$0.99 Debate

[Camzy]

For me, the app store suffers from a fundamental problem. There are only two categories: Paid and Free. Since $0.99 games are much more likely to be downloaded rapidly, they rise to the top of the charts and overshadow games that are worth more such as Rolando or Real Racing. Premium priced games sooner or later have to reinforce a sale to boost their popularity because its far too easy to get flooded by cheap pick up and plays at $0.99. Games like flight control selling cheap and addictive gameplay are taking over the store, and developers are struggling to find reasons for funding a higher budget game because the return isn't good enough.

In short, people are getting too much value for the price they're paying. As a customer and not a developer, this is a great thing. My concern is that soon, the app store will be filled with nothing but flight control type of games and the app store will cease to be a serious gaming platform.

At present, there is incredibly good content coming out at a constant rate which is awesome. But because of this, devs panic and drop their prices way too quickly. This is good for consumers in the short term, but bad for the platform as a whole in my opinion.

The constant focus on becoming popular is having a detrimental effect on the store and the dev's are making the problem worse by reinforcing the industry "standard" of the AppStore $0.99 games. Is the app store heading for a fall or will big budget games be able to compete in the long run with this current format?

[99c_gamer]

Doom Resurrection is #14.

Real racing isn't in the top 25 but Fast and Furious is :p

Next thing people will be complaining that there's too many popular franchises filling up the top 25.

[Paradigm]

hey all.. newbie here but I've been reading enough about iphone app stuff in the news to think camzy has a good and valid posit.

however, I think its too early to tell because :

1. apple announced they are going to give more marketing/adversting control to developers which will help even the playing field a bit.

2. the market will correct itself again if this is the case. (If games really are too cheap for the value they give ... the economics of it will work in the reverse as well.) There is enough hype for iphone stuff that more developers will get in the game than will get out which will drive more value above any "yard sales" . And there is critical mass for those that want to download.

it'll probably all distribute out along some form of bell curve in the end.

[Anders]

hey all.. newbie here but I've been reading enough about iphone app stuff in the news to think camzy has a good and valid posit.

however, I think its too early to tell because :

1. apple announced they are going to give more marketing/adversting control to developers which will help even the playing field a bit.

2. the market will correct itself again if this is the case. (If games really are too cheap for the value they give ... the economics of it will work in the reverse as well.) There is enough hype for iphone stuff that more developers will get in the game than will get out which will drive more value above any "yard sales" . And there is critical mass for those that want to download.

it'll probably all distribute out along some form of bell curve in the end.

1. They did? What did the announce? If you have some link of sort it would be great. If you mean that companies can pay for ads in iTunes, that will good news for the big boys (EA etc) and bad news for the little man, the indies.

2. Of course, but that could mean that companies go elsewhere (we already have Labyrinth for Android out...) and all you get are simple low-budget apps, which is fine if that's what you want. Just don't expect any under priced games anymore.

The problem is how the top lists work. They are solely based on number of sales, and it is a no-brainer to figure out that a good game (worth $4.99) priced at $0.99 will sell more copies that a equally good game (also worth $4.99) priced at $4.99. In other words, the top lists favor cheap games, and not necessarily good games. Why on earth are there games with a rating lower than 4 on a top list?

It would be better if the top lists took rating and revenue into account, or perhaps even install time. The top lists would then consist of quality apps, which I think is what consumers would expect a top list to contain.

Anyhow, it is a new market and we will have to wait and see how it turns out.

Just my $0.01 (limited time offer, my opinions are on sale).

[skamando]

The majority of games sell because they are good. Flight Control is a well designed game that deserves all of the sales it gets. And, don't forget, Real Racing was developed by Firemint, the developers of Flight Control. They have recieved the profits from their little addictive game and spent them on an engaging and deep, serious game. Also, with sites like this, promoting and hyping those serious games, I'm certain that a game that truly deserves it's sales, will get them.

[don_k]

It would be better if the top lists took rating and revenue into account, or perhaps even install time. The top lists would then consist of quality apps, which I think is what consumers would expect a top list to contain.

Based on rating is good.
Based on revenue is ridiculous, it will cause so many overpriced app.
Install time is even more ridiculous. I don't care if it takes 10 seconds or 1 minute to install, all I care about is the quality of the game and the support for it.

[Anders]

Based on rating is good.
Based on revenue is ridiculous, it will cause so many overpriced app.
Install time is even more ridiculous. I don't care if it takes 10 seconds or 1 minute to install, all I care about is the quality of the game and the support for it.

What is overpriced in your opinion? $5? $10? $20? If a game would be overpriced, no-one would by it, and hence revenue would be low.

By install time I meant how long an app was installed, not how long it takes to install it silly ;)

[thevagrant]

I think Anders meant to take into account the time the app has been on the appstore, not the time it takes to install it. It would compensate the fact that most apps are slowly (or not) driven out of the top because they're not hype anymore. (edit: written as the same time as post above :) )


In the end, I think it is important to remember that you get what you pay for. A game like mecho wars sold at 30 $ would probably have been developed with a bigger team and on a longer time period, which means that it would have been closer to the polish and content of Advance Wars on DS.

As incredibly good as Flight control is, it offers very little in terms of content. The genius is in the idea and the way it is delivered.

[Galaxius]

This is the main problem with the App Store, the longer/bigger games can't compete with the cheap thrills. Pocket God, Flight Control, and other 99 cent games (that do only "deserve" that price tag based on content) are what people will normally buy. However if developers keep undervaluing their games, then yes the consumer reaps all the benefits, but in turn brings on a domino affect of developers. They think "Hey, I'll lower my game to 99 cents for a bunch of downloads then raise the price again" but when they do nobody buys. In turn they have to keep discounting it to 99 cents (Pangea anyone?). It's one of those things where it's a catch 22, a lot of iDevice owners complain if a game ISN'T 99 cents, yet when a good game comes out and they get it, they complain if the developer follows the domino affect and put a game on sale.

[Anders]

I think Anders meant to take into account the time the app has been on the appstore, not the time it takes to install it. It would compensate the fact that most apps are slowly (or not) driven out of the top because they're not hype anymore. (edit: written as the same time as post above :) )


Well, actually I meant how long it was installed on the device.

[99c_gamer]

In other words, the top lists favor cheap games, and not necessarily good games.

I wouldn't say that. I'ts more like top list favors popular games which in some cases happen to be cheap games.

I'd rather see a list full of 99c original games than stuff like the sims and need for speed. I'm afraid that any other way they organize it that's what we'll end up with.

By the way the list actually does favor install time since the older games have the benefit of being around longer to generate more sales.

[Paradigm]

1. They did? What did the announce? If you have some link of sort it would be great. If you mean that companies can pay for ads in iTunes, that will good news for the big boys (EA etc) and bad news for the little man, the indies.

actually dn't remember where I saw it.. I think maybe it was the keynote speech at the macworld conference or a random article about 3.0.

but basically someone said that apple recognized the need to for a better marketing structure for developers with itunes/app store.


It would be better if the top lists took rating and revenue into account, or perhaps even install time. The top lists would then consist of quality apps, which I think is what consumers would expect a top list to contain.



good idea. email steve jobs immediately. :) :)

lol but that's the point....

apple could implement something like that at anytime. like when the market starts showing signs of anything like you said...which for now...it isn't as its still in major growth period.



Just my $0.01 (limited time offer, my opinions are on sale).

sold! where do I download. :p

[Anders]

I wouldn't say that. I'ts more like top list favors popular games which in some cases happen to be cheap games.

I'd rather see a list full of 99c original games than stuff like the sims and need for speed. I'm afraid that any other way they organize it that's what we'll end up with.

It would be good if there would be more than one top list. The current one could remain, but perhaps change name to 'most downloaded the past week'. And one for 'top rated' etc.

By the way the list actually does favor install time since the older games have the benefit of being around longer to generate more sales.

Install time is not taken into account, it is just the number of sales the past week, not the total number of sales. Otherwise the top list would be rather static.

[Anders]

actually dn't remember where I saw it.. I think maybe it was the keynote speech at the macworld conference or a random article about 3.0.

but basically someone said that apple recognized the need to for a better marketing structure for developers with itunes/app store.


Ok, sounds interesting. I'll google some and see what I can find.


lol but that's the point.... apple could implement something like that at anytime. like when the market starts showing signs of anything like you said...which for now...it isn't as its still in major growth period.


They better hurry. I'm not going to mention any names, but at least one of the bigger devs are doing really bad and I wonder how long they can keep it up, they are struggling.

Also, read the other thread where one indie dev decided to release all of his games for free since I was too hard to compete, even at 0.99, with the big guys when their 6+ month productions with lots of polish cost the same.

[markx2]

Something that affects my purchases are developer sites.

If I click the link in the Store to go to the dev's site and it goes nowhere, or to a 'Coming soon' 'Under construction' or anything else that does not show your app the chances of me buying drop.

If the Support link from the Store fails the chances drop.

If there is a video, the chances rise.

If there are some obvious fake reviews the chances drop hugely.

I mentioned this at the time Zen Bound was released - Chillingo's site is truly terrible. They could so much more to promote each platform and game. As sily as it sounds the fact that Chillingo publisha title does not help that game for me because of their site.

It's not just about .99, it's about overall impressions. Devs need to be aware that they are also selling themselves to an extent - after all, good impressions (a 'brand') attract premium prices. Premium is of course a relative term.

[don_k]

What is overpriced in your opinion? $5? $10? $20? If a game would be overpriced, no-one would by it, and hence revenue would be low.

By install time I meant how long an app was installed, not how long it takes to install it silly ;)

Haha, sorry, didn't get it :p

I bought NFS for $10 and feel it's worth it. I bought Zen Bound, Fieldrunners, Sway (yes ;)) and many other games for $5 and also feel they're worth every penny.

However, stuffs like Sonic or Golden Axe is overpriced - and if you just rate it based on revenue, I'm sure they will come before many better games. Seriously, Sonic and Golden Axe are just two lazy ports using a lame emulator that's not even optimised for iPhone.

This happens with many big name games like MGS, it's way overpriced. Yet, people still buy them because of their name, not for the quality of the game.

I'm sure rating is a better option.

[Anders]

Something that affects my purchases are developer sites.

If I click the link in the Store to go to the dev's site and it goes nowhere, or to a 'Coming soon' 'Under construction' or anything else that does not show your app the chances of me buying drop.


Ok, cool. We weren't really sure if the sites were appreciated or not.

Company website (http://www.illusionlabs.se/), Sway website (http://www.swaythegame.com/), Touchgrind website (http://www.touchgrind.com/)


I mentioned this at the time Zen Bound was released - Chillingo's site is truly terrible. They could so much more to promote each platform and game. As sily as it sounds the fact that Chillingo publisha title does not help that game for me because of their site.

It's not just about .99, it's about overall impressions. Devs need to be aware that they are also selling themselves to an extent - after all, good impressions (a 'brand') attract premium prices. Premium is of course a relative term.

Is it really that bad? Or do you want a site for each game? Interesting to know as it takes some time hack together, and it's not that fun to be honest ;)

[markx2]

I'm certainly not expecting to see some big multi-level site but both of yours tell me way more than the store, they tell me you want to tell me about your game and that you believe in what you have. I really like them - they set the mood of the game.

I know developing must take priority and I have no idea what others think but this can be the push for me (I have Sway, Touchgrind just isn't my thing).

It's like any other consumer experience - if the surroundings are more pleasant you are more likely to or happier to pay more.

[Anders]

I'm certainly not expecting to see some big multi-level site but both of yours tell me way more than the store, they tell me you want to tell me about your game and that you believe in what you have. I really like them - they set the mood of the game.

I know developing must take priority and I have no idea what others think but this can be the push for me (I have Sway, Touchgrind just isn't my thing).

It's like any other consumer experience - if the surroundings are more pleasant you are more likely to or happier to pay more.

It usually takes a couple of days to do a site properly, and if it's a make or break for you, then it could be important to others too. Thanks for your input, I guess we'll be doing a new site pretty soon ;)

[markx2]

You could just go with subdomains? It would save having to buy domain after domain for instance. Any branding elements can stay the same - which goes partway to site creation already - and all your other work is in the same place.

[Anders]

You could just go with subdomains? It would save having to buy domain after domain for instance. Any branding elements can stay the same - which goes partway to site creation already - and all your other work is in the same place.

A .com is practically free nowadays, but yeah I agree, a sub-domain is sufficient.

[jshmrsn]

Hi,
This is a great discussion. I wanted to add an element that hasn't been discussed here yet.

As mentioned: If the AppStore ranks by units downloaded, there is a stronger incentive for developers to release at a low price than if ranked by revenue.

What hasn't been thought about enough, I think, is Apple's perspective on the issue. To Apple, the goal isn't so much sales revenue (although they do take 30%), it's the value-add on the iPhone hardware. Apple is hoping to increase the perceived value of the iPhone/iPod Touch hardware. Assuming that's the case, it's definitely in Apple's interest to keep App prices as low as possible.

Since there is a fairly large volume of customers, it's difficult for developers to saturate the market. Going for volume with $0.99 games isn't necessarily bad, even if it's a big-budget game (something closer to Real Racing and not Flight Control). However, overall it would be a much more big-budget games friendly atmosphere if Apps were listed by revenue.

While I'm sure consumers love having $0.99 games, I know consumers also want console-quality $4.99-$9.99 games. I personally think listing by revenue would be a very natural fit for both cases. It would give big budget games a better chance at the top 10 spots, but wouldn't simply cutout $0.99 games like I've heard some people fear. It's very possible that $0.99 games would sell at least 10 times the units as a $9.99 game of equal merit. Thus, both sectors would compete on very equal and natural grounds.

But, again, the hardware value-add may still be Apple's primary interest. So long as that's the case, it's not in Apple's interest to rank by revenue instead of units sold - even if it's in both the consumer's and developer's interest.

[IzzyNobre]

For me, the app store suffers from a fundamental problem. There are only two categories: Paid and Free. Since $0.99 games are much more likely to be downloaded rapidly, they rise to the top of the charts and overshadow games that are worth more such as Rolando or Real Racing. Premium priced games sooner or later have to reinforce a sale to boost their popularity because its far too easy to get flooded by cheap pick up and plays at $0.99. Games like flight control selling cheap and addictive gameplay are taking over the store, and developers are struggling to find reasons for funding a higher budget game because the return isn't good enough.

In short, people are getting too much value for the price they're paying. As a customer and not a developer, this is a great thing. My concern is that soon, the app store will be filled with nothing but flight control type of games and the app store will cease to be a serious gaming platform.

At present, there is incredibly good content coming out at a constant rate which is awesome. But because of this, devs panic and drop their prices way too quickly. This is good for consumers in the short term, but bad for the platform as a whole in my opinion.

The constant focus on becoming popular is having a detrimental effect on the store and the dev's are making the problem worse by reinforcing the industry "standard" of the AppStore $0.99 games. Is the app store heading for a fall or will big budget games be able to compete in the long run with this current format?

See, I'm one who usually disagrees with the hysteria revolving around this 99 cent controversy. You however summed it up nicely and in a way I can agree with.

Problem is, developers only seem to see two options - either the game costs $9.99, or 99 cents. Why don't we see more $2.99 or $3.99 games in the AppStore? That would be a reasonable compromise, I think.

[CDubby94]

Why do you guys worry about the App Store market so much? Whatever happens, happens. Peole are going to buy what they want no matter what you say on this forum.

[Anders]

Hi,

What hasn't been thought about enough, I think, is Apple's perspective on the issue. To Apple, the goal isn't so much sales revenue (although they do take 30%), it's the value-add on the iPhone hardware. Apple is hoping to increase the perceived value of the iPhone/iPod Touch hardware. Assuming that's the case, it's definitely in Apple's interest to keep App prices as low as possible.


I'm sure Apple were proud when the fart apps and whatnot were on the top 10 lists ;)

In other words, what you're saying is that Apple prefer quantity over quality? I understand that Apple want apps to be as cheap as possible, but also of very high quality. If you look at Apple's own products, they are all very expensive, but also of extremely high quality. Right now, in my opinion, many apps actually devaluate the products they run on.

[markx2]

I don't think Apple give a damn. If a dev goes another will take their place. Barrier to entry is low, attraction is high so why should they care?

What I do think devs should do is develop sites for themselves to showcase and maybe even support their games. Right now you have the store, here, maybe other forums, a few blogs etc. And no SEO, no real presence from internet searches no central place you can point at and say "That's us".

For some games you won't need that but for quality titles and a growing catalogue you will. And if for instance in a couple of years you decide to quit this stuff having an established domain to go with your work can only help sell it.

[ezone]

I think sorting by revenue would be the best, but also, why not just more Top 100 lists in iTunes:

- $0.99 Top 100
- $1.99 Top 100
- $2.99 Top 100
- >$9.99 Top 100

..etc...

[markx2]

The reason I don't want this directly is the way these forums tend to operate.
Game released
OMG THIS IS SOOOOOOOO GREAT
(repeat above for several pages)
Prices moans
Game disappears
Asking at any time in this phase what is the bestest game ever in the history of all gaming and the game will be there.

I'd like them time limited so what you have but games that were released 12+ months ago, 6 months, 3 months. Quality games will shine through.

[Oliver]

I find this discussion interesting, because we talk about that for more than half a year. And, guess what, we do have Assassin's Creed, Need for Speed, Real Racing, Toki Tori, Zenonia, Monster Pinball etc. Good looking, good performing and fun games. Currently, the Top 10 is a mess because of Gameloft, but even now (german AppStore) NFS ist 11, Sims 12, X2 Football 16. So, a problem seems not to exist.

If your game is good or you have a good brand you can go for a higher price point and settle in the top 20.

Or you go the Firemint way and produce a really really great game for a low price point and just hope that it works.

I only have one problem with prices: They drop too soon. Even myself stopped buying a game for the "full price" most of the time, because it will take at max four weeks to drop the price to 79 Eurocents. And that's a problem, the devs created.

[wonderva]

Flight control is one of the best games out there.

[Gamingfun]

For me, the app store suffers from a fundamental problem. There are only two categories: Paid and Free.

With that problem I feel as if Apple should add in a sub category. Once you click on the Paid section you get to see charts for 99, 4.99, and 9.99. Would help out and keep the real games on an easy to find list.

I do hate that Apple won't recognize a game till after it starts selling like mad. When Doom first came out I couldn't even find it by searching Doom or id software :confused: but then once it got onto the Top 25 list you saw it everywhere even on the top spot in the Feature section. -.-

[Camzy]

The majority of games sell because they are good. Flight Control is a well designed game that deserves all of the sales it gets. And, don't forget, Real Racing was developed by Firemint, the developers of Flight Control. They have recieved the profits from their little addictive game and spent them on an engaging and deep, serious game. Also, with sites like this, promoting and hyping those serious games, I'm certain that a game that truly deserves it's sales, will get them.

Is that necessarily true?

I've been watching Rolando on the app store ever since it came out. I bought it at $9.99 and think it's definitely worth that amount. I watched as it fell down and out of the top 50 apps and watched how ngmoco tried to resurrect it by lowering the price to $5.99 and then to $4.99. It worked to an extent, but I can guarantee that sales are nowhere near that of Flick Fishing or Flight Control. For developers, it's all about making money, and making good games helps to make money. It's in their interest to make good games. But since the games on the app store are so varied - Flight Control with one mode of innovative play VS Zenonia with 40 hours of RPG adventure, defining a good game is rather difficult. As a result, 5 star reviews are given to a load of mixed games that are good in their own right but specific to a price point.

Because of this, I have a feeling that devs have no real idea how to price their apps at the moment. Gameloft have been far too aggressive with their prices and have dropped them to obscenely low prices trying to take over the store. That could cause a huge problem for the app store as other devs need to lower likewise to compete.

Devs are now caught in two minds. Lower the prices for extra popularity which would hopefully boost sales, or stubbornly cling on to their original price thinking that people will choose quality regardless of price. We at Touch Arcade are more thorough gamers so we look for quality, but lots of iPhone gamers don't go into such depth and buy games in the "Top Paid" list or Top 25 which are heavily skewed by $0.99 games. Soon, these gamers will think anything more pricey than that is a ripoff.

There is really only one way to combat this and that is to advertise bigger budget, more complete games better. Categories by price, extended search functions etc...

I also agree that games that make it up to the top get all these additional benefits. More reviews, more coverage (Doom in the "featured" list) and eventually more downloads. It's a vicious cycle for a developer who can't get his/her game to the top of the pile but a huge boost to those that do.

[Boardumb]

I think sorting by revenue would be the best, but also, why not just more Top 100 lists in iTunes:

- $0.99 Top 100
- $1.99 Top 100
- $2.99 Top 100
- >$9.99 Top 100

..etc...

This. There should have been something like this from the start.


Also, I feel like a good solution would be to have 2 different areas for games. The first would contain games from $0 - $5. These games could never go over $5, but could fluxuate within that price range for sales or whatever. Then, have a "premium" (or whatever you want to call it) section where games are $5 - $10. Same deal, price could fluxuate within that range but never drop below $5. That way, the bigger deal games won't have to compete with the quick little dollar games, and a game that came out at $10 won't have to drop to $1 just to compete, and hurt everyones feelings that bought it at the original price. You could even throw in a third teir for games over $10. Anyway, just a thought, seems like it could work.

[don_k]

This. There should have been something like this from the start.


Also, I feel like a good solution would be to have 2 different areas for games. The first would contain games from $0 - $5. These games could never go over $5, but could fluxuate within that price range for sales or whatever. Then, have a "premium" (or whatever you want to call it) section where games are $5 - $10. Same deal, price could fluxuate within that range but never drop below $5. That way, the bigger deal games won't have to compete with the quick little dollar games, and a game that came out at $10 won't have to drop to $1 just to compete, and hurt everyones feelings that bought it at the original price. You could even throw in a third teir for games over $10. Anyway, just a thought, seems like it could work.

I love your idea! That could really work :)

[Camzy]

This. There should have been something like this from the start.


Also, I feel like a good solution would be to have 2 different areas for games. The first would contain games from $0 - $5. These games could never go over $5, but could fluxuate within that price range for sales or whatever. Then, have a "premium" (or whatever you want to call it) section where games are $5 - $10. Same deal, price could fluxuate within that range but never drop below $5. That way, the bigger deal games won't have to compete with the quick little dollar games, and a game that came out at $10 won't have to drop to $1 just to compete, and hurt everyones feelings that bought it at the original price. You could even throw in a third teir for games over $10. Anyway, just a thought, seems like it could work.


Yes I agree. But, the price ranges could be slightly smaller than $5 because $3.99 games would be forced to lower to compete.

I'm thinking $0.99 - $2.99, $3.99 - $5.99, $6.99 - $9.99 and that premium category that they said they were going to add in!

[mek]

just to throw this conversation into a tangent

what about an option for a base pay, lets say the developer makes a game, sells it at a base pay for 99 cents, and there is an option to give more, like a donation, much like the radiohead and nine inch nail's cd's that were released either free, and or really cheap, and people donated what they felt the value was

granted 100'000's of thousands just downloaded it, but there were quite a few who threw a few extra bucks because they perceived the product to be worth it

[Camzy]

just to throw this conversation into a tangent

what about an option for a base pay, lets say the developer makes a game, sells it at a base pay for 99 cents, and there is an option to give more, like a donation, much like the radiohead and nine inch nail's cd's that were released either free, and or really cheap, and people donated what they felt the value was

granted 100'000's of thousands just downloaded it, but there were quite a few who threw a few extra bucks because they perceived the product to be worth it

I don't have as much faith in the generosity of humanity as you do. :rolleyes:

[Camzy]

I've thought of another cause of the $0.99 sale.

iPod Touch users having to pay for 3.0.

Apparently, less than 5% of all iPod Touch users have upgraded to 3.0. New games being released for 3.0 have now got a smaller target audience than they did before. When sales aren't doing very well, companies are much more inclined to "peggle" and drop the price to $0.99 to boost sales thus the $0.99 rush on the app store.