I came to this thread to pretty much post this exact comment. I 100% agree with everything you have said. The race to the bottom will pretty much start on launch day IMO.
Yup, it can only be gameloft, EA and other big companies who can make the ipad profitable for console quality games.
I would go as far to extend on that, and say that these large companies can only be profitable with these more expensive games with existing IP as well.
I suppose more casual games can run in all the iphone models, while the more graphic intensive ones are meant for the latest one. Is this new ipad as powerful or more powerful than the latest iphone?
-1GHz Apple A4 custom-designed, high-performance, low-power system-on-a-chip -OpenGL 2.0 (utilized by 3GS and latest iPod touch)
Perhaps a dev here can correct me if I'm wrong but I'm pretty sure Apps/Games specifically rendered for the iPad (1024-by-768-pixel resolution at 132 pixels per inch; ppi) will not work for the iPhone's screen (320 x 480 pixels) and hardware. That's why there's a separate SDK for the iPad. As for now, some devs are supersizing their iPhone games for the iPad (Labyrinth 2, TouchGrind, iBlast Moki to name a few) but these will be separate "made for ipad" apps that won't run in your iPhone. Now we might be seeing some devs offering their games for both versions but we might also be seeing developments that are graphics-heavy near-console quality offerings (Gameloft, EA et. al.) that will be "iPad only". Those will be the premium ones that will push this platform forward.
The Poll I do not believe the poll is representative of the average idevice owner. The majority of contributors on Touch Arcade appear to be hardcore gamers. A hardcore gamer will pay more for a quality game. Those people who are less hardcore or who know they won't be playing any one thing too much (me) are attracted to cheaper entertainments with less depth (and a lower learning curve). In the end I think we'll see some 'high end games' but a hell of a lot more casual stuff.
Is anyone else bothered that almost all of the games we've seen for the iPad so far are ports of iPhone games with minor enhancements? Because if that trend continues, I don't think it would be worth much more than the iPhone counterpart.
Relax. It doesn't take a short period to develop premium stuff. The SDK is still fresh off the hay. Give it time.
NO, unless an app offers very substantial enhancements to an app's practical, professional, or entertainment value, that are independent of screen size, clock speed, or new Opengl code (i.e. additional compensation for mastering and implementing the latter ought to in reasonable proportion to real cost and functionality). Many devs (including many of the less-innovative ones) will be concurrently picking up good chunks of change from new and DLC sales to the increasing pool of owners of regular-sized devices - many of which will be running at the same or higher clock speed within a year anyway. "New Ocean" will make success stories out of several devs, similar to how a few real-world buffoons became millionaires by getting "the kit" and churning out something derivative of that and someone else's work as quickly as possible for profit (e.g. some "polished" variant on Tetris featuring a soundtrack by someone the dev never met, nor fed). Development costs for most of these games tend to get trumped up in the forums, and often ignore income received from ads, blog-traffic, and what have you. People can always send money or food to those devs who seem, via their public plights to the consumer, to be struggling the most; some devs are unwilling or unable to fully exploit the app scarcity typically seen during the days and weeks following the launch of a new platform and/or platform upgrade.
What I meant was that often development costs are exaggerated relative to how well the apps end up doing, and also ignore the legacy of intellectual content (e.g. starting with the rule-set of a classic game requiring little or no AI, or using a public license Ai engine) preceding the existence of idevices. Also, the current compensations model allows for runaway success that is independent of the product's practical value or original content, and contains no provisions (excepting costly legal resources) for compensating the true originators of most of the concepts and ideas presented within the context of a complete app product. Thus, in keeping with just economic principles, app prices ought to more accurately reflect their true costs, with the latter factoring in the approximate size of the ever-expanding iDevice pie ; the pie will getting quite big in this case. edit: I was trying to joke a little bit, too, though.
Hi, I see the prices being higher than current levels, probably need to be for the market to continue to bring new development. A trend that concerns me is that developers are making a separate Ipad app and charging a price for that that does not take into consideration those who may have bought the app in its current form. If there is not going to be a universal version of an app, I would like an upgrade path for those who have already stepped up and supprted the developers. David
Hi, I can only speak for myself but this is a shame because it will cause me to mostly or only buy universal apps. A big drawing point for me was being able to use the same apps or games on all devices on my account. I know that I can still do that with the Ipad but the kind of double dipping I see coming in the next months is frustrating and worrisome to me. I do not mind paying good money for good apps but do not like paying good money twice for an app I already own, whether enhanced for the Ipad or not. Will come down to customers making a choice of wanting to pay twice for two different versions of the same app, I am less than inclined to do so. David
Frankly the gamer in me don't really worry about this at all. Mainly because I believe iPhone games with hi-res graphics isn't particularly interesting. If the iPad is to succeed it needs "true" iPad titles redesigned for the device
They should cost more if theyre more sophisticated or extensive than the iPhone/iPod version, or if they have higher-detail artwork. Otherwise (if its just the screen size alone) it seems to me they should cost the same... but given how undervalued games are already, they could stand to cost more anyway. An iPad costs more to begin with, and so I think consumers would accept higher prices to add apps to it. So maybe iPad apps will end up priced fairly while iPhone apps stay absurdly low? And it makes sense to charge separately for iPhone and iPad versions, since the UI and graphics need to be reworked. If, however, a company wants to bundle both together, that convenience would be nice.
Exactly. And "true" iPad title should most definitely cost more than $0.99. I think a few applications on the iPad could be $0.99 with reason, but if it's a "true" iPad Title, it should cost way more than that candy bar you buy at the gas station. Think of all the time it took to design this "true" iPad game, and above all, think of the amount of fun it will bring... taking all of that into account, the game takes much more time to create and brings much more enjoyment than a Hershey's Chocolate Bar. I can easily say that I've bought plenty of iPod Touch games that cost $0.99, that brought enjoyment that lasted 100,000 times longer than any chocolate bar I've ever eaten. And I like chocolate.
The problem with the whole chocolate bar reference is the consumers point of comparison. Yes, chocolate bars often cost more than iPhone games (average price here is probbaly about AUD$1.60, and '99cent' apps are AUD$1.19), but your judgement for "is this chocolate bar good value?" is formed by comparing it to other chocolate bars also on display. In the app store, there are SO many amazing games for 99 cents, you cant help but compare them to decide on wether they are good value or not, and wether you should buy them. If the chocolate business had a low barrier of entry (ala the app store) the average price of a chocolate bar would plummet. Of course this isnt specific to the app store or chocolate bars, but rather just a reality of consumer markets. Sorry about the chocolate related tangent!
