I'm curious what others think will happen specifically with games and the idea of Universal builds. Some games will probably scale naturally into a Universal App. My snowball game seems to work best by just showing more of the stage while you play. The detail holds up nicely that way, so the main gameplay segment works well though there will have to be some new control options. But then there's the little cinematic interludes in my game. Either I play them kind of small on the iPad (some upscaling) or I enlarge the assets and try to play them full screen. In that regard it will probably hit the problem a lot of potential universal games will hit. Double assets. Of course, Universal Apps has the potential double dipping. Someone might want the game on both. Ugh, and then there's this sudden need for internet synced save game states. I suspect everyone will try the solution that best matches them, but it's hard to gauge consumer response until they start buying. Will they be ticked off if you offer a specialized app for each device accusing the developer of nickel and diming them? Or will they be annoyed that the Universal App takes up so much storage on their iPhone? I suspect the former will be the most vocal. Anyone else have different thoughts and plans? Btw, it was pretty exciting for me to run my game in the iPad simulator. Games are going to look VERY good on this thing. I don't think a lot of people realize how different the experience is going to feel interacting with a high dpi screen of its size from a close distance.
It's interesting you allude that charging for two versions (iPhone & iPad) is tantamount to double dipping. I never completely thought about it like that before, but it's kinda true. Similar to how movie distributors charge you to buy a DVD and again if you want a digital copy.
I'm thinking of offering a Universal app (works on both platforms) for a slightly higher cost and a "slim" version that is iPhone/touch only for a cheaper price. This way no one is carrying the extra bulk of the iPad assets without wanting to, and there is a nice easy option for those who have both. For iPad only users, they probably will look at it as a value added in case they get the other device down the line. Another suggestion I saw on a separate thread was to make the iPad version an in-app purchase on the iPhone version. I'm not sure that's technically possible, actually. I guess you could have a crippled iPad version that just comes up and says give me money if you want this to look good. I don't like the way that plays out for the customer. Seems like it might be confusing at best and infuriating at worst.
The downside there is that you have your sales split across two apps, which will reduce your ranking and likely make it harder for you to maintain whatever ranking you do obtain.
I am thinking about simply creating two versions of my applications. One for iPhone/iPod and one for iPad. This will mean slightly more work all around but I believe that an app made for the small screen shouldn't simply be enlarged to fit another but rather offer a new experience.
why not make the ipad optic enhancements (higher res etc.) a dlc ? so everyone buys the normale version and ipad user can opt for high res art if they feel the need for it. this should be possible via dlc not?
Yes and No. If you don't do anything new, don't give any more features, don't provide any new content... Basically as a developer if you do the bare minimum to make your app an "iPad app" and then charge for it again as a separate app then I would consider that double dipping. But if you tailor your game for the iPad, you invest time and money into making a high resolution version of the game, add content and make it worth the customer's money to get a new version... then I think it's perfectly reasonable to get paid for that work. Development costs money.
I have a feeling Apple won't allow this because of the things you stated in your post. The idea of the App Store and the whole iPhone OS is to be simple and easy to use. Considering many people don't read app descriptions before purchase they will most likely be annoyed when it shows up as an iPhone app. The other thing I am wondering is whether you can go from an iPhone to iPad app. Is there some switch you hit at runtime that takes you out of the iPhone "simulator" into a full res iPad app?
If you add new content then I believe that's different yes, and possibly makes it a whole new app, but if you're simply re-tailoring the same app to work at a higher resolution, I don't see a good reason for a developer to charge extra for that. I've never had to buy different copies of PC games to play them at different resolutions.
Changing the resolution on a computer isn't the same as making a game for two different pieces of hardware. It's more like buying Final Fantasy 2 on the SNES and then expecting a free copy of the DS remake.
But the hardware is near identical on the iPhone -> iPad. You don't need to "port" the game on any deep hardware level as you do with a DS remake of a NES game. I don't believe that's an accurate comparison. I think the only difficulty a developer would have in the iPad version is if they are truly re-imagining the game for the iPad (e.g. a brand new, huge playing field, version of Flight Control), or if they originally created quite small art assets only useful for the iPhone and need to redo them at a higher resolution for the iPad. If you're the former, surely that is a genuine reason to charge it as a whole new app and justify selling it separately. If you're the latter, I think that's a borderline argument because any new games created today would surely create iPad resolution sized art assets from the outset. But everything else is surely just a few tweaks to the code and UI? Or am I being overly simplifying in my breakdown?
Yes, you're over simplifying things. Even the simplest games have more art assets than you think. Recreating art takes time and usually money. Time is not free. The time we spend updating a game is time we aren't spending making a new game. Additionally, although the hardware differences may be minor at best, the UI requirements Apple has laid out are different than the requirements on the iPhone. These differences take time and money to implement correctly. If a dev chooses to offer an iPad version for free, that's entirely up to them. But a free upgrade to iPad was certainly not part of the deal when they offered the app for sale, nor should the dev be expected to eat the cost of such an upgrade, especially given that the game probably sold for less than the price of a soft drink in the first place.
Going from iPod Touch to iPad is potentially very easy depending on the game. For instance, I tended to make my interface elements higher rez than needed to start with. There might be a technical hurdle or two with minor SDK changes. And, as stated earlier, many games will benefit from a rethink on the interface and other elements. For those suggesting new content in the iPad version, I'm thinking that's sort of arbitrary and might tick off non-iPad owners. Right? In some cases, of course, the iPad game could be significantly different and improved, but then, to me it's a whole new game. I'm more interested in discussing what to do with a game when you want to support it on the two platforms. Another consideration that will be provocative: Will there be a top app sales list for iPad capable apps that is separate from the iPhone/iPodTouch lists? Also, the new 20MB limit for downloading over cell might sway me towards making it Universal. Could be a tight fit, though. The good news is that one of the biggest space hogs, music/sound, won't need duplicate assets. Yep, I'm getting real close to just deciding on going fully universal with my particular circumstance. Just feels better for the customer relationship. Edit: I cross posted with Little White Bear Studios and his points are certainly valid.
It will be interesting to see how Apple integrates the iPad into the app store. I myself would prefer a whole section devoted to the iPad and have them kept different, with special apps linked to their iPhone versions. Apple is known for taking complicated tasks and making them easy to deal with, but this is a tough one. As a consumer, I wouldn't ever buy two versions of the same app. If it were a game, chances are I would purchase it for the phone as it's less intrusive to use in public and goes with me anywhere.
I would assume the iPad section of the App Store can only be seen by the iPad, and vice versa. Otherwise it would be a mess. If a game offers compatibility for both, then that would probably be listed in the description.
No...the CPU is different, the graphics chip is different, the amount of RAM is different, the screen size is massively different. Not really what I would call "near identical" by any definition. --Eric
The hardware specs are different, yes, but I meant in terms of porting your game to work on the iPad; there are only minimal code changes to make (if any), and the only significant change is in scaling up the graphics to fit the 1024x768 resolution, which I believe is trivial to increase the resolution if it's a 3D game, or on a 2D game if you created your art at high resolutions to start with. No no, I was referring to games that are created today. I understand that some developers will have to redo their art for old games, and I think that's down to their discretion whether they decide to charge or not for that upgrade. But in terms of games created today, I think it would be silly to not create your art assets in HD to start with. In which case, I don't believe it's really that difficult to port to the iPad.* Something a few devs are getting too caught up in is thinking of the iPad as an accessory to the iPhone. E.g., If you create an iPad game, you need to think of a way of monetizing it, because you're assuming the iPad customer already owns an iPhone. But I don't think that's going to be the case at all. I think in 2 years, there's going to be an audience of customers who own just an iPad and no iPhone. A different segment who own just an iPhone. And a third segment who own both devices. At which point, I assume most devs will develop an iPad version anyway, to target those iPad owners. At which point is it still fair to charge for the same product* twice to those customers who own both devices? Okay, I'll put it another way: Let's say we develop a game on the iPhone and port it to Android devices. A customer emails us and says, "hey I already bought this on my iPhone but I also have a Droid phone I use sometimes, is there any way I can download your Android version free of charge seeing as I already bought your iPhone version?" — Now, I know I'm breaking this down to the hypothetical level, but if I was in that situation, and I'd coded both apps to target different platforms, and he'd already paid, I would have no problem letting him have the Droid version free. I could never imagine responding to him with, "Well, Mr. customer, making that android version cost us time and expenses and you should really pay again" — it just wouldn't feel right to me. If I've already put that effort in to create that other version with the intent to target Android owners, I'm not going to charge any of my iPhone customers who simply want to play that game on their Android device. So, comparably, if I'm already developing an iPad version to target that audience of iPad owners, I'm not going to charge my iPhone customer again for the same product. But it's not just that, it just feels painful to imagine an iPad customer playing my game with low-res iPhone graphics, because I'm afraid a large number of those potential iPad buyers out there won't purchase a graphics upgrade as they'll say the graphics "are fine" at 2x. But me, as the creator, doesn't agree! * I do think it's important to make the distinction that I'm only arguing in regards to apps that are the same as the iPhone original, with no new features or functionality, and the only difference being up-res'd art for the iPad version. I believe if it's a whole new game especially for the iPad, it should be called "flight control X" or something, to differentiate it.
One significant difference is the screen aspect ratio. It does not match the iPhone, so it will require different game logic, if the goal is to fill the screen. The design goals laid out by Apple are different. We have been told to NOT treat the device like a giant iPod touch. As such, the game presentation is supposed to be different, not just upscaled graphics. But, I'm sure there will be a lot of devs who don't read the rules, and it'll be up to Apple whether to reject them or not. I'd tell you the differences, but I can't due to the NDA. If art were the only issue, I'd agree with you. I've been assuming a large chunk of the iPad market will not own both devices. For instance, it's generally out of the price range of the target audience of the iPod touch. I think you're going to see devs treating the iPad as a different platform, and charge that way. It's a different video game system, even though it shares the same OS. This new video game system allows you to play your old games. Think of it like the GameCube and Wii. You could play all the old GameCube games on it, plus you had the option to buy Wii versions of some of those older games. I'm sorry, but that just doesn't make any business sense to me, even if we had a way to verify that the person actually bought the iPhone version (we don't). If a game dev of a standard gaming system offers versions of their games on multiple platforms, you'd never in a million years expect them to give you the Wii and PS3 versions for free, just because they bought the XBox version. Why is that? Because the games are $30-$60? Because they are on a disk? What makes it okay to charge for those, but not charge for the Android version?
Okay, I do understand your point about the aspect ratio also being different. But if we take NOVA for example, that was demoed on stage at the iPad event. It was just running at a higher resolution. Sure, I know they had implemented a door-opening gesture too, but that minor effort was worthwhile for any new iPad customers, but don't you think it's going a bit far to double charge any current customers who already purchased the game to play on their iPhones? I'm trying to see it from the perspective as not just a business owner, but also a consumer, because I believe that is important to creating brand loyalty. I ran a music company for a few years. I sold our products as CDs, vinyl, and MP3s. I had different formats for different customers, but I always treated the product as the same product. The customers who came to the website to buy a CD or vinyl, I let them download the MP3s free of charge while they waited for delivery. Did I feel I was losing business by doing that? Maybe, because a percent of customers might have purchased the MP3s separately themselves, but I believe that would have been a marginal gain compared to what I would get from the relationship I was building with the customer by offering it for free. I didn't need to put much extra effort in to do that, but I also wanted to do what I believed was fair. If I was in the position where I sold an Xbox game and could allow the customer to optionally play the game on their PS3, I would not charge them extra to do that. And, as a consumer (because at the end of the day, we business owners are consumers also), I would find that a very valuable, and helpful thing the developer has done, and I would remember that. Was there any chance I was going to re-buy the game for $60 just to play it on my PS3? Heck no, so the business is not losing a potential profit there, but the consumers are gaining a lot. I dunno… I know not everyone will agree with me. But do you not think the consumer, and the marketplace as a whole, would be better off if applications and games were platform agnostic? And isn't that what cloud applications and games will bring in the coming future anyway?
