What's so silly about this is that the vast majority of ipod/iphone games look and play perfectly fine with pixel doubling IMO. I was shocked how good Pocket Boxing looks and plays on the ipad - almost all my personal interest in hunkering down and making an ipad-native version evaporated. However, I think there's a psychological block that causes some folk to hunger for games with "hd" or "for ipad" in their title, even if the upscaled iphone version is perfectly adequate. As for how this shakes out, developers will be motivated by the approach that makes them the most money. I think there's a lot to be said for universal apps. For starters, it ensurses that the ipad and ipod/iphone purchases work in unison towards boosting app ranking. And all things being equal, universal apps are more appealing - it's a value add even for people that don't yet have ipads, but are thinking of getting one. For folk that don't mind buying separate ipad and ipod versions of an app, universal apps make synchronization a bit more straightforward. By default, both the iphone and ipad version of the same app will end up being synced to your ipad, which seems a bit silly.
You guys complaining about paying for ipad apps are rediculous. I wish they charged you another $5 for every time you complained.
Stroffolino, I haven't personally experienced the 2x scaling on the iPad, but you're the first person I've heard say it's acceptable. Everything I've heard from reviewers is that the 2x scaling makes some apps and games look very bad, especially with upscaling of fonts. It's true! Even though I'm advocating that approach, it currently isn't realistic for large apps. But I am expecting Apple to solve this soon.
Please check up on what binary compatibility means. Wii runs GameCube software directly with its hardware. And because of TV resolution in both, there's actually less content work in getting a GC game running on Wii than there is in adapting an iPhone game to iPad. So, technically the comparison is valid. GC and Wii share a common architecture, binary compatibility and even a few same games. But for some reason the feeling of entitlement to free upgrades doesn't apply there. Why is that?
Just like watching DVDs on a blu-ray system is "acceptable". "Playing the game was perfectly acceptable in my opinion in 2x mode." http://theappleblog.com/2010/04/03/iphone-vs-ipad-do-games-really-scale-that-well/ "After spending some time with a few of these games, I've found the games are surprisingly playable. There have been no notable performance penalties for pixel-doubled games, though the scaled up graphics are noticeable." http://toucharcade.com/2010/04/05/ipad-hd-vs-pixel-doubled-screenshots/
what donner said. if you think the pixel doubled smudgy versions are good, shut up and play those. nobody is forcing you to pay for the work that goes into making HD versions and no-one will feel regret for adding features to those versions that you won't be seeing. why? because games are made for paying customers, usually for a living. as soon as people stop wanting to play super mario world, nintendo will stop charging us for it time and time again. i've bought blade runner four times, every time it gets sharper and there's slightly more to love (lol). and know what? i'm not spending my time on message boards complaining that play.com should send me a free copy since i already have the vhs. that is essentially what you (the OP & co.) are doing, bitching about stuff you don't seem to grasp. the HD versions are optional, not a part of some kind of an "ipad experience" you bought into. regardless of what mom told you, a considerable amount of time goes into making stuff work really well on the 'pad. i don't even find it ironic that if all customers were like that, there would be no point in improving your games since the returns would only be diminishing and even if we sold our wares for a buck, you'd still complain. it's funny how you don't really get to read or hear this kind of stupidity when talking about retail games even if every EA sports title for the past, what, 10 years has been a "HD remake". you are the one that gets to decide whether you buy this years version or stick with the '06 that was just fine. now, back to playing this nice ps3 game that cost more than all the apps i've bought for my iPhone and iPods combined. maybe i can send it back to the publisher next year and they'll give me the sequel for free?
I would just buy the games that I really enjoyed on my iPhone/iPod Touch. I'm sure if you really liked the game than you'll defiantly pay some extra to get the HD/improved version. But some of these prices are just too much and don't offer much new things. And I'll be really unhappy if I buy the HD version and it comes with ads. If I get an iPad, I'll only be buying games that actually have something new in it, not just some tweaks and in HD. Similar to games that I get on my PS3 compared to games I get for my PSP.
You seem to assume that making art at 3x the resolution doesn't increase the development costs... Besides, it's not just a matter of scaling. If a developer releases a game that's the same on the iPhone and iPad, only the iPad version is bigger, they're doing it wrong.
It confuses me that you are confused, is it really that complicated? Its simple. If a developer don't feel like it will be profitable for them to provide a free update to ipad, then don't do it. No love lost. But if they do work minimal amount of features for a "HD" version of the same game on ipad, they should do it as an update and not as separate game with a 500% markup. That is just obscene. They already earn millions. Ask firemint, they're bragging about it and you all are just taking it in like mindless serfs.
Whoa, hold on there. 99.99% of App Store developers are not making millions. The vast majority of developers never make more than $500. Ever. Most never even come close to covering the cost of development, even if they created it in their basement on the weekends.
It's called business not charity. I'm glad they're earning millions. Thats what they're supposed to do. Wake up to reality. If you don't want to pay, then don't play. The point of a business is to make money. DUUUUUHHHHH......
Here's an idea. To please both sides, why don't most of you developers actually make an HD version that is an actual worthwhile upgrade to your existing games? If you just package the same game with just updated textures and not much else, you'll make the buyers feel ripped off. Like it or not, it's true for many. Take Illusion Labs for example and their game Touch Grind HD, it offers a new experience from the original, adds in multiplayer, and other new features. This is one game where I actually thought an HD version was warranted and deserved a repurchasing all over again. But a game such Soosiz HD was an absolutely horrid download and will make existing customers feel ripped off. Just a thought. make your HD versions a worthwhile download.
Obviously Firemint is one of the big success stories of the AppStore. Personally however developing for the iPhone is something I lose money on and this is not all that uncommon. In reality what you propose means that there's practically no point for any developer to update their existing games at this stage. The majority of the iPad early adopters are already iPhone/iPod touch owners. According to this thread they are both unwilling to pay for the upgrades and will actually be angry towards the developers that are actually offering the possibility...
I agree that when we create a separate iPad app it should offer something different from the iPhone version. If it doesn't I don't think anyone should expect the app to sell many copies of the iPad version at all. What I just don't get is the anger displayed towards those devs that have essentially been resizing their apps. If you feel it is too expensive you just don't buy it and move on.
to thread starter, nobody is asking you to pay again. Take your iPhone game you paid for and sync it on your iPad. It works! Without having to pay a cent! On the other hand, if you want an HD version which is a different product from the game you bought, even if based on the same game, you have to pay again. Big deal.
Obviously a higher resolution version of a game has potential to look even better but I don't understand people asserting that pixel doubling looks horrible. DVD on BlueRay is a good analogy. While true HD movies look even better, DVD on BlueRay is still as good or better an experience than that same DVD on a legacy DVD player. Maybe I just have a high tolerance for this sort of thing because of my background as a MAME developer, where many classic arcade games ran on 256x256 pixel monitors. Putting the original arcade games on a full size PC monitor doesn't suddenly make them unplayable, and the same goes for ipod/iphone titles on iPad IMHO. Your mileage may vary. But I would encourage people to try their ipod/iphone titles as-is before obsessing about HD versions which might be available.
I don't think you're in the situation where you can realistically complain about that, but soon, when everything moves to digital, I think we will see more people complain about it. Let's say you buy a digital copy of Blade Runner to watch on your Zune Pad, but then it doesn't work on your iPad wouldn't it be fair if there was a system where iTunes already knew you had purchased the movie before on another platform and thus could charge you simply a $1 or $2 fee to download it to the iPad? We don't have the capability to do that yet, but we will eventually, and I believe this is a more fair system for companies to adopt. The customer should be paying for three things in the purchase of an App store game: 1) The game content itself 2) The work involved in making that game an iPhone app (both original or a port) 3) The distribution and bandwidth, etc. costs. For a first time customer buying an iPhone game, they're paying for all three. For that same customer to buy the game on another platform, they should really only pay for 2) and 3), as they've already paid for (and own) the game content. It would essentially be a similar system to how Adobe or Microsoft sell new versions of Photoshop and Windows; an upgrade is much cheaper to existing owners than it is to brand new owners, so the company only charges you for the new features; they don't charge you as if you're a new customer again. This is the approach I feel we, as developers should take. But I'm only saying it out of principle, and I suppose 'fair' is subjective. Anyway, I won't say anymore on the subject. I can see I'm not really winning anyone over.
