You are not logged in to Prodigits. Please
|
@newt182 | |
|
What is wrong with these developers/publishers and the people who pay these ridiculous amounts of money for these games that are really low budget, and are made by a small team in just a few months. Paying 70 pounds for some stupid in-game currency on these kinds of games is insane. A 'AAA' title console/PC game with a budget of hundreds of millions will only cost you 30-40 pounds, and the game has a huge team and they have spent years working on it. I have tried The Simpsons: Tapped Out and Angry Birds Transformers and they both have options to spend 70 quid. Fk that. I downloaded The Simpsons from another source with 'mods' enabled instead. I see that even the latest versions of the normal Angry Birds have in-app purchases now. Is it just me or does anyone else here see how fked up and wrong this is? Why are people supporting this business model so much on Android? |
||
|
24
Replies
5791
Views
0 Favourites
|
||
Page #: 1/3 |  
|
|
@leon29 | 8 February 15 |
|
Difference is Sony could spent 40 mill on a game and sell it for 10 bucks to 40 mill people round the world and the make their money back, only a few thousand people download games on their phone, so developer needs to make money some how, in app purchase or annoying as, who wins you decide 
|
||
|
|
@leon29 | 8 February 15 |
|
I would pay 70 for a in app purchase either that's crazy but the odd 69p purchase is cool
|
||
|
|
@newt182 | 8 February 15 |
|
The Simpsons: Tapped Out is published by EA, one of the biggest companies in the games industry. The game probably had a budget of a few hundred thousand at most. tbh a small team with a budget of 20,000 could easily do it (without the licensing fee). Somewhere between 50-100 million people have installed the game. I realise that number would be much smaller if you had to pay. But here's the thing, like you said you would be happy to pay 69p for it. So just have a pro licence for 69p that unlocks everything and they would probably make the same amount of money that they do from the very small percentage of people who pay loads.
|
||
|
|
@newt182 | 8 February 15 |
|
Surely the majority of people don't pay anything, through in-app purchases, for games like that when they see it is a money pit?
|
||
|
|
@newt182 | 8 February 15 |
|
''According to EA, a majority of the growth seen in the financial quarter came from mobile and free-to-play games such as The Simpsons: Tapped Out which had its highest earning quarter to date since its August 2012 launch. EAs mobile and handheld digital revenue generated [dollars]103 million in the quarter, a 30[pc] jump over the same period last year.'' Source That's 103 million in three months from mobile/phone gaming. Edit: Just noticed the source is from 2013 but it still shows you how profitable mobile gaming is. I would guess the figures are higher now. |
||
|
|
@newt182 | 8 February 15 |
|
So what I was originally saying... Is it just me or does anyone else here see how fked up and wrong this is? Why are people supporting this business model so much on Android?
|
||
|
|
@leon29 | 8 February 15 |
|
Because you have adverts or in app purchases, because they can't charge up front for a game cause the same people that moan about in app purchases and adverts are the first to say fk that I want it for free, then go and download a bootleg copy
|
||
|
|
@newt182 | 8 February 15 |
|
You can download a cracked and modded copy anyway. Like I did with the Simpsons, not cracked but modded with memory injection to give you infinite doughnuts and cash. What I was saying is I think the optional full license thing many apps have would be better (for the consumer). Also, are you actually justifying and supporting all these micro-transactions and pay to win models (or whatever you call paying a premium so you don't have to wait) that game publishers are using? It's a terrible concept for people like me and you, the consumers. |
||
|
|
@newt182 | 8 February 15 |
|
Right, my point in this topic was to vent a bit at how cr*p games have got with all these small payments that you now need to pay. It would be much better to pay a one off fee. And I find it hard to understand why people are OK with it on Android, compared to on PC and even consoles where people despise companies who charge premiums for stuff like that. It doesn't happen as much on those platforms and you definitely wouldn't get away with making people either 1: pay or 2: wait hours to progress in the game.
|
||
|
|
@leon29 | 8 February 15 |
|
Gaming on android is pretty whack any way, that's why I play old NES games on my phone, the waiting 2 hours to progress thing is a separate problem, I was playing a football game and if you didn't purchase health you couldn't play a game for an hour when the players got their energy back, no that is fking dumb
|
||
|
|
