backtop


Print 78 comment(s) - last by kmmatney.. on Jul 26 at 11:38 AM

Developer claims that piracy was out of hand with its zombie shooter

When it comes to purchasing apps on platforms like iOS, Android, or Windows Phone, 99 cents seems to be the "sweet spot" that will spark a user to take the chance to hit the "Purchase" button without a second thought. Many of the most popular games on smartphones like Angry Birds or Cut The Rope sell for just 99 cents.
 
Madfinger Games, makers of the popular title Shadowgun, thought it had a winning combination by offering its latest zombie shooter, Dead Trigger, for 99 cents on the Android platform. However, despite the low price tag, piracy was a big problem with the game according to the developers.
 
Regarding price drop. HERE is our statement. The main reason: piracy rate on Android devices, that was unbelievably high. At first we intend to make this game available for as many people as possible - that's why it was for as little as buck. - It was much less than 8$ for SHADOWGUN…
 
However, even for one buck, the piracy rate is soooo giant, that we finally decided to provide DEAD TRIGGER for free.
 
 
Madfinger Games as a result has turned Dead Trigger into a free game with available in-app purchases. The company is quick to point out that this isn't a move to make the game a “freemium” title and that users can still play through the game without ever making an in-app purchase.
 
Interestingly, Dead Trigger is still available for 99 cents in the Apple App Store.

Sources: The Verge, Facebook



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: This isn't a new concept
By web2dot0 on 7/23/2012 2:41:40 PM , Rating: 2
The reason piracy exist is ... because you can.

Everybody wants things for free. Someone can create the best game in the history of gaming and people will still pirate. What's you point? Let the market decide ... what? That piracy is ok?

By that token, why don't we let the market decide whether we should rob your house? Remember, don't leave your door locked. Because Thieves are going to rob your house anyways.

You can do what you want with your money. No disagreement there. But follow the rules of engagement. If you feel there are anti-competition practices, speak up. Otherwise, what's your reasoning other than the fact that "You can"?


RE: This isn't a new concept
By The Raven on 7/23/2012 7:23:17 PM , Rating: 2
Who protects my house? I do. The market is deciding if my house will be robbed or not. The market tells me to invest in and lock my doors. It tells me to pay taxes to fund a police force to patrol the streets. It tells me not to hold all of my cash under my mattress. It tells me to live in certain neighborhoods. And it tells me to spend money on those things instead of things as trivial as video games. Bring the thieves on.

My point is the market will decide how much protection I want and how attractive my house is to rob. The protections make it less attractive BTW. At some point there will be so many protections that it is troublesome to me but easy for someone to just kick in the door. Like how we have 3 locks on our front door lol. We only use one of them regularly (deadbolt).

And I hope you appreciate my effort to work with you on this. I hope you can tell that it is an apples to oranges comparison.

IP based companies can change their pricing model or they can deal with thieves the same way I do. They can put up DRM to make it more difficult for us all. Or they can open source it and make the thieve do some work lol. Or people like tayb can cry about DRM instead of the price? Again how is that argument somehow better? Yeah like saying,"I won't pay $50 for that game" is stupid but yet ok to say,"I won't tolerate having to take the CD out of the case every time I play it!"

It is not top down. It is consumer controlled and if consumers want to destroy the gaming industry they can. At any point they can say I don't want to play/pay anymore. What is going on is the TV writers strike all over again and crappy reality TV shows (freemium games) are here to stay. Hopefully we get some open source gaming appreciation at the same time lol.

I am just sick of people complaining that consumers somehow shouldn't dictate how much stuff should cost through exercising alternatives (legal or illegal e.g. $1 games or pirating). That is just the way it works. Consumers are fueling all of this. No one said that we have to have games at the quality level that they are now. It is artificially created by IP laws. That was the intention of the laws. So how do we say that we don't need anymore quality and we are done with the laws? Either don't buy the games, saying that you don't need the quality, or don't obey the laws and say both. Likewise the companies can stop making the games if they are tired of people stealing them. If you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen.

And based on the responses I should mention that I am not a big pirate nor a proponent of pirating. I am an opt out kind of guy and find that pirating in many cases contributes to more RIAA/MPAA entrenchment. Open culture all the way bra.

The last thing pirated was the Fellowship of the Ring because I was hoodwinked into buying the theatrical version (I didn't know there was going to be an extended version when I bought it). And we all are guilty of pirating Star Wars. Or at least we should be, and I shouldn't have to explain myself on that.


"You can bet that Sony built a long-term business plan about being successful in Japan and that business plan is crumbling." -- Peter Moore, 24 hours before his Microsoft resignation














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki