iPhone Gaming Continues To Grow
1Up reports that the popularity of gaming on smartphones is growing, particularly on the iPhone. In fact, gaming on portable devices is growing even at home, where users presumably have access to more powerful platforms. CNN points out that the developer for Trism, one of the first popular games, has raked in over $250,000 in profits through the App Store. Apple exec Bob Borchers and various game developers recently discussed the future of games on the iPhone. "Patrick Gunn, director of marketing for EA Mobile, showcased Need for Speed Undercover, which will be available next month. Gunn says that EA has 'taken full advantage of all of the unique elements ... like touch, flick, accelerometer, and motion sensitivity' — and graphically, the game appears to be roughly on par with a PSP title."
No, actually. I know your comment is in jest, but Apple charges $100 for that "first hit" (the SDK). You have to pay them money for the privilege of developing an application they reserve the right to deny you the ability to distribute.
You're right, I wouldn't steal a car. But if it were possible, I sure as hell would download one!
That game sucks ass, I liked it better back in the day when it was called "You do not have RealPlayer installed on your computer".
I'll show you where the numbers come from.
The price of anything is determined by the cost of reproduction plus any additional markup. Software is digital information, and digital information has a marginal cost of reproduction of zero because copying digital information with a computer costs nothing.
So at $5, the price is entirely markup. None of that price is accounting for the cost of reproduction, because there is no such cost. So if the full price is pure markup, then it is valid to say that it is marked up 500 times, because $5 is 500 times one cent, the minimum price he could have set without making it free. (Incidentally, one cent would still be marked up one time higher than the cost to redistribute.)
You're right, I wouldn't steal a car. But if it were possible, I sure as hell would download one!
Your argument is a red herring. Development costs should play no part in how a price is set. I might require only $20 an hour and 40 hours to develop something that would require you $40 an hour and 80 hours to develop the same thing. Thus development costs are arbitrary. Prices should only be set based on cost of reproduction plus a reasonable markup for profit. Nothing marked up hundreds of times is reasonable. It would be like me charging $2500 to mow your lawn. That's the standard $5 an hour wage normally paid for an hour of lawn mowing work times 500. So, it follows that any consumer cost is not an option for an economically abundant good, because a reasonable markup would only multiply out to a few cents. Thus, digital information should be monetized using a business model that doesn't depend on artificial scarcity. See this post for more substantiation and details.
You're right, I wouldn't steal a car. But if it were possible, I sure as hell would download one!
A negligible cost.
Cheaper to do it yourself then let Apple take 30%.
You still have to do that on the App Store. Sure, people will stumble on your app, but the real top contenders have external marketing.
You haven't substantiated that.
That argument is addressed here.
You're right, I wouldn't steal a car. But if it were possible, I sure as hell would download one!
The biggest problem with gaming on the iPhone is that only retarded people have an iPhone so the iPhone games are all retarded. Also, Nintendo has Mario, Donkey Kong and Link. Apple has Steve Jobs, so Super Mario 64 DS, admittedly not a great name though certainly a superb game, becomes Super Steve Jobs iPhone, which is a retarded name for what would surely be a retarded game. What would Super Steve Jobs do? Would there be a magic kingdom? Who are his enemies and who must he rescue? Worst game ever.
Now wash your hands.