Probably nowadays, where this is happening so frequently, probably it might be best for Apple to adapt a 30 day price reduction refund, then the trend for waiting for sales and abuse of early adopters would improve. I doubt if it would happen though cause Apple wants to instill a "No refunds period" clause, but really, they usually do refunds anyway for many causes. I personally think such a thing would be good for ios gaming on a whole. Early adopters need to be rewarded, not subject to launch sales a couple of days later. I think it would be a good thing, cause there just seems to be so few early adopters in threads nowadays, which is kind of sad, cause it just continues this cycle of quick launch sales.
While I don't really care about the price cuts; I'm sure I win and lose about equally over time from the practice and not about to pay more than I feel something is worth anyhow, such a policy would be interesting (as in the "be careful what you wish for" interesting ). As you note, it might have the result of getting more people to buy early because they wouldn't feel they are risking "losing" money if/when the app goes on sale a short time later. However, there is a counter effect in place from such a policy: developers would become less inclined to put things on sale to drum up sales numbers because, unless sales had been truly awful, that would mean retroactively reducing their revenue. Common practices like the 24 hour $0/$1 rush to get a bump in the charts and review numbers would become out of the question for developers unless, again, their sales were so dismal it doesn't make a difference. This could wind up paradoxically both increasing prices for everyone and driving total volume of sales numbers downward. Might even wind up with people refusing to buy at launch because, if an app sells well for the launch price, developers have no incentive to discount the price - it would basically take a consumer strike of an app to force it into a sale price. Further, removing the flexibility for developers to manipulate price points to gain visibility and buzz could very well make the app store into an even worse place for the majority of developers as they are forced by such a policy into launching at the lowest possible price they expect the app to go with no flexibility to experiment on pricing.
I am also sure that some customers would try to abuse the system. Apple should act. Minimum 2-3 bucks for an app and this price needs to stay at least for 4weeks before it can be changed. Not neccessarily longer because of the games short lived nature. But this would indeed take away the devs pricing flexibility. Devs also need to find other ways to make their products visible. I think that most of such solutions have one or another flaw. Even doubt there is a perfect system at all.
If something like that is written, people will NEVER buy anything unless it is at least 4 weeks old and see if prices change. It's human nature to either abuse the system or break it.
While it wouldn't prevent price cuts, Google Play will not allow an app to go free --- ever, unless the dev intends to keep it that way. This would at least eliminate those waiting for a (usually paltry $.99) game to go free. It would also prevent devs from switching business models to freemium after the fact (which to me is WAY more annoying than price drops). Just a thought. I'm not sure of Google's motivation for it.
I'm sorry for the people who payed full price and did not enjoy it. If you are enjoying it, then you can look at the other 3$ as donating to the developer. Still kind of sucks though, they should have had the sale for the first few days and then go full price, not the other way around.
I don't think the appstore needs to change when it comes to pricing. It's easier to Adapt and ride the waves. IF I want a game bad enough at launch, I'll buy it and never look back. Everything else I either get free or on sale which is good because most of those games never get much play time anyway. Still, I like to entertain how the store could be improved. Actually, I like this idea a lot. Sure it would mean the end of free games for the most part, but it could offer some possible level of price protection. I say take it a step further and if a game releases without IAP, it can never have IAP added to it. Similarly, consumable IAP should be removed and all IAP purchases should be restorable. I think that might help the freemium/addiction thing that so many games aim to cash in on.
Dang straight. Though many games launch with the framework for ads installed with just the need to flip a switch to turn them on at the devs discretion. But Apple could warn us, much like IAP, when a game has ads or the framework in place for them. That would be cool along side locking the dev from implementing ad features later.
I understand your post and while i am not seething with anger or smashing things in my house over a loss of 3 dollars, i think again, my point is being missed. You cannot compare a price fluctuation of a consumable such as bread or gasoline where a million other factors come into play other than just "where my app rates on the top charts" for iOS gaming. People NEED food. People NEED gas. Do we NEED games? No, I think these "starving artists" NEED people far more. Most of my posts were deleted by the thought police, but the gist was - how do sales like this help a dev in the long run? I am talking big picture, for future releases. If Uppercut cared, truly cared about their loyal fanbase and die hard supporters who bought a game on launch, they would have released the game IMMEDIATELY on sale. Simultaneously they are thanking those small group of loyalists who have eagerly awaited a games release, following the production closely and counting down the days AND gain tremendous exposure from the subsequent "omg limited time launch sale 50% off what an INCREDIBLE DEAL MASH BUY ACT NOW SUPPLIES ARE RUNNING OUT". If it is ALL about sales and visibility, then it does not take an economics major or business expert to see that having this sale immediately and THEN jacking the price would alienate no one, and probably work to gain you more supporters, not lose them. Furthermore, you would not be hamstringing yourself for future releases. You cannot sit there and tell me a good chunk of people who bought this game in the first four days would do the same thing again for this dev. Whether you agree that it is right or not - it is in our nature to learn from our mistakes and to save our money as best we can. This forum would not exist, otherwise. The route these devs took was basically "thanks to all the suckers who gave us full pop, but unfortunately there is not enough of you in our pockets, so in order to further thank you, we will drop the price for everyone else who didnt have confidence and trust in the product we delivered. But hey, you thought the game was worth what you paid so whats the problem?" Are they trying to WIN more people over? Or are they just trying to make as much money as possible? Either way, they are failing on BOTH accounts. Yeah, ok. Sound customer service. Maybe apps should code a "donate" button for everyone else who has no problem getting screwed over by the system. I think however, you will find more people unwillingly to take the plunge on a new launch as a result. Ultimately, that only hurts the developers. They created this environment, so the bleeding hearts take pity on their strife argument really doesn't resonate with me.
Pretty simple: They make nothing on the OS, only make money on a very small selection of the hardware, and they make nothing on the IAP unless it goes through the Google Play store for processing (but they have no requirement like Apple for that either). Google is basically funding Android on their share of sales through their Google Play store, and Android apps tend toward a 99% piracy rate versus Apple's 40%. They'll be damned if you're going to play around with free/not free in that scenario.
Disagree. I think most who bought on launch were well aware what would happen, if not this week, certainly by week 2 or 3. We bought it because they've been awesome at supporting the first game for 2 freaking years now, and it's been $1 more times than AppShopper can count because they don't have that many lines in their app history We bought it because the first game is one of the truly outstanding regardless of platform games you can get on iOS and we expected the same from the sequel. I knew full well that my $6 outlay was liable to be unnecessary, that it was bound to be some lesser price within a few weeks, and I still did it. I expect the same of most of their actual fans. Those who see a lack of principle in a 50% price cut when they landed something as good for them as Apple's Editor's Choice are soft in the noggin as far as I'm concerned. I want them to make as much money as they possibly can, if the difference of less than the price of a Big Mac spent by me on day one versus day 4 helps them out, why should I care that I could have saved $3? Makes no sense for the buyers to worry about $3 when it's the developer, not them, who is losing money that counts. I wouldn't buy a game for $6 or $3 if that money mattered in a pragmatic sense. Conversely, these people's livelihood depends on enough volume of sales to warrant their development time, and they just voluntarily halved their revenue per sale!
Just FYI, * Both past games by this dev (Epoch & SnowJinks) have had $0.99 and $FREE sales. * Both past games and this new one have consumable IAP. * Epoch, the first game had regular $0.99 sales it's entire time on the appstore * Epoch actually had a $2.99 sale down from $5.99 just right at a month after launch... this pattern was pretty common at the time and has been common these days amongst a lot of devs to do so within a couple weeks of launch. Just over 1 month after that $2.99 sale it hit $0.99. * SnowJinks hit $FREE at nearly the 2 week mark of being on the appstore and has hovered between $Free and $0.99 most of it's time on the appstore. It's $1.99 for the first time, but no doubt that's a setup to get it higher ranks in the sales apps when it drops to $0.99 or Free real soon. I'm not saying anyone is dumb for being a noob to the appstore or shopping on it, but once you start paying more attention to the devs on the appstore and what is published, patterns do emerge no matter how hyped up the community gets and you can avoid future blunders. Obviously some money for every game this dev makes is made through consumable IAP and this dev is well known for having sales shortly after their apps launch.
Buyer beware, understood. But i certainly don't think i am the only one with egg on his face And a month after launch sale is not 4 days after. Wait a few weeks at least. How about having the audacity to call it a "50% off launch celebration sale" Can you guys defend that one, too?
Neither of you addressed the fundamental point I made Would the developer have made more money AND supporters by doing this sale in reverse order? Just give me an honest answer to that question and I will disappear (i have to actually try this silly game for more than 10 minutes)
Agreed. I do not profess to have a cure-all, but I believe the current model is broken and unsustainable - and despite the tone of my posts - I do not want competent dependable talented developers to resort to the freemium model for existence
It's funny how everyone talks so much about Big Macs and Starbucks cappucino's nowadays, makes me hungry. Yeah, that should read "50% off LUNCH celebration sale".
I've posted very similar things in other threads so apologies if I'm repeating myself.... My twopenneth is this: If I really want something on release I buy it, Oceanhorn for example. If I'm not sure I wait till a sale, in this case epoch 2. Sometimes I get burnt by swift price drops and other times I pick up an absolute bargain by getting something I'd happily pay a premium price for. Lumes is this weeks surprise. Even given the fact that I know in the long run I come out on top financially I still get annoyed about games going on sale so quickly. (And it is purely the speed of the sale in the case of any game - I know that sales happen all the the time) I shouldn't and I know it's the nature of the Store but I still think there's something wrong in penalising early adopters for their support and I'm not sure it's going to help the App Store in the long run. Then again I got it a couple of quid cheaper than those who bought it less than a week ago so who am I to complain.....
