I still don't get the logic of a 'paid lite'. Isn't the whole point of a demo that the player gets a taste of the game before deciding whether or not they want to buy it? Hence why all demos and lites for all games are free.
I get what you mean, but I'm talking to you from a market standpoint, not just a definition. What you're doing is no different than, say, PQ, but even them have a lite (for free) with IAP. My point is that this will be viewed as a lite because this is not divided by chapters a priori, so ppl will just see it as a lite.
It´s not a demo and not a lite release. It´s a full version with a different payment model. Releasing a lite or demo has not been decided yet. If you and others see Across Age EX as a paid lite and not a full version i can´t argue much.
I agree Although I know the AppStore market well enough to predict lots of 1-star "paid lite" ratings - it still makes sense for us.
I don't get this statemnt, because, after all, you're a company trying to profit. If you know that the market you're gonna put your product on is not gonna receive it well, then why do you persist in this strategy to approach it? Wouldnt it be better to generate an strategy to reach more customers instead?
Talking about strategy: It´s longterm oriented Even though some (or perhaps many) people will rate the EX business model 1-star doesn´t mean that the model can´t be successful. We are open for anything. We can still decide about a lite version at a later date..
Don't get me wrong, I'm just saying all this for feedback. Another thing you should consider is the fact that if you put it for .99, then that ap will compete against AA full version, dividing the sales, giving less chance for any to get to/remain in the top 100 longer. That wouldnt happen with a lite, as it has its own section.
Well, it is nice that one would be able to try it with less investment. OTOH, if it had a Lite before I upgraded my OS, I may have already bought it. Shrug. I am all for better games for higher prices, but only the biggest names can hope to sell them sight unseen, IMHO, and personally, I am not very inclined to buy a cat in a sack even from them.
That is correct. But we actually expect that the EX version will completely replace the standard full version anyway. I believe only a very small amount of people will prefer to spend the full amount when there is a cheaper entry possible. I also think more people will buy the EX than people buy the normal version today so we hopefully get a chance to go even higher in the ranking.
Ok but 2 things here. 1. You need to analyze that you'll have a diminish in sales due to the fact that IAP is only reachable for people with wi-fi and latest version OS (not everyone) 2. Yes, more people would buy the .99 game, but only a small bit of it would take the huge chunk of 5.99 for the whole version. In that market analysis case, you'd be waaay better off just diminishing the price of the full version to something lower that actually gives more incentive to people to get it. As it is now, and with the .99 EX, you'll get sales as if you were a .99 game, and the corresponding income, with only some "jumps" of people baiting the full game (due to 5.99 being a high price in the app store, and due to the paid lite version effect discussed some time ago), a middle point would be way better (and with that I mean more lucrative).
I understand what you´re saying, but we´re not aiming for a short-term strategy. Your proposal would take away much room for future measures.
Is ok, I was just giving ideas, looks like a nice game. Just remember that in the appstore market is hard to decided taking into account long term variables, as it changes too much, so I hope you're doing a really nice analysis of that because apps can dissapear before the long run arrives. That and, remember Keynes... "in the long run we are all dead" Good Luck with your strategy and your game
I think this kind of payment system works well with a game like Cogs, or Pacman as it's more of a DLC. You don't HAVE to d/l extra levels to feel like you've completed the game. This is a different beast however; in an RPG, to split it this way, to me, doesn't make sense. Oh, in theory I understand, whether someone buys the rest of the game or not, you still make some money-but I'll be damned if I'm going to pay for what amounts to a demo (or lite version, pick your word). Whether it's the whole game or not, is irrelevant-and to simply say it's not a lite because you d/l the whole game, though you only get to play a small part-it acts like a lite version. Sorry, I wish you luck with the game, and hope you have success, but this type of business model, does sour me on the whole thing.
