See, the problem with that sort of mindset is that rail shooters are, traditionally, not lengthy games in terms of first playthroughs. The length of such games in inherently tied to the old school replay value of older, pre-FPS and 3PS (3rd person shooter) shooter games: high scores, 1CC's (CC = coin credit/life, 1CC = beating the game on one credit/life) and that sort of thing. To younger gamers, and/or those who predominantly play only the FPS and 3PS type of shooters and those for whom the term "shooter" is synonymous with stuff like DOOM and Quake and the like rather than, say, Space Harrier or R-Type or 1941, such "replay value" seems nonexistent only because of a lack of "getting it". It's the same thing I come across when I hear people complain about, say, I dunno...Ikaruga. It's a vert shmup, but the basic complaints from those "not in the know" are similar to those complaining about length in a rail shooter like this one. Ikaruga has five stages total, and the stages are not that long. And so some complained that the game lacked "length", to which I raised my eyebrow and asked "Have you gotten perfect chains? 1CC'd the game? Gotten "bullet eater" (absorbing the bullets and not killing any enemies)? Etc.". The answer to all of those in invariably a "no" from those complaining about length. And they'll look at me like I'm the one who doesn't "get it". Just like shmups, with on rail shooters you either "get it" or you don't.
And I won't go into what is, IMHO, the asinine argument that rail shooters like DOOM Resurrection are FPS to which some have alluded to here and in other topics because anyone with any iota of knowledge of both types of shooters understand that while both are shooters and some rail shooters happen to be in first person P.O.V they are very different types of shooters. FPS in terms of the defining characteristics of the term as used by gamers doesn't just refer to shooters that happen to be in first person viewpoint. Control interface and freedom of movement have a lot to do with defining what a game is and what it isn't, particularly with action>shooters.
nizy in with the own. Thanks for that. Mind you, Sega stated SMB sold half a million about 2 months in, and that was at the mid point of last year. Since then, it has maintained a strong position in the top 100 paid game apps, never slipping, to my knowledge, below #75 (if even that low), and never dropping price below $5.99. Compare that with just about any of the games that launched at a buck. They shoot to the top, then fall off, especially if the devs try to raise price. That's why even the "introductory sales" carry more risk than just having a higher launch price, and, in the long run, don't make much sales sense.
Because right now $9.99 has been established as the high water mark for premium gaming. No other game to the best of my knowledge has exceeded that, and the first company to to do so will generate a lot of buzz, some (or even a majority) of it bad -- unless it's a really high profile title that rivals the quality and depth of full console games. Otherwise, it is the current market climate that perpetuates the $9.99 cap. If and when average prices start to slide upward towards a more reasonable position and/or more high profile premium content with real depth turns up, then we'll likely start to see slow increases in pricing at the high end, which will likely be bolstered by slow increases in the average pricing of lesser content. From my armchair observations, it seems to break down similarly, though with further tiers: $9.99: Premium, high profile content. (Doom Resurrection, Real Racing, etc.) $4.99-$5.99: High quality, polished content from well-respected but lesser known publishers/developers (ngmoco, Chillingo, etc.); often the first price drop level for apps that have been out for a while and want to capture a wider audience. $1.99-$3.99: High quality, often polished content from still lesser known publishers/developers who may or may not be known quantities trying to make a name for themselves; content that is of lesser depth and/or quality from above developers/publishers; most respectable casual games; the second tier price drop level for many apps after a long run in the App Store. $0.99: Impulse buy level; brand new developers with simple applications; quick 'n dirty casual games; established developers trying to capture the widest market without going free; bargain bin premium content that has run its course or wants to keep its long tail going and generate buzz; shocker drops to generate tons of buzz and a sales spike to hit top lists (Peggle, recent Gameloft sales, et al.); crap titles hope to catch impulse buyers with any old dreck. (The infamous Khalid Shaikh, LOLriffic Stuff, Brighthouse Labs, DS Effects, ad nauseum.) There are alway exceptions, especially when you find some serious gems in the lowest tier that could easily make it in a higher one, but those are my observations anyway. Yes, in a lot of cases, the platform does determine pricing if only by way of determining how much work, and therefore how much development cost, should go into a product from the start. Digital Chocolate is a perfect example of this. They pump out quantities of relatively simplistic but mostly good casual games with appeal if not much depth. Their games are planned and produced on a lower budget with a shorter development cycle; they spend less, they charge less, and they make damn good money doing it. But that's a Trip Hawkins joint. Dude is old school. He's been there and back so he knows what he's doing. Very few can lay claim to that kind of background and business acumen. But Digital Chocolate's target demographic differs a lot from id's, so it's not really fair to compare the two. @nizy - There's a slight flaw in making any conclusions with those numbers though. SMB was the first $9.99 premium game to come out on the App Store, and certainly the most high profile for a while, one that was already very popular on the PS3 and so had plenty of brand recognition from the get go. This was a time when anyone would buy anything because this was all shiny new territory that existing 1G iPhone owners were utterly starving for, in a market climate with zero competition. It was a completely different market than the one that exists now. Any conclusions drawn from it would be unfair, though I realize it's the only significant one you have any hard data on. A much more fair comparison is if we had hard numbers from Real Racing or the first two weeks of Heroes of Sparta or something.
MMO's points are the high water mark for gaming. Some have hundreds of ratings which is equal to thousands of buyers. 37 are $10-$20 http://www.apptism.com/?x=7&y=13&price=all&category_id=1&price_range=20%3A1000&activity_type=&order=recent&query=&type=&user_id= 28 are above $20 http://www.apptism.com/?x=29&y=10&price=all&category_id=1&price_range=20%3A1000&activity_type=&order=recent&query=&type=&user_id=
They don't count because they're not properly games; they're effectively premium pseudo-DLC that impart benefits to the players of the MMO, which itself is otherwise free. Different business model and different purpose entirely. Those will slowly disappear as the MMOs bring everything on-board for proper OS3 DLC.
Disregarding the fact that the Monkey Ball IP proved popular first in arcades and GameCube first, it's well known that "known" IPs sell better regardless of platform. But let's go with your point. Let's look at new IPs. I'd say the best arbiter isn't how the two games you've mentioned (HoS and Real Racing) did during the first two weeks, but rather how they have done over their life time. It's still early for Real Racing, but I'd gather that Gameloft with HoS going from $10 (where it proved quite successful) to $5.99 (still successful) down to the shockingly low price of a buck (which I still think was a bad move) has already proved far more successful than if they would've launched at a buck, obviously. Why? Because all those folk who bought at $9.99 and later $5.99 would have bought instead at a buck, and that's a ton of lost potential revenue right there.
BTW, highest price game I've seen was Gift (JPN), a JP visual novel adventure game. $14.99. I think it's still that price, btw.
Doom is still rising up the charts.. it now the #15 Top Game. Looks like it is priced right for the market.
Well, of course, but on the iPhone it was a triple threat: Well-known IP, first premium game on the shiny new App Store, and no competition. That's an opportunity no company has today. Yes, I do think HoS going to a buck was a terrible move -- actually that goes for all of Gameloft's shock drops. Probably good for App Store numbers, but they completely deprived themselves of higher revenue and effectively amputated their long tail. But that's sort of my point: Even discounting Gameloft's strange decision, they did it more or less right: Start high to catch the early adopters and reap the highest profits to help pay for development costs, drop it later on to catch the fence sitters and those of lesser means and pay off whatever is left of the development costs (if any), then drop it again (if too far) to catch the widest audience and reap what's mostly profit by this point. Otherwise known as trickledown economics. As for that "gift" game -- well, Japan is another market entirely, so it can't really be compared either.
sorry but thats by far the most immature and plain stupid argument you brought up so far. and there were already a lot of completely moronic statements in your posts until now^^ if this costs me a warning, so be it.
Well part of the reason I think SMB IS relevant is the brand recognition. Doom is a brand of probably greater recognition to the general public. I agree that the app store was different back then, but I don't know numbers for other so called "premium" games that are more recent. BTW, i'd say RR and HoS are 2 unfair comparison due to them being new IPs. The ideal fair comparisons would be stuff like NFS, Sims 3, Tiger Woods, Resi, Brothers in Arms, Katamari, Time Crisis, Myst, all of which are more expensive games with a large brand awareness. But as I said, i can only with the data available. Also, the main point I was getting across are the NUMBERS. There are 2 things that I want to highlight again: 1) Firemint's FC is 1 of, if not the best selling game on the store. So, no other game thus far, at any price point has outsold that game. But that game hasn't generated the most profit by a long way. 2) Even if another "premium" game, for example if D:R only sold 60K copies (0.15% of iDevice market) @ $9.99, it would still break even. Whereas at $.99, you'd need to sell 600K copies to break even. EDIT: Point 2 assumes same $400K budget and Apples 30% cut.
Exactly what I've been (trying to) saying. Different mediums, different market. You cannot compare them. By comparing them, you're assuming that they are equal and alike in every possible way. To the contrary, they incredibly different and, thus, cannot be compared. But these games (including Call of Duty) usually have an online/multiplayer component which adds dozens, if not unlimited, hours of extended gameplay. Most people buy them for the online, not the single player anyway. That's what I've been saying. There are already a bunch of iTunes reviews complaining about this. There will be tons more. I predict a fairly significant backlash against id as the result of this. Again, why do they not mention it? Are they trying to be misleading or are they just ashamed?
Entertainment is not a necessity. Of course you can compare different entertainment markets. Most people have a budget and make choices everyday on how to spend extra money. What entertainment is a better value than iPhone games?
Sure, but there are a bunch more iTunes reviews that are not complaining about it, and giving it 5 stars.
Time will change that. Wait until more casual players buy it. As of right now, I'm willing to bet that most people who have bought it have been more informed, "harder core" gamers. The vast majority of iPhone/Touch owners are probably still unaware of it, as it has not been featured at all and is not in the top 10 list yet. Once either (or both) of these happens, sales will start to pick up by more casual, less informed consumers. At that point, I can almost guarantee an exponential increase in reviews complaining about the on-rails mechanic not being at all described in the iTunes description. Just watch that rating drop. I'll provide the popcorn.* *Actually I won't, but I can provide suggestions, if you'd like.
Yes, on raw numbers, disregarding market conditions, your point stands. It's just that this debate has necessarily included market conditions into the argument for/against the pricing, in particular of Doom Resurrection. Regardless of id's riding their Doom franchise hard, Doom is still a killer app no matter what. It has legendary brand recognition like no other, and as such commands premium pricing because it commands a premium audience, and so far the numbers -- what numbers we have access to -- are proving that. Great. So in addition to being an expert on economics, market forces, demographics, and game design, now you're the Amazing freakin' Kreskin. Would someone get James Randi the hell in here?
But it's the "harder core" gamers that seem to be the ones who are the most disappointed in the on-rails experience. Carmack himself indicated that this game was, in fact, geared more towards the casual gamer who wouldn't have to get familiar with the controls. I don't know what you're referring to by "majority wins BS". I was simply pointing out that most of the people who have reviewed the game have not been disappointed in the on-rails experience. This, and its current position at #18 of the Top 25 Paid Apps list would seem to indicate that id's decision to do an on-rails game was a pretty good one.
+1 ...and we will see At the moment, the app store (also in Germany) reflects the voice of of fans and well informed gamers. Wait for the casual ones and their big surprise.
