iPad Lock 'n' Roll vs. Lock 'n' Roll Pro - NOT A NICE ROLL AT ALL!

Discussion in 'iPhone and iPad Games' started by pante, Feb 17, 2009.

  1. pante

    pante Well-Known Member

    Jan 1, 2009
    1,823
    0
    0
    somewhere
    #1 pante, Feb 17, 2009
    Last edited: Feb 17, 2009
    i found that there is an updated version of lock 'n' roll. and in the same time canned bananas (developer) put lock 'n' roll pro into the app store. in the app description of pro it's written:

    The Only difference is Lock 'n' Roll Pro does not display ads. In the future, All updates will occur in the Pro version only, Pro will be enhanced with additional features not available in the free edition.

    so here comes my questions.
    1) i didn't update my lock 'n' roll to this version, cause i'm affraid that in the update there are ads. true/false?
    2) why did dev just screw people who really enjoyed the game, and grab it while pro wasn't out? we should get pro version for free, and all the new gamers should get only a buy option. now i feel a bit duped.
     
  2. Phi6

    Phi6 Well-Known Member

    Dec 6, 2008
    336
    0
    0
    Well I assume the original lock n roll was free. So why should you get pro for free?
    You didn't pay for anything, therefore theres nothing to be screwed over.

    Companies do have to find ways to monetize their apps you know. It's all business.
     
  3. butters

    butters Well-Known Member

    Feb 4, 2009
    208
    0
    0
    1) Yes there are ads after the update, but for me it's not really an issue. I don't like ads, but in this one they do not really seem to bother me.
    2) I don't understand your point there. You say you should get a version of a game for free because you got the previous version for free?
     
  4. sam the lion

    sam the lion Well-Known Member

    Jan 12, 2009
    1,455
    0
    0
    Italy
    mmm, it was a very nice game for free, but seems too expensive now. At least as it is, maybe the new features will be super-ultra-cool.

    When I first read about the pro version, I thought about the "free with ads - 99c without" formula. This is not what they are doing, both for the price and for the lack of updates for the old version, so now it is a sort of lite version... but with ads. Not very nice.
     
  5. Carlos-Sz

    Carlos-Sz Well-Known Member

    Nov 5, 2008
    2,711
    0
    36
    +1

    $2.99 is not expensive for a such polished game. Anyway, we can always count with a sale sooner or later! :)
     
  6. markx2

    markx2 Well-Known Member

    Dec 28, 2008
    685
    0
    0
    It has an ad banner across the top of the screen.

    Changing Free to Ad-supported and knowing there is no way we can opt out of this means that (1) I delete your game never to be played again and (2) I will never use or buy anything from this dev again.
     
  7. pante

    pante Well-Known Member

    Jan 1, 2009
    1,823
    0
    0
    somewhere
    #7 pante, Feb 17, 2009
    Last edited: Feb 17, 2009
    that's exactly what i mean. look at the blacklist:

    App: Kinwits
    Developer:Troutfly software
    Description: - Went free for a little while, then the dev "updated" the app and made the full version into a 10 level demo

    App: Rescue Angels
    Developer: xCube Labs.
    Description: Rescue Angels 60 originally came out with no warning that it was a demo....the 60 levels were fun, and worth 99 cents, but it essentially became a Demo advertising their 500 level app, with the same initial 60 levels, which makes me not want to purchase the full app

    for me it's the same.
     
  8. spmwinkel

    spmwinkel Well-Known Member

    Oct 22, 2008
    1,351
    0
    0
    The Netherlands
    The difference here is that it "WENT FREE", which means that it wasn't free to begin with. In this case, people PAYED for the game at first, and then it turned into a free-forever lite version.
    Again, in this case the consumer INVESTED $0.99 in the game and when he gets the bigger version, he won't get a discount for the 60 levels he already has.

    In the case of Lock 'n' Roll, you don't lose any money, no matter how you look at it. You have a great free game the way it was/is, and you decide for yourself if you upgrade to the ad-supported version. Even with the ad-supported version you have a good game for free. There were never guarantees that they were going to update the game as far as I know of. So they have every right to create a new, commercial, version with those new updates.
     
  9. organerito

    organerito Well-Known Member

    Nov 24, 2008
    583
    0
    0
    Are most of you teenagers? It sounds like you are still very young. I imagine your parents still pay everything for you. Otherwise, you would know that everything costs and that you have to work to get what you want. When you get something for free, you should be grateful. When you don't, it is called being an adult. The dev also eats. He doesn't have any obligation to work for free.
     
  10. markx2

    markx2 Well-Known Member

    Dec 28, 2008
    685
    0
    0
    I'm 44 and have spent a ton of money on apps.
    He does not have to work for free and should not expect to do so. But if a game I downloaded is changed significantly (and I count ads as that) then I think I do have the right to be annoyed. Countless games I have accidentally touched an ad when playing so from now it's no ads.

    We have devs that change the prices - fair enough. You win some, you lose some but what you see stays the same. But changing the code in a way that means I have to be even more careful how I interact with the screen is entirely another.
     
  11. spmwinkel

    spmwinkel Well-Known Member

    Oct 22, 2008
    1,351
    0
    0
    The Netherlands
    You have the right to be annoyed about anything you want to be annoyed about. :)

    But in this case I'm also thinking about the interest of the developer: if he has done a lot of work creating a game that I've thoroughly enjoyed playing for free, and if ads help him without costing me anything, I'll gladly take the ads.
     
  12. Carlos-Sz

    Carlos-Sz Well-Known Member

    Nov 5, 2008
    2,711
    0
    36
    I completely agree. :cool:
     
  13. pante

    pante Well-Known Member

    Jan 1, 2009
    1,823
    0
    0
    somewhere
    #13 pante, Feb 17, 2009
    Last edited: Feb 17, 2009
    i spent over 300 bucks on apps/games. dev eats, so do i. i work, he works. everything is in the order. i even don't mind spending another $. but only if i knew that everything was all right - and in this case something is just not fair for me.

    tell me what is wrong with giving us, the first users of his app, who gave a lot of positive reviews and feedback that made his app more popular (without us - nothing like that could happen) the pro version for free?

    and like i said i don't mind if there are two versions, but for the new users that can choose.

    maybe it's a small part i made - but still thanks to my opinion 12 friends of mine downloaded this game cause i said it's worth a try (i love it).
     
  14. spmwinkel

    spmwinkel Well-Known Member

    Oct 22, 2008
    1,351
    0
    0
    The Netherlands
    #14 spmwinkel, Feb 17, 2009
    Last edited: Feb 17, 2009
    You work for your food, so does the dev. You pay for the entertainment if it's commercial, so does the dev. :)
    And of course you have no obligation at all to get the new, paid, version. I'm not getting it either. (I did update to the ad-supported free version though)

    There's nothing wrong with that! But that would be a generous dev who has another source of income that can pay for all his bills.

    If the dev decides that the early 'adopters' should get the new version for free, that's cool. He'll have 50 promo codes to give away for each version, so the first 50 people who can prove that they bought it on launch day can get a promo code. But only 50 people can get a commercial game for free (per version), that's just how the app store works. How many people do you think should get the commercial version for free?

    Ah, there's a good point. You advertised for the game, and you get to see advertisements as a 'reward' for your effort to bring the developer new potential customers. I completely understand that that annoys you.
    (Of course I could say that the dev put more work into the game than you probably did sharing your hobby with your friends, and that you also gained by it because you can now chat with your friends about it. But I don't feel that those arguments are good enough, because you advertised a good game which lost some of its appeal because of an update.)
     
  15. pablo19

    pablo19 Well-Known Member

    Oct 26, 2008
    2,326
    2
    0
    Do the ads really annoy people so much?!?!?!? I can't believe that they are completely at the top of the screen where you can almost only touch them intentionally, and I don't think you "Deserve" anything for promoting his app, nobody told you to, you did b.c you liked it.

    Anyways I agree with spmwinkel and the other people who said it's completely fair for him to put ads!
     
  16. pante

    pante Well-Known Member

    Jan 1, 2009
    1,823
    0
    0
    somewhere
    i understand all of yours arguments. this is opened discussion and i accept all the views cause that kind of person i am. but check out the main thread about lock 'n' roll. how many of us supported the game. how many of us said to "12 friends" that's it's great? if we didn't how many downloads would it get? and without many downloads no commercial version would be made. and pro either. it would be a small free game.

    plus he could just write: free for a limited time only, in the the next there will be paid pro version only. that would be fine with me.
     
  17. pante

    pante Well-Known Member

    Jan 1, 2009
    1,823
    0
    0
    somewhere
    my biggest complain is not about ads. it's about making the main version free now - no updates will be made for it.
     
  18. spmwinkel

    spmwinkel Well-Known Member

    Oct 22, 2008
    1,351
    0
    0
    The Netherlands
    It has always been free as far as I know, and nobody ever promised any updates. That's why the developer isn't change the name of the initial game to "Lite" and calling the new game "Lock 'n' Roll", but instead leaving the initial game and calling the new game the extended "Pro" version.
     
  19. HJJ

    HJJ Well-Known Member

    Dec 2, 2008
    858
    0
    0
    I was a big complainer when Lock 'n Roll went ad supported, but I do not agree with you here. It's not up to us to decide what the developer "should" do regarding his pricing strategies.

    All I wanted was a "Pro" version without the ads, and I thought that was a reasonable request. He delivered. To me, $3 is a bit much for this game. It's not as "polished" as some have said. However, it was my choice to purchase the Pro version. And while I feel this latest incarnation is a bit buggy and laggy, I'm satisfied with my decision overall. If I didn't want to spend $3, then I wouldn't have.

    The developer is not required to have sales. And he's not required to act in the same manner you have seen other developers act. The comment above about young posters is right on.
     
  20. sam the lion

    sam the lion Well-Known Member

    Jan 12, 2009
    1,455
    0
    0
    Italy
    Just want to precise better what I intended to say here. I don't find the behaviour of the dev terrible - anyway, if we compare it to what other devs in the app store do, it could be considered a little disappointing.
    The app store is typically full of small free ad-supported games, and bigger paid games with free lite versions that give you a glance of what you will find in the complete game.
    Canned Bananas here seems to take advantage from both these strategies at the same time - advertises the bigger game by showing a subset of its options while making small profits with the ads.
    Again, don't get me wrong - I'm still grateful for giving fun for free. I was happy to upgrade to the version with ads to give some supports. It's just a little odd when compared to the strategies of other devs.
     

Share This Page