Slashdot Mirror
Apple, Google Vying For Mobile Game Exclusivity
An anonymous reader writes "Here's an interesting look at the battle for mobile video game money between Google and Apple. 'Last August, for the launch of "Plants Vs. Zombies 2," a highly anticipated sequel to a popular zombie-survival strategy game, publisher Electronic Arts Inc. struck a deal with Apple, which promoted the game prominently in its App Store, according to people familiar with the matter. In exchange, one of these people said, EA agreed to give Apple about a two-month window of exclusivity for the title, which wasn't released on Google's Android software until October.'"
because of micropayment hell.
Was looking forward to it and would have paid for it. It as good time waster when flying.
If the point of exclusivity is to drive sales of your hardware or overall service... I don't want to meet the person who buys an iPhone so they can play Plants vs Zombies 2 months sooner than everyone else...
History tells that October passed, we are at April and we're still alive. Is there anything special in being able to play that game as soon as it's published? Would you buy an iPhone vs a Galaxy for that? There are tons of games to play. It's even less important that watching a TV serial when it gets aired vs 6 month later on DVD. Hell, I have unplayed levels of the original Angry Birds from the time it was hot. Anybody remembers the year?
It wasn't that long ago that the general app-developer mode of operation was "release for iOS, Android maybe later sometime". If Apple are now paying companies to effectively delay the Android release of their app, perhaps this shows that the mood in the developer community (or Apple's perception thereof) is shifting - in a direction not favourable to the image of Apple's ecosystem as "the" app store.
Is it any good?
I wouldn't know.
After stumbling across Plants Vs. Zombies on a Humble Bundle for the Android, I bought the Game Of The Year edition for Microsoft Windows. Great game! Highly recommended!
Shortly afterwards, I was quite pleased to see that PvZ2 was available. Except, playing the game required a free account with EA.
The way these companies attempt to control the end user experience is so disheartening. Similarly, I enjoyed Trials when my friend showed that to me on an Xbox 360. I bought Trials Gold on Steam. However, only after purchasing it, I was found that I was forced to agree to a EULA. One that I actually disapproved of.
(Probably a clause about reverse engineering, as well as stating that restriction remains alive even after termination of an agreement. It's not that I have a habit of disassembling a game. But that activity has appeal in an idealized fantasy existence where I am a bit smarter and life and do more of that awesome activity. I certainly don't like being constantly asked to agree to give up rights.) Result: the game has not been installed, since doing so requires agreeing to such nonsense. Well, EA made its money off me there. I'm not a person who feels like wasting my time by trying to figure out if I can possibly return that software. However, I don't expect to be blindly buying the sequel.
The attitude of Microsoft (DRM-supporting, and migrating everything to a company-owned cloud) and Google (more and more), specifically to try to restrict users to gain profit, but expect negativity to be offset by an absolute love that people have for the positive benefits that the companies may market, is driving people to love these companies just as much as people love the wireless phone service providers. That is, people loathe them. Absolutely loathe them.
The situation of companies trying to control the end user experience is beyond just disappointment. It has reached disgust. I know a lot of people complain, but are just talk. But software permissions are actually important to me. Company aggression has now started to affect buying habits.
I hate to break it to you, but this isn't news. This kind of behavior has existed in the games industry and app-store industry pretty much since they've existed.
What is a developer to do? People want to try before buying.
Personally, in the things I publish, ex Perpenso Calc, a RPN Sci Stat Biz Hex Bill/Tip calculator that supports fractions and complex numbers, I like the idea of two apps. A fully paid app that is ad free and includes all functionality and a second free app that has only basic functionality, scientific functionality, but is expandable and ads are removable (Biz, Hex etc are in-app purchase). The later lets people try things out. As an incentive to buy the fully paid version I offer it at a bundled price, less than if all in-app purchases are made in the free version.
I understand the controversy but this is the best solution I've come up with so far. I would be happy to hear other suggestions.
You are a pawn. You are their bitch. They will use you and abuse you. You are not their customer and you are not important to them.
Ok I sort of understand why, but mobile phones are such a different type of purchase than games consoles. If I was looking for a console I might inspect the available games, and I wouldn't care what it looked like in my living room, or how it performed (assuming that it runs the games I want).
But mobile phones - if you're looking at top end phones I highly doubt anyone thinks that deeply about the available games these days (now that Android is nearly equivalent for apps). They'll be looking at specs, look and feel, etc. And if they're buying a low end phone then it'll be an Android anyway.
It ain't no battle till one of them introduce a fifteen inch hole golf. Let us see who does it first.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
If you really want to play a game that's not available for your phone's OS, you can always get an iPad or Android tablet. No new phone needed.
But if it's inherently multiplayer, or if it uses always-connected DRM (such as LVL StrictPolicy), you're likely to need to upgrade your existing smartphone's plan to a plan that includes tethering.
It's likely that their phone is going to be their primary handheld gaming console for the next couple of years at very least. Why on earth would you not consider how good the device is at carrying out one of your primary use cases when buying it?
Probably because a lot of Slashdot users doubt that "It's likely that their phone is going to be their primary handheld gaming console" will apply to a substantial number of paying customers. A lot of people have a Nintendo 3DS or PlayStation Vita because directional controls and discrete buttons are better for the game genres that they prefer. Or is there a way to make the controls in a platformer like Mega Man acceptable without having to pay $40 extra for a clip-on Bluetooth gamepad?
So how should I go about trying your apps before buying the iPod touch or iPad mini on which to run them, in addition to whatever Android kit I already have?
Although I find it impossible that you don't have friends or family who have several iOS devices to test a trial version app on, here's an answer:
Pick a random direction, walk 10 feet, bump into any random person who already owns an iOS device, buy them a coffee in exchange for them letting you try an app on their device.