Slashdot Mirror
PC Game Prices — Valve Starts the Race To Zero
An anonymous reader writes "Last week Valve made an interesting but seemingly innocuous announcement: they're giving game developers control of their own pricing on Steam. Nicholas Lovell now claims that this has effectively kicked off a race to zero for PC game pricing. He says what's starting to happen now will mirror what's happened to mobile gaming over the past several years. Quoting: 'Free is the dominant price point on mobile platforms. Why? Because the two main players don't care much about making money from the sale of software, or even In-App Purchases. The AppStore is less than 1% of Apple's revenue. Apple has become one of the most valuable companies in the world on the strength of making high-margin, well-designed, highly-desirable hardware. ... Google didn't create Android to sell software. It built Android to create an economic moat. ... In the case of both iOS and Android, keeping prices high for software would have been in direct opposition to the core businesses of Apple (hardware) and Google (search-related advertising). The only reason that ebooks are not yet free is that Amazon's core business is retail, not hardware. ... Which brings me to Steam. The Steambox is a competitor to consoles, created by Valve. It is supposed to provide an out-of-the-box PC gaming experience, although it struggles to compete on either price or on marketing with the consoles. It doesn't seem as if Steam is keen to subsidize the costs of the box, not to the level that Microsoft and Sony are. But what if Steam's [unique selling point] was thousands or tens of thousands of games for free?'"
The "race to zero" has done nothing but create a wasteland of crappy "freemium" games. Dungeon Keeper is the culmination of developers' efforts to move the pricing model away from initial purchase and into in-app purchases. The practice has absolutely decimated gaming. I don't necessarily see Steam's move as a good thing.
"Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
The end of innovation kills capitalism.
If technological innovation slows down, we'll have to promote marketing innovation.
The point is to make people happier with "the new", it doesn't matter how.
"Hear the Salvation Army Band
Down by the riverside
It's bound to be a better ride
Than what you've got planned
Carry a cup in your hand".
- Less than Zero
"Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
But what if Steam's [unique selling point] was thousands or tens of thousands of games for free?
Nice as it would be, that will hardly help Bethesda make the painstakingly crafted content for the next TES installment, now will it?
Also, Apple is trying to defy the laws of nature. They're just unwilling to accept that computers have been able to do pretty much anything for decades now, and whatever the cost is will inevitably decrease to the point that the software will be more expensive (at least in terms of human labor investment, if not in monetary cost). It has already happened in the desktop area. Of course, Apple, being a HW company, will always try to make you think otherwise.
Ezekiel 23:20
We pay same price for digital downloads as we do physical copies. Its a lot of BS cause digital ones are cheaper since they don't need to give you a box and dvd.
The SteamBox will be the new Ouya?
Still not worth it.
Even now, the mobile faithful still cling to their hopes that someday mobile gaming will be as revered as console games, but their insistence? Nay, their obsession that games must be free, or at the very least cannot cost more than $1, has absolutely destroyed and incentive for companies to build better games. Why bother making an epic RPG or sprawling adventure game when you can pump out some random one-gimmick game or straight up clone in a few days and rake in the advertising money for little to no effort?
Now the "for sale" list will be an utterly useless way of finding a good deal because it will be filled with spam and god awful "freemium" games from the publishers. Every game will be continuously "on sale" and if Valve has any rules against this, the publishers will use the same tricks high street retailers use to always advertise a sale even in countries with marketing laws regarding sales (i.e. introduce a product at a ridiculously high price so that they can then advertise it at 50% sale the next week).
TFA is, I'm sorry to say, complete drivel. It ignores two key considerations.
First, Valve's platforms - Steam-on-PC/Mac and the forthcoming Steambox console - are home platforms. Where the pay-to-win model has achieved some success (and even there, the successes are outweighed 100-to-1 by the failures) is on the mobile platforms, where people play for snatches of a few minutes here and there. PC and home-console gaming remains dominated by more substantial offerings, with more significant development budgets and (frankly) a more discerning audience.
And the second point is just that; games cost money to develop. Quite a lot of money, these days. We're already seeing an increase in the RRP for games on the new consoles, which, irritating though it is on one level, is probably something the industry has needed to do for a while now. Long story short - nobody is going to be rushing to give these games away for free. If Valve wants a console, retailing at a per-unit profit, whose selling point is a mass of free titles (and I don't believe for a second that it does) then it will need to throw a massive, unprecedented subsidy at game developers. And that's just not going to happen. We've seen what happens when you try to launch a console whose selling point is the kind of games you actually can give away for free or near-free. It's called the Ouya.
Which, as we all know, is doing just splendidly. Or not.
What Valve's move does unlock the possibility of is smarter and more responsive pricing for games. And this is where there's real potential for the industry to do better.
Historically, we've sold games as though they were movies. There's basically one price point when they're new and another for when they get a budget re-release. Ok, indies and the like have always played around outside that system, but the actually relevant commercial developers have had very fixed price structures. What Steam has moved towards - and seems set to move further towards - is pricing that can price games more accurately reflecting the value they offer, their review scores and their week 1 sales.
Bricks and mortar retail stores sometimes try this, but the way in which they purchase stock and are insured on those purchases makes it a last resort for them. The ability to flex prices rapidly at the publisher level is much more useful. If you have an Elder Scrolls style RPG with a huge development budget and hundreds of hours of game-time, then go at $80. If you have an average sized shooter, perhaps in the $60-70 range. If you have a 2d platformer or sh'mup, then perhaps you should be thinking more about $20-30 for your first release.
Nintendo, in particular, desperately need to learn this lesson. My theory on the unnoticed reason behind the Wii-U's continuing disaster is that it's just too obvious that Nintendo's pricing is vastly out of whack with the value their games offers. Ok, the $60 price-point might be ok for something like Super Mario 3d World, but is it really appropriate for 2d platfomers (Donkey Kong, New Super Mario) or HD remakes which sell for $30 on other platforms (Zelda: Wind Waker).
No long slashdot post would be complete without a car analogy, so I'll say that game pricing needs to be less like movie pricing and more like car pricing. It should have a much wider range and be more responsive to features like production costs, quality, features, brand and image.
Good question. Who made Linux, again?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Is the answer Richard Stallman or IBM?
I don't think that the iPhone and Android are the best model for comparison here. iPhone and Android games more or less filled the same niche as Flash games, which were already dominated by free.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Some good games can collect a lot of money with ...
- "Pay what you want" as in Humble Bundle (however there's a lot of games previously sold at a classic price)
- Ethical microtransactions, which mean not needed at all to succeed in game, like cosmetic purchases in Path Of Exile.
This seems to be the opposite of the argument in the real world. Here we say that supermarkets are bad as they force farm prices to be artificially low to get business. On the other hand farmer's markets, where people pay a small fee then sell their produce at a price they choose - we see as good. People say that this lets farmers trade based on quality.
Why should it be the opposite on Valve - surely people with quality games will ask for what they see as a fair price?
99% of those 99 cent games are "tap the screen at the right time to watch a cute animation" one-trick ponies. While all right to waste a bit of time while you're waiting in line somewhere, it certainly isn't something I'd willingly pick up when I sit down to play a game.
Also, TANSTAAFL applies universally, and hence also to gaming. "Free" games are rarely free. One of three things is almost certainly part of the deal:
1. Handing over your privacy.
2. Enduring endless streams of ads.
3. Micropayments to keep playing.
And usually it's more than one of them. Somehow I doubt I'll be the only one who will not enjoy this kind of gaming on a PC. When you sit down to play at a PC (or console for that matter), you don't want to play a one-trick pony game. You want to be involved, challenged, entertained. It's not just something you do to kill some time waiting, i.e. what mobile games are very often used as.
What I could see is that we're going to see a lot more low budget games from independent programming teams that want to cut out the studios, either to avoid dependency or to avoid being told what to do (or both), people who want to make the game they make because they themselves want to see it come to life (let's be honest here, does anyone think those "freemium" games are something any developer WANTS to develop? Then whey should they be free?). They might even be inclined to sell it for a low price, somewhere in the vicinity of 10-30 bucks rather than 60+, while not offering any less gaming value and neither suffering from one of the three problems lined out above that "free" games usually have.
But free, I doubt. Games are not like apples, they're not identical and only differ in price. You can't simply say "Oh, Game A costs 20 bucks and Game B costs 10, so I buy Game B". What if Game A is more what I'm looking for and Game B is nothing but a cheap knockoff of a game idea that has been trampled to death ages ago? Why should I buy Game B in that case?
Games might get cheaper, and studios will maybe lose their position as kingmakers, but I highly doubt that PC gaming will go the way of mobile gaming. It's a very different market with a very different audience (or, rather, with an audience that has a different "taste" on PC compared to mobile devices, it might even be the same audience).
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
They already had the power to control pricing. What steam is letting them do is to discount prices separately from steam's official sales events. They could always artificially simply reduce their price from $50 to $10, if they so wished. The only real difference is now they have the ability to have it done as a temporary sales event ("80% off! one week only!") rather than changing the official price.
... the reality is most games today are clones or don't have enough development money/time behind them to be particularly interesting or deep. 9/10 games released today are crap or released way before they are even ready (battlefield 4, etc) and these are supposed to be major fucking releases. The whole game industry is run by incompetents, conmen and morons.
The reality is developers/publishers themselves are flooding the market with low quality games and putting all sorts of shit in their games that lower their value (DRM/Microtransactions/etc). There will always be a place for good games, the problem is there are still many problems to solve in development costs and tools to drive down game costs and make building large AAA projects better. The game industry has a long way to go.
Steam has for me drastically lowered the value of a game, because while it is ONE thing to see game slowly decrease in price over a number of years, it is another to find prices slashed to 1/4 of the price seemingly at random.
Well okay then, I won't buy unless there is a deal going on... but I want to play right now, thepiratebay! Always the best deals!
I kinda like to know that if I pay a premium for a newly released game, that it is "worth" it and that it is not going to be on a sale for the fraction of the price a week later. It ruins the value of a product because it shows the product has no inherit price but is rather just a charge put on the product for the sake of it.
Same as say a public toilet at a station, they can charge 1 cent, a 100 cent or a 1000 cent and it has nothing to do with the cost of providing the service, it is just an amount someone thought up. If a product can be sold for 1/4 of the price on week, it never had full price value to begin with, that was just a sucker price.
I don't want to be a sucker. I am one but I don't like my webshop telling me that I am one.
Because I can tell the game producer they are suckers too by downloading the game for free.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Why should the video game market be immune to the same trend towards commodification that other market suffers from? Oh that's right, gamers are very special flowers!
Good question. Who made Linux, again?
Some guy who began working on Linux while being sponsored by the solid social welfare system of Finland*. These days for Linux Foundation, through which big companies give big bucks, essentially paying him a nice salary.
*) As a side note, these days you can't even "pull a Linus" anymore (slacking in an university, coding, drinking beer). The graduation times and student benefits have much stricter limits.
He said "amazing games", not Tux Racer and a dozen tetris clones.
Just as royalty/government/oligarchs have been patrons of the arts and "bread and circuses" throughout the ages, companies like Facebook, Apple, Google, and Amazon can highly subsidize the development of games. So game development would be paid for by a lump sum "commisioning" by one of these large firms, in exchange for platform exclusivity.
How does giving developers _more_ control over the pricing help Valve to lower prices?
Why would individual game publishers want to help promote Steam with free games, lowering their own revenue stream?
Quite the opposite makes sense. Developers may increase prices (maybe only through offering less "sales"), because Valve will not enforce low prices and sales upon them.
Maybe prices will eventually fall, but not for the reasons stated in the summary. Much more likely due to the free-to-play, pay-to-win trend and because people are natural cheapskates.
I agree with the spirit of your comment. I've bought plenty of Humble Bundle games, and have no issue with making in-game purchases available if it has no effect on gameplay.
However I take issue with labeling a subsection of microtransactions unethical. It may be annoying, and insulting, and even borderline illegal as regards false advertising, but there's nothing inherently or fundamentally wrong from a philosophical standpoint about charging extra for gameplay elements.
Now that doesn't mean that such publishers shouldn't go fuck themselves seven ways from Sunday, but that's another issue altogether.
via their respective websites (Origin, Uplay), and their prices are much higher than an average game on Steam.
On the upside, it they are enticed back to Steam because of this, maybe I won't need their crappy ecosystem anymore, which is a win.
apple hardware sucks for gameing and the price is a joke next to other pc systems that are better off for the same price or less.
Valve better not go that way.
Most Imacs have weak video cards for there screen size.
mini only has intel on board video.
mac pro very high price and workstation video cards that are not really the best choice for gameing also that 256GB storage can go fast with a lot of games.
Just because it would help Valve out.
Yes games are getting cheaper, but even if it is 50 cents, they will always cost something.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
I'll pay on GOG.com rather than free with DRM.
Trolling is a art,
And this is why I support our social system. Yes, a lot of people use it to be lazy, but sometimes something great comes out of it.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Free is the dominant price point on mobile platforms
No, it isn't. free-to-play is, which is something else entirely. Most F2P games are considerably more expensive then traditional games if you buy the equivalent of what would've been in a box. It's the razor-blades business all over again. It is full of lies and deceit and psychological warfare on the customer who is lured in with "free" and then shaken down for every penny with addictive (instead of fun) gameplay, click-bait and carrot-and-stick tactics.
It is, in two words, distasteful and dishonest.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
At some point, developers will realize that there are people like me who will gladly pay full-price for a great game that gives good value.
I do not play F2P games because I find them creepy. Even the best, like Planetside 2, leave a bad taste in my mouth.
You are welcome on my lawn.
In my naive world developers already had control over pricing.
I just love how these stories ignore games like GTA 5. Massive investment cost followed by massive profits. All with a simple box priced product.
But hey, what is a billion in sales these days eh?
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
"I'm putting my game on sale for a couple weeks" is not even close to "I'm moving to a freemium model". Lovell is an idiot, and shouldn't be taken seriously.
I'm sure a large majority of steam users built their own computer, and will repurpose a current computer or build their own stream box.
I can only imagine buying a controller from valve.
Because as a game developer I see two main motivations that are essentially the same as every other artist:
1) making enough money to live
2) bring your stuff to as many people as possible
so if I have the choice of selling 10Mio copies at 5€ or 1Mio copies at 50€ for me the first option would clearly win.
I agree completely.
Apple makes a ton of money off app store licenses, and Valve makes their money selling software. The steam box is a device for getting people to buy games; it's never going to be even close to the profitability of selling games.
Selling software is a great deal for the vendor because the per-unit cost to them is effectively zero. Any theory that the vendor is going to try to eliminate the cost of software so they can make all that money on hardware is a stupid theory. And I don't mean "after sufficient research you can disprove it", I just mean stupid straight up.
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
The question is not how many freemium games there are, it's whether their existence is impacting the market for purchased games. In ages past shareware and freeware had the lions share of the PC gaming market (at least among every gamer I knew in middle and high school, and most of my older friends as well), for the simple reason that nobody had $30 to throw away on a game that *might* be good. Consoles were the only place that purchased games dominated, for the simple reason that there were no free games available - but everyone I knew who had a console also had a huge library of free PC games.
And frankly these days the odds of a given pay-up-front game actually being good seems to have fallen dramatically. High production value != a game worth playing, to say nothing of the vast oceans of shovelware. Of course freemium games are also far more expensive and annoying than shareware ever was, but at least you get to see if the game is any good before you pay anything.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
[...] I have no issue with making in-game purchases available if it has no effect on gameplay.
Many people are like us.
I would say that I'm rather tight when it comes to buy any software, games included.
But when the game is really free, with hours of entertainment and good support, I'm happy to buy those silly cosmetic stuff for fun and to support its development.
I paid Path Of Exile some $35 the month I started to play. I think I've never spent that much for a game !
I've read that I lot of people do so. When those purchases are rendered in game as cosmetics we see the support of the players for the game, that's nice.
I believe that I could be the future for a substantial fraction of the games, but not all of them.
[...] labeling a subsection of microtransactions unethical [...] may be annoying, and insulting[...]
Yes, that's right.
I've just used the same wording as advertised, I understand it may be unfair.
However I really don't like a situation where I'm lured into something labeled "free" and once there I realize that nothing really cool will happen without paying for a few things.
Saying "I don't like" is an understatement, I won't describe the feeling.
You can put a bunch of monkeys in a room with typewriters and eventually get works that rival that of Shakespear. That doesn't mean it's sane to fund a massive arcology of monkeys and typewriters to try to get great works.
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
The problem is, GTA 5 requires investment, vision, creativity and work. Those things aren't part of the corporate model any more.
Just put up a game engine and call it an "early access", "MMO", "co-op", F2P and charge people for breathing.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Everyone seems to be missing the main point of the pricing control change by Steam. The companies were always allowed to price the games at whatever initial price they wanted, so you could just as easily have a Free-To-Play game now as you could a year ago or more. The difference is that companies are now allowed to make their own Steam Sales. That's it. I really don't see how anyone can make the jump to that highly illogical conclusion.
Additionally, Steam has rules in place that allow the sale to only go for a maximum of 2 weeks and they can't have overlapping sales to muddle things up. All this does is give more control to the developers, which can only be a great thing IMO.
Of course, you may not be required to be on at all times, but you will be 100% unable to use the product if you don't regularly connect: otherwise how would you pay your in-app purchase?!?!
So now the cost of your game includes $60 for internet connection each month, only there so you can pay for the game.
Can you defray your cost there to Steam? After all, markets will charge you for the costs they incur for a credit card transaction, and that $60 a month is a cost you incur for the transaction to be "in app purchase".
There's a right and wrong way to implement in-app payment in a video game. The wrong way is the mobile version of Dungeon Keeper. One of the right ways is to provide one free-to-play episode that ends on a cliffhanger, and then a one-time payment to unlock the rest of the game. This model is called "shareware", and it was a big success for Doom.
Perhaps 10 percent of gamers saw the "pay to skip a 24-hour wait" trend in recent free-to-play video games and decided to abandon video games in general.
You are talking about The Elder Bugs, right?
You mean the wrinklers keeping my cookies nice and clean?
but what about when it's 100% download-only?
We'll handle that when it happens decades from now. Customers who live too far from the CMTS or DSLAM to get DOCSIS or DSL are on satellite or microwave Internet plans, which are usually limited to 5 to 10 gigabytes of transfer per month, and a single AAA game can be bigger than that nowadays.
You still need to buy a living-room-friendly case and components that fit inside it lest you incur the wrath of the SO.
I too doubt that it ends up being a "race to zero." However, Valve's business with steam is much like any other app store, they just take a cut of the sale and carry on with life. What this developer-set price allows is for more rapid changes, or even a breakaway from the typical pricing of round-to-the-nearest-$10-and-subtract-a-few-pennies that has been prevalent for the better part of 30 years. I can't dig up references at work (games and related sites are blocked), google for the impacts that steam sales have on developers. EA and the big boys are focused on return in the fewest copies, with an assumption that they will sell at least some set number (x million) units. I read somewhere that the devs of Torchlight made more in a week of a Steam sale than they did in some months leading up to it. When you no longer have to worry about production costs of disks, cases, boxes, artwork, etc... and instead the minimal costs of distributing electronic copies, each sale has a much higher percentage going to the devs/distributor. Cut out the big-name distributor, and you'll hit that profit boundary much quicker. While we likely will never see it, I'd imagine that if you released a new AAA title for $20 instead of the usual $60, you would likely see more than a 3x increase in sales. Get a good game priced into the impulse buy range of $5 - $10, and watch it fly off the virtual shelves.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...
The free-to-play model originated in the late 1990s and early 2000s, coming from a series of highly successful MMOs targeted towards children and casual gamers, including Furcadia, Neopets, RuneScape, MapleStory, and text-based dungeons such as Achaea, Dreams of Divine Lands.
But even that's wrong. MUDs date back to 1987.
Free to play games have been around for 27 years and they haven't destroyed the market for premium games. Valve letting game developers set their own prices is not going to suddenly make the people who have been willing to pay for premium games stop paying for them.
Google did NOT create Android. Please AC, do not misrepresent the facts
"Quote" Android is an operating system based on the Linux kernel,[12] and designed primarily for touchscreen mobile devices such as smartphones and tablet computers. Initially developed by Android, Inc.,which Google backed financially and later bought in 2005, "End Quote"
Backed with money and created physically are 2 very different things. Give credit where credit is due Please.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Jack of all trades,master of none
"Free to play" is the scammiest thing destroying good, well thought out games. They're all clones of clones of other games with different graphics, but at the core, the same damn game. Hobbit, Camelot, Dragon's of Atlantis, Galaxy Online, and the billion other copies.
Let's not forget the ultimate symbol of this crap, created from the ashes of a once great game: Dungeon Keeper. Log in, click 3 things, collect resources and log off for 24 hours because that's how long the task will take to complete. OR pay $50 to complete the tasks early and play longer.
So, you can end up dropping $150-1000 on a "free to play" game, get nowhere and have little enjoyment because it's a click'n'wait. THat's not fun, it;s boring, it's poor design.
Give me a great game that costs $60 up front and items/expansions in game that I can buy at my lesuire. That's how to do it smartly.
That doesn't mean it's sane to fund a massive arcology of monkeys and typewriters to try to get great works.
Of course not. We have the Internet now. We don't need typewriters. The monkeys can submit cat videos, slashdot comments, and all sorts of wonderful content from almost wherever they are (so we don't need an arcology either)
Sorry but that is just stupid to try to go "freemium"!
I don't want to see any advertising in games.
I don't want to pay now and then to get past some point in game because without paying my character/vehicle/unit doesn't have required gear or skills.
I don't want to play in multiplayer games where some players just happen to pay 50€ so they can get everything without basing them to skills in each round.
Just do the smart move and drop the new games prices from 50-60€ to 25-30€ and have older ones available for 15-20€ and then give indies change to have same prices as AAA studios. This just to keep games free from ads and game fair where idiots can't buy itself trough.
Maybe I am just old-school, but I don't see the attraction to F2P games (in terms of alternate monetization methods -- not totally free games). I would much rather pay a fair (but not exorbitantly high) price up-front for a game I think I would like, or have heard about, or even played the trial version of, rather than downloading for free, and dealing with micropayments, in-game advertising, or other bullshit when I just want to relax and get a little entertainment, an escape from all that crap.
This is the model I plan to use for all my games as well, and I have no plans to use Steam in their distribution, either.
-SS "Teach the ignorant, care for the dumb, and punish the stupid."
If you're going to read the article, read the comments (on Gamasutra). Other devs point out that you've always been able to set your price on Steam games - it just takes less intervention to change it now. You could always launch a free or 99 cent game there. The Steam market is not the mobile market (thank god).
screw that!
3) Profit Maximization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profit_maximization). 7Mio copies at 9.95€
The profit line between a 5€ and 50€ price is not a straight line. In fact, it is likely a skewed bell-curve.
You do what you have to do, you build your experience
I'm aware of that. But I'm still unsure of when to quit my day job as a data integration programmer outside the video game industry. When to quit depends on two things: 1. how much money I should expect to need to bring with me to Austin, Texas, to look for a job, and 2. how to ensure enough experience to get my foot in the door once I have moved to Austin.
If you want to be a haute cuisine chef, you don't stay in podunk...you move to a big city.
I'll take you up on this analogy. Someone seeking a career as a chef can start by waiting tables at a local restaurant franchise and climb to store manager, and that will at least allow gaining experience before having to move. What's the video game industry equivalent of that?
So quit asking how to get into the fucking industry
I don't want into the porn industry; I want into the video game industry. :p
you've been told many times.
By whom? I ask this multiple times because I want other people's views on how to prepare for relocation and how to build a portfolio.
How many "free" clones of Flappy Bird has emerged since the maker RAEGQUIT? Out of that number: How many are actually good and aren't complete shit or buggier than a roach motel?
How many "free" games are just a clone of another game that is a clone of another game? (Hint: Bazinga... err... Zynga games and King Games are nefariously bad at making a clone of a clone of a clone... ad infinitum.) How many of those clone's only difference from the original game is that you have to pay RL cash in order to continue despite it's bogus clam that you don't have to pay to continue?
How many "free" games are nothing more than a HS Student's feeble attempt at making a game?
Long story short: Free doesn't always equal good. There is always a catch and sometimes you get what you pay for. So if you paid shit for something, don't complain about the smell you got in return.
maybe this will show the game makers that charging $90+ for a half finished game isnt a great idea when their competitors are charging $10 for a better product thats not this years version of a hashed out tired franchise. the competitor might make less with each sale, but sell a lot more to make up for it. also, shouldnt the market should equalize itself, finding a price point that punters are willing to pay for a quality game? in mobile-land, i believe thats currently $3-5.
Hello! everybody, give you recommend a good shopping place. discount sunglasses sale http://www.shoesctv.com/ NFL cap wholesale http://www.shoesctv.com/ discount jordan shoes http://www.shoesctv.com/ jordan michael http://www.shoesctv.com/ designer sunglasses http://www.shoesctv.com/ cheap jordan shoes http://www.shoesctv.com/ jordan store http://www.shoesctv.com/ Air jordan 13 http://www.shoesctv.com/ cheap designer handbags http://www.shoesctv.com/ NBA cap wholesale http://www.shoesctv.com/ best handbags http://www.shoesctv.com/ cheap jordan http://www.shoesctv.com/ Jordan for cheap http://www.shoesctv.com/ Air jordan 11 http://www.shoesctv.com/ ray ban sunglasses http://www.shoesctv.com/ handbag store http://www.shoesctv.com/ Air jordan 1 http://www.shoesctv.com/ handbag patterns http://www.shoesctv.com/ mens sunglasses http://www.shoesctv.com/ imitation handbags http://www.shoesctv.com/ replica rolex http://www.topreplicarolex.org... replica watches http://www.topreplicarolex.org... jordan release dates http://www.shoesctv.com/ NHL cap wholesale http://www.shoesctv.com/ Air jordan 9 http://www.shoesctv.com/ MLB cap wholesale http://www.shoesctv.com/ cheap sunglasses http://www.shoesctv.com/ wholesale from china http://www.shoesctv.com/ jordan shoes wholesale http://www.shoesctv.com/ Top replica watches http://www.topreplicarolex.org... replica rolex watches http://www.topreplicarolex.org... designer handbags wholesale http://www.shoesctv.com/