★ TouchArcade needs your help. Click here to support us on Patreon.
09-04-2014, 03:48 PM
#11
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 432
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiny Tap Gems View Post
Hi,

thank you all for your feedback!

We can understand your complains about the In-App-Purchase for the Pro-Version. We will change the app description regarding the split between the Standard- and the Pro-Version. We never wanted to be unfair.

But please let me explain the situation from the developers point of view:

When you created an App, spend a lot of work, time and money for the development, you also have to think about monetization. There are many options...

1. Make the game free and include ads -> Hmm, no. I don't like ads and most people doesn't like ads, too.

2. Make it a full prize App for lets say $1.99 -> Problem here: Most people will spend more than $0.99 for a game that they haven't tested before.

3. The way we selected for Slidercrash: Selling the first part for only $0.99 and the rest for the same. We thought that is fair. You can check the game for a very small amount and when you like it, you can buy the rest. Your choice.

But maybe there is a fourth way...
4. Make the game free and set the Pro-Version to $1.99 (more levels, more music and more gameplay elements) What do you think about this method? Would this be more fair?

As you can see it's difficult. Even if we try, we will not achieve that everyone is happy.

And by the way... I think $1.99 for a game that you really like is not so much. You buy many hours of fun then. A Pizza costs twice the money and you have only fun for 10 minutes ;-)

Best regards,
Joachim
@TinyTapGems
To continue your pizza comparison, at the moment games storepage is like pizzeria advertising pizza with four toppings for 2 bucks and when they bring it comes only with two and they tell you will get other two if you pay 2 bucks more
09-04-2014, 11:10 PM
#12
Joined: Mar 2014
Posts: 115
WOW, how TA members can be schizo!! This dev gets thrown in the fire for charging a dollar, a DOLLAR, with w full release later, yet everyone is praising and arguing how that's how to get noticed on the App Store versus F2P over on the Valiant Hearts thread! You all are just rediculous. I hope this dev just ignores the ignoramuses here.
http://forums.toucharcade.com/showthread.php?t=241373

09-05-2014, 03:36 AM
#13
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 432
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hypocrypha View Post
WOW, how TA members can be schizo!! This dev gets thrown in the fire for charging a dollar, a DOLLAR, with w full release later, yet everyone is praising and arguing how that's how to get noticed on the App Store versus F2P over on the Valiant Hearts thread! You all are just rediculous. I hope this dev just ignores the ignoramuses here.
http://forums.toucharcade.com/showthread.php?t=241373
Apples and oranges. It was clear from the beginning VH is episodic, here you knew only after buying.
09-05-2014, 09:46 AM
#14
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 1,159
Joachim,

Great to hear from the game's creator.

I can certain understand the challenges you face when pricing the game for sale. I do agree that the current app description is somewhat misleading, leading to some of the criticisms cited in previous posts.

It is a difficult task when your game is competing against so many other $0.99 puzzle games that offer many more levels than your's. Understandably, this comparison is limited by itself, as it does not take into account the quality of the puzzles and the general production value and novelty of the game. Sadly, as I explained before, perception is now the principal driver in trying to capture your audience, particularly when you are a small indie studio that may not have a well known pedigree from which you can leverage. In other games, I have seen a common strategy in first releasing the full game with a $0.99 price tag and then waiting for a while before introducing a new level game pack as a $0.99 IAP. This way, your audience don't feel "cheated" for paying "half" of a game, regardless whether or not such perception is justified.

PS: Your pizza criterion is an interesting one. For myself, for casual mobile games (only), I have always used the analogous "coffee" rule, comparing how much enjoyment I can get from a game to how much enjoyment I can get from a good cup of coffee as a trade-off estimate in judging the value of a game.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiny Tap Gems View Post
Hi,

thank you all for your feedback!

We can understand your complains about the In-App-Purchase for the Pro-Version. We will change the app description regarding the split between the Standard- and the Pro-Version. We never wanted to be unfair.

But please let me explain the situation from the developers point of view:

When you created an App, spend a lot of work, time and money for the development, you also have to think about monetization. There are many options...

1. Make the game free and include ads -> Hmm, no. I don't like ads and most people doesn't like ads, too.

2. Make it a full prize App for lets say $1.99 -> Problem here: Most people will spend more than $0.99 for a game that they haven't tested before.

3. The way we selected for Slidercrash: Selling the first part for only $0.99 and the rest for the same. We thought that is fair. You can check the game for a very small amount and when you like it, you can buy the rest. Your choice.

But maybe there is a fourth way...
4. Make the game free and set the Pro-Version to $1.99 (more levels, more music and more gameplay elements) What do you think about this method? Would this be more fair?

As you can see it's difficult. Even if we try, we will not achieve that everyone is happy.

And by the way... I think $1.99 for a game that you really like is not so much. You buy many hours of fun then. A Pizza costs twice the money and you have only fun for 10 minutes ;-)

Best regards,
Joachim
@TinyTapGems

Last edited by y2kmp3; 09-05-2014 at 09:51 AM.
09-08-2014, 11:39 AM
#15
Joined: Aug 2014
Location: Germany
Posts: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by y2kmp3 View Post
Joachim,

Great to hear from the game's creator.

I can certain understand the challenges you face when pricing the game for sale. I do agree that the current app description is somewhat misleading, leading to some of the criticisms cited in previous posts.

It is a difficult task when your game is competing against so many other $0.99 puzzle games that offer many more levels than your's. Understandably, this comparison is limited by itself, as it does not take into account the quality of the puzzles and the general production value and novelty of the game. Sadly, as I explained before, perception is now the principal driver in trying to capture your audience, particularly when you are a small indie studio that may not have a well known pedigree from which you can leverage. In other games, I have seen a common strategy in first releasing the full game with a $0.99 price tag and then waiting for a while before introducing a new level game pack as a $0.99 IAP. This way, your audience don't feel "cheated" for paying "half" of a game, regardless whether or not such perception is justified.

PS: Your pizza criterion is an interesting one. For myself, for casual mobile games (only), I have always used the analogous "coffee" rule, comparing how much enjoyment I can get from a game to how much enjoyment I can get from a good cup of coffee as a trade-off estimate in judging the value of a game.
Hi y2kmp3,

thanks for your interesting feedback. I really like the idea you described. Release a full game and then offer a new level pack for the people, who really love the game. This should be okay for everyone. We will think about this in our next level based game we make (our next release in 3 weeks is not level-based, so it's not possible).

Maybe your coffee comparism is better than mine. A coffee matches the price of a casual game better than a pizza. But all this shows the actual situation: The App Stores destroyed the prices for software. Even if there are sooo many casual games in the store, a cool game is always worth $1.99. Okay, this is my opinion, beacause I know how much hard work it is to release a game. Even when it's a small one like Slidercrash.

But I have learned from this discussion. I will change to banner in the first screenshot to 'Up to 60 levels'. The description already points to the fact, that you have 60 levels in the Pro-Version only.

Best regards,
Joachim
@TinyTapGems
01-31-2015, 09:26 AM
#16
Joined: Mar 2012
Location: Brazil
Posts: 1,128
There should be a best practice rule against "inverse" leaderboards, the ones that use "less means higher ranking". It complicates having a total leaderboard. And if you would add more levels, *not* playing them, makes you rise on the leaderboard.

This game, it has no total leaderboard, so that means less incentive (at least for me) to buying the expansion levels.
02-08-2015, 09:29 AM
#17
Joined: Mar 2012
Location: Brazil
Posts: 1,128
Ok, ok, Cowboy Henk sent me a GC challenge on the third set of 15 levels that needs the IAP to unlock, so I unlocked it what can I say, I'm a sucker for competition.

By the way, the leaderboard precision is 0.01, where in-game is shown in 0.1 precision only. I was comparing some scores with CH but not seeing the exact score in-game makes that difficult.
02-11-2015, 04:09 AM
#18
Joined: Mar 2012
Location: Brazil
Posts: 1,128
It would be cool to have a game-total leaderboard. And that leaderboard should be the first, the "main", of the leaderboards. Currently the first leaderboard whose ranking is shown in the Game Center "Game" overview page is the "Tutorial" set of levels. So a low ranking on a Total leaderboard might people convince to buy the Pro levels. At least the competitive people