first came out I couldn't even find it by searching Doom or id software but then once it got onto the Top 25 list you saw it everywhere even on the top spot in the Feature section. -.-
Is that necessarily true? I've been watching Rolando on the app store ever since it came out. I bought it at $9.99 and think it's definitely worth that amount. I watched as it fell down and out of the top 50 apps and watched how ngmoco tried to resurrect it by lowering the price to $5.99 and then to $4.99. It worked to an extent, but I can guarantee that sales are nowhere near that of Flick Fishing or Flight Control. For developers, it's all about making money, and making good games helps to make money. It's in their interest to make good games. But since the games on the app store are so varied - Flight Control with one mode of innovative play VS Zenonia with 40 hours of RPG adventure, defining a good game is rather difficult. As a result, 5 star reviews are given to a load of mixed games that are good in their own right but specific to a price point. Because of this, I have a feeling that devs have no real idea how to price their apps at the moment. Gameloft have been far too aggressive with their prices and have dropped them to obscenely low prices trying to take over the store. That could cause a huge problem for the app store as other devs need to lower likewise to compete. Devs are now caught in two minds. Lower the prices for extra popularity which would hopefully boost sales, or stubbornly cling on to their original price thinking that people will choose quality regardless of price. We at Touch Arcade are more thorough gamers so we look for quality, but lots of iPhone gamers don't go into such depth and buy games in the "Top Paid" list or Top 25 which are heavily skewed by $0.99 games. Soon, these gamers will think anything more pricey than that is a ripoff. There is really only one way to combat this and that is to advertise bigger budget, more complete games better. Categories by price, extended search functions etc... I also agree that games that make it up to the top get all these additional benefits. More reviews, more coverage (Doom in the "featured" list) and eventually more downloads. It's a vicious cycle for a developer who can't get his/her game to the top of the pile but a huge boost to those that do.
This. There should have been something like this from the start. Also, I feel like a good solution would be to have 2 different areas for games. The first would contain games from $0 - $5. These games could never go over $5, but could fluxuate within that price range for sales or whatever. Then, have a "premium" (or whatever you want to call it) section where games are $5 - $10. Same deal, price could fluxuate within that range but never drop below $5. That way, the bigger deal games won't have to compete with the quick little dollar games, and a game that came out at $10 won't have to drop to $1 just to compete, and hurt everyones feelings that bought it at the original price. You could even throw in a third teir for games over $10. Anyway, just a thought, seems like it could work.
Yes I agree. But, the price ranges could be slightly smaller than $5 because $3.99 games would be forced to lower to compete. I'm thinking $0.99 - $2.99, $3.99 - $5.99, $6.99 - $9.99 and that premium category that they said they were going to add in!
just to throw this conversation into a tangent what about an option for a base pay, lets say the developer makes a game, sells it at a base pay for 99 cents, and there is an option to give more, like a donation, much like the radiohead and nine inch nail's cd's that were released either free, and or really cheap, and people donated what they felt the value was granted 100'000's of thousands just downloaded it, but there were quite a few who threw a few extra bucks because they perceived the product to be worth it
I've thought of another cause of the $0.99 sale. iPod Touch users having to pay for 3.0. Apparently, less than 5% of all iPod Touch users have upgraded to 3.0. New games being released for 3.0 have now got a smaller target audience than they did before. When sales aren't doing very well, companies are much more inclined to "peggle" and drop the price to $0.99 to boost sales thus the $0.99 rush on the app store.
