Would you rate a PS3 game 1 star just because the developer/publisher "charges you again" to play it on your PC or Wii? No, of course you wouldn't. You could try to argue that it is "easier" to port to iPad, and that therefore you should expect the iPad version for free, but with the multiplatform tools that many companies use, that is not the case. The PC, PS3, Xbox & Wii versions all use most of the same code and master assets, just like an iPhone/iPad game.
I understand this argument, and it makes sense if it's an iPhone game that now needs to be re-created with iPad assets, because it will incur considerable development time and cost. On the other hand, if you're developing a new game today, and you're creating the assets and other design aspects at iPad resolution in the first instance, then downscaling to iPhone, I don't buy the argument so much, because there is not much effort to make that into a Universal app. I know how little extra effort it is because it's what we're doing. So the argument that is costs extra development is very insignificant for any new titles, especially considering they need to support retina resolution now anyway. The only exception I know is if the iPad version is vastly different, with different gameplay and different level designs, in which case a separate, more expensive, iPad app is more warranted. Unless you can point out something I may have missed? Initially I was concerned, as most of us devs were, that Apple's approach would negatively affect Universal apps because of Universal desktop downloads not counting toward the iPad chart But after owning my iPad for several months, and knowing many iPad owners, I'm convinced Apple did the right thing. Well, I think this is much easier to relate to if you're an iPad owner, but it is a completely different device from an iPhone or iPod touch. Not only have I never purchased an iPad app through iTunesevery single app purchased on the iPad itselfbut I sync to my computer only once a month, if that. It's more akin to a standalone computer than the iPhone or iPod touch that need to be tethered to a computer each day. The nature of the iPad makes it near useless without WiFi, so it's almost guaranteed most owners will have WiFi at home. But even more, you get a power adaptor for charging, making the user immediately less likely to connect to the computer. It staggers me, but every iPad owner I talk to has been getting all their apps directly off the iPad's App store. People are treating these things like laptops. So I do understand why Apple did that now, and I'm not concerned at all about iTunes downloads not counting toward the iPad chart, because I really don't think any of those will be iPad owners, and if some of them are, the numbers would be incredibly insignificant. As for the pricing thing, I don't believe a larger screen warrants charging higher price-points. If it's a vastly different game, with different level designs and features then fair enough. But our game isn't, it's the same game and only being scaled to different resolutions. There's no warrant for us to charge different prices between the two. I'd see it as us charging more for retina display support, which I don't think is fair when the assets already exist.
My argument is not related to the amount of effort required. What I said was that you don't expect to get other versions of games for free on other platforms, so why should you expect it here? If I build my app in Unity, I can compile for iPhone, iPad, Android, PC, Windows and web with no extra effort, but I bet nobody would expect to get the Android or PC version for free just because they bought the iPhone version for $0.99. The amount of effort & cost required for a thing, and the market price of it are not really related. What normally matters is the perceived value. More importantly, I am NOT arguing that a developer should or shouldn't make their app Universal. That is their decision. What I don't like is Qordobo's statement that he/she will rate an app 1 star simply because a dev chose not making their app Universal, regardless of the quality of the app, and regardless of whether it is an improved version on the iPad. That is just such an AppTard thing to say.
I have actually bought several apps for my iPad in iTunes, but that was mainly on the first day I had it. Since then, I've bought and played almost all of my games on the iPad now, even iPhone-only games.
Ah, well that is certainly true. But on the other hand, it could also be said his argument was about his own perceived value of the app and the developer's decision to not make it Universal, leading to his distain.
You are grossly underestimating the design and work effort to make an optimal iPad app. It's not just about screen resolution and assets, just read through the Apple guidelines for iPad apps to see the recommendations and requirements. Supporting all screen orientations with dynamic layouts, avoiding needless screen transitions, presenting information with pop-overs and placing all screen elements with typical iPad usage situations in mind add weeks of calendar time to your development effort, and that doesn't even take into account the separate QA pass for the device and its unique revision of iOS. None of the above apply to Retina display devices, which still generally use the same interface flow as the older devices. So I'm sorry, the only reasons I can see for trivializing the version and its costs are: a) You don't track your tasks accurately enough to notice the costs b) You don't pay full wages for the development work c) You're not taking Apple's guidelines fully into account in your development Pardon the harsh tone, but I feel the work of many hard-working developers is undervalued enough on the App Store already. It's true that taking all platforms and their requirements into account in the beginning of the project is definitely helpful, but that doesn't make the additional work free.
He/she said specifically that the 1 star rating was NOT based on the perceived value of the app. He/she said the rating was solely because of not giving the iPad version for free, regardless of how good it was, and that is just childish and reeks of entitlement.
Reasons I am releasing two different versions of OverPowered: I want to track how each platform is selling. I had no information about this for Big Mountain Snowboarding until I released a free version with ads. I'm using ES2 shaders and really pushing the limits of the platform, so I don't want a bunch of 3G users bringing down the average rating of the iPad version. The viewpoint and UI are different due to the extra screen space and wider aspect ratio of the iPad. Both versions will be cool, but again I don't want interface complaints from one version to spill over into the other. I honestly think it gives us a better chance of being featured, but I have no stats to back this up. I'm currently getting some one star reviews attached to the iPad version of Big Mountain Snowboarding because I botched a patch making it crash on the 3G and Apple is being slow to approve the fix. The iPad/iPhone4/3GS versions are working perfectly. I want to be able to tweak the pricing for each platform individually. This doesn't necessarily mean that the iPad version will sell for more. I'm either releasing the iPad version first and then doing some extra work to try to get it running on the 3G, or releasing both at the same time.
Yes indeed! It's not hard to see why when so many devs give users exactly what they ask for. When you are at the top of the charts it's easy to justify giving away more content for free, because it helps keep you at the top. When you are not at or near the top, doing updates with new content often makes no appreciable difference in sales from the devs I've talked to and my own experience. I took a lot of time and effort to update Charmed with Retina graphics and added some new levels at the same time. My artist didn't have high-res versions of many assets, so I had to recreate them at high-res myself. No difference in sales a week after the update was released. I predict the same result if I make Charmed Universal, whereas by releasing Charmed HD I will definitely make additional money and have a chance at being featured again.
MindJuice, as I said, that is completely valid in your situation to make a new iPad app. I might even say it's justified to charge an in-app-purchase for your retina graphics update. When you developed Charmed, and decided it's price-point, you had no idea Apple would quadruple the iPhone resolution later on or that they'd introduce an iOS-based tablet. When it comes to new apps however, if all a dev's doing is scaling the graphics between the platforms and making little, if no changes to the game itself, then my opinion is there's little reason to not make that a Universal app. They're going to be producing that support anyway. If it costs more for the overall development, then charge more for the app, not separate the app into lots of different versions from the outset to try and earn more money that way, because it ultimately makes it unfair on the customer. If you feel the need to keep a budget price on the iPhone side and charge more for the iPad side, then keep the cheap iPhone version low res, but at least make the iPad version universal. It's just irritating when customers pay $4.99 for an iPad game but are then asked to pay another time for the iPhone version, which is simply their iPad copy of the game with the graphics scaled-down. —Our customers deserve to be getting that support included for free in the cost of the expensive iPad version. At least in my opinion, anyway.
Can't say I agree here. I paid twice for Angry Birds, Cut the Rope and several other games with HD versions. I don't feel it was unfair. When I bought the iPhone version I knew it didn't have iPad support and I accepted the value proposition. Would I have preferred that they released an update with iPad support instead of a separate version? Sure...free is always nice, but clearly I didn't mind paying extra either, nor do I consider it unfair that I paid twice (nobody forced me to). That seems pretty reasonable to me too. I'll probably go that route.
I always was pro universal since I believe it gives maximum value to customers. However, the Q&A, design elements, interface elements and content issues can make you crazy with all the possible combinations that you need to cover. So I have decided to publish non universal games from now on.
I believe i've seen examples of devs doing that in the store but can't cite any specifically right now. Mainly productivity and utility-type apps. I'll post back if I come across them, but I don't see why Apple wouldn't allow it. Well i'm sure there are a lot of people who don't mind, but that doesn't mean it's not unfair. For example, movie studios could quite easily implement a system that gives customers a free digital version of a movie when they purchase it on Blu ray or DVD. Except they don't, of course, because they want you to re-purchase the movie again for each device you own. While I accept they have the right to do that, I personally don't think it's very fair. But as with the studios, and as you rightly point out with app store developers, they get more money by charging customers again to get the product for different devices. Some developers think it's a good solution for extra income to battle the low app store prices, except I'm afraid of the practice becoming etched as being the norm for App store games, even after prices inevitably rise to more reasonable levels. So you could end up paying $20 for Angry Birds 7 on iPad, but then need to pay $15 if you want to play it on your iPhone. I wonder if, by that point, you would still be okay with the idea.
I think this is the big problem with this whole argument of yours. Life isn't fair. Business isn't fair. If the main goal of your business is to be fair, you're not going to survive.
Dont see any reason why they wont. They dont even care when some crap devs publishes a million clones of their apps.
I felt it was fair, therefore it is fair, both to me and clearly to MANY others who have purchased both versions of games like that. Fairness is just an opinion. With most games, what people get for their $0.99 is usually FAR MORE than fair in my opinion. To say that it is somehow morally wrong to not also include the iPad version in that $0.99 purchase is quite a stretch.
