So iPhone games will always (?) be cheap!

Unless it's a huge cash-cow name like COD or Halo (which will never happen), eventually all of them drop to around $1-$5.

 

I'm not sure I understand your point. When you say "a ridiculous amount compared to consoles," do you mean that $10 for an iPhone game is too much or too little?

Yep, and that's a bad thing for iPhone and iPod Touch owners. I am guessing that as developers grow increasingly frustrated by the cheapskate mindset of current app buyers, they will devote more of their energy to creating quality iPad apps instead. At least that's what I am hoping!

 

no u are wrong. we are not cheapskates i dont think. its just that there is so much variety in the appstore that if you dont want to buy a game for 5 dollars, you can buy a similar game (or something almost exactly the same) for less money. for example, if you had 2 gas stations across the street from each other, they would compete by lowering their prices... over and over and over. i used to think we were cheap. until i realized it is apple's fault for allowing almost everything through its submission process.

 

this has kind of been happening for a long time..

 

yep. and the same same threads keep appearing.

 

well, most of the idevice games are cost under $10, but if they do good sale, they still can make a big profit (popular game make 400k in 2 months).
But the game itself is not cheap... almost same as PSP and DS game...
it is because we download it thru the same platform (iTune) where
1) no advertisement required,
2) no package require,
3) no game box printing require,
4) no shipping fee require,
5) no deliver to retail store require,
6) no cashier required,
everything is automatic… so game company saved lot of money already, the game itself just cost $10? I think it is fair.

 

It might be fair if more games did actually cost $10. For every App Store success there are ten struggling dev teams, just about ready to throw in the towel.

 

I think that games will just get more expensive, to the point where 99 cents of today's App money is equal to 5 dollars of future App money.

 

As a developer I really really really want to reply to this comment.

The simple reality is this: Does the extra time spent making a high polish, in depth story line, perfecting game mechanics, adding in extra artwork and audio, etc. justify the risk involved?

The answer is no... It is less risky to make a simple little gimmick, see if it works out, then build onto it and expand. The amount of time and effort that a developer places into a product amounts to more and more risk as time goes on since the game may be a total flop.

There are a lot of developers who do what they themselves find fun (rather than what you guys, the gamers, think is fun - we have a survey up for this actually - in another thread, but link is http://www.rougepirateninja.com/community/survey). Sometimes they get lucky and their interests overlap with the market's interest, but most simply don't. The kind of games I personally play are in depth WWII strategy and simulation games, such as Hearts of Iron and IL2 Sturomovik. These are not the kinds of games we would produce, despite the fact that I would absolutely love doing so.

Bigger developers will have an advantage in their name branding floating them through even the worst of games. They can afford to spent a huge amount of time and effort into it because they know just even the words "id software" or "Rockstar" is already a huge piece of the pie.

Without a technological warfare game at play, with a good name brand backing your efforts, the reality is the best route being horde advantage - lots of little games with hopefully one making the cut. The success of even just one can fuel many many other attempts.

This is why you see a quantity over quality approach by so many developers - it simply makes better business sense. Sucks for the consumer, but, there has to be a line drawn that makes the business model sustainable.



Feel free to disagree of course. Not all developers are obviously the same or have the same outlook.

 

Thanks for responding to my comment. You bring up some interesting points that had not occurred to me. I guess I was just hoping that the iPad would bring on a new era of fabulous games at premium prices (and when I say "premium," I mean $10-$20, not $50-$60! )

 

I would love to see games sell for 10$ and actually be able to sell. That would be awesome!

Keep in mind though, I'm just one developer. I obviously can't speak for all, but our team, as well as the few other teams I've talked to, all kinda come down to the same basic idea: Why spend a lot of time on something that doesn't work? Some teams are more open about their beta work while others aren't (possibly out of fear of being ripped off - we are) so maybe they have an advantage of early detection, but that's just an issue of execution and tradeoffs.

I know that making games may seem like some sort of easy "Oh you just gotta make XYZ!!!11", but "XYZ" is a game that appeals to you... (or more likely, you played game "XYZ" but want to see game "xYA")... That doesn't make it appeal to everybody else all of a sudden, since everybody else may like "ABC". And, with a business, you have to maintain revenue to pay your employees, otherwise you go broke and out of business quick.

So, with that in mind, your personal niche is rather unprofitable. You wind up either serving a specific sub-genre as the only competitor (great for Indie) or a general sub-genre as the top competitor (great for big studio). If you are anything other than those exact two things, things get really hard and you quickly fall into the twilight zone inbetween. Trying to get there is not dry cut.

Now, of course, games are different in that they are like food - people don't buy one game and expect it to fulfill all their needs and not have to buy again (this is different for utilities Apps), but rather buy a game and it fulfills their needs for a limited time (like food). Eventually you get bored and need new entertainment. So that is a plus for games, but still.

Where are people going to find that entertainment? Well, we're programmed to just want to play the popular, fun, and "good" games, so we as consumers get the advantage of just being able to select the best one and going with it. Sure, one can be jealous, but that entertainment is the result we developers all are aiming for (or should be aiming for).

Trying to sell is another topic all together, but I am a big believer that polish and presentation mean everything for the initial sale, where as substance and depth mean everything for the long term brand loyalty. It's not an either-or world, you need both to become really successful (and a well funded marketing campaign helps immensely too). Of course, on the Indie developer end, quantity-over-quality is going to fit that model best for the resources available.

Sometimes I feel that, as Indie, you need to spend more time in marketing and design than in production. Nailing the right look, feel, as well as gameplay, is the critical aspect at work. We can spend a huge amount of time adding in leaderboards, social integration, and special options later (which takes a lot of time in production), if and only if the core concept proves viable.

Not that the big names don't make crap, or gimmicks, etc., but rather I'm not so sure it is an issue of driving out bad quality as more as it is an issue of time, risks, costs, value, and the all important ROI (return on investment) dominating the decision making.

Thanks for reading at any rate.