If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Gizmodo)   More games are free on Android than IOS. Somehow, this is a bad thing for Android users   (gizmodo.com) divider line 100
    More: Asinine, iOS, Android, nice, habitat fragmentation  
•       •       •

2694 clicks; posted to Geek » on 24 Jul 2012 at 9:52 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



100 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-24 09:07:42 AM
Yes, it is generally a bad thing when you devalue what people are willing to pay for an entertainment medium and, in doing so, curtail investment in the large-scale development that yields some of our best works.
 
2012-07-24 10:05:23 AM

Mike_LowELL: Yes, it is generally a bad thing when you devalue what people are willing to pay for an entertainment medium and, in doing so, curtail investment in the large-scale development that yields some of our best works.


Like Farmville.
 
2012-07-24 10:08:13 AM
Piracy kind of blows on sub-10-dollar products. I'm not in any way anti-piracy, but let's be reasonable here. A lot of apps are backed by a team of people who need to try to make a living selling something for a few dollars a pop.
 
2012-07-24 10:08:31 AM

James!: Mike_LowELL: Yes, it is generally a bad thing when you devalue what people are willing to pay for an entertainment medium and, in doing so, curtail investment in the large-scale development that yields some of our best works.

Like Farmville.


To be fair, you're making his point for him. The reason Farmville is so popular is precisely because the free-to-play-a-garbage-game model is running rampant. Sheesh, if you won't even pay 99 cents for a game nowadays, people are going to move to ad-revenue only models with integrated "monetization".

Honestly, I feel that devs making AAA games may be overpricing them a bit, but indie guys selling 99 cent games shouldn't be pirated. I personally feel that's pretty low. The actor losing is not a wealthy corp (most of the time, and even if it is...--->) it's a damn dollar.

Cough it up. I have been "notably not rich" my entire life. A dollar is a friggen dollar.
 
2012-07-24 10:08:48 AM
I don't get the connection between "rampant piracy" and "now available for free".

I sympathise with developers who are faced with people who will pirate over paying $1.00 for something. But, SOME people were buying it. Some people were probably quite happy to fork over that buck. So doesn't offering it for free seem a bit of a nose, spite, face gambit?
 
2012-07-24 10:10:35 AM

Infamy: I don't get the connection between "rampant piracy" and "now available for free".

I sympathise with developers who are faced with people who will pirate over paying $1.00 for something. But, SOME people were buying it. Some people were probably quite happy to fork over that buck. So doesn't offering it for free seem a bit of a nose, spite, face gambit?


Now available for free, with integrated advertising or other micropayment schemes.

Now you CAN pirate the game, but unless you use the earlier revision or have some kinda ninja hack which actually modifies the game core files (very unlikely), you're now going to be playing the demo with unlocked "features" for cash or ad clicks.
 
2012-07-24 10:15:17 AM
I work in Design and it's shiat like this that scares me. I still think to some degree that the mobile form of the internet will be where our innovations and experiences will lie. The browser based form will lessen and eventually fade away. (there are so many more interesting ways to use interactivity on a mobile device). But one thing the internet has developed in us is a desire for free. NO ONE wants to pay for anything and now I hear from friends that most mobile apps make hardly anything, you have to be on the front page of the App Store or something.
 
2012-07-24 10:15:30 AM

RockofAges: Infamy: I don't get the connection between "rampant piracy" and "now available for free".

I sympathise with developers who are faced with people who will pirate over paying $1.00 for something. But, SOME people were buying it. Some people were probably quite happy to fork over that buck. So doesn't offering it for free seem a bit of a nose, spite, face gambit?

Now available for free, with integrated advertising or other micropayment schemes.

Now you CAN pirate the game, but unless you use the earlier revision or have some kinda ninja hack which actually modifies the game core files (very unlikely), you're now going to be playing the demo with unlocked "features" for cash or ad clicks.


So some cheap bastards pirated a game and now I can't buy a version without ads? Because a non-ad version doesn't exist, because if it did, because of piracy, no-one would use the ad-supported version and no money would be made... and...

Well god-damn it. We really can't have nice things.
 
2012-07-24 10:17:47 AM

LasersHurt: Piracy kind of blows on sub-10-dollar products. I'm not in any way anti-piracy, but let's be reasonable here. A lot of apps are backed by a team of people who need to try to make a living selling something for a few dollars a pop.


This. I've spent far more than $1 and gotten far less out of the deal. It's a dollar to buy in and try something, all those cash shops are optional (no matter how much they shove them in your face). I've personally helped pitch in on a few games when they got started out and got to see the studio produce more games / a sequel.

p.twimg.com

Pic related. beat Pandemic 2.5 in about a week, sent them a pic of 100% achievements and got a really awesome heartfelt thank you from the team. Kind of an awesome feeling being an early adopter.
 
2012-07-24 10:18:48 AM

Infamy: RockofAges: Infamy: I don't get the connection between "rampant piracy" and "now available for free".

I sympathise with developers who are faced with people who will pirate over paying $1.00 for something. But, SOME people were buying it. Some people were probably quite happy to fork over that buck. So doesn't offering it for free seem a bit of a nose, spite, face gambit?

Now available for free, with integrated advertising or other micropayment schemes.

Now you CAN pirate the game, but unless you use the earlier revision or have some kinda ninja hack which actually modifies the game core files (very unlikely), you're now going to be playing the demo with unlocked "features" for cash or ad clicks.

So some cheap bastards pirated a game and now I can't buy a version without ads? Because a non-ad version doesn't exist, because if it did, because of piracy, no-one would use the ad-supported version and no money would be made... and...

Well god-damn it. We really can't have nice things.


The "version without ads" was already released, and pirated en masse because yes, people are too cheap to pay a dollar. Precisely!

/yes, we can't have nice things.
 
2012-07-24 10:23:55 AM
It's bad if it makes people not want to make games because they aren't getting paid for them. And as others have pointed out, ffs it costs 99 cents, if you can't afford a 99 cent app why do you have such an expensive phone?
 
2012-07-24 10:24:26 AM

RockofAges: Infamy: I don't get the connection between "rampant piracy" and "now available for free".

I sympathise with developers who are faced with people who will pirate over paying $1.00 for something. But, SOME people were buying it. Some people were probably quite happy to fork over that buck. So doesn't offering it for free seem a bit of a nose, spite, face gambit?

Now available for free, with integrated advertising or other micropayment schemes.

Now you CAN pirate the game, but unless you use the earlier revision or have some kinda ninja hack which actually modifies the game core files (very unlikely), you're now going to be playing the demo with unlocked "features" for cash or ad clicks.


Then there's the whole 'read all the contents of your phone/contacts/gallery, gps locations' etc
 
2012-07-24 10:32:16 AM

burndtdan: It's bad if it makes people not want to make games because they aren't getting paid for them. And as others have pointed out, ffs it costs 99 cents, if you can't afford a 99 cent app why do you have such an expensive phone?


I've heard this one last week actually...

"Of course i'm going to pirate the shiat out of everything. I spent so much on this phone and a huge SD card, i can't afford any apps, but it's not like i was going to anyways."

1.bp.blogspot.com

I would like to note i am not for DRM, closed-source programming, or limiting the potential power of our devices. The cool gizmos are not the problem. We are.
 
2012-07-24 10:33:19 AM
Support single nerds: $1 gets you an app that you will spend hours at work playing with your phone on.

Support single moms: $1 gets you a table dance.

Cough it up you Android tightwads.
 
2012-07-24 10:34:01 AM
Ideally, copyright holders would have only 28 years of monopoly before the work became public domain.

This way you get both the profit motive while not forever locking into prices that are kept higher artificially and allow the next Disney access to more public domain works to draw from.
 
2012-07-24 10:41:17 AM
Meh. Most of the "free" games in android are either ripoffs of successful non-free games, so chock-full of ads as to be almost unplayable, or pay-to-win.

I usually just get the good ones as the Amazon free app of the day.
 
2012-07-24 10:47:29 AM

Lanadapter: Ideally, copyright holders would have only 28 years of monopoly before the work became public domain.

This way you get both the profit motive while not forever locking into prices that are kept higher artificially and allow the next Disney access to more public domain works to draw from.


While a substantive and cogent discussion regarding Copyright terms is always a good thing, i must note that such a change would not affect the central problem of this article, which is that a large segment of modern "culture" is pretty friggin' enamored with the idea that one shouldn't really have to pay for intellectual property and has spent a few decades now justifying this basic human desire to get things for free under a series of more-or-less self serving philosophical rubrics. I am not really sure what can be done to affect that, as the most tech savy tend to be the ones trumpeting that information is free and its merely infringement not theft.* Sadly the term could be life of the author +70 as Europe wanted, 28 years, heck, 3 years and it wouldnt address this other problem.

/* not to launch into this hoary old argument, merely noting the oft consistent need to play semantic games to hide any concept of wrongdoing.
 
2012-07-24 10:47:47 AM
Most games are like Facebook's Farmville. Free to play but not worth it unless you are willing to shell out $$$. The only game I've found worthwhile is a GEMS clone that was free. Still haven't found any game worth buying out right. I refuse to participate in "virtual ownership" games.

Any suggestions free or pay to own?
 
2012-07-24 10:51:53 AM
And look, we've given you plenty of advice about how to pirate.

Then fark off, you schizos.

Also most of those free apps want to look at all your information, I figure it's a fair trade.
 
2012-07-24 10:52:17 AM

toetag: Most games are like Facebook's Farmville. Free to play but not worth it unless you are willing to shell out $$$. The only game I've found worthwhile is a GEMS clone that was free. Still haven't found any game worth buying out right. I refuse to participate in "virtual ownership" games.

Any suggestions free or pay to own?


Sim City Social makes Farmville look like a quivering child compared to how hard it tries to take over your life. It actually reaches a point where without sending out social requests, you can get nothing done. And everytime you do anything, it asks you to blast your friends with more useless knowledge. Their business model revolves around growing like a plague.

Sim City Social is the paragon of everything that is wrong with gaming. I'd rather pay $1 upfront, than pay in all the friends i'm going to lose for spamming them with this shiat constantly.

noobfeed.com

Sim City Social is an Insult to gaming
 
2012-07-24 10:53:05 AM
I wonder about the free games. For a while I was playing a lot of Draw Something. I started with the free version, which is ad-supported. The ads started to bug me, so I dug deep into my pocket and coughed up 99c for the pay version (it was on sale that day). No more ads.

But then I thought -- does OMGPop (and later Zynga) make more money on the game from my 99c, or from the ads? I don't know the answer to this; anybody who does feel free to enlighten me.
 
2012-07-24 10:55:12 AM
IF anything it's copyright holders who are playing a semetic game in trying to define state granted monopolies as "property" and then claiming not going along with those monoplies is "theft"
 
2012-07-24 10:59:00 AM
Any good apps out there that people can recommend? I just got an Asus Transformer Infinity and want to load it up with some goodies.
 
2012-07-24 11:03:22 AM

toetag: Most games are like Facebook's Farmville. Free to play but not worth it unless you are willing to shell out $$$. The only game I've found worthwhile is a GEMS clone that was free. Still haven't found any game worth buying out right. I refuse to participate in "virtual ownership" games.

Any suggestions free or pay to own?


Elder Sign: Omens

Excellent level of production and polish on this game. It really feels like you're playing the actual board game. There's a lot of luck (dice) involved, but if you're into board games like this you'll love it.

If you're not familiar with the board game, it's like Yahtzee mashed up with Lovecraftian horror role-playing.
 
2012-07-24 11:05:48 AM
With all the pirated versions of the games you get the delightful risk of malware on your phone.
 
2012-07-24 11:06:18 AM
What kind of asshole pirates a $1 game?
 
2012-07-24 11:11:22 AM

RockofAges: J
To be fair, you're making his point for him. The reason Farmville is so popular is precisely because the free-to-play-a-garbage-game model is running rampant. Sheesh, if you won't even pay 99 cents for a game nowadays, people are going to move to ad-revenue only models with integrated "monetization".


Here's my problem, MMORPG's appeared and suddenly everything (and I do mean everything) studios were working on had to be an MMO and still does. It has to have 'persistent character elements' combined with a 'server stored progression system'. Except it turns out the majority of people only pay for one MMO; be it EVE, Everquest, WoW or whatever. They might jump from MMO to MMO sure but they'll not maintain multiple subscriptions.

So instead of reversing course and just making decent £40 for people to buy they're still trying to make everything an MMO (because 'that's what the kids want') but making it "free-2-play" (I put that in quotes because I'm a firm believer in the principals of TANSTAFA) and it still half baked crap.

Seriously people can we stop it with the whole "everything has to be an MMO" thing already? It doesn't.
 
2012-07-24 11:11:28 AM

toetag: Most games are like Facebook's Farmville. Free to play but not worth it unless you are willing to shell out $$$.


Free to play but pay to win. I've never really been a fan of the genre either, but it seems to be what everyone is moving towards.
 
2012-07-24 11:12:11 AM

SacriliciousBeerSwiller: What kind of asshole pirates a $1 game?


The same kind of asshole that pirates shows you can get off of Hulu for free.

/They're out there.
 
2012-07-24 11:12:53 AM
It's more or less the principal of the matter. Android users are usually sold a $200-500 piece of crap phone from a telecommunications company, at which point a month later the phone will sell for $100. Asked to sign at least a 2 year contract ($1,800), charge you a $45 activation fee, then at the last minute the company usually says "Did you want to be able to transfer data (pictures, music) from your phone to your computer? We can unlock that for an additional $20. This feature in no way benefits the company, this only inconveniences the customers."

Before you even use the phone we have to shell out $165, on a phone you can't even transfer your own personal photos you just took on the camera phone.

I'd invest more money into third party apps if we weren't bend over a barrel in the first place. Besides, I'm not investing in games on a phone I'm not planning on keeping. Most phones break and need to be sent back for repair. Some people don't even get a phone signal in places like their home, or work.
 
2012-07-24 11:13:58 AM
Its not about having games, its about having games people are willing to pay for.

/Compare the PC game market to, say, the Xbox.
 
2012-07-24 11:16:33 AM

way south: Its not about having games, its about having games people are willing to pay for.

/Compare the PC game market to, say, the Xbox.


Isn't the PC market growing again?
 
2012-07-24 11:16:45 AM

improvius: toetag: Most games are like Facebook's Farmville. Free to play but not worth it unless you are willing to shell out $$$. The only game I've found worthwhile is a GEMS clone that was free. Still haven't found any game worth buying out right. I refuse to participate in "virtual ownership" games.

Any suggestions free or pay to own?

Elder Sign: Omens

Excellent level of production and polish on this game. It really feels like you're playing the actual board game. There's a lot of luck (dice) involved, but if you're into board games like this you'll love it.

If you're not familiar with the board game, it's like Yahtzee mashed up with Lovecraftian horror role-playing.


It's also frikkin' hard. I think I've played it about 10 times and haven't won a game yet.
 
2012-07-24 11:19:49 AM

Tyrone Slothrop: improvius: toetag: Most games are like Facebook's Farmville. Free to play but not worth it unless you are willing to shell out $$$. The only game I've found worthwhile is a GEMS clone that was free. Still haven't found any game worth buying out right. I refuse to participate in "virtual ownership" games.

Any suggestions free or pay to own?

Elder Sign: Omens

Excellent level of production and polish on this game. It really feels like you're playing the actual board game. There's a lot of luck (dice) involved, but if you're into board games like this you'll love it.

If you're not familiar with the board game, it's like Yahtzee mashed up with Lovecraftian horror role-playing.

It's also frikkin' hard. I think I've played it about 10 times and haven't won a game yet.


Joe Diamond is the baddest motherfarker in that game. I lost all of the other investigators, they had 1 doom counter until the world ended, and i get 3 elder signs in my last mission for the win.

/amazing game, paid full price, would pay again.
 
2012-07-24 11:22:31 AM

Bossk'sSegway: It's more or less the principal of the matter. Android users are usually sold a $200-500 piece of crap phone from a telecommunications company, at which point a month later the phone will sell for $100. Asked to sign at least a 2 year contract ($1,800), charge you a $45 activation fee, then at the last minute the company usually says "Did you want to be able to transfer data (pictures, music) from your phone to your computer? We can unlock that for an additional $20. This feature in no way benefits the company, this only inconveniences the customers."

Before you even use the phone we have to shell out $165, on a phone you can't even transfer your own personal photos you just took on the camera phone.

I'd invest more money into third party apps if we weren't bend over a barrel in the first place. Besides, I'm not investing in games on a phone I'm not planning on keeping. Most phones break and need to be sent back for repair. Some people don't even get a phone signal in places like their home, or work.


What you described above doesn't in any way seem like it's even remotely comparable to what I've seen in the real world. Like, nearly every item of fact you point out above is incorrect.
 
2012-07-24 11:23:23 AM

Bossk'sSegway: Android users [words]
Before you even use the phone we have to shell out $165, on a phone you can't even transfer your own personal photos you just took on the camera phone.


Every Android phone I've ever owned and nearly every Android phone I've ever head of allowed USB mass storage mode so you can simply hook up a $1 micro usb cable to transfer photo and music. The only one I know that didn't support that it did support MTP.

Also, most phones do not break and need to be sent back for repair. And of the ones that people do warranty exchange on, more than 60% are found to have no defects when they are returned to the warehouse for processing.
 
2012-07-24 11:23:51 AM

toetag: Most games are like Facebook's Farmville. Free to play but not worth it unless you are willing to shell out $$$. The only game I've found worthwhile is a GEMS clone that was free. Still haven't found any game worth buying out right. I refuse to participate in "virtual ownership" games.

Any suggestions free or pay to own?


Here's my current favorites (Android):

Where's My Water
Puzzle game with water physics. It cost a dollar back in December (not sure what it is now) but they're constantly adding new levels for free (I think there's about 200 now). Absolutely worth it.

Dungeon Raid
A matching-type puzzle game with RPG elements. Really addictive. I think it costs around $5?

Nemo Nemo Picross
Pic-a-pix puzzles, ranging from super easy to super hard. Free.
 
2012-07-24 11:26:02 AM
3.bp.blogspot.com
"Don`t move or the software house gets it!"
"Stay back, they mean it, they`re crazy!"
 
2012-07-24 11:28:34 AM
This is why gaming studios and companies are all turning to things like DRM, or to the controlled hardware of consoles.

Because even when the price is as low as one can imagine, it still farking happens.

It's not an issue of cost being 'too high', but an issue of people wanting to get things without paying for them.
 
2012-07-24 11:28:51 AM

adenosine: Bossk'sSegway: Android users [words]
Before you even use the phone we have to shell out $165, on a phone you can't even transfer your own personal photos you just took on the camera phone.

Every Android phone I've ever owned and nearly every Android phone I've ever head of allowed USB mass storage mode so you can simply hook up a $1 micro usb cable to transfer photo and music. The only one I know that didn't support that it did support MTP.

Also, most phones do not break and need to be sent back for repair. And of the ones that people do warranty exchange on, more than 60% are found to have no defects when they are returned to the warehouse for processing.


this is what my niece does, she got a new smartphone, it never left her hand, the screen was always on and she sent it back as broken because the battery wouldn`t last a day.

If every phone you get is broken then that means YOU are the broken part.
 
2012-07-24 11:31:48 AM

Cinaed: This is why gaming studios and companies are all turning to things like DRM, or to the controlled hardware of consoles.

Because even when the price is as low as one can imagine, it still farking happens.

It's not an issue of cost being 'too high', but an issue of people wanting to get things without paying for them.


Have you not thought that whatever price it seels at and whatever protection is applied to software/music/films some people always pay and some people never pay. All you do is cripple the software for the people who always pay and encourage them to become people who never pay...
 
2012-07-24 11:33:59 AM
seels=sells

FTFM
 
2012-07-24 11:35:35 AM

Lanadapter: IF anything it's copyright holders who are playing a semetic game in trying to define state granted monopolies as "property" and then claiming not going along with those monoplies is "theft"


well here we are - this old bad boy

1) we could have a lengthy discussion about how property is in key: the right to control of the use of something; the right to any benefit and rents from something; the right to transfer that something; and the right to exclude others from using that thing. These rights can be modified and constrained, such that they do not need to be universal. As such, subjects held under copyright and even more so patent, are pretty easy to classify as property, if a particularly idiosyncratic sort.

2) but really, who cares. The point i was trying to make, and which you seem to demonstrate is this: having a discussion regarding what we should culturally title a given a legal wrong (in this case the distinction between conversion and infringement) is a side show. Who cares what we culturally call infringement? Many courts casually call it theft. So what? The problem comes down to the fact that the term "theft" like most non-legal terms is ambiguous. Some (usually pro-piracy) argue that its meaning is only co-terminal with conversion - that it is the physical deprivation of rightful use by another. However theft has also always had a component that suggests that it is the unlawful taking without payment. This would be an issue if theft was a legal term of art. But it ain't. So really this is as productive as an argument with a Brit over the proper pronunciation of "schedule" or whether aluminum should have an extra i in it. There is no real answer and it distracts from the real discussion.
 
2012-07-24 11:38:58 AM

burndtdan: It's bad if it makes people not want to make games because they aren't getting paid for them. And as others have pointed out, ffs it costs 99 cents, if you can't afford a 99 cent app why do you have such an expensive phone?


I always hear the the "I got my Android phone for free. Why would I pay $300 for a Crapple" argument. I swear, some (not ALL) Android fanboys love to advertise their poverty.
 
2012-07-24 11:40:20 AM

dready zim: Have you not thought that whatever price it seels at and whatever protection is applied to software/music/films some people always pay and some people never pay. All you do is cripple the software for the people who always pay and encourage them to become people who never pay...


Some people always pay, yes. Some people will go to extraordinary lengths to never pay, yes. It's a spectrum. The ideal is to spend the least amount of money on security to deter the most people, the least X to discourage the most Y.

The more irritating, time-consuming, difficult, and obnoxious it is to pirate, the more people are willing to pay the dollar for a song, or two bucks for a little mobile game.

It is getting money to the tiny little developers who actually make those dinky little games rather than 'not' getting money.

You will have to explain how 'increased cash flow/revenue/profits/etc' is crippling anything.
 
2012-07-24 11:40:44 AM
I just shelled out a whopping five bucks for GTA 3 on my EVO LTE and it was worth every penny. Don't see what the big deal is. Hours of entertainment for a few dollars..people pay 4 times that for 2 hours at a movie.
 
2012-07-24 11:41:57 AM

LasersHurt: way south: Its not about having games, its about having games people are willing to pay for.

/Compare the PC game market to, say, the Xbox.

Isn't the PC market growing again?


I certainly hope it is.
Underlying point tho is that having dozens of titles does no good unless people pay.
When they do that, the quality of the content goes up.
Quality should be a big deciding factor in any platform.

/Altho I may be a hypocrite since I've been addicted to pocket planes all week.
/There is something to be said for free* knick-knack games.
/Free* meaning its sponsored by adds and in app purchases.
/Then again they released it on a market that's notorious for buying apps.
/So its not really free unless you are a cheapskate.
 
2012-07-24 11:42:51 AM
I've been playing Defender & Defender 2 (both free), and they're all right. Ditto on Lair Defense.

Pretty mindless, but you can't beat free - and the ads aren't hugely annoying.
 
2012-07-24 11:44:28 AM

dready zim: Have you not thought that whatever price it seels at and whatever protection is applied to software/music/films some people always pay and some people never pay. All you do is cripple the software for the people who always pay and encourage them to become people who never pay...


The problem is that the ratio of people who "always pay" to people who "never pay" is heavily tilted towards the side that doesn't make studios any money. People who "always pay" always over-estimate how many others like them there are. Article like this are proof. People are stealing farking $1 apps. Way more people steal than don't because stealing is easy and people are assholes.

Companies have done the math, and they'll lose less money going to DRM and pissing off a handful of people like you than they will by making it harder to steal. That, or they'll do like the article and just only release ad-supported free versions. If people are going to steal anyway, may as well bombard them with ads. And who doesn't love ADs in their games?

Assholes who steal shiat are the reason why we can't have nice things.
 
2012-07-24 11:47:18 AM
Once again The Oatmeal gets it right:
Link
 
Displayed 50 of 100 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report