Don't Complain About Piracy When You Create Crappy Games

from the crappy-game-meet-crappy-sales dept

This story really boggles my mind. Recently, Steven Sargent, studio exec of Appy Entertainment, took to the press to complain about the Google Android platform. The first part of the small interview was a complaint about the amount of piracy on the Android platform compared to the iPhone, 70:1 and 3:1 respectively. This isn't too surprising to most who are familiar with the Android platform as it is far easier to side load apps on it than the iPhone. However, that is not the worst part of the complaint.

Right after he complains about the amount of piracy, Sargent goes right into complaining about general development for the Android platform. "There are too many devices for a company of our size to deal with the compatibility on Android. Compatibility was a real nightmare." He then followed up with a complaint about getting textures and audio to work.

I really don't know what to tell this guy other than the following. You admit to creating a crappy game with spotty compatibility across phones and then have the gall to complain about piracy rates? Seriously? Do you not see a correlation between the two complaints? We have already seen that some amount of piracy is due to underserved customers. In this case, I don't think it's a stretch to say a lot of the piracy, or more likely the low sales numbers, is to due to the spotty performance of the game rather than the platform itself.

When you give potential consumers no reason to be confident in the performance of a game on the platform for which it is sold, they will attempt to test the game prior to making a decision to buying it. If that game ends up not working, they will not buy it. Not because they got the game for free, but because it lived up to the expectation of crappiness that you as the developer instilled upon them.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    identicon
    vastrightwing, Oct 31st, 2011 @ 8:05pm

    Know what you're getting into before

    I have no sympathy for the publisher. At one time I investigated developing for the iPhone and determined ahead of time that I didn't like the terms of Apple's one sided contract. I didn't see a bright future being in an extremely crowded market. In other words, I realized I could not create a polished product on that platoform and make money.

    Android, I stayed away for the reason this guy talked about. Yes, it's true, it takes a lot of resources to make sure your app works on all the major phones. No joke. Also, when apps make a few dollars each, it's hard to see how to make enough money to keep the busines viable. On top of that, new OS and new hardware come out frequently, it's a HUGE commitment. Better not to go in when you know in advance you can't keep the commitment.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Oct 31st, 2011 @ 8:57pm

      Re: Know what you're getting into before

      Since "Door No. 1" (iPhone) amd "Door No.2" (Android) each appeared to be losers, I am curious if there was a "Door No. 3) that was pursued.

      People slam closed systems, and yet there is much to say in favor of Apple's tight configuration control.

      Open platforms have their advantages, but as rightly noted the requirements for an Android on the phone on one manufacturer may be remarkably different on the phone of another.

      It is also clear that the reference to "piracy" was separate and distinct from the technical challenges facing the app developer. If one invests time and energy to create an app for the Android OS, it is a bit dispiriting to note the business financials where the rate of unlawful copying far overwhelms legitimate copies.

      BTW, it looks as if the developer is being criticized for releasing a "crappy gamy". This seems unwarranted given there is nothing in any of the linked articles mentioning if the app was ever released. Based on the comments by the speaker, it would not be surprising if the app was never released.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        JEDIDIAH, Oct 31st, 2011 @ 10:00pm

        Re: Re: Know what you're getting into before

        These "app stores" are like any other sort of creative endeavor. It's one big giant pyramid scheme with a few lucky developers on top. If you are a "featured" developer, then you are on easy street. Otherwise you are just fighting over the scraps.

        Being something other than Angry Birds sucks on either platform.

        You have to compete with "cheap" and "free" regardless.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Oct 31st, 2011 @ 10:52pm

        Re: Re: Know what you're getting into before

        The answer to this is that you need a framework to abstract out the hardware difference, but the computing power and capacity of these mobile device makes such framework quite a challenge. The outlook will generally be inferior when compare with those who manage the difference themselves. That's a problem.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        PaulT (profile), Nov 1st, 2011 @ 2:54am

        Re: Re: Know what you're getting into before

        "Since "Door No. 1" (iPhone) amd "Door No.2" (Android) each appeared to be losers, I am curious if there was a "Door No. 3) that was pursued."

        There was at least one further door open to him (Windows Phones). He clearly didn't do his research.

        "If one invests time and energy to create an app for the Android OS, it is a bit dispiriting to note the business financials where the rate of unlawful copying far overwhelms legitimate copies. "

        All of which information was available before he started coding a single line. It's also common sense - if you have an open platform with no restrictions, there will be compatibility issues and more "piracy". Some of this "piracy" will be to check compatibility before buying - something that's far less of a problem on ioS than Android.

        Each platform has its advantages and disadvantages, and the only thing more foolish than not realising this before creating a product is whining about it afterwards.

        "This seems unwarranted given there is nothing in any of the linked articles mentioning if the app was ever released. Based on the comments by the speaker, it would not be surprising if the app was never released."

        In which case, the level of "piracy" is irrelevant since he made exactly the same number of sales even if 100% of the games were pirated (which, of course, is not the case). If he's never had the product for sale, he lost nothing from piracy (although he would have voluntarily rejected the legitimate sales made).

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          David Liu (profile), Nov 1st, 2011 @ 12:37pm

          Re: Re: Re: Know what you're getting into before

          Windows Phone 7 hardly has the market share nor app download numbers to sustain any sort of business at the moment. It's an even worse loser than the other two doors.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        E. Zachary Knight (profile), Nov 1st, 2011 @ 6:24am

        Re: Re: Know what you're getting into before

        This seems unwarranted given there is nothing in any of the linked articles mentioning if the app was ever released. Based on the comments by the speaker, it would not be surprising if the app was never released.

        I think it would be very difficult, or nigh impossible, to have a 70:1 piracy to legit sales ratio if the game was never released.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Oct 31st, 2011 @ 8:26pm

    Nor is it just with phones that this is a problem.

    Regular software gaming houses are not making quality games for the majority of them. After having gotten burned far too many times on incomplete games, on games definitely subpar in programming, even broken to the point the game fails in mid-play, I am not willing to just plop down $50 or 60 bucks on it untried.

    For a while I tried gaming magazines but the gaming houses got to them, threatening to remove their access to new games unless those they were writing up were given glowing recommendations. At that point, those magazines became worthless for the getting a feel of what they were about and how well they might play.

    I find now there is only one way to test them before hand. I try them out first. If they are worthy, I'll buy it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      S, Nov 1st, 2011 @ 9:21am

      Re:

      This is even worse for "indie" titles.

      My favourite offender is Kranx Productions (IIRC), which produced a game called Hammerfight which was not only painfully slow on a very fast machine, but was also crashed like crazy and had severe physics and AI bugs which made several levels virtually impossible to win.

      Another of their games, Musaic Box, had a crash mid-way through, which took out the save file for the game.

      I tried to contact them, several times, about both problems -- and got a grand total of zero responses.

      This kind of bullshit is hardly unique: I could list off over a dozen different companies, and probably over 20 games, which were a complete and utter waste of cash.

      When one includes so-called AAA titles, this list gets even longer, with EA sitting right at the top of the heap, with their rampant bowdlerization of every single project they get their slimy claws into.

      It took several thousand dollars in wasted software before I finally decided that game companies weren't going to get a dime out of me until they either enact fair return policies, or until I've thoroughly tested a game in advance and decide that it DESERVES being paid for.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    xenomancer (profile), Oct 31st, 2011 @ 8:58pm

    Common Sense

    With all other factors removed:
    crappy games = crappy sales
    mediocre games = crappy sales
    good games = average sales
    great games = above average sales

    And including the adjunct qualities:
    quality_factor = game_quality * platform_quality * brand_quality
    potential_sales = market_share * market_size
    actual_sales = quality_factor * potential_sales

    If Steven Sargent can't even wrap his mind around these grossly oversimplified integral relationships, he doesn't deserve the sales he claims to be missing out on. It doesn't take a marketing genius to figure out that a shitty game sold by a mediocre company on a purposefully open platform will see little if any sales. Blaming the customers for figuring out they're getting hosed without paying for sub-par content is a stupid position to take and will just make matters worse.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Oct 31st, 2011 @ 11:06pm

    It Is Not The Developer’s Choice

    It is users that attract developers to a platform, not the other way round. Look at the way users continue to flock to Android over Apple’s i-devices, even though the latter still has more apps, and more developers working on apps.

    Ultimately, developers must serve the needs of users, it is not the users that must serve the needs of developers. So, like it or not, developers will have to move to Android.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    TechnoMage (profile), Oct 31st, 2011 @ 11:49pm

    "You're doing it wrong"

    If your application has to "adjust" to all the different devices out there, you are likely "doing it wrong". As someone who has spent many an hour working on Android, ranging from internships, my senior honors capstone, and even my current research working towards my PhD... Android isn't perfect... but it does a _lot_ to help developers make their applications work across as many devices as possible.

    And... if you are having that much trouble getting an application to work across multiple devices, you likely need a different/better game engine that handles that for you. If that requires you to make one yourself, or use someone else's, That would be up to each independent developer.

    But... Even if you don't want to spend a lot of time developing for multiple devices, then just use the Android Marketplace filters that allow you to disallow devices/device capabilities. This would allow you to sell to the the top 4~5 devices at launch, then continue to add support for more devices later on. Which would be a RtB...

    But, "ehh", if you don't want to support multiple devices the WebOS platform is just for you...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      lfroen (profile), Nov 1st, 2011 @ 4:42am

      Re: "You're doing it wrong"

      >>> If your application has to "adjust" to all the different devices out there, you are likely "doing it wrong"
      I guess you never wrote anything more complicated than "hello world".

      >>> you likely need a different/better game engine that handles that for you.
      Ah, right, so your app will look crappy on _ALL_ devices. Yea, way to go.

      >>> then just use the Android Marketplace filters that allow you to disallow devices/device capabilities
      so, with initially smaller (than iPhone) market with rampant piracy and I'm supposed to limit myself even more?!

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        S, Nov 1st, 2011 @ 9:23am

        Re: Re: "You're doing it wrong"

        Just because you can't figure out how to solve problems without special casing the hell out of all of your code doesn't mean other people aren't smarter than you are.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      jackn, Nov 1st, 2011 @ 7:22am

      Re: "You're doing it wrong"

      For games it should be easy, but introduce cameras and other hardware - that may be implemented differently by manufacturer, it can be a nightmare.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    anonymous, Nov 1st, 2011 @ 12:41am

    i think a major contributing factor is the crap that different providers put on their phones. the amount of bloatware and useless stuff is unbelievable. if, for example, a samsung phone just had samsung stuff on it instead of it being replaced with vodafone or orange software, wouldn't there be more chance of the new bits working?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    indieThing, Nov 1st, 2011 @ 2:25am

    Not surprised

    Well, well, ol' Sarge is in the news, didn't expect to see him here!

    Having worked with him back in the day, I can say that he's not the brightest spark and probably doesn't get the new business models, but he is a lovely chap. And BTW, he actually DOES look like Shrek :)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    lfroen (profile), Nov 1st, 2011 @ 2:29am

    Actually, that exec is right

    Both of his claims are factually correct:
    * Android have match higher piracy rates, compared to iPhone
    * Differences between Android phones makes it harder for developers (talking from experience here)

    I would also add that Android's SDK is amazing crap, again, compared to XCode and even Visual C.

    >> So, like it or not, developers will have to move to Android.
    Yea, right. And next year is Year-of-Linux-Desktop.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      E. Zachary Knight (profile), Nov 1st, 2011 @ 6:38am

      Re: Actually, that exec is right

      I have to admit, I am not an Android developer, but I have worked as a Windows and a Web developer, both of which have large hardware and software compatibility issues.

      I could just give up completely because trying to test compatibility into anything even web related is a nightmare, but I don't I just suck it up curse under my breath and do it.

      Does it suck? Yes. Is it worth it in the end? Yes.

      Based on my experience of speaking with developers who are actively working on Android projects, it is much the same. They want to do it and they want to do it right. That is why the complaints that it is hard to develop compatibility falls flat with me.

      As for the comparison to Linux, you might be right if Linux PCs were outselling Windows PCs in the same way Android phones were outselling iPhones.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        lfroen (profile), Nov 1st, 2011 @ 7:33am

        Re: Re: Actually, that exec is right

        >> I have to admit, I am not an Android developer
        If so, why pretend like you know the subject?

        >> but I have worked as a Windows and a Web developer, both of which have large hardware and software compatibility issues
        Web have hardware compatibility issues? I see. If your pages looks different because of screen resolution, I suggest you to look for another career path.
        As for "Windows developer" talking about how Android is great - I can see why post is full of technical nonsense.

        >> same way Android phones were outselling iPhones
        You know that Nokia's S40 systems outselling iPhone,Android and Windows Phone _COMBINED_? Does it mean that we must start developing for Nokia 3220?
        Ignorance is a bless, isn't it?

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Jay (profile), Nov 1st, 2011 @ 10:28am

          Re: Re: Re: Actually, that exec is right

          Wow, so snippy...

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            hothmonster, Nov 1st, 2011 @ 11:35am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Actually, that exec is right

            some people get like that if they can't just admit their argument was flawed and move on.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          E. Zachary Knight (profile), Nov 1st, 2011 @ 12:32pm

          Re: Re: Re: Actually, that exec is right

          Web have hardware compatibility issues? I see. If your pages looks different because of screen resolution, I suggest you to look for another career path.

          Yes it does. Not all computers render Javascript and flash effectively. It has a lot to do with the amount of RAM available and some CPU usage. Mostly RAM though. If the amount of Javascript you use causes someones computer or browser to lock up, that is a problem. Not really something you can deal with short of turning off Javascript, but the problem is there.

          As for "Windows developer" talking about how Android is great - I can see why post is full of technical nonsense.

          As a Windows developer, I am familiar with the pain of developing for a large and inconsistent swath of hardware. I am familiar with developing for various versions of Windows at various levels of updates. I am familiar with developing for various combinations of third party software that may hinder my application's use.

          None of that is any different than what I am told of Android development.

          You know that Nokia's S40 systems outselling iPhone,Android and Windows Phone _COMBINED_? Does it mean that we must start developing for Nokia 3220?

          I wasn't aware that the Nokia 3220 had the mass market smartphone appeal and capabilities of the iPhone and Android phone.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        David Liu (profile), Nov 1st, 2011 @ 12:52pm

        Re: Re: Actually, that exec is right

        Your explanation is a little bit unfair though.

        What's the distribution of web browsers look like? Most of the users in the big three browsers, and a good majority of them running relatively update software?

        That's quite different from Android phones, which have new phones coming out every couple months from each Android company. These phones rarely ever get software upgrades, so most users are running software 1-2 years out of date, and can't/won't upgrade to a newer phone until their contract runs out after two years. This results in a distribution of phones where there might be 10-15 phones in the current generation that you should support, but 20-30 phones in the previous generation where another significant portion of the market lies.

        I'll admit, I'm not a web developer so I don't know how bad compatibility issues are over there, but as an Android developer, those issues weigh very heavily across the ecosystem.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          E. Zachary Knight (profile), Nov 1st, 2011 @ 1:56pm

          Re: Re: Re: Actually, that exec is right

          As a state contractor, our websites must be compatible with 4 versions of IE, Firefox on PC and Macs, Chrome on PCs and Macs, Safari on Mac. That is 9 browsers.

          Granted that is not near as bad as compatibility of Windows applications, but it is still rough, especially from a Javascript point of view.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Tristan Phillips, Nov 1st, 2011 @ 3:01am

    Guy's got a point

    His complaint is spot on about compatibility. There are so many variants of the OS and the carrier tweaks to the Android platform that Android's ActiveSync clone is unreliable. When you have two models of the same phone, but one has a different OS version and only one connects reliably to an Exchange server you have a serious problem with controlling your OS.

    Crappy game aside, Google has a real mess on their hands with Android and they need to clean it up.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Onnala (profile), Nov 1st, 2011 @ 7:04am

      Re: Guy's got a point

      How is this any different then the normal PC market? People running all kinds of versions, on disparate hardware?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        anamika, Nov 2nd, 2011 @ 6:39am

        Re: Re: Guy's got a point

        Not much different. I assume android attracts lot of bad developers who don't have the means to handle multiple cases.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Damien Sturdy (profile), Nov 1st, 2011 @ 3:16am

    Piracy on Android is a problem from a different angle.

    I'm going to switch angles for a second. From watching the market for a while, I have noticed that the problem with Android, in regards to Piracy and GOOD applications, is that you can easily download someones APK, Extract it, Swap the text in an XML file, then resign it with your own key. For example, there were several SNES Emulators on the market- but each one was the same app repackaged and sold by a different "developer". I am not keen on a market that allows such rampant piracy. As a developer I have accepted that casual piracy will occur, but when it is entirely possible for someone to rip my app and resell it for themselves, that becomes a problem.

    He should have been more concerned with this possibility (which is more of a risk than a few friends copying an APK.)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      John Fenderson (profile), Nov 1st, 2011 @ 12:07pm

      Re: Piracy on Android is a problem from a different angle.

      In other words, it's not terribly unlike developing for a desktop OS as far as this is concerned.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Jason, Nov 1st, 2011 @ 5:25am

    give better refunds

    I will admit, I download the majority of my paid apps from free sites. I only do this because the few paid apps I have paid for did not live up to my expectations and I was unable to get a refund or had to jump through a million and hoops to get it. Now if you want my money I want to know the product works. I'm sick of download a trial version that does not have the full functionality then being expected to buy the full version. So what and I and the millions of other droid users to do. Well what I do is download from free sites, test it for a week to a month, then if I like it I uninstall it and buy it from the market.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Rabbit80, Nov 1st, 2011 @ 5:40am

      Re: give better refunds

      Agreed - to a point.

      When Google offered a 24Hr refund policy on Android, I often used to download an app to try it then get a refund if it was crap / didn't live up to my expectations. Now its a 15min refund policy, I pirate anything costing more than £3 before I decide to buy it, and I am much more cautious in actually buying anything!

      I appreciate that Android cannot secure apps very well and that it is easy to make a backup of the app which you can then reinstall after getting your refund - but surely that is something that Google should have looked at fixing, rather than making the buying terms worse for the consumer.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      E. Zachary Knight (profile), Nov 1st, 2011 @ 6:40am

      Re: give better refunds

      This is one of the reasons that as a game developer, I like the idea behind Free to Play. You get the whole game for free and then you can buy items and levels later on if you want.

      This give people who want to try out the game a chance to do so at no cost to them and then they can choose to support the developer later.

      It works out pretty well.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Onnala (profile), Nov 1st, 2011 @ 7:33am

        Re: Re: give better refunds

        The only problem I have with the free to play style of game is that, from what I can see, it focuses on games as an addiction. Such games are designed to try and get people 'hooked' on the game and not so much on a story narrative or creative game play.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        lfroen (profile), Nov 1st, 2011 @ 8:03am

        Re: Re: give better refunds

        >> I like the idea behind Free to Play. You get the whole game for free and then ...

        Sounds like fraud to me. Usually such games are pretty useless, unless you start buying those items/levels/coins/whatever. I will prefer stuff with fixed cost to all kinds of "subscriptions".

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          identicon
          S, Nov 1st, 2011 @ 9:35am

          Re: Re: Re: give better refunds

          It is fraud -- comparatively minor fraud, but fraud none the less.

          Virtually every example is not fully playable without being paid for; it's playable for the first hour or two -- just enough time to get invested in a new character -- and then you'll hit up against some brick wall which can only be bypassed for the low, low payment of . . .

          In other words, it's effectively a demo being billed as a "free" game, with the ability to seamlessly import your character into the paid version -- only demos are honest because they explicitly tell you, "This isn't a complete game; you aren't going to get to do anything interesting without coughing up some cash."

          A great is Spiral Knights, which claims to be "free to play", until you realise that you have to pay cash for "energy" and it costs energy to GO ANYWHERE in the game. Of course there is a TINY pool of energy which recharges on its own, but essentially this means one can play no more than an hour or so every day -- which is precisely equivalent to a trial-ware demo which allow X minutes of usage every day until it's registered.

          Claiming that something is free to get people hooked enough that they'll pay to keep going is the kind of tactic drug dealers use ("Hey, kid -- first one's free"); it's slimy and disgusting.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            identicon
            hothmonster, Nov 1st, 2011 @ 11:46am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: give better refunds

            Sounds like someone had a bad experience. Plenty of good f2p games, you just have to be careful and watch for bullshit. But to say all F2P games are scams designed by the morally corrupt is a load of shit

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          Jay (profile), Nov 1st, 2011 @ 10:28am

          Re: Re: Re: give better refunds

          Team Fortress 2 disagrees with your "fraud" claim.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            David Liu (profile), Nov 1st, 2011 @ 12:44pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: give better refunds

            That's because it was originally not a f2p game. It originally launched four years ago. Only after four years and developing the following it has now has it switched to a f2p model.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              hothmonster, Nov 1st, 2011 @ 12:50pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: give better refunds

              "Only after four years and developing the following it has now has it switched to a f2p model."

              True it had a following, but Valve reports that the player base has grown by 5x since going F2P. It is an unusual example but it is still evidence of a F2P game that isn't just a trick to siphon money out of you.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          John Fenderson (profile), Nov 1st, 2011 @ 12:10pm

          Re: Re: Re: give better refunds

          It's only fraud if the customer was promised one thing and given another. I don't play these types of games myself, for unrelated reasons, but I am fully aware of which ones are like this and which ones aren't.

          It's also only fraud if you've given up something of value when you first ran the game. If it's free, then when you discover that you have to buy stuff to make the game enjoyable for you, you can stop playing it. You haven't lost anything, and so therefore weren't defrauded.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          E. Zachary Knight (profile), Nov 1st, 2011 @ 12:47pm

          Re: Re: Re: give better refunds

          Some very fine arguments against the idea of F2P as fraud. So I won't reiterate them.

          But I will say that some of the best games I have ever played were free. I will also say that some of the worst games I have played, I have paid for. I felt cheated on the latter and wanted more from the former. F2P provides a way to get more.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 1st, 2011 @ 10:29am

    Of course, the Android market allows you to try a game for 15 minutes before paying, so you can see if a game is crappy without pirating it.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      E. Zachary Knight (profile), Nov 1st, 2011 @ 12:35pm

      Re:

      Well, that is the Google Marketplace. Other marketplaces have different policies. Find one that has a return and refund policy you like.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      hothmonster, Nov 1st, 2011 @ 12:54pm

      Re:

      I havnt bought anything from the google marketplace since it went to 15 minutes returns, it used to be 24 hours. Frankly that isn't enough time to know if I will be satisfied with the product. For games it might be less of an issue but I don't think its a non-existent one, ten minutes (15 minus download and install while leaving yourself time to register the return) is not really enough time to understand a product. Though it is enough time to see if it works on your phone. Now days if a product on android marketplace doesnt have a free trial I won't even look at it, Ill find something free or with a decent trial. 15 minutes is not enough time for me.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Nov 1st, 2011 @ 11:55am

    The spin on the story was piracy but I think the bigger issue for Appy is the complexity of the Android platform. Too many variants for easily maintainable code.

    I love the idea of the Android platform, but the implementation is horrible. There are too many phone manufacturers throwing UI tweaks into the mix, and crippling the Android Market. Not only does this complicate things for the developer but for the consumer as well. When consumers upgrade their Android phone and their user experience changes, they will not be happy. It only takes one bad upgrade experience to lose a customer forever.

    Apple may be guilty of many things but they made the right decision to control the hardware and software running on their devices.

    Also, if the code is crappy, why would someone pirate crappy software? Aren't you the one who says that the best content is pirated more than the crappy content? What does that say for the top grossing Android apps, how often are they pirated? Why, as a developer, should I write apps for a platform that is plagued by piracy? The pirates flock to the Android platform because of the easy access to pirated applications.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      John Fenderson (profile), Nov 1st, 2011 @ 12:16pm

      Re:

      Apple may be guilty of many things but they made the right decision to control the hardware and software running on their devices.


      Perhaps they did, but that doesn't mean that Android made the wrong decision. There's a not-insignificant market for people who don't want to be locked into something like Apple's market. I'm one of them, but I know a LOT of others.

      Apple's way is great for a lot of people, and more power to them. Being locked into their marketplace, though, is one of the main reasons that I did not, and will not, purchase an iPhone.

      My experience with the Android way has been very positive. As a developer, I understand the pain that having to address a multitude of platforms can bring, but as a consumer I have no complaints.

      Developing for Android, like for any other platform, is a business decision. You weigh the costs of doing so and if they are worth it, you develop for it. If they aren't, you don't. Given the huge number of high-quality apps for Android, there's no shortage of developers who find it worthwhile -- and no surprise, as it's not an insignificant market.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      E. Zachary Knight (profile), Nov 1st, 2011 @ 12:44pm

      Re:

      Also, if the code is crappy, why would someone pirate crappy software?

      I listed one specific case of someone wanting to test the compatibility of the game.

      Aren't you the one who says that the best content is pirated more than the crappy content?

      I didn't say that. A trio of researchers said it. As for this game, there are no numbers given other than a ratio. So as far as we know they sold one copy and 70 people downloaded it. Or 1000 people bought it and 70000 people downloaded it. Without a number for either side, we don't really know how bad the piracy of the game really was.

      What does that say for the top grossing Android apps, how often are they pirated?

      Haven't really looked into it. But it is probably just as high as any other popular game whether for Android, the PC or iPhone.

      Why, as a developer, should I write apps for a platform that is plagued by piracy?

      Why as a developer would you ignore millions of potential sales just to avoid piracy? We have already talked about Valve's efforts in Russia that has netted them the most profitable country in Europe.

      As I explained here, piracy isn't the problem. It is the lack of effort on the part of the developer to give customers a reason to buy.

      The pirates flock to the Android platform because of the easy access to pirated applications.

      Pirates will pirate no matter what platform they are on. But there are a lot of valuable customers on the Android platform who are willing to pay for quality products. They just need a reason to buy. If you follow the path of Appy here, you will not be giving them a reason to buy.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    The Buzz Saw (profile), Nov 1st, 2011 @ 12:53pm

    various platforms

    Is this guy seriously complaining about the variety of Android hardware? Has this guy never written a big application for the PC? There is so much more hardware variance on the desktop than in the phone market. The mark of a good engineer is his ability to write flexible, adaptable code that conforms to its environment. Frankly, if a team is coding an app and stopping the instant it runs smoothly on one device, I question the quality of code underneath: no effort to optimize, streamline, harden, etc.

    It's really not THAT hard to support many Android devices.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Nicole Fox, Nov 20th, 2011 @ 11:37pm

    Create your own great apps

    If you want to avoid creating "crappy" apps or want to know how to effectively increase your apps' downloads, then I recommend you check out www.iphonedevreviews.com.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This