iDevice gamers are kind of spoiled

Discussion in 'Lounge' started by Yagami_Light, May 13, 2009.

  1. Yagami_Light

    Yagami_Light Well-Known Member

    Feb 20, 2009
    299
    1
    18
    Does anyone else think that iPod Touch/iPhone gamers are kind of spoiled? People seem to expect games to be cheap, of high quality, and long all at the same time. People seem to get angry if a game isn't a $0.99, has great graphics and gameplay, and lasts about 100 hours.

    The way I see it, is that this is a mobile phone. We are lucky to see such amazing games as we have. Games like Terminator Salvation (Sarah Connor Chronicles game next, please!) and RE Degeneration have just completely blown me away.

    Of the three things that make a good iTouch game (length, gameplay, and price), you generally only get two of the three. You want to pay nothing, you are going to sacrifice either length or gameplay quality. If you want great gameplay, you are going to pay a lot, or have a short game. If you want a long game, it is going to be crappy or expensive.
     
  2. qasim

    qasim Well-Known Member

    Apr 21, 2009
    1,070
    0
    0
    USA
    Not ALL idevicers are spoiled.. speak for urself :p.. lol jk.. but you are SO wrong
     
  3. Eli

    Eli ᕕ┌◕ᗜ◕┐ᕗ
    Staff Member

    What part of his post was wrong? Seems right on the money to me? :confused:
     
  4. randomdude

    randomdude Well-Known Member

    Mar 21, 2009
    1,657
    0
    0
    Yea I saw everyone complaining that NFSU was priced too high but they loved the gameplay though. We are spoiledd but mostly it's because the iPhone attracted non gamers so they don't know how much it would cost if it is a console game like say 59.99>9.99 I am amazed that dev give us high quality game that only set us back 10 bucks.
     
  5. ghostdogstudio

    ghostdogstudio Active Member

    May 13, 2009
    33
    0
    0
    iOS developer, Beer drinker, Zombie puncher
    Convict Hill, TX
  6. Babybandit

    Babybandit New Member

    May 10, 2009
    2
    0
    0
    What you said is very true, myself... included. I guess that's what happens when there's a recession, major studio's games only at 9.99, 4.99 and other developers selling their apps at 0.99 as a trend.. Bring on the HD :D
     
  7. Almy

    Almy Well-Known Member

    Mar 3, 2009
    289
    0
    16
    Definitely wrong. You suggest that just because I want games with length that I'm not willing to pay for them. I'd gladly pay top money for something other than these two hour games. Look at The Quest, what's it have like 40 hours of game play? And that is a cheap price to me!
     
  8. spiffyone

    spiffyone Well-Known Member

    Dec 7, 2008
    2,562
    0
    0
    Ah, but there's part of the issue (and this is something that was posted in the comments section of that article):

    Does something like The Quest, a 40 hour "epic" WRPG, really sell to an audience on a mobile platform as well as the more "quick, pick up and play" games do?

    I don't think it does. Even if it were attached to a "name" developer and IP brand, it'd still not sell as well as, say, Peggle. It's the truth. On a mobile platform such as this, games of the nature of The Quest and similar "epic" long titles are actually niche.

    That said, there is a market for such games, and such games shouldn't have to "rush to the bottom" to try to compete with the lower priced games, or games with a more wider ranging audience that really targets mobile gamers like Peggle or Tetris even. The fact that the market for a game like The Quest is more limited than the other "pick up and play" titles actually means that developers of the longer more "epic" games can charge a higher premium because the target audience really doesn't have many options otherwise.

    The problem with the market as far as price in particular, however, is one that effects ALL games regardless of genre or as is marketability. And that problem is that Top 100 means visibility, and developers have bought into the idea that they can offset potential losses when selling at a low price by selling more...but they'd have to sell a whole lot more and there's no guarantee they can do that. There's probably a larger percentage of developers who lost their shirts trying to sell a game at $0.99 at launch than those who sold at $1.99 and up.
     
  9. Almy

    Almy Well-Known Member

    Mar 3, 2009
    289
    0
    16
    #10 Almy, May 14, 2009
    Last edited: May 14, 2009
    That duscussion has gone on before and I've even taken part in it. This is something else entirely. I'm being called spoiled and cheap for wanting to pay more money for better games. I'm simply pointing out the flaw in that specific logic.

    I also don't think this thread was directed at gamers like me. I was just pointing out that not everyone falls into such a specific category.
     
  10. spiffyone

    spiffyone Well-Known Member

    Dec 7, 2008
    2,562
    0
    0
    Actually, the topic creator is calling those that want "better games" (which I would assume to be "longer lasting, more 'epic'" games in your opinion) at low prices spoiled.

    If you wish to pay more, you wouldn't fall into that group.

    And I too wouldn't call anyone "spoiled". I'd instead say that they are simply guided by what the market has presented, and what the market has presented is actually the creation of the developers. So if the audience expectation is much more for the lowest possible amount, then that is the fault of the sellers and not the consumer.
     
  11. Almy

    Almy Well-Known Member

    Mar 3, 2009
    289
    0
    16
    Which was my point the last time this was discussed. I agree. And some devs and posters are like the old saying, "When the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a nail." When 99% of the games being made are short, then no shock when %99 of the games being played are short. I'd copy and paste my old post but I'm on my phone, gimmie til "summer" though! But that's pretty much exactly what I said there too.
     
  12. reinhart_menken

    reinhart_menken Well-Known Member

    May 8, 2009
    620
    0
    0
    I'd say it's true for a lot of people, but like someone said, it's because they're not real gamers. I've seen a lot of people who whine about the price, or opt to wait until the price drops (which is pretty much the same as "this is too expensive I'm not buying it"). I have a friend who doesn't even know that there's such a thing as "space" on his iphone (but then he's not even a computer gamer), when I told him apps could take up space on his phone (that's when I first got my ipod and have yet to find out how little space they actually take).

    Not me though, I'd gladly pay more for a good game. Game like NFS, Heroes of Sparta are so well-polished that they just deserve setting their prices at...whatever it is. I would have liked another city in NFS though, and less cutscene :p But then that's because I used to play Undercover on PC (and that's the one that made the most impression, I don't even remember much about...Most Wanted or the latter ones).

    I'm still waiting to see if someone could make a good and longer game (most likely a turn-based strategy like Mecho-Wars, because these games by their nature take longer) and I'll be willing to pay 10+.

    I really blame Apple and the market for people's expectation of game prices though. In short, it's because appstore pretty much set the trend of the prices in the beginning, so people just got used to it. I'd say Apple pretty much spoiled them.
     

Share This Page