You shouldn't be selling your game at $0.99 in the first place. The solution to solving poor income on that app is to price appropriately and market the game well. Not to dismantle a full game and then sell it in separate pieces. Which, unfortunately, appears to be a growing trend on the App store. I'm not arguing that you cannot be a dev struggling with a $0.99 priced app, because I know that many are, but I do think the solution some devs are choosingsplitting up their appis the wrong one. I don't believe anyone wants to buy products that way, given the choice.
not really trying to make a point, i can see both sides of the argument, but the first thing i thought of was how bluray,dvds and digital downloads are being bundled. id rather see a huge upswing in apps syncing between devices over install parity.
I was thinking of the duplicate functionality clause in the new app store guidelines. Devs have been rejected for submitting a separate iPad app and told to make it universal. Although these are probably mostly non-game apps. The problem with making an universal high-res app and a regular iphone app is you're now splitting sales between 2 apps and that'll affect the rankings. But if you live outside of the top 200 lists anyway, then it doesn't matter.
First of all, *I* am not selling my game for $0.99, it's $2.99, but it's up to me, not you, to decide what I will charge for it. Second, we're not talking about dismantling a game. We're talking about "mantling" a game...adding iPad as a new supported platform. It cost me significant time and money to create that content. Now you come along and try to tell me I am not entitled to charge users for that new content, and that I am somehow morally obliged to give it to them for free just because the iPad is based on iOS? Third, saying that nobody wants to buy products that way makes no sense given the facts. People are given a choice; buy or don't buy. There are dozens of "HD" versions of apps selling millions of copies, so what you believe about people's buying habits is clearly wrong.
That does sound familiar. But I think if you do get rejected for submitting an iPhone version plus a premium Universal version, then just add a couple of small features to the Universal version so it's more differentiated. But if ngmoco can get away with submitting simple retina graphics (plus a small border) as an 'iPad' app, I'm sure Apple wouldn't reject you for this. There's a balance between being unfair and giving the customer too much. I'm not saying you give the customer what they don't deserve, but if they've already paid for something once, I don't believe in charging them a second time when it's at no cost to the creator. I actually ran a very successful music business for a number of years, and something we did was give away free digital download copies for all CD and vinyl purchases. While we might have lost out in a couple of digital sales here and there, we more than made up for it in gaining a dedicated customer base. Besides, I don't believe we should have been entitled to any extra money if a customer buys from us a vinyl copy of 'Album X' and then wants a digital copy of that album. What we're selling was the music, not the format it comes on. Of course, it would be a different matter if they bought digital copies and then wanted a free vinyl, because manufacturing costs are associated with that, but I would only deem it fair to charge a reduced price covering the vinyl copy itself, because ultimately the customer already paid for the music. Smilarly, if a customer buys our game at $7.99, as far as i'm concerned they paid for the game. If they wanted to play that game at higher or lower resolution or on a different device, it might make sense to charge a small fee to cover any direct costs associated with converting the app, but it wouldn't be fair to also make them pay for the actual game a second time. There's being business-minded, and then there's double dipping.
My apologies. I was referring not to you directly, but 'you' in the general sense toward developers who are charging $0.99 and then complaining they're not making any money. I understand, and I have been trying to make it clear that i've maintained you do deserve to charge extra for your iPad support (and even your retina support) because you had to go back and create new content using your time and expense. I only take the issue against newly developed games, because in those situations these additional assets are not 'extra' like they were with you; they were created from the outset during development, and so I don't see the validation to charge extra for different resolutions, in that case. I said they don't want it that way, given the choice. Except they're not being given a choice. Look, I understand my standpoint is controversial but it's only what I personally believe in morally. You have the right to disagree with me, and you're free to continue developing separate versions. I'm just saying, it's not the approach I've decided to agree with, and I just wanted to express my fear of where we are headed in terms of the gaming industry. I believe we should be looking to unify platforms, not go in the opposite direction.
First, let me say that clearly we disagree on this topic, but it is interesting to hear our alternate viewpoints expressed without ad hominem attacks. I'm also playing a bit of devil's advocate, because I think some of the things that happen in the App Store are just crazy and this lets me vent a bit. Back on point. The user has no way to know which apps cost the developer extra to port to iPad, so how can they know when it is OK by your rules to pay the developer for their work or not? What your argument says is that if I as a developer had the forethought to create high-resolution versions of my art initially, then I don't deserve to get paid for it, but if I didn't think ahead and it now costs me extra (as in my case), then I do deserve to get paid for it. Doesn't that sound totally backwards to you? Shouldn't forethought and attention to details like this be rewarded? Creating assets at higher resolutions takes more time and costs extra. Even if it's vector art, the details that get added in for high-res art take extra time. You are again saying that I should not expect to be compensated for that additional cost. Sure, everyone wants stuff for free, but in your scenario there is no choice. If I make my app Universal, EVERY user is forced to take the content for iPad whether they want it or not. Maybe they don't have an iPad and so they don't want the extra 10-20MB or more of bloat for all the iPad assets in their iPhone or iPod touch. The choice they are given with a separate HD app is "buy it or don't buy it". They speak with their wallets, and spoken they have. We can agree to disagree on what we choose to do, but you shouldn't tell developers that they are immoral for choosing one business strategy over another simply because you disagree with it. That's crossing a line in my opinion.
I agree. I respect and enjoy reading your opinion, even if we do disagree. I do appreciate where you're coming from, which is more the realistic, here-and-now viewpoint, whereas i'm probably looking more at the idealist viewpoint; Ideally all apps would be universal, ideally all users would have a large amount of space on their Apple devices so not to worry about an extra 20-30MB, ideally there would be no 3G download limit, ideally apps would be sold on the store for what they're worth. I know currently none of those are true, but I do like to think they someday will be. Well it is rewarded surely, because you don't have to do it again? But I do understand your point that one app store developer could be benefiting from extra money, where another doesn't because the assets already existed. Ultimately, the only reason I say Dev A can charge an extra fee is because he/she didn't factor any added cost into the original app price, whereas Dev B did because they created it high-res in the first instance. However, this is only a minor issue as all apps releasing from this day forward should have those assets done in high-res from the start of development. So there's no reason to charge a separate fee. In my view, no devs should be charging extra for high-res graphics on any new apps because there is no extra cost incurred. I'll try and offer a hypothetical situation from another angle. It's based off the fact that i've noticed a couple of devs, after the release of the iPhone 4's retina display, included an IAP to add retina display support to the game. — Seems fair. The new artwork cost the Dev money, so he offers it at a small fee. Fine. Now what happens if we hypothetically say there grew a trend among developers who think, ”Hey. they're making a bit of extra cash doing that, maybe I should try separating retina graphics into an additional purchase with my game too." —A brand new game, where they developed the graphics in hi-res all along, and where there were no additional costs involved for any 'redoing' of the assets, and yet now, unlike the original developer who had valid reason to charge for the freshly created retina graphics, these developers are simply creating, out of thin air and no extra effort, a business model based on providing support for the retina display. — Assuming Apple allowed it, would you consider that fair and reasonable practice for devs to start adopting?
Not to be snarky, but giving away digital downloads may not cost YOU anything, it would certainly take money out of an artist's pocket, in terms of royalties denied them for a purchase of a digital download. In my own business, publishing, all of our writers are paid on profit sharing and or royalties (depending on the writer and the type of book). If I gave away an ecopy of each book I sold, they'd stick my head on a pike outside the castle gates. With apps, it's a bit different as you don't have a contract per se with a client )ie: bands, writers, etc) it's a lot of one and two man operations; still, it IS a business, and if a dev chooses to make separate versions, that's their right. People will either buy them or not, but to expect a dev to just give everything over and then some is patently ridiculous.
You honestly believe that's right? That if someone pays $10 to buy a paperback copy of a book, you believe it's fair that they have to purchase the book a full second time, for a further $10, just to be able to read that book on their iPad?
Not sure I'd classify that as a reward. It just means that I did the extra work up front instead of later. You keep insisting that there is no extra cost, but that is just not true. As I mentioned above, creating art at high resolution most definitely incurs extra cost compared with creating it a low resolution. The artist has to take time to find/use/create better textures, 3D models need more detail, 2D vector images need additional detail too. Absolutely it is a fair and reasonable practice. It is none of the customer's business how much it cost me to develop the app. Maybe I drew everything myself for "free", or maybe I paid $10,000 to an artist to create amazing artwork. The customer does not know or care. All the customer has to ask is "Am I willing to pay $0.99 for this game?", and then "Am I willing to pay another $0.99 to upgrade to retina graphics?" If the answer to both of these is often "Yes", then I have created a good value proposition for the customer and we will both be happy. How and when the graphics were made and how much they cost me to make is absolutely, 100% irrelevant to the question of customer value. Some other interesting examples: Games like Pocket Frogs & Flower Garden sell IAP items so the player doesn't have to wait, but the dev is the one who added the wait in the first place. So now you have to pay to remove it? Yes, yes you do, and you will be happy to pay them to do so (as evidenced by Pocket Frogs being #49 top-grossing app despite being free). Microsoft used to sell different versions of Windows NT where the only differences were in some default registry settings, but they charged more for one than the other. Is that morally wrong? Contact lens companies sell the exact same lenses for different prices, but include different wear instructions for daily or weekly use. Clothing made for $1 in China is sold to a wholesale distributer for $2 and then to a middleman for $5, then to a chain store for $10, then to you for $50. Even worse, if all you want is another one in a different color, they will charge you again (One star! Should be free!)! The point is that something is worth whatever people are willing to pay for it, and the cost of production is irrelevant to the consumer.
For any new games it is no longer an 'extra' on top of development. Creating retina and iPad resolution graphics is most likely to be categorized as a standard development factor now for an iOS game. I'd be surprised if any developers would still be considering it as an extra. So what you're saying is, so long as the majority of your customers don't complain (or don't know) that they're being ripped off, it's fair game? What if EA, UbiSoft. Activision, and all the other main publishers suddenly decided to start charging $10 IAP for HDTV support on their $60 Xbox and Playstation titles? Or even more, if they charged further $10 increments if you wanted sound effects, another if you wanted music, another if you wanted the second half of the game, and so on. Don't let the downloads fool you into thinking people are okay with it. Also, I wouldn't underestimate how much hate there is towards the 'freemium' model among both consumers and developers. And it's not because they hate having to pay for the game, but it's because they hate where the trend is taking gaming as a whole.
EssentialParadox, I have a question for you. My game Ground Effect doesn't support Retina graphics because the frame rate suffers due to bad emulation of GLES1.1 fog on hi rez devices. I could have revved it pretty easily, disabling fog on Retina and iPad but instead I chose to add full support for GLES2.0. How pissed off do you think Retina display owning customers would be if, when they noticed a Ground Effect rev becoming available, instead of getting retina support they saw (along with some other new features) a link to 'Ground Effect enhanced' (or whatever). This would be a universal app with lots of graphical enhancements (shaders for reflective water, nicer landscape, shiny craft, antialiasing on 3gs, Retina and iPad resolution etc.), selling for maybe $2.99. Obviously there will be a few people who think they should get everything for free but how worried would I need to be?
I think you'd be surprised then, because I would say most developers consider making an iPad version a serious extra effort. Retina display is one thing, and at this point should indeed pretty much become a standard. It can be activated with a few lines of code and can for the most part look fine without any assets changing from their regular resolution counterparts -- as long as you consider it from the beginning (this is only true because the actual screen size doesn't change, so model and texture detail will look roughly the same, only more crisp of course). However the iPad is an entirely different beast, where you have to deal with completely resizing textures now that the actual screen size is much bigger, resizing UI elements, and completely re-arranging the UI. Things are also much more visible on the larger screen size, so you may need more detail and other things like that to really make it look good. Also keep in mind the more you change in the iPad version, the more work it will be in the future for updates as you will have to start basically making 2 separate updates every time. Any way you slice it, it is extra work and extra time. Why should developers not be compensated for this? Its not like if you buy a game on Xbox 360 you can suddenly download it for free on Xbox Live PC. Why should the iPhone/iPad be any different?
Even though my response may sound surprising given my earlier comments in this thread, I believe those who developed their apps prior to the iPad and retina display are in a different position from those who are developing a new app today. Those pre-existing apps I believe are pretty-much exempt from having to upgrade their graphics. Some developers are doing it anyway, either because their app was successful (fieldrunners, flight control..), or because they want to attract new sales to iPhone 4 owners, or simply because they're a nice developer who wants to support their customers. But I don't believe there's any expected responsibility to do this because ultimately the app was never sold or advertised with retina graphics; the customer knew what they were buying for their money and they shouldn't really expect it after the fact. If any of your customers complain that they have to purchase the game again, in a way it does suck for them that there's no upgrade path but it's technically impossible for you to offer one. (unless you can think of a way to somehow work one in.) Plus I feel you're adding enough to the second game to make it standalone in its own right. As with when this is done to iPad versions of a game or app, I have less qualms over paying a second time because it almost qualifies as a new game in its own right. The only practice I guess I actually disagree with is when a developer creates a new game in hi-res from the outset but then specifically makes sure to keep those graphical assets separate so they can sell them as two separate apps and so there's no way to buy them together. It may not sound a problem with buying two $0.99 apps, but the big publishers are doing it, where they're charging $10 on iPad and another $10 for the iPhone; selling the same game twice, where the only difference is the iPhone graphics are scaled down. I mean, it's still the same game, running on top of exactly the same code, with the same graphics only at a different resolution. I can maybe understand paying more if you want to upgrade low res to higher res graphics, but it shouldn't be necessary to pay for the whole game again. And I definitely don't see any reason to charge if they want to play at lower res graphics. I could never imagine games on any other platform being sold in this way. On another note, Glen, I actually think you have a good opportunity here. You're in the position where you're able to offer both a premium version of the game for the higher-paying customers, alongside what you could almost call a 'budget' version of the game for the 'cheaper' gamer. It's possible that two separate apps could affect your rankings, so that's worth considering this. Personally, I would just work on it a little more and release it as Ground Effect 2. This would appear to solve all your problems and would be a much more valuable title to release to the store.
More detailed graphics = more work = higher cost. You can't deny that. Whether or not you choose to add retina graphics is up to you. If you do, it will cost more than if you don't, but if you don't then you may start to suffer lost sales from customers who now expect it. Of course not. Nobody is getting ripped off. These are leisure products. If you consider the price to be too high, don't buy it. If consumers really don't like the "freemium" model as you suggest, then they should vote with their wallets and not support it. If there is no money in it, developers will stop doing it. As it turns out, there are plenty of people voting for freemium with their wallets.
Actually, no I don't. And I don't do that either. It costs me less to make an ebook, as everything but the formatting is all done. That doesn't mean I'm going to give it away for free either. The first book coming out will have a 10 dollar price (oddly enough), and when it goes to e format in about 3 months it will be priced cheaper (most likely 4.99). That way I get money, my writer gets money, and the customer doesn't feel like they're playing drop the soap in the shower. I'm not a philanthropist or a non profit agency, I'm in a business to make money; however that doesn't mean I'm going to screw the customer. Book publishing is in an interesting phase as more and more people are self publishing, or starting their own small press. Just as an app developer can't really ignore retina display anymore, I can't ignore ebooks. In both cases there's no reason why the extra work has to go unpaid. And yes, I'm even looking into getting into the ibook store eventually as well. I respect your opinion and what you did making a successful business, so I'm really not being snarky with my comments, but I'm just wondering why anyone thinks charging for different versions is out of line. Even the blue ray/dvd/digital copy you referenced. Blue ray/dvd is one media type. Digital is another. Is it fair to those who get royalties from a dvd don't get them from a digital download as well?
Scott, I'm thinking I might not have made clear what exactly I meant when I said I gave away digital downloads. My fault. But I'll try and explain now: They're not just freely available on the website; they were paid on the website but they were also offered free to those who purchased a particular album in a physical format. As i'm sure is true of why you create ebook versions of your books, the extra work that went into creating our digital downloads was in an effort to gain sales from customers who wanted it digitally, and not from the customers who wanted it physically. But seeing as the work was done to make those digital copies for the digital market anyway, and because there's no manufacturing cost involved in digital, we would give digital copies for free with physical purchases. For two reasons: 1) Adding digital copies added value to the physical purchase. The physical copies made us more money, so any reason to encourage the user to upgrade to buying physical was an advantage. And 2) It just felt like a fair and nice gesture to our customers that cost us nothing to do. On a related note: I'd love if I could buy a book and receive a free copy of the eBook as well. I'm not going to need to buy the eBook if I'm buying a paper copy anyway, but it would definitely come in useful. Plus, it would make me more attracted to that company in the future, as it did with many of my customers.
Why can't you skip all of that? I play many iPhone games on my iPad, with simple 2x scaling. How could it look any worse if you just scale up with improved graphics?
Bc its not like the iphone 4 where the aspect ratio is the same and you can just keep everything the exact same and scale up the resolution. If you scale the resolution for the ipad, the UI will be completely out of whack. So at the very bare minimum, you still have to completely rearrange the entire UI and most of the menus... which is still a lot of work, especially depending on the game (our current game Bug Hoeres for ex has LOTS of UI elements, stats screens, etc that would have to be completely re-done, even without scaling up the graphics themselves). Unfortunately there is basically no way to half way do an ipad version... its either a lot of work or you just leave it to be upscaled.
