Developing separate iPad iPhone versions vs. universal apps

Discussion in 'Public Game Developers Forum' started by NickFalk, Jan 31, 2010.

?

Would you prefer separate iPhone/iPad apps or one app for both gizmos

  1. I don't wanna pay extra for an app I've already purchased for my iPhone!

    23 vote(s)
    54.8%
  2. I rather pay to save space on my iPhone and have a "proper" iPad app.

    11 vote(s)
    26.2%
  3. I don't care either way.

    8 vote(s)
    19.0%
  1. NickFalk

    NickFalk Well-Known Member

    This is something I guess us developers will have to decide upon in the future. Releasing universal versions might seem like good customer service on the surface as users will only have to buy the app once.

    Unfortunately I don't believe it is the way to go, despite this obvious advantage to a lot of consumers. One of the problems is the fact that the iPhone apps will have to cary with them a lot of unneeded resources, making the files larger. As an iPhone user I certainly prefer the files to take as little place as possible and although I don't mind saving a bit of cash I wouldn't mind buying my favorite apps again for the iPad if this means they will be truly optimized for the platform. I might be in the minority though and would like to hear from the rest of you.

    Separate apps or fat binaries?
     
  2. slashandburn

    slashandburn Active Member

    Oct 10, 2009
    32
    0
    0
    Birmingham, Al
    Well for my customers the universal binary will be the best, I would only need to release one update at a time, use the same code base, and only need to add additional content and config files to handle multiple platforms. The binary actually won't increase that much, but the File-size of the Application will rise. Also I have a bet the Fieldrunner guys will release a new iPad only version, they are all about the money.

    My only real concern is will the universal binary still work on 2.2.x devices, since I don't want to leave them behind.
     
  3. mobile1up

    mobile1up Well-Known Member

    Nov 6, 2008
    754
    0
    16
    Technical Director
    Munich, Germany
    apple has dealt with this before. universal binaries exist on mac osx. power pc and intel - apps written for intel can still run on non-intel devices - as long as the applications do not use mac osx version specific API's and they are built as universal binaries.

    you'll find the bootstrap of a universal binary is power pc based so it'll run even on older systems - but, a new intel system could detect this and execute the intel version. for the ipod/iphone vs ipad - they are both assumably ARM binaries so it should be even easier to deal with.
     
  4. Athlos

    Athlos Well-Known Member

    Jan 8, 2010
    267
    0
    0
    Ohio
    I'm not even planning on getting an ipad because I've already got an ipod touch and in my opinion they're practically the same thing except one is bigger. I bought my PC laptop (mid-end) for $399.99 and laughably I can say it at least can play flash! So I prefer games be made universal, both for ipod touch and ipad.
     
  5. majicDave

    majicDave Well-Known Member
    Patreon Indie

    This is a very complex problem, and not one likely to be resolved in the next two months.

    On the one hand, universal apps seem great and simple for users. Buy once, use on all devices. It makes for a clean App Store, and is very 'Apple-like'. Apple are clearly promoting universal apps, and customers will want them and expect them.

    On the other hand, the iPad is a completely different device, with a completely different technical requirements. Gaming in particular does not fit at all well with the universal app method. It increases the size of a game to up to 5x the original, making it less likely to fit under 10MB. The coding for two separate display sizes is more complicated. The images required for iPad games need to be at least twice the resolution. For games that are already in the store, this means re-creating all the graphics.

    So tens of thousands of developers will need to go out and re-hire their graphics crew to re-create a whole bunch of graphics. This isn't cheap, but customers will be expecting it to be done for free.

    So what options are there to charge for the extra development, and distribute the right sized app to the right device?

    You could sell an iPhone version for $5, and an iPad version for $10. But customers aren't going to like that. 'I've already paid $5, I'm not paying double that to play it on my iPad!'. Reviews like that will take over your iPhone version.

    You can't charge $5 for the iPhone version, then use IAP/DLC for the iPad version, as it would require a universal app. Which means people buying the universal version on an iPad will then have to pay more for the DLC they need. You could, I guess, have an iPad only version as well, but can you imagine the confusion on the store? How many emails will you get from people who bought the wrong version on the iPad, and pay twice? How much would you charge for the iPad upgrade, and how much for the specific version? This method is complicated, though some developers will definitely use it.

    Another option might be to release one universal version with no resources, and have it download the correct ones from your web server. This adds to coding complication, requires developers to pay for and keep running a server with potentially huge bandwidth, and is an extra step and delay when a customer starts up the game for the first time.

    Maybe there are other options, or maybe Apple will come up with an answer. In the mean time though, I'd expect to see a lot of the current games running all blocky at 2x indefinitely, while new games will likely be universal, larger, and get more expensive on all devices.
     
  6. Athlos

    Athlos Well-Known Member

    Jan 8, 2010
    267
    0
    0
    Ohio
    I'm not quite sure as of yet, but in my eyes I see the ipad as doing not so good throughout the future. From what you just said it looks like a big hassle for something that really isn't worth it, for the developers or the customers buying an ipad.
     
  7. MidianGTX

    MidianGTX Well-Known Member

    Jun 16, 2009
    3,738
    10
    38
    People are gonna complain either way. I have no doubt that we'll see both methods tested out by a lot of developers, and in both cases people will respond by moaning and whining. It's possible one will turn out noticably more popular though... then set the standard.

    Personally I'd be happy downloading a game then purchasing the iPad "extras" via in-app DLC... but there are problems with that, the main one I can think of being people who can't access Wi-Fi on their device and rely on iTunes on the PC/Mac for downloading, so far there doesn't seem to be a way for them to make in-app purchases.
     
  8. frogtorch

    frogtorch Well-Known Member

    Apr 26, 2009
    323
    0
    0
    Platforms update and old games become useless. Always have, always will.
     
  9. gekkota

    gekkota Well-Known Member

    Jul 17, 2008
    1,490
    2
    38
    The iPad is the future!
    As far as the original question--separate versions vs. universal version--I think that most consumers would prefer an app that runs on either device rather than having to purchase the same game twice.

    My expectation--and I know I may be in the minority here--is that currently available games will run well in a smaller window but if I want to run them at fullscreen, the graphics will be degraded to some extent. (And that future games will look great at fullscreen!)

    I think it is unreasonable to expect developers to re-do all their work so that every game released in the past few years will look great on the iPad at full screen. That's just plain crazy.
     
  10. dansu

    dansu Well-Known Member

    Feb 27, 2009
    172
    0
    0
    San Francisco Bay Area
    As a consumer, I'd love to buy an app once and run it anywhere.

    As a developer, however, I would like to charge separately for two different versions.

    I think both of these approaches will be taken but they will be taken on an app-by-app basis, depending on the complexity of the app itself. If tailoring an app to work on the iPad requires simply using higher resolution art and minor coding changes to account for the larger screen size, then I wouldn't mind making one fat universal binary to keep things simple.

    However, if I make large changes to an app's code (or rebuild it from the ground up) in order to provide the user with a vastly improved experience on the iPad, I feel I would be justified in charging separately for an iPad version.

    Consumers may initially believe that the iPad is simply an oversized iPod Touch but I believe that perception will change once we see some quality iPad-specific apps. This, in turn, will also help justify purchasing apps separately for the iPad.
     
  11. Anders

    Anders Well-Known Member

    Feb 3, 2009
    1,634
    0
    0
    Co-owner and CTO at Color Monkey
    Sweden
    I think the simplest solution is the best: allow us devs to submit two binaries for one app.

    + You will not have your sales split over two apps
    + Consumers can buy once and consume twice
    + The iPhone version is much much easier to keep below 10 Mb
    + iPhone users don't have to download and install a lot of extra Mb that will never be used
     
  12. That kind of forward thinking and logic cannot be tolerated by Apple!

    Seriously though I like that concept a lot!
     
  13. bravetarget

    bravetarget Well-Known Member

    Sep 14, 2009
    330
    0
    0
    Agreed.

    Though, they may end up doing something similar to the Android SDK. One app on multiple platforms, with different screen sizes and resolutions -- not as big of a problem as we may perceive.
     
  14. #14 MindJuice, Feb 1, 2010
    Last edited: Feb 1, 2010
    I'm not up on Android development. Are you saying that the one app has multiple sizes within one executable? Or that one "app" has multiple binaries each of which supports a particular platform?

    Apple has said that there will be universal binaries that combine iPhone and iPad apps into one, but I haven't heard anything as sensible as Anders's idea. You get all the benefits with none of the negatives (the main negative being increased size of iPhone apps due to the large resources needed by the iPad).

    If you completed a purchase and it just downloaded both binaries, but considered them as one app, then it could just install the iPhone one on iPhone and the iPad one on iPad.
     
  15. Oliver

    Oliver Well-Known Member

    What I would prefer: Release separate versions for the iPad and the iPhone. BUT, the iPhone version should be able to scale itself to the iPad resolution (with scaled up graphics). So, no increase in file size.

    Now, the real iPad version should include high quality graphics.

    And, add an in-game-purchase to the iPhone version with includes the high quality graphics for the iPad.

    Then, customers can decide:

    Pay $5 for the iPhone version. Play it on both devices. Get scaled up graphics and slightly changed controls on the iPad. Allows the size of this version to stay below 10MB.

    Pay $10 for the iPad version with high quality graphics. Will be bigger than 10MB.

    Or Pay $5 for the iPhone version and $5 for the additional iPad-graphics, which basically transforms the iPhone version to the iPad version when being played on this device. Download of ingame-graphics will be over 10MB, but this is allowed.
     
  16. c0re

    c0re Well-Known Member

    Apr 15, 2009
    444
    0
    0
    I think that newcoming games won't bother with this 2 binaries problem : they will developp one unique app, designed for high res, and automatically downres it for iPhone.

    And this will be a problem for already implemented apps : They will be cannibalized by those ultra flexible new games.

    So if I could give an advice, it would be "just don't bother, ramp up to the new resolution and let your old games live by themselves". ;)
     
  17. GlennX

    GlennX Well-Known Member

    May 10, 2009
    761
    0
    0
    UK
    My current thinking is to make a universal binary but only include the data for the iPhone/iTouch version. This would mean, for a 3D game, that the resolution would be high on the iPad but the textures might look kind of low res in the foreground. For 2D games it might not be an issue at all if the developer decided to simply show far more of a scrolling level. If not, the graphics could be scaled up but it would still look better than the auto-scaling.

    Then, the hi-res textures and/or 2D stuff could be sold as DLC. This would enable developers to keep under the magic 10mb on the phone/ipod, have cooler graphics on the iPad and charge a little extra for the "HD" version.

    Seems like it might be the perfect solution.
     
  18. Eric5h5

    Eric5h5 Well-Known Member

    You don't think the iPhone is going to stay at 480x320 forever, do you? I'd say it's a good idea to start thinking about resolution independence anyway, iPad or no iPad. The only thing I'd have to do for my game on the iPad is probably change the controls a little. The graphics were already done at 4X the resolution you currently see to begin with, so all I have to do is change a setting and recompile.

    --Eric
     
  19. simplymuzik3

    simplymuzik3 Well-Known Member

    Aug 12, 2009
    342
    0
    0
    I agree 100%. The concept is perfect, everything works out for everyone!
     
  20. thewiirocks

    thewiirocks Well-Known Member

    Aug 28, 2009
    618
    0
    0
    Expert Software Engineer
    Code:
    glViewport(backingWidth, backingHeight);
    glOrthof(/* parameters for my virtual coordinate space */);
    
    Replace your existing images with higher resolution textures as appropriate. :D
     

Share This Page