I don't really care about what AppDevice says, however since you care so much, did you read this? Even they agree. Are you even getting an iPad?
If even one of these developers launched any great at $1.99, it would top the charts and spew dust onto the $10 apps. A lot more people would buy it, and give a bigger profit to the developer than starting at a higher price. Isn't the $.99 pricing of good apps start the increased sales of the iPhone/ iPod touch App store? Same rule should apply here, don't you think?
Interestingly, AppAdvice seems to have an iPad lying around, hence all the previews. (including an iPad app store walkthrough) That makes me think...Is arn hiding something?
Wouldn't be surprised given the following: http://www.macrumors.com/2010/03/23/ipads-reportedly-headed-to-reviewers-later-this-week/
What "rule" are you talking about? If you are talking about the "rule" that developers spend months creating an app or game--and then have to reduce the price to less than what a burger costs because whiny children don't want to pay a fair price--then no, I certainly don't think that "rule" should apply. I want to see quality games like Splinter Cell on the iPad and I am willing to pay a fair price. I am hoping that the iPad will attract developers who will create console-quality games for us non-crybabies. The Touch can continue to be a haven for 99-cent fart apps and Minigores for the kiddies, but the iPad should be so much more than that. Yep!
I wonder how long these higher prices will hold? Even though its more work to create games for the iPad (not by much though I suppose) the low barrier of entry and high levels of competetion will probably start to drive consumer expectations on price way down. I'm super happy to see that the 99c race didnt start on launch day atleast however
There's a very good reason for making an iPad specific version of a game to go alongside the iPhone/iPod Touch version rather than making a single universal application. When you build a universal application, the data for both versions is in one download. As iPad games use a lot more data (and yes, it is a lot more work to write one) the file size of your typical iPad game is going to be a lot more than the iPhone version. Even after we've done our magical compression techniques etc. the data for the iPad version's going to be at least double the size. If you add that on top of the data that's already there for the iPhone version, you're looking at tripling the file size (at least) for all the iPhone users to download even though they're not necessarily going to be able to use it on the iPad. When we do a specific iPad version, not only does that let us keep the iPhone version at a reasonable download size for everyone, it also lets us focus on a single build version that's designed specifically for the iPad. This allows a better design focus, less messy code and better optimisations. It also means that an update to either version can be submitted without having to wait for the other.
Gosh, ease up man. Stop crying. This thread isn't quite discussing "Quality Games" like you mentioned. These are ports that didn't take to long to be converted for a larger screen. Yet they ask 10x the price? I would gladly pay $50 for a great, AAA game for the iPad but I just don't see one yet. Certainly not on this list. But hopefully in the future. F.Y.I. - If all you saw was minigore and fart apps for a dollar in the app store, you must be quite short-sighted.
Which is why I believe we will see games in 2 different App Stores (iPad-specific, and iPhone-specific) but utilities as Universal binaries, working on both systems - utilities are less graphics intensive, so file size would be much smaller. Adding extra routines to use up more screen real-estate with a better menu system wouldn't triple the file size for those. That would make a lot of sense.
I'm all for the iPad specific versions. As you said even though they are bigger in size, they will definitely shine on the iPad's larger screen. What I meant by Universal was if you are planning on releasing a game on the iPad, be sure to make a version for the iPhone as well. Even if the game looks awesome on the iPad and developers can't see it being as good on the iPhone, you have 20+ million people who will think it's an amazing game... especially if they don't have an iPad.
Totally. However spectacularly well the iPad sells (and I'm betting pretty damn spectacularly), there's a huge iPhone and iPod Touch base already, so I don't think any devs are planning on going iPad only. Especially in the early days, the iPad's effectively a really good showcase for the iPhone version of the game, which is another reason why avoiding the iPhone version's filesize getting silly is important. There's going to be a lot of iPad only features (the same as there are already devs adding 3GS/iPhone only features) where the devs have fun taking advantage of the iPad's capabilities and the iPad's definitely going to have the better versions of games in most cases as the screen size makes all the difference and we're not having to support an iPad with the spec of the 1st gen iPod Touch so we're starting with a base spec of 'pretty damn cool'.
It will be interesting to see if the multiplayer modes from Cro Mag (OS 9) made it into the ipad version. Playing battle Tag in the Stonehenge arena 2 players in split-screen battle tag mode Two-player split screen mode. Playing Battle Tag on the Ice Ramps track.
You can never predict Apple, but if past patterns hold up then they will only send early review units to the huge publications (WSJ, NYT, etc.). Bloggers usually get the short end of the stick.
Yeah, that's why I'm wondernig. I wouldn't consider AppAdvice as the biggest and most important site of iPhone relevant stuff. But actually they are the only site focusing on iPhone, not only gaming, and they are reasonably large... Hmmm... So where does all the coverage come from?
