Actually, Schiau Studios launched a match 3 app some time ago at 9.99$. A bit high for a match 3, I admit. But some days later, they agreed, and dropped it to a constant 2.99$.
As you can see, it’s pretty polished, and judging by their site we feel that there is professionalism behind the works.
Still, even at 2.99$, they received nearly 3400 mails in one month, from people who told that this price was too high.
As an Indie dev myself, I can say it’s disgusting.
No respect for the hard work at all.
So, long story short, Schiau Studios made something epic to my eyes :
Haha. That is awesome. If a dev feels they have put a lot of time and hard work into a game, they should be compensated for that work. I think a lot of people don’t understand the work at goes into making a good game.
Everything is not about volumes, stocks or daily sales. Sometimes, when a situation goes out of control, you have to act abruptly to make people react.
Because if not, they just don’t care.
If your game is good enough, everything will come back to normal after that said protest price.
A small sacrifice is worth the value of an overall revolution, when needed.
What does matter is not the present market result, but the way it is leading to.
sell it at $9.99 and then offer it on permanent 60% sale for $3.99 … that works with sales in clothing stores every stupid year so why not on the kidiot store
No I fully agree, shock therapies for polished games are fine and required. I don’t mind paying $5 for a well done game etc. At $10 its a different story because that enters the pc indie market and for that, many games are just to “shallow”
bahahaha. I didn’t see that, but with the “common” sense of some people, I would not doubt that someone would have to audacity to write that (and believe it to be true).
Here’s an idea… look up 'hubris" in the dictionary.
I really don’t see the problem with allowing the market to decide what it’s ultimately willing to pay someone for their work. In the end, they’ll decide that anyway… long after some of these developers’ own greed ends up removing them from the running.
If you won’t cater to the masses due to a distorted view of your product’s value, the market will simply find an alternative who will.
The question is, do you prefer the idea of consumers playing your game at any price, or having your version tossed to the wayside in favor of a cheaper knock-off, because you were so blinded by your ideals to reach a compromise with the end users?
Personally, I create things so others can enjoy them rather than focusing on how I can exploit an idea to make a quick buck.
I’m ok with the concept, but realistically, you just can’t put a value of 0.99$ to any human work that exceeds 3 monthes. It’s just ethical in the first place.
The iphone audience may does not distinguish between general “apps” with justified prices like 0.99$ and full games which are mostly much harder work. So it’s kinda logical for them that 2.99$ is too much…like “hey its only an app, I better buy 3 things for 0.99$ instead”. Maybe it would be good to draw a big red line between apps and games, but that’s again confusing for the user.
The problem with the free market as you say is that the consumer always wants the thing for free.
I’m no expert on economics but I think this is a new concept although maybe not. I don’t remember hearing of a time when people who thought anything above 0.00 was too much (or .99 no matter the time it took to make).
Obviously with market setting the price, the question is can the product be made for that price. If not, it’s a bad business idea, etc. The issue comes up though if the consumers are too greedy and want things too cheap then there will never be any good alternatives. This isn’t new to the iPhone though and so far the iPhone is pretty good since many people with it are willing to pay money for some good apps.
It’s always interesting to watch and it comes down to greed, of course. Instead of the company wanting to sell their widget for a fair price and consumers wanting to buy it for a fair price, you see companies wanting to gouge and buyers wanting it for free. Theoretically, they still can meet in the middle somewhere though and end up where no one’s happy but a purchase can be made.
Just remember, it’s not the consumer setting the price or the other way around: it takes both so I think this is fascinating.
Supply and demand. Do what you want but Thomas Payne’s “invisible hand” will ultimately tell you what your product is really worth despite what you think it is…
The supplier(developer) always wants to get more and the demander(buyer) always wants to pay less. Nothing new here.
I am not impressed with the way these people are “protesting”…
If these developers swallowed their pride and adjusted their game to be at an equilibrium point they would actually make more money.
So saying my game is a $.99 game, or my game is a $2.99 game is a non-issue. It is how much total your game can net. If you can net 50,000 at .99 or net $40,000 at 2.99 you set the price at .99
Again, not impressed by these people. They are cutting off their nose to spite their face.
Supply and demand. Do what you want but Thomas Payne’s “invisible hand” will ultimately tell you what your product is really worth despite what you think it is…
The supplier(developer) always wants to get more and the demander(buyer) always wants to pay less. Nothing new here.
I am not impressed with the way these people are “protesting”…
If these developers swallowed their pride and adjusted their game to be at an equilibrium point they would actually make more money.
So saying my game is a $.99 game, or my game is a $2.99 game is a non-issue. It is how much total your game can net. If you can net 50,000 at .99 or net $40,000 at 2.99 you set the price at .99
Again, not impressed by these people. They are cutting off their nose to spite their face.
Quick side note: Greed is not wanting something for less, or wanting to be paid more for your product. This is “self interest”, and is a good thing. It is what leads little old ladies to cut coupons out of their newspapers. Do we call them “greedy” for wanting to pay less? It is what causes me to turn off the AC in the middle of the summer, am I greedy for not wanting to pay more for AC? Self interest is a good thing and helps us build wealth.
Greed is wanting more than you need. Taking from others because you feel it not fair that they have more (or less) than you. How dare someone take from you and give to me, and vice versa. Go capitalism!!!
I don’t believe Thomas Paine would appreciate being confused with Adam Smith.
While it is true that there is a sweet spot of price to maximize your revenue, dropping the price of the app too low can hurt you. And there are many factors in determining where the sweet spot is. So who are you to say where the sweet spot of this particular app is?
Go to the app store and compare the apps that sell the most units with the apps that pull in the most revenue.
Just as a reminder, the developers are not protesting the cut-throat prices in the app store, they are protesting the flood of emails from people telling them that their app is too expensive.
Receiving suggestions from people on how to increase sales is fine (“you should line up your price with the competition…”), but having people value your work based on other undervalued work can be very degrading.
Supply and demand is great, but for it to be a win-win situation you need totally open and level markets. The current app store structure favors cheap apps, so it kind of skews the balance.
