Comments on: Pingvinas https://indiegamerchick.com/2011/12/09/pingvinas/ Indie and Retro Gaming Reviews from the one and only IGC Fri, 20 Apr 2012 10:02:48 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: superdefective https://indiegamerchick.com/2011/12/09/pingvinas/#comment-1782 Fri, 16 Dec 2011 01:41:31 +0000 http://indiegamerchick.com/?p=2014#comment-1782 This type of game has been overdone before. It’s cool that it is a hex grid instead of a rectangle one. Thank you for you in depth review. I’m glad we have this xblig review blog now.

]]>
By: Tales from the Dev Side: Magic Seal Pelts by Ian Stocker « Indie Gamer Chick https://indiegamerchick.com/2011/12/09/pingvinas/#comment-1710 Tue, 13 Dec 2011 08:01:14 +0000 http://indiegamerchick.com/?p=2014#comment-1710 […] my brain, I had touched off a debate on Xbox Live Indie Game pricing.  It began with my review on Pingvinas and continued on with my editorial on pricing.  This resulted in my biggest day for traffic ever, […]

]]>
By: Edward Di Geronimo Jr. https://indiegamerchick.com/2011/12/09/pingvinas/#comment-1703 Mon, 12 Dec 2011 23:50:21 +0000 http://indiegamerchick.com/?p=2014#comment-1703 In reply to John Getty.

I’m saying those games charge $1 because that has become the standard price for iPhone games. $1 became the standard price because the vast majority of the tens of thousands of developers were struggling to get noticed and dropped their prices to try to stand out.

The 85 million users is irrelevant. You should never lower your prices just because a market is larger. Your aim is to maximize users times marginal revenue, not just users. $1 is the sweet spot on the App Store supply/demand curve because the supply is so much greater than the demand. And in any case where supply greatly exceeds demand, the vast majority of suppliers end up failing to make a profit.

]]>
By: John Getty https://indiegamerchick.com/2011/12/09/pingvinas/#comment-1697 Mon, 12 Dec 2011 20:16:44 +0000 http://indiegamerchick.com/?p=2014#comment-1697 In reply to Edward Di Geronimo Jr..

So are you saying Angry Birds, Spy Mouse, Where’s The Water?, Bejeweled, Cut the Rope, Tiny Wings, and Tetris were all $1 as a desperate attempt to make money? No. The people who make crappy games charge $1 as a desperate attempt to make money because they know they can’t charge any more than that for their crappy games.

GOOD games under a SMART company charge $1 because they know there are like 85 million app store users out there (according to an old Steve Jobs article, so it’s probably way more now) and they know their game can reach people and top the charts better at $1 than at $3. It’s not because they are desperate.

Also, Apple doesn’t put prejudice on a $1 game over a $5 game on their “New and Noteworthy” list. A good game is a good game and will make that list regardless.

Success on the app store has NOTHING to do with desperation, for the companies that actually put out quality games. You need to learn a little about marketing before you make bold statements like “you are completely wrong” and then proceed to not know what you are talking about.

]]>
By: Edward Di Geronimo Jr. https://indiegamerchick.com/2011/12/09/pingvinas/#comment-1695 Mon, 12 Dec 2011 19:46:03 +0000 http://indiegamerchick.com/?p=2014#comment-1695 In reply to John Getty.

That’s completely wrong on the App Store. People charge $1 out of desperation. As the App Store became popular, prices raced to the bottom in an attempt to stand out. Now there’s hundreds of new games every week, so people have to charge $1 to get stand a chahnce of getting noticed.

A $1 game on the App Store isn’t making good money unless it’s in the Top 50 sellers or so. In app purchases can change that to an extent – it’s far harder to get people to make the initial purchase than it is to get them to spend more, assuming that you’re offering something they want.

]]>
By: John Getty https://indiegamerchick.com/2011/12/09/pingvinas/#comment-1693 Mon, 12 Dec 2011 19:05:16 +0000 http://indiegamerchick.com/?p=2014#comment-1693 In reply to John Getty.

Oh and I’m referencing the picture of the race car game you put in the middle of your review 😉

]]>
By: John Getty https://indiegamerchick.com/2011/12/09/pingvinas/#comment-1692 Mon, 12 Dec 2011 19:04:53 +0000 http://indiegamerchick.com/?p=2014#comment-1692 people charge less for app store games because there is a MASSIVE market of people to sell to, even compared to XBLA. You can’t compare a $1 app store game to a $1 XBLI game, it’s just not a fair comparison at all. By your logic, no one should ever make a game again unless it’s up to Angry Birds standards (which is $1)

]]>
By: Kairi Vice https://indiegamerchick.com/2011/12/09/pingvinas/#comment-1634 Sat, 10 Dec 2011 11:24:33 +0000 http://indiegamerchick.com/?p=2014#comment-1634 Just so I’m clear, I recommend Pingvinas for purchase and I have updated the article to reflect that.

]]>
By: Starglider https://indiegamerchick.com/2011/12/09/pingvinas/#comment-1628 Sat, 10 Dec 2011 09:21:25 +0000 http://indiegamerchick.com/?p=2014#comment-1628 The presentation is good, XNA Arcade quality at least. For the AI the devs probably lacked experience with efficient heuristic search algorithms; getting these to run efficiently on the in-order X360 CPU is a rare skill. For sales I don’t think 80 vs 240 MSP is the main issue, rather the main problem is that the X360 is not a natural platform for board games.Games like this are easy to find on the PC (for free) and phones and both mouse and touch are more natural than an X360 controller for them, plus you’re much more likely to find online competitors.

]]>
By: Callen of The Unallied https://indiegamerchick.com/2011/12/09/pingvinas/#comment-1604 Sat, 10 Dec 2011 06:27:57 +0000 http://indiegamerchick.com/?p=2014#comment-1604 idk if I agree with your comments on pricing. I read this a long time ago and it forever changed my views of selling software: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/CamelsandRubberDuckies.html

In my own experience, I charged the max of 400msp for a text-based drinking game, and it sold disgustingly well. Then I made a cute twin-stick shooter with 30 player online and charged just a buck – I don’t think a total of 30 people bought it.

In the end each dev must do what’s right for them. Do I want maximum exposure, or to focus on my best fans? Is the price meant to be perceived as an insignificant barrier to more fun, or a cost paid to own a quality product? Do you want to fight to get your New Release into another list ASAP, or will you focus on marketing outside of the built-in XBLIG channels?

I think if more developers took real risks, stopped fighting for top downloads and top rated, and instead focused on building an indie community that exists within and outside of xbox, everyone would profit – and we’d stop seeing as many zombie-anime massage-gallery “games” meant only to follow a fickle zeitgeist.

And to that end, IndieGamerChick.com is a beacon of hope. I just hope you don’t continue the fallacy that just because a similar, free game exists, a developer who put possibly 1000 hours of work into something doesn’t deserve to charge the same as a small starbucks latte. And that $3 (or $5) is for a product that could have real, lasting value.

]]>