It's already not true, sorry. Maybe it is in terms of a total bottom line number, but more telling for those involved is the spend per app - which is greater on Android. We make almost double our iOS income from Android, and those I talk with regularly have similar stories. In fact iOS sales alone would not keep my company in business for very long at all. And at the risk of hubris, I might add that this is mainly from a game that's won a couple of GOTY's and has a BAFTA nomination so is hardly an obscure "failure". Mostly this is due to discoverability and not any "ios owners are more/less generous than android" concept, with Google Play being far emptier than the App Store. But it's still an important fact that developers take on board and is very telling about how long you can stay in business having to give your games away for peanuts.
It'll still be awhile before Android app sales overtake iOS. There was just a report yesterday (link) predicting iOS will take 65% of the app revenue versus Android's 27% in the tablet market. From the reports that I've read and the Android users that I've talked to, it seems like they just don't buy many apps. Look at Rovio - on iOS Angry Birds is paid, however on Android it is free with ads. I've seen a lot of games use this model. Getting back on topic, I personally have never bought any IAP. The only time that I would ever be likely to buy it is if it was for new content that is released after the game has been released for awhile. I absolutely hate day one DLC that costs. From a dev perspective, I can easily see why IAP exists. $2 for a game is not much and unless your game becomes the next Angry Birds it is going to be tough to make a profit off of it.
The key for them to keep the momentum will be to get the New and Noteworthy this week. Should be a lock and I wish they do, they deserve it.
Ok, hmmmm... you acknowledge that some IAP (content based IAP) is okay, but then declare that you refuse to buy ANY game with IAP in it? I don't get it... Look, just because some games have been greedily constructed, doesn't mean a thing. There are PLENTY of games that have completely fair IAP, completely extra IAP, content based IAP, or IAP that has just been tacked on without altering the core game, to give players who want to progress faster a way to do so. And just because a game is a top grossing game, doesn't mean the dev was greedy - you know, it could just mean people like the game and don't mind buying extra content or coins for a game that they really like... The whole point is you should play and judge games based on their own merits, not make these huge sweeping, blanket statements that all games with IAP are terrible and greedy. I just think that its incredibly judgmental and shortsighted to lump all of these types of games into the same category of being greedy... its very unfair to developers, many of which have honest intentions, work years on making their games, and are just barely scraping by.
All I know is that when I released my first game, after a month It dropped from earning $250/day down to $10/day so rather then give up on my dream to create games full time I decided to try changing it to free with IAP and now make enough consistently to keep me creating games full time....if that makes me greedy.....I'm okay with that.
Maybe it does, depends on the game. If the game just isn't very good and is designed solely to enable you to keep making more apps that keep making more money, then yeah, you are. If you make the games because you love doing it and more importantly, love playing games yourself then it's excusable. I think the developer's initiative usually shows through in the final product and you can tell when a game has been given due care and attention.
I'd like to preface all of this saying that I hope everyone understands this is supposed to have a tone of "friendly discussion" Everyone is entitled to their opinion, this is just mine. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like what you're saying then is that if their sole purpose is to try to make money, they're greedy? So, a garbage man or a sandwich maker is greedy because his sole purpose for working that job is to (most likely) make money? Anyone who doesn't have passion for their job is greedy, or is this just a game dev thing? Which brings me to another point... how misplaced this blind hatred towards IAP is... because "greed" is really a product of the developer's intentions, not the game itself, and no one except the developer knows their true intentions. To the consumer, a developers intentions don't really matter (on the surface), if the end product is the same. A game is what it is, whether it was created for one thing (money/greed), or another (for fun). For ex take 2 freemium clones side by side that were exactly the same... one was passionately made by someone who genuinely made what they thought was an awesome, but hard game, then threw in some IAPs after it was balanced to try to make a buck. Vs the other dev who made the same game, but easy at first because that's what he thought was fun, then tweaked it harder in order to try to sell more IAPs... in the end the game is the exact same game! So how is it fair for anyone to guess or say what the devs intentions truly were? And what does it matter? I mean, the reality is for many devs this is also a business... in any business you have to make money to keep going. It is possible to be passionate about your work, and also want to make a profit from it (not saying you're saying otherwise, mind you ), and I think that's an easily forgotten point. And while you're right that passion and intent usually shows through, unfortunately it doesn't mean squat when it comes to sales Imo if they are free, then who cares? You have a choice about whether to pay anything or not. If you don't like the game or the IAP implementation, don't support the developer and move on. It didn't cost you a thing. But that certainly doesn't mean every other game of its kind is the same way. With paid games, in reality you have no idea whether a game was made tedious or slow to sell IAPs, or whether that's just how the developer envisioned the game to be. Its not like there has never been a slow and tedious premium game before IAPs... for ex many RPGs have always been very grindy. So, how do you truly know whether a developer balanced their game around IAP or is just poor gameplay design, or maybe its just that you don't like the game's intended design? Which again is my main point... people in general just don't know what the intention was. All it is imo is using IAP as a scapegoat to pin all their problems with the game on. Is it too hard? Well, instead of admitting that they might just suck, blame it on IAPs. Game is too slow and grindy? Blame it on IAPs. Items too expensive? Must be because they want to sell IAPs. In the end, there is a fine line between what someone THINKS, and what is actually true... Our own Heroes and Castles is a great example... the game is HARD. We know its hard... we like it hard... the game was designed without IAPs at all, and it was designed to be difficult if you don't play the "right" way... it is a more hardcore, action/strategy game after all. IAPs were tacked on at the very end as an afterthought. But yet, we still get plenty of complaints about people thinking the game is balanced around IAPs, or made harder to try to sell IAPs - when it wasn't... the game would be the exact same in every regard whether we had IAPs or not. So I can tell you from first hand experience that many people are just flat out wrong in their assumptions about certain games, their developers and the whole "greed" thing. ---------- Here's basically the short version of my point Its impossible to know how or why a game was balanced, unless you're the dev - whether they were greedy, whether they genuinely thought the balance was fun, or whatever - so why waste the effort? Just judge the individual game on whether its IAP implementation sucks or not... don't generically make assumptions about every game with IAPs... that's all I'm trying to get at.
And that's precisely why I didn't put IAPs in my game, to not be second guessed on the game to be disguised as an IAP lure. That being said I like the way you have IAP in H&C: My kids play Heroes and Castles and never annoys me for consumables - donuts though are another story! - so that for me means you passed the mark. I purchased the classes too. Now Block Fortress, and again on a friendly tone for sake of discussion, is a different story. In Heroes and Castle you had an intended progression rate and tacked some IAPs at the end as a second thought. In Block Fortress however you decided to introduce an experience doubler and my older son asked for it. I'm hesitant to go for it: if you went the same route as Heroes and Castle in your design that means you had an intended progression rate to be enjoyable and that IAP were a second thought. So why in this one not charge players for it upfront and price the game $2.99 since I'd guess that your metrics show that a big majority of your players logging the highest playing time went for it? I just feel it'd be more right to be upfront than having it like it is right now. Again, same as your message, it's a friendly tone, not accusatory or anything as I admire your work overall and what you manage to accomplish with a small team.
I've got the game. No IAPs are needed IMO the xp doubler just makes you level faster. Which gives you better guns for the FPS mode
It posted before I was finished. There is a pure TD mode coming soon i think also the only gun that is worth having is the plasma rifle
You know, I think it says a lot about the shit state of pricing on the app store when you regularly hear phrases, good and bad, like this. "Dev is greedy" "Buy optional iap to support the dev" Here's a thing, and I know this will anger a lot of people, but I'm so sick of the whining on this forum that I'm starting not to care. 1) Buy my games if you like them. Don't do it to me as a favour, do yourself one and enjoy the new game that you like. It's my job to make stuff you like, let me worry about that bit. If you hate my games then great, don't buy them. 2) I'm not actually a charity. I know I look like one because I sell a game that took six man years from top professionals to develop, for only 3 bucks. I want you to buy my games if you think they're worth 3 bucks, not because I need a hand out. Even though it's great to see and I appreciate when it happens, I shouldn't need "supporting". 3) Don't call me greedy or anything else. Personally I would probably be classed as extremely greedy, nay rapacious, in these silly sweeping statements because I want to make as much money as I possibly can. I would ideally (fat chance) like to make millions of dollars profit and buy myself a massive house and a stupid car. And I'm buggered if some kids with no grasp on how the world works yet are going to make me ashamed to admit that in public. In fact, here it is again in bold. I would ideally like to make millions of dollars profit and buy myself a massive house and a stupid car. 4) I do not expect the above to happen at all unless I do good work and sell it to a lot of people for a reasonable return. If a really lot of people buy it and I suddenly make far more money than I need to scrape a bare existence by, that suddenly doesn't make me greedy or exploitative. It's the same game as at launch and it's the same developer. The word you are looking for here is "successful" and when I grew up that wasn't a derogatory term.
Full disclosure: I know nothing about the game except the constant rifling noise that's coming out of the iPad after dinner so hope I didn't look silly
what? shame on you.. what about the rest of your team? a million for each not one for you alone tztz the debate overall is pointless anyway.. since most of the vocal minority are teens without a job and who have yet to enter the real world outside of moms hotel, so a buck of their 10$ itunes card has to buy at least 4 games.. maybe 5. free2play, iap, dlc etc is a relative new trend, which customer in general like.. so this trend is pushed into the market by the big boys and when it reached the appstore it means adopt or die.. for both devs and customers. if an indie hat a good chance to make a roi with a fixed price i guess most would do so gladly..since i honestly dont know anyone in my circle who really like this better.. but then its a new generation of monetarization, and like with all changes the old dogs have the most problems with it to adapt. The grossing charts shows that the majority of the customers out there are more than fine to play for free and spend money if they like it. No one forces you to open your wallet and the huge numbers of free to play flops across all platforms is a statement that just having a paywall does not make the customers like your game. i enjoy clash of clans and ive spend money on it.. unusual for me but i had alot of fun with it then reckless racing 3.. err real racing 3 , i really like and i dont mind the timer at all.. have 10 cars and did not spend a dime so faar i dont see a reason todo so.. so thats actually a bad thing for ea. anyway free2play, iaps, dlc etc are here to stay, debating about personal preferences is pretty pointless and calling devs greedy to want to earn money is ridiculous stupid. You want to get paid for you work too, right? not matter what job it is. Maybe some of the greedy fanclub should aks their boss for a salary cut, im sure that would make him happy and youd look less greedy in his eyes. hehe
i dont know how many people here have put time and effort into madden social on ios (or facebook).....but i have played it enough to get my team from a 65 rank to an 88 rank while spending 0 cash. It may have a wait timer after playing 10 drives, but not a lot of people have time to play 10 drives at one time, so it works well. I personally have only bought IAP when it actually adds something to the game. Minigore for instance, i have bought the coin doubler and the extra characters that offered more functionality. I also bought DLC like peggle nights or extra maps in other games. However, looking at the top grossing games on itunes offers a different picture. Not only are many people actually spending money on games that they downloaded for free, but in many cases they spend enough money to generate a spot on the top grossing app list. I'm not sure if i understand why this is happening, because in all honesty i cannot fathom spending real money for fake money that is in a game, or "consumable IAP" as many people call it. There must be people out there willing to spend money on fake things, but i have yet to meet someone like that. I would love to know if anyone reading this has a friend or family member who continually buys consumable in app purchases. Spoiler warning: long rant about apple ahead Comparing android and iphone, i think android has a chance to take over the iphone in number of apps bought, not because the people are willing to spend more, but because the android operating system runs on many phones. I understand that apple as a tech company wants to produce all of its own devices, but i think that they could make even more money if they licensed their OS to other companies like Microsoft does. The fact that google just creates the OS and licenses it to other companies that do the "hard work" (making and selling the phone) allows their company to sit back and bring in the cash without having to come up with any revolutionary ideas. Apple has to continually come up with ideas for new phones, tablets, computers, and their operating system. maybe if apple stopped focusing so much on making their devices, we could have a better user interface on the iphone. Sorry for the long rant on apple, i just dont like how apple tries to create a monopoly with its software instead of allowing others to come up with the ideas
Thing is, an indie doesn't have a good chance to make a decent ROI with free-to-play either. You need massive amounts of users for that, and that's out of reach for most small indies.
When you make it rich one day, don't forget about us peons on Toucharcade, and make your game free for us for one day please.
