No it doesn't, because Super Monkey Ball being hugely well-known IP is exactly the point. People already know the game, know the publisher and know what they're buying, so they're prepared to pay the price. Release a brand-new game from an unknown developer at $9.99 and you'll sell absolutely nothing. Firemint are a good example -they built a reputation with Flight Control before they tried charging 10 bucks for Real Racing.
Read the rest of my posts. In the first I was mainly lauding Sega not only for establishing the high end price point, but more importantly following the line of incremental price drops rather than drastic price drops in order to gain consumers interested in the product but unwilling to pay the initially high price point. Sega went from $10 to $8 to $6 and now down to $4 and that was over a lengthy period of time. Other devs drop drastically all too soon. If they launch at $10 they drop to $5-6 without even trying to see if there's demand for the product at $8. If they launch at $5 they drop to $2 without seeing if there's demand at $3 or $4. That's the point that still stands. The traditional pricing model of incremental price drops over time, not drastic price drops a couple of weeks, days, or even hours (yes, it's happened) after launch. I was also directly comparing what Gameloft now does compared to what Sega did. Gameloft intros their games at $4.99 - $7.99 whereas they used to intro at $9.99. They also drop price by 40% - 50% first time around scant weeks later (the games they introduced at $9.99, for instance, they drop to $4.99 - $5.99, etc.). They don't even try going from $10 to $8 and instead skip down to $5 or $6. Those are potential revenue losses they can't make without selling a lot more at the lower price point, and that often doesn't happen. Doesn't Gameloft have a "known" dev brand in the App Store? Doesn't it then make sense that they price accordingly? I also stated in subsequent posts that for indie devs $9.99 price points are probably not a realistic entry price, so they probably should shoot lower, but that $0.99 is too low. There's no price maneuverability. You can't really raise price, as that causes sales to drop drastically, and besides which among those interested the most in your app who are willing to pay higher prices are those that you've already sold the app to at the lowest price point, and to add salt to the wound early adopters are the MOST interested in your app and among the MOST likely to buy at higher prices (this also, btw, points out how even limited time intro $1 aren't always the best bet either). You can't lower price either, obviously, as you've already gone as low as you can without selling it for free. They would serve themselves better to price higher. Can they price as high as the "big" publishers? Most probably not...but...they can price higher than they are currently. Why sell at $0.99 with no room to maneuver, no room for growth, no room for prolonged revenue generation when you can sell for $1.99 or $2.99? Even that small a price difference can make a HUGE difference for indie devs. So, no, they can't go $9.99 at launch...but they sure as hell can do better for themselves than $0.99.
So why do you think they don't? Is it, perhaps, because they know more about it than gamers who inexplicably want to pay more for their games because they think it makes them seem more "mature"? If you want to pay developers more for their games, nobody's stopping you. I'm sure if you email them, they'll tell you an address you can send a check to. But stop trying to decide for the rest of us.
Veiled insults are not necessary. I didn't do that to you, so please don't start to do that to me. To answer your question (and kindly now ignoring your subsequent statement, unnecessary as it was) I think it's because Gameloft feels they "need" to drop price drastically, evidence to the contrary be damned. IMHO they've fallen into the very trap of going after more visibility to the detriment of potentially increased revenue that they themselves were so against in the beginning. As to why they feel that way...I don't know. I can only state that I don't think it works out for them as well as intro pricing games at $9.99 and dropping incrementally over time would as far as product longevity and revenue potential. I'm not "trying to decide" for anyone. I'm voicing my opinion. Others have voiced theirs. The difference is that everyone else did so in a respectful manner, while you, who ironically make vague references to "maturity", have not. If you wish to add to the discussion with actual thoughts rather than insults, please, join in.
Why does the motivation have to be something petty like a supposed "maturity" deficiency? I can tell you that I feel some games are perfectly worth the 1, 2, or 3 dollar price tags they start with. These are the simple pick up and play games that don't have a tremendous amount of depth to them. The problem that I personally have with the pricing system is that I feel like it's undervalued now to the point where top notch developers will start to feel like they cannot devote their resources to a model where earning a profit on a game that takes significant time, money, manpower, etc. is not feasible. It's not that I particularly "want" to pay more for games. It's that I think we're in a tremendous bubble that is about to burst. Right now, we have access to some pretty amazing games that are being offered for very low prices. If these games fail to turn a profit because they are being overlooked in favor of bargain basement $.99 titles, I'm afraid that we will only have those lesser titles to choose from soon. We already have a tremendous amount of junk in the App Store, and I would hate to think that developers like EA, Taito, Gameloft, etc. will abandon this platform for others that allow them to sell games which earn them a profit. Apple is going to be facing competition that they don't currently have very soon, which could significantly accelerate this process.
I think the disagreement and heated tempers here arise from the fact that life is very different for the big brands (Sega, Gameloft, EA, Ubisoft) and for the small indie devs. I doubt that the big guys are having a problem turning a profit: http://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewTop?id=25204&popId=38 Also, they don't need our marketing advice However, what works for them will not work for the rest of us. And having launched a number of games as an indie dev and tried various strategies, I can tell you that the 99c launch price is sometimes our biggest competitive advantage. Of course, that may all change with the new top grossing lists. But before Wednesday, getting on those Top 100 lists was our best bet of having prolonged exposure. And to get on those lists, you need to sell a LOT of units. And to sell a lot of units, you start with a low price.
You'd rather they were unveiled? People demanding that prices should be higher make me angry. I'm prepared to accept that companies publishing on the App Store know what they're doing, including Nattylux above. If the likes of Gameloft weren't making money, they'd be making fewer apps, not more. Want PSP-type games at PSP prices? Go buy a PSP.
You know what? Who cares if you're angry. That doesn't give you an excuse to insult people. This is what you do. Your posts are almost exclusively attempts to anger other people or argue with them. You have been involved in argument after argument. Last time I interacted with you here, you picked a fight, then magically I'm banned by a mod for 24 hours. I'm not going to stoop to your level again, but it would be nice if once in a while you posted something constructive without insults, veiled or otherwise. I would once again invite anyone here to click on his screen name and get a feel for what he posts on this forum if you feel I'm being unfair.
Yawn. I post constructive things all the time. The developers and designer of Cluck It, for example, seemed very pleased with my ideas for new modes to extend replay value. But I'm tired of idiots and I'm tired of whiny crybabies who've apparently never had an argument on the internet before, and as a result I don't have a lot of patience with either. If you're so upset by a little bit of robust language, then don't get involved. And you got banned because you were told to stop making it personal. I did, but you wouldn't stop, with the unsurprising outcome. App Store prices are fine the way they are. A lot of people seem to agree, because they keep buying them, and developers with the skill to make a popular game are making a lot of money. If your game is unpopular, it doesn't make a lot of money. And that's the natural and proper way of things.
And there you have it. You call people idiots and whiny crybabies and this is supposed to be constructive. You goad people into arguments and then run for cover when the heat is on. I'm through with your "robust" language and laughable arguments. I'll move on to threads that aren't being hijacked by the likes of you.
No, it's not. The two things are entirely separate. There's very little point in trying to be constructive to idiots - by definition, they're too stupid to understand. So you might as well just insult them, it makes little if any difference. Er, no, I learned that when the mods tell you to stop doing something and you don't stop, you get banned. Basic common sense, really. Excellent news for everyone, then. Win-win!
You know what, you need to watch your mouth. You have an attitude problem and an over lack of respect and tactfulness. There are ways to say things and there are ways to not. You are in the NOT category. If you want people to take you seriously you need to control your emotions and write with your intelligence instead. People who have never had an argument on the internet before you say... what's the need in having an argument I say. Can't things be discussed professionally and respectfully? People are all different and they/we all have our own opinions, you need to respect that.
Yes, the internet is full of people arguing back and forth. Which is why I come to TA, which for the most part contains pertinent discussions and lots of exchange of great ideas. We all have differing opinions on things, and it's our right to have those and defend your stance. But at least have a compelling argument to back up your opinion, instead of just spouting what you think or resorting to insults when someone's differs from yours. And in my opinion, spiffy is quite adept at backing up his arguments, and providing positive discussion. Not everyone agrees with him always, , but at least it's poignant and well thought out. The term Master Debater comes to mind . Just kidding. Would I like every game to be as cheap as possible? Hell yeah, everyone would. I wish they could all be free, but I think it's easy to see why that can't be a reality. Of course nobody wants to pay more for something, but what sizzla says is true: If games cease to make a profit, we're going to stop getting games, or at the very least, get budget ass games that are thrown together on the cheap. I'm at a point now where, after these last few Gameloft releases and some of the announced games coming, I'm not even buying as many simple, pick up and play games anymore. I used to drop a buck or two on just about anything that looked ok, and probably never even played through half of any of those games. I'd rather wait for the bigger budget games coming out, and spend a little more for them. I'll still buy the occasional casual type game, or something that really strikes me as unique. But I'm sick of buying the same games over and over, just cause they're 99cents. I have 5 dual stick survivor shooters. I have 9 dual stick geometry wars shooters. I have 7 TD games, and I don't even really like TD. Sure, these games are all very good in their own right, and some are quite unique from each other, but still I don't have time for all those games. Hooray, I got 10 games for $10. But I will probably only beat 2 or 3 of those 10, so I'm really losing money. Now if I drop $10 on a robust, more fully featured type game but beat it and re-beat it, unlock all the achievements, get all the high scores, etc then I feel like I really got my money's worth. Quality not quantity, I guess. I want my precious iDevice to be considered a legitimate platform for gaming, instead of people looking at it like cell phone gaming. I've always stayed up with the latest phones, and always had games for them. And the vast majority of cell games are rubbish. There are some gems here and there, but mostly it's simple games, match 3's and puzzlers, or crappy big brand IP cash in's. I feel like for the most part, the first year of the app store's life has mirrored this. But finally, better games are coming out. People are grasping how to make controls work best. And there's still tons of room for using the uniquness of iDevices even in the big budget games. Sure, there's stories where the 99cent game makers have made it big time. But there's tens of thousands of apps on the store, and the great majority don't make significant profit, and sometimes even lose money. But I think even right now, where games don't currently exceed $10, we still have it really great in that even the most expensive app store games are still half, or even a third the price of other portable games. I think the root of the problem lies in how Apple runs the app store itself. There needs to be better ways for original IP's and indie devs to get their games noticed. And I think Apple should take more care in the quality of games that they approve. One idea I had was to split indie games from big budget games, kind of how Xbox Live does it, and have different price structures for both. But the lines get blurred on who's indie and who's not. They're taking small steps in the right direction, with things like different top app lists based on different criteria. But it's not enough, and ultimately the race to the bottom price strategy is going to kill any hopes for serious gaming on this platform. Sorry this turned into a huge rant
I don't think it's got anything to do with maturity or anything like that. To me anyways, it's about quality of games. My biggest fear is that the $0.99 price point is sucking out the devs' motivation to produce good games. It's got nothing to do with wanting to pay the devs more, if you were less stingy and more open-minded you'd see that everything is cause and effect. Lower prices might = Lower quality games. Would you rather have a ton of cheap $0.99 and unpolished games? Or would you rather pay a few dollars more and maintain a high level of quality? I know what I would choose. The mechanics of the app store are very intricate, and nobody really knows at this point how they should price apps to yield the highest amount of profit. Also, Arn's initial statistics are misleading to a degree. It wasn't established how long the total revenues and downloads were polled. That could make a significant difference to the values. Over a long period of time, flight control would seemingly have the advantage. http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/001293.html
While I'd agree that a lower price than the big devs is a competitive advantage that indie devs can enjoy, I don't think launching at $0.99 is to their advantage but to their detriment over the long haul. If more indie devs launched at $2 instead of $1 the advantage they hold over the larger devs which launch games at prices $5.99 and up would still have existed, but they also would've benefited moreso from more maneuverability in terms of price strategies and healthier revenue overall. But, of course, they aren't doing that. Instead they're reaching right for that rock bottom price. And, IMHO, that's hurting them more than helping them because there's greater potential to make greater amounts of profit if they don't launch at $0.99. Of course, I concede that at this point...the market may very well be set. And in order to make up for the potential profit losses incurred by not launching at a higher price you have to sell many multiple amounts more units at that lowest price than you would have otherwise. If there's an indie dev that isn't a fly by night operation, they at least want to break even on dev costs. Hell, anyone would. By launching at the lowest price possible breaking even is more difficult. You have to sell a TON of product. Even getting on the Top 100 list isn't a guarantee for $0.99 apps. In fact, the VAST majority of $0.99 apps don't make the top 100 list. There's thousands released nearly every few weeks, after all. So the only real way to stand out from the shuffle is have a great app, great word of mouth, and create visibility outside of the app store because visibility based solely on lowest price intros is not a guarantee. And I've found that of the $0.99 intro apps that appeared on the App Store and have risen up the charts, those apps sold more on the factors to which I've alluded than the price. The price may have helped sell to more folks initially, but some of those folks may have been willing to pay a slightly higher price for such a product that has great word of mouth, visibility outside of the store, etc.
He's got some very good points. Sometimes, a dev just has to try something new. I'm sure they're much more open to suggestions than you are. Why are people jumping on Spiffy's back? He's only suggesting possible alternate strategies. O and I really do agree with pricing starting at $2 or $3. It gives room to use a sale. There's always the peggle strategy too. Start the price high - $5, and then drop it all the way down to $1 to climb the charts. Then revert back to a higher price tag. People will think the game got up the charts on its high price tag, and buy it. Remember, being on the charts is actually very important for downloads. I know LOADS of people who just buy games on the top 25 list. It's a bit limited, but that's where all the casual gamers are. The like of Modern Combat are now scooping them up too.
Nothing of the sort. Merely voicing my opinion and (hopefully) backing it up. It's not like I'm the only one who thinks this way, btw. Go on various blogs from iPhone/touch devs and many echo similar sentiments as myself. The fact is that his success is rare in the App Store for most indie devs, even those launching at a buck. And, IMHO, that might indeed point to the idea that there's something other than the dollar price point and the visibility from that alone that factors in his success as a developer. He likely made some really good apps that caught on through more "traditional" marketing (and word of mouth applies in that regard, btw, so even if he didn't really "market" anything, marketing always applies), or apps that just were interest generating in some way regardless of quality (most likely the former). The dollar price enticed more people to initially try it...but that dollar price point alone was not THE factor that caused more people to buy, as if it were, MOST if not EVERY app sold for a buck would sell as well or better. It may very well have not been a key factor at all, as it doesn't hold for most of the many thousands of dollar apps released. There was something else that made it stand out other than price. If that is the case, that suggests that some of the initial early adopter consumer base for his app might indeed have been willing to pay more depending on the height of the interest level for the product among those early adopters. And if they were willing to pay more, but didn't because he priced it for less, then he may have lost out on some potential revenue. Mind you, I could be completely wrong. I admit that. Mind you, I don't think I am, but I'm very much open to that possibility. Positioning a product isn't an exact science. If it were, there'd be no failed products in the marketplace as every company would use the same formula. That said...I think the idea of avoiding launching at the lowest price point aside from free is a sound one. It gives the dev more price maneuverability, and may help increase the life cycle and earnings potential for their app.
That's where I differ. I still think incremental drops are better overall than going straight down to a buck...but, again, I may very well be wrong. Maybe dropping all the way down to a buck is better. Maybe the App Store is completely different from "normal" marketplaces...but I don't really think so. I still have this belief that most of us have fooled ourselves into thinking it's completely different when it's just a bit different. Regardless, I still think launching at the lowest possible price aside from free ($0.99) isn't the best strategy to employ. But, again...I could be completely wrong.
Same with my families household! I can put that in the description of my games, "Made by the household name brand, App Tech Studios!"
Hah - gotta question your powers of observation, market and otherwise, when you decide that I'm a HE when I sign every post with my name - Natalia. Unless there are lots of male Natalias you know. My sig also includes all the games we've made, all of them have been very profitable, and we market just about everywhere. Everyone has very different opinions on how to best market an app, and people have made many different methods work. I certainly don't know everything about the subject. But it sure sounds like you do - much better than any indie dev out there. So I suggest that you drop whatever you're doing right now and become a marketing consultant for indie game devs. Believe me that people will pay a LOT of money for your services. And maybe then you can share your techniques
