People decide what they want to buy from amongst the choices presented and marketed to them. To say that what people buy has nothing to do with the structure of the market and the choices they have, is just not true. Designers of physical retail stores decide what to put where based on the effects that they know those choices will have, on customer behavior. If customers did exactly the same thing regardless of how you laid out the store, retail selling would look a lot different.
I'm not so convinced that iPhone & iPod gamers care overtly about download size once you've breached the 20MB limit. Also, look at the chart positions for Rage, and John Carmack's comments on the sales: The HD Universal version is #1 in the charts, while the sales of the mobile-only version are barely negligible. And this is even despite the Universal version weighing in 700MB+ in size. Surely this proves, at least to some level, that consumers prefer to buy Universal apps with HD graphics being of importance.
maybee or maybee not.. but its good if you can stay under 20mb.. the most popular games do that.. you can buy them anytime, everywhere.. you don't need a wifi connection. this is a huge matter if you are a "on the go" title.. rage is high profile and nit a good example since the title is also more aimed at the core gamer instead of the casual gamer.. the next few feeks will show how strong the title really is.. i don't think it will stay long in the top charts like angry bird or cut the rope because its not casual.. i might be wrong.. time will show ermm both! versions are universal... there is not "THE" universal version. the only distinction between thoose 2 is fidelity (texture & models) but except of that its the same game.. and your point isnt really a point because the "SD" version is 536mb.. this is pretty well over the 20mb limit. obviously.. to add to that it shows that the ipad version was a washup to the rest.. on the big screen alot of simple gui elemts are a blurry mess, pretty much any text looks like a SD version if you would even look closely you'll see that all fullscreen gui elements are stretched to fit the ipad resolution.. for example the main menue button are perfectly square on the mobile devices.. but they are stretched rectangular to the ipad.. sure this is all very minor, but to be honest nothing i would have expected from id software and jc.. i expected.. perfection.. which was my own fault actualy i think the SD release was pretty pointless because all generations with opengl 2.0 compatiblity (3gs upward) are capable of running the hd version.. so only ios user with realy old hardware are going to use the SD version anyway.. at the end all of you including me are not the mass market anyway.. none of you are casual gamers.. you frequent a gaming website.. thats nothing the majority of iphone user do. they browse the appstore and thats it.. and if they browse on the go they can buy and download the apps instantly.. and thats the problem.. if its over 20mb you can't buy it.. so this customers needs to rember that he wanted to buy product X till ge gets into a wifi zone and try again.. i hardly doubt many will do that if they browse subcategories or anything that is not on the front page.. because then you would actualy activly search for that app.. would be great if apple allowed to buy it anyway and keep it in a download queue.. but well thats not there. so yes i think small size does matter... why on earth jc would think it matters to a absolute core splatter shooter is beyound me.. rage on iphone got so much pblicity in the gaming media that pretty much any iphone gamer(!) knew about it.. and would snag it up at the low price. there are always exceptions and i think rage is a bad example for a general ios game.
I'm sorry if I'm posting a reply to this thread, as I am not a developer. I am, however, a consumer whom has spent a good chunk of change on various apps and games. I have owned my iPad since April 3rd. Here is a little bit of my consumer mindset, and I hope this gives some insight. I have 32 gb of space, therefore app size is not an issue. I will remove apps from my device, to make room when needed. I am more likely to buy a game with a YouTube video of the game running, on an iPad. I will occasionally buy an iPhone game and use it in 2x mode. However, I often will not buy the iPad version, at an additional cost - if I have extreme interest in the game, I will wait for the iPad version: (Chaos Rings, Modern Combat 2, Galaxy on Fire 2 etc.) I have only double dipped for an iPhone app 2 times: Grand Theft Auto: China Town Wars and Gianna Sisters. I am more apt, as a gamer to buy a game with advanced graphical techniques (shaders, lighting, mapping, etc.) - I will also pay more for those features. I appreciate universal apps. As an iPad owner, I disdain when a game will have Retina graphics as a standard for those iPhone owners (who usually pay less); yet, as an iPad owner am charged significantly more for high res graphics on the iPad. Take a look at Plants vs. Zombies. I opted to buy the iPhone version months ago, at 2.99...I still have not upgraded or bought the iPad version for 9.99 - Which leads into this point: unless an app has significant enhancements or added features/levels, which justify the higher iPad app price, I will pass on the app and suffer with an iPhone version. I don't see how developers, could justify giving iPhone 4 and iPod touch owners such a deal on apps....from my perspective, those retina graphics should be just as costly as the pricey-er iPad version. I do comprehend that there are far more of those devices in the wild vs. iPads, and those sales are important. As developers you rely on good reviews, chart positions, ratings and sales - I get that. It's a business... However, as a curious consumer who spends plenty on apps and am willing to pay for them, why is there such a price inequity for retina vs iPad? I believe high res is high res is high res... So why does the iPad version cost more, when the iPhone 4 version is just as nice looking and several dollars cheaper? Or what exactly, am I getting for the several dollar more price disparity? The best examples I can think of, where the developers got it right: Fruit Ninja and Spider Bryce Manor, both added split screen play for the iPad version and Reckless Racing came with several extra courses, for the iPad - but was 2 dollars more. Sorry to have been long winded. Also: Every Thursday I view the AppStore, from my iPad to see what is new and interesting. Usually, I will check out an app that is featured. I am more likely to buy a platform title like Pizza Boy or Frogatto - not as likely to buy Tower Defense, or time management titles (just a preference). Thanks for listening. Edit: added these thoughts: I am lately 5,000,000,000,000 times more interested in a title that will utilize unreal 3. I am also, for phasing out older idevices, for better looking games. If games are to earn developers more money - the games should move forward technically and would then net higher asking prices. The older devices, hold the platform and developers back...in my belief.
The cost to the developer is roughly the same. The number of units they sell is much less. So, the cost per unit is higher. Of course, price discrimination also plays a role. iPad buyers are (correctly) believed to be somewhat less price-sensitive, on average, which is a reason for higher prices. And the ability to sell them an inferior product at a lower price (the 2x iPhone version) means that the market can be divided into two tiers, which allows publishers to generate more revenue from the same customers.
I get what you're saying. However, this doesn't really answer my question. Here is a more specific way of asking. iPod touch 4 and iPhone 4 have Retina screens. They are built in features of those devices. The iPad has a high resolution screen, also a built in feature. If the iPhone version, seems to need retina visuals to sell (demand from users seem to desire retina) - then how come there is no added price point for those iPhone apps, which then come with or have retina added later? Yet, iPad owners, cannot lower their resolutions on the screen. Just a natural piece of the device. Why are iPad owners, often charged double the price for the same game? If you say, as a developer, it is because of assets needed for resolution on the iPad, then why are those 4th generation devices not being charged more, for nearly the same increased resolution? It makes no sense that developers could charge more for essentially the same thing. When the other market gets the significant price decrease. Where this plays with my consumer mindset, mind you, I am not cheap. I will pay the initial asking prices, iPad owners aren't as concerned with apps going on sale. However, I won't pay more any longer for the same exact app at an iPad resolution, now that 4th gen devices require near the same resolutions and they aren't asked to pay for that. Please read my post, above to gather more focused thought. It might help some of you see an iPad owner mindset, which could help.
Because the incremental cost per unit is much smaller and so the marketing calculation is different. If adding retina display graphics to an iPhone app costs the publisher $0.10 per iPhone 4 sale, then having two different apps with almost the same price is not worth the hassle. But if creating an iPad version costs the publisher $0.50 per iPad sale (fewer iPad units, and redesigning the UI for iPad is more work than just improving the resolution of graphics), then that's more likely to be a reason to create two versions. The attitude that people who don't agree with every aspect of what you say, must not have read what you write or else are lacking in understanding, comes across as arrogant and conceited.
It's not my prerogative to come off as such. I was just offering insight, from my own perspective. Everyone has their individual perspective, as that it the only perspective we will truly, ever know. Our own. I did however, try to help expand my feelings about the subjects described in this thread. Some developers were stating their opinions on universal vs. Non, and I felt rather than be a developer giving developer thinking...that it might be helpful to the developers, to get honest feelings from an iPad owner. I tried to be as open and candid as I could, giving insight as to why I may pass up an iPad app. Take Across Age as an example. It costs 2.99? For the retina iPhone 4 version, yet 7.99 for iPad. I understand they worked hard to add a little bit to the game and it's assets. Yet, 5$ difference, while not terribly more expensive - is still too pricey, if you compare the value between the 2 versions. It really, in a down economy, comes down to value. While the developers love and time is priceless, a game should offer significant differences or bonuses for the added expense. All I can say is, I am more likely to not buy an app that is soley upgraded resolution for greater expense, unless I truly LOVED the iPhone version. Especially, now that the 4th gen devices get that crisp high resolution included in their apps at no cost. I understood your developer feedback. That an iPad app requires time investment, and generates less units sold. Which equates to a more costly endeavor. I totally understand that. Maybe I was just disappointed with the answer, lol... Maybe my mind is made of concrete, because I still can't justify when it is just an iPhone game (these are out there) at just the high resolution. No other changes have been made. A carbon copy, which costs more. Yet, the retina version is 3-4 dollars cheaper... I can't seem to wrap my mind around why there is not an all around universal price increase for BOTH iPad and 4 gen devices. Here is what I believe is fair (opinion, only) : Let's say " Game A" = 1.99, game A would run on 3GS and below. "Game A" = 4.99, game A for iPad, iPhone 4 and iPod touch 4 (hd/retina) I guess it's more out of consumer awareness, is where my perspective comes from. Wanting those pesky 4th gen to pay for the resolution increase as well. It's just off putting, that they aren't when they should be. I'm sure I'm not the only iPad owner who feels this way.
Prices aren't determined by "fairness". They are determined by market forces. Did you take any economics classes in college? You say that you don't buy some iPad games that you would buy if they were cheaper. Of course. Publishers are seeking the profit-maximizing point, which is the same as the revenue-maximizing point when the marginal cost of goods is zero. That means that the derivative of sales volume with respect to price should be the negative of sales volume divided by price. The derivative is not supposed to be zero---your lost sale is part of the calculation. Is it "fair" that supermarkets sell groceries at lower prices to people who have time to clip coupons, than to people who don't? It's not really about fairness. It's about generating more revenue, by getting people who are less price-sensitive and have more disposable income but less time to pay more, while people who are more price-sensitive will expend more time and effort in order to pay less. That's also a big part of the motivation behind the constant sales that pepper the Apple Store.
@Pacificsun @Daviddes I don't think you guys are thinking about this the way developers do. You both seem to imply that developers price their apps based on how much it cost them to develop the apps. So if retina graphics cost x to develop, they should price the retina update at x, and exactly the same for the universal version, since it's the same price. But that's not how developers think about pricing at all. If they did, you're basically implying that the devs of Angry Birds should have long ago set the price of Angry Birds to free, since they have made back the cost of development thousands of times over already. Developers wants to *maximize* how much profit they can make from any particular app. So for any particular app, they try to predict - at what price would the app make the most profit over its lifetime? If it can be a #1 hit at 99c, or be #100 at $1.99 - and over its lifetime make $1M at 99c or $500k at $1.99, which price do you think they'll pick? So the simple reason for why iPad apps are more expensive? Because you can make more money at higher prices on the iPad market. It's that simple. For whatever reason, iPad customers don't balk at paying higher prices for apps. On the iPad, you have plenty of indie apps for $1.99 and up in the top 50, whereas on the iPhone, that's almost impossible. Don't believe me? Compare and contrast: iPad Top Paid Games http://appshopper.com/bestsellers/games/paid/?device=ipad iPhone Top Paid Games http://appshopper.com/bestsellers/games/paid/?device=iphone So developers charge more for iPad versions of games because on iPad, they still have a chance of climbing the charts and making more money at the higher price. On iPhone, a higher price can potentially lower you on the charts and you make less money.
well its pretty simple... you can charge more because economics allow it. why is a pc version of a game usualy 20-30$ cheaper than the console version? because the console market allows it.. so the short answere.. even if it sound totaly stupid is.. "because you can" charge more.. thats the reason.
Valid points, indeed. Touché. All I was giving was a perception, of not cost savings. The opposite in fact. That, if the product is, in essence, equal assets (product output, not investment into) - then shouldn't the cost of the goods be closer to one another. The AppStore is not a physical store (Safeway vs. Walmart), or an online store in the sense of (half.com vs. amazon) - it really is one store functioning under one general seller (Apple) displaying all content. Taking into consideration that the iPad is a premium product, the need to create those apps would be equal to premium goods.... Hmmm... I can't really argue your point. I won't try. All I can say is, I find it unappealing that iPhone 4 owners gain the high resolution within their goods at no cost. I guess it's the price I paid for an iPad, which was wanted only for the screen size. Oh well. My biggest example peeve wise: Reckless racing was 1.99 (retina capable) but missing a couple extra tracks from the iPad version. The iPad version had a couple extra tracks but was 4.99. Guess which segment did the most whining? That they felt entitled to the extra tracks? Yet, they didn't equate the price difference, as to being the logic behind it. I now look at Reckless racing, as an example of why an iPad version should cost more. Added goods, for added cost. Yet, I now look at the iPhone 4 demographic of wanting everything for dirt cheap (unfortunate), usually the first to not understand the concept of a soft reset for crashing, ready to leave a one star rating and terrible review for the silliest of things... I can't understand why developers would bendmover backwards for that demographic, which just cannot be pleased. (updates and requested features = sales, I know dog eat dog world) I think iPad owners are a bit more forgiving, lenient and intelligent. Maybe because the device costs more, you get less youngsters? If so, I hope iPad 2 remains just as expensive (plan to upgrade) if it keeps a barrier from stupidity.
well because thoose who are vocal are actualy a minority.. you find crybabies all over.. and what you forgot in your equasion.. is the 200$ ipod touch.. the main device for thoose "barkers" are surely not an expensive contract bases iphone4 and developers "bend" because the "mobile" appstore is the alot bigger market, simple as that.. well yes and no.. i doubt ipad owners are more intelligent.. i myself own an ipad.. so that would contradict your statement.. but the price point is valid.. yes.. the mass is stupid.. and the bigger the mass becomes the more "stupid" you find in it.. you can find alot of stupid on this forum alone.. moaning , whining, about a single dollar! at the end nattylux pretty mouch boilded it down..
I have some different questions now: From a developer perspective, is there a benefit to dropping support for legacy devices (older gen)? I understand upping the graphical ante; raises developer know how, time, resources, investment - However, the support/revenue lost from older devices equates to more: visually polished products, Techinchally more impressive products, capable and stable products... Therefore, couldn't app prices raise? I would be all for the expense, for premium experiences. If you use Infinity Blade and Aralon, as examples... People are beginning to desire these experiences, and I think the casual games will still be around...but is the market mindshare toward more gamer/console experience gaining momentum? Is there an advantage or disadvantage to use Unreal 3? Have developers begun to consider it's use?
It's totally funny, when I see so many whining posts about one dollar (c'mon, it's 4 quarters!) or for two dollars... They have no concept of one dollar and an expectation.... when that same whining consumer probably just spent five dollars on a Frappucino, which they finished in twenty minutes....
I have been involved in publishing at least one iOS game, and will do more in the future. As you say, once you have developed an app and the costs are sunk costs, the development cost doesn't affect the profit-maximizing price. But there are still (at least) two major reasons why the cost of production affects iOS pricing. The first is that the cost of production affects the decision to do it at all. iOS developers have a very real alternative: they can develop only a low-res app and not do an iPad version or retina graphics. When they are deciding whether to do the upgraded version, they have to weigh the increased revenue that they can collect (either by increasing sales or by charging more) against the cost of development. [Serial developers may also consider the effects of customer satisfaction on sales of their future games.] If the price of the upgraded version is too low, then the anticipated revenue from developing it is too low, and so the game doesn't get made at all. Therefore, there is a survival bias where the games that get made are those that can command a higher market price (e.g., because the improved graphics significantly improve the game), but how much extra revenue needs to be generated is determined by the cost of production. The second effect is from competition. There are a lot of other games out there, if your game is too expensive then some potential customers will buy a different game instead. To see how this interacts with the cost of production, imagine that everyone's cost of production were halved overnight (imagine the introduction of new tools that make development easier). So game development would be more profitable at current prices, and so more games would get made. The increased competition would reduce sales of each game somewhat, so this would create pressure to lower prices. Eventually prices would reach a new equilibrium, at lower levels than they were before the price of production changed.
Really? Jealousy is not very becoming. I can understand being frustrated that Apple doesn't make it possible for iPad users to at least get the improved graphics from games that have retina display, which wouldn't cost anyone anything. But are you really unhappy just to see someone else getting something for free? Suppose that all of the retina display games went away, so iPhone 4 users were worse off. That wouldn't make you any better off.
why should a developer drop a couple million potential customers? makes no sense.. the iOS platform is in general a "casual" gaming platform.. so the "desire" for more is something that might come.. but surely not from the majority of the developers our there. why should one increase the risk of a break even further with the developement of very expensive products..? look at rage.. thats a byproduct from a multiplaytform game in developement by a big company with huge ressources.. would have id developed something from scratch with that quality for ios.. i hardly doubt that.. and the difference between aralon and something like infinitie blade is enourmous, alone from the viewpoint of content creation. .. so even if the knowledge is there in indie teams to create such rich content.. thoose teams are usualy so small that it would need a decade to create the amount of content to compete with the big developers.. thats the reason the ios platform is of interest, because you can earn money with casual games, who are the exact opposite of unreal3 &co stuff.
Now, isn't unreal 3 supposed to be indie friendly? I thought that's what Epic said. My question remains, couldn't the casual games use unreal 3? - most people whom own a console or modern video game know what Unreal 3 is... Therefore wouldn't it's appearance mean, better games and higher prices, therefore giving the developers more chance to earn more money? Will there ever be a time, when the AppStore is so saturated by casual games that the consumer becomes "meh"? You almost see it happening now a days (Chillingo seems the exception) I think a paradigm shift is coming sooner than later. I feel in two years, Epics engine will have done for iOS what apple did for handhelds, and what Wii did for consoles... Is it better to adapt and move forward, vs. Possibly getting left behind a market shift? As Apple gains more and more traction, in the video games space, the AppStore will see gradually an influx of more gamer geared titles, no?
I don't think this is true. I think you're way overextrapolating from the kinds of games that you like and your own interests. The most popular video game console is Nintendo Wii. How many Wii games use Unreal 3?
