Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'iPhone and iPad Games' started by spardadante, Mar 27, 2009.
I didnt think it would happen this quickly after the update came out.
This is probably the result of tripling the price more than anything else.
They got greedy, should have went to 1.99. This shows you all developers that an expensive app doesn't pay!
Heh, silly developers... trying to make money.
i just realized this yesterday its off topic but its gotta be a record that after 1 day it was #18!!!!
anyone has the chart of iDracula position since they raised the price?
I wanna see how steep it is.
That looks like a pretty constant decline. Something to consider in a game like this, is when something is on the top 10, it gets a lot of exposure and the vast majority of the people who were interested in the game picked it up then. I can't explain how Pocket God has been #1 for so long, I would have thought they would have reached some kind of market saturation point weeks ago.
It was bound to happen. For some reason this game doesn't attract people. It did for maybe a few weeks then declined very steeply. I hope this game gets back on the charts cuz it's a wonderful game.
Apple really should do something about the app ranking. Three bucks isn't unreasonable for this game, it's just that we have been conditioned to expect 99 cent games. Which is fine for the cheap throw-away games, but devs with higher quality apps have to cannibalize themselves to get noticed. Then the good devs leave and all we're left with are REAL 99 cent apps.
Maybe change the top 25 to sort by actual revenue made rather than just download counts.
The ranking is fine the way it is. TOP means most popular. Does selling 1 app for $20 make it the top app over a $1 app which sells 20 copies? No.
Well no, they would be tied. But I see your point.
I didn't really mean my suggestion as the only solution, just something I threw out. But Apple needs to do something, or the only thing left will be 99 cent fart apps and boob wobblers.
Developers just need to be more reliant on advertising their own products. Making sure your cookie cutter match 3 game gets high market visibility isn't Apple's responsibility.
This is a good point. Price point or not, devs really need to take marketing into account because the game will not sell itself. Viral marketing, advertising, public relations, anything that generates awareness needs to be included in any product strategy. The truth is that most don't understand this aspect, and sadly, many good games and apps get buried in iTunes. Visibility on Apple is just one of the many avenues devs need to address when it comes to market awareness.
Please don't forget that there are tons of games coming out every day. we all have a small amount of time and have to manage family/friends, work/school, tv, music, videos, console video games, internet and iphone gaming, so it's hard to keep up with the new games. it's even hard to keep up with the current/older games. I have a backlog of 10 apps which I bought but haven't the time to play. And since iDracula has no depth (it's a survival shooter, good one, but it's just about running around, shooting, taking items/weapons) it's just nothing which stands out in the media for a long time. We now have other shooters. There have been a number of fps and MGSuckhunt and we have the GDC with all the announcements. That all combined results in the decreasing rank in iTunes and of course a general lack of interest in this game.
AppStore is a fast paced market. You have to build your hype and ride it, if you are a small developer. Larger ones remain longer in higher ranked positions, like gameloft or ea, because the name sells.
Actually, the opposite is true. The current price ($2.99 or 3.99) price isn't "expensive". Rather, the $0.99 was too inexpensive. What Chillingo did was rush to the bottom to raise visibility, and that really only works for the really small indie developers and publishers. Why? Because those folks need to get their investment, which usually isn't high to begin with, back quickly. Larger devs, or devs with more invested into their games, should go with a more long term approach.
And this is alluded to by this comment, btw:
Hodapp just hit the nail on the head.
See...the people who first bought iDracula were the folks most interested in the game. And quite a hefty amount of those people probably would've bought the game at a higher price than a buck (say, the price it is now). But by racing to the bottom for exposure the way that the publisher did, they cut themselves off of getting the largest possible amount they could have off of the most interested early adopters.
Here's the thing about the app store:
If you race for the top with rock bottom prices, you will eventually tumble to the bottom once interest ceases. And it will cease very quickly. If, however, you go with a longer term price strategy, one where you initially price the highest you can that meets the expectation of those most interested in your game (as these folks will be willing to pay a higher amount) and then, after that interest wanes, go after those interested in the product but only at a lower price, you'll have a longer shelf life and better overall returns. Those interested, but wanting a lower price, can be grabbed later. And the product will have steady growth in sales instead of steady decline, and revenue potential will be maximized.
That's the problem with the short term strategy of hitting rock bottom prices: number of sales are maximized faster at the expense of potentially larger revenue and long term sales growth potential.
For smaller, one or two person teams, going for the quick sales might be a good strategy. They've got to get what they can quickly because they've got bills to pay ASAP. But for the larger, midsized, and somewhat known devs and publishers (like, say, Chillingo at this point) racing to the bottom is just a recipe for lost potential revenue and a shorter product life cycle. They can afford to wait it out a bit.
And going backwards (pricing initially at a buck, then raising price) is completely asinine, IMHO. Why? Again, those most interested in the game would've probably bought it at more than a buck, but you sold it to them for a buck. You've lost potential revenue. See? The other people, the ones that would've only bought at a buck...you can grab them later by dropping price after the well dries up on those willing to pay more.
Price point and the fact that it's a sort of crossover app. It's an entertainment app, sure...but unlike the iFarts of the world it's an entertainment app that actually appeals to those interested in games. Plus, unlike the truly juvenile entertainment apps, it is really well done, and unlike a game like iDracula it appeals to a broad spectrum of potential consumers, again, both those interested in entertainment apps and those interested in a game (even though it really isn't a game, it in some way feels like one), and also a variety of age groups and personal morals. It's silly cartoon violence, not "red blood" violence, and that sells to a larger audience.
Well put, spiffyone! I am among the potential market avoiding this game because of its "red blood" violence and dark theme. If they released this same game in a "paintball" version for $0.99, that would be a different story.
It probably has more to do with the fact that it doesn't do anything. It's good for maybe two minutes after every update.
that makes me mad. This game is worth far more than many other games in the store. I actually think it is the most professional and well-playing game in the store. Definitely still worth the 2.99 but I think everyone knows that it already went for .99 so theyre not going to pick it up. Pocket God is seriously overrated IMO to be at the #1 spot. I picked it up by the name alone and the intrigue. Fun for a few mins but then what are you supposed to do.
I wouldn't get too worked up. I'm sure the devs and Chillingo have made their fair share.
On that note, value is in the eye of the beholder so Pocket God delivers value for many others.