Skulls of the Shogun

[a5cent]

I find this really sad with mobile apps in general.

Yeah, tell me about it. People have no problem paying $10 to $20 for a ticket to the movies, which entertains them for 90 minutes, but $7 for a couple hours of entertainment on a smartphone is too much? ... all the while paying $50 - $100 a month for the carrier contract... just doesn't sound right to me.

 

[Eirenarch]

Yeah, tell me about it. People have no problem paying $10 to $20 for a ticket to the movies, which entertains them for 90 minutes, but $7 for a couple hours of entertainment on a smartphone is too much? ... all the while paying $50 - $100 a month for the carrier contract... just doesn't sound right to me.

Relevant web comic - This is how I feel about buying apps - The Oatmeal

While I understand that money have different value in different parts of the world (I myself am from a country with less than stellar average income) I am sure most of the complaints come from people who live in the high income countries. People judge the pricing of things depending on their conditioning and not on their value - "apps cost 99 cents, games cost $2-3, no negotiations"

 

[Keith Wallace]

I'm not really keen on that comparison. Yeah, compared to the movies is a good one, but the other stuff is rather silly. I get the comic's a joke, but still...

Part of why we're in the mindset of "games cost X," is because that is how consoles are. Bad games launch for the same price as outstanding ones, $60 plus tax. There are some exceptions, but not a lot. So, when games people really like, such as Angry Birds, sell for $1, people don't like the thought of spending 5-7 times as much for those apps that cost so much more (proportionately).

Personally, I am not against $3-5 for an app, but $7 is a LOT. When I spend $60 on a game, I play that game for AT LEAST a year. I mean, I've only been playing Halo 4 since mid-November (so about 2 and a half months), and I have more than 120 hours in that. I spent $50 on Skyrim, and I put 150+ hours into that. Spending $5-7 on an app that I will play for a few days, totaling maybe 5-10 hours, is a really crappy deal (again, proportionately). I did get Skulls of the Shogun, because it seems like it will offer more than a couple of hours of fun, and I had Microsoft Store money from Bing Rewards.

I wouldn't have bought the game if it was out of my own pocket because of what I see as the OTHER reason people are hesitant to spend on apps--alternatives. Why spend $5-7 on one apps when there are tens of thousands that are free? They might not be as good as Skulls, but I would rather play Shuffle Party, Gun Bros, Sonic CD, Wordament, Flowerz, and the other loads of games I can get for free than spend $5 on Skulls of the Shogun.

 

[uselessrobot]

People have some seriously unrealistic expectations when it comes to pricing of games.

Seven dollars is not a lot of money. The developers of Angry Birds can get away with charging a dollar because they sell on volume. They launched their game on an immensely popular platform, then went on to a second. So they have access to a big market where volume is assured. Windows Phone is a completely different animal. It's got a smaller base and a much smaller subset of people who would be interested in buying the game. Keep in mind, that Angry Birds has enjoyed fairly broad appeal and has a very gentle learning curve.

Also consider that Angry Birds is an easier game to develop. And it's a near certainty that Rovio has developed extensive tools which has massively simplified level and content creation. They've turned the franchise into a commodity. That's not something that's so easy to accomplish with other genres of games. And it's something that requires some level of initial success before it becomes feasible to implement. So Skulls of the Shogun is a bigger gamble.

There's also the freemium model. However, that doesn't work well with many types of games and is a big risk for developers who aren't established. You launch a game and are without a revenue stream for an unpredictable amount of time. Notice that freemium games tend to be Temple Run clones or full-blown MMOs with loads of micro-transactions. And at the end of the day, people end up spending more on these games than the $7 being asked for Skulls of the Shogun.

Just think... There was an era when people were paying upwards of $40 for games that were sometimes simpler than what we've got today. A $20 game was considered a bargain.

 

[alaskanjackson]

My extra two cents worth. It costs $40 to take my family to a 2 hour movie. Not including snacks. Its less than that for this game on all 3 platforms and much more fun and I can play the kids from anywhere..

 

[Keith Wallace]

My extra two cents worth. It costs $40 to take my family to a 2 hour movie. Not including snacks. Its less than that for this game on all 3 platforms and much more fun and I can play the kids from anywhere..

Ifthat's how you do things, then that's fine. I have been to one movie in the past 2+ years (Skyfall), and my dad paid for it. I haven't PAID to go to the movies was in 2010 (Clash of the Titans, which a friend dragged me to against my will). It's a poor value comparison for me because I've basically spent $15 on going to the movies in the past 3 years, and it was for that one movie. Trying to use anecdotal habits to justify a global price for a product isn't really a reasonable thing, though.

 

[Keith Wallace]

Seven dollars is not a lot of money. The developers of Angry Birds can get away with charging a dollar because they sell on volume. They launched their game on an immensely popular platform, then went on to a second. So they have access to a big market where volume is assured. Windows Phone is a completely different animal. It's got a smaller base and a much smaller subset of people who would be interested in buying the game. Keep in mind, that Angry Birds has enjoyed fairly broad appeal and has a very gentle learning curve.

The "volume" issue is not a real argument. You say they sell at lower prices BECAUSE they sell in volume, but it could easily be said that they sell in volume BECAUSE they sell at lower prices. Sales of Skulls would increase if they sold the game for $1, and sales of Angry Birds would drop if they sold for $5-7. There's no validity to either claim without having either company do that, though. The one SMALL bit of evidence to my point (volume from price, not price from volume) is that I wasn't going to buy Skulls at $7, but I DID buy it once it was announced as a $5 game (and once I heard that the lack of bundle pricing was Microsoft's fault--basically, I appreciated their attempt to offer it). The appeal due to the learning curve (and potential sales as a result), I could MAYBE buy into a little.

Also consider that Angry Birds is an easier game to develop. And it's a near certainty that Rovio has developed extensive tools which has massively simplified level and content creation. They've turned the franchise into a commodity. That's not something that's so easy to accomplish with other genres of games. And it's something that requires some level of initial success before it becomes feasible to implement. So Skulls of the Shogun is a bigger gamble.

This is another point I can buy into a bit. The cost of development might be greater for Skulls, but that is something I would more likely attribute to the costs of cloud saving and multiplayer. Angry Birds probably DOES have copy-paste level design options, but they also have many more levels, so those might negate themselves a bit. I will also add that where 17-Bit is now, it might be comparable to the infrastructure Rovio had for its first installment. I say that, meaning they might not have had the level-design tools that they have now for their newer iterations of the franchise, so the work Rovio did, as far as tools are concerned, might have been on-par with what 17-Bit has done now, when talking about resources and redundant level development.

There's also the freemium model. However, that doesn't work well with many types of games and is a big risk for developers who aren't established. You launch a game and are without a revenue stream for an unpredictable amount of time. Notice that freemium games tend to be Temple Run clones or full-blown MMOs with loads of micro-transactions. And at the end of the day, people end up spending more on these games than the $7 being asked for Skulls of the Shogun.

I don't see this as relevant to the discussion.

Just think... There was an era when people were paying upwards of $40 for games that were sometimes simpler than what we've got today. A $20 game was considered a bargain.

Yeah, and the costs of developing those games back then were likely higher, as resources were more limited, as were skilled developers. I mean, there were computers that cost $1,000+ that were less than 50% as powerful as the $500 laptops you can buy now, but that is not relevant either, because we're talking in relative to the competition, not the preceding technology. I mean, this is just another ridiculous analogy that has no place in the discussion.

 

[Retro_uk]

Rather disappointingly, I have run into a bug in this game. Playing it on my Lumia 710 running 7.8, and the Glorious Gates level has a screen glitch and only displays half the screen, with the right hand side being black.

Plus my units appear off screen to the right hand side and jump around the screen when I select them. Anyone else here running 7.8 and had issues? Thanks

 

[uselessrobot]

Of course volume is a valid argument. Angry Birds cost over 100,000 euros to develop. I don't know what kind of expenses that covered. It's not uncommon for small teams to make pay dependent on success, easing the financial burden during development. Either way, that's a very inexpensive game to develop. Despite that, Rovia partnered with Chillingo for distribution of the original Angry Birds. What that almost certainly means was that they helped cover costs up until the game became profitable.

Keep in mind that 17-bit might have to answer to backers who expect a quicker return for their investment. And I can't blame them given that Windows Phone 8 isn't a mature enough platform to inspire confidence. iOS games were costing 99 cents from the start, but most of those early games were ports of free-to-play Flash games or marginally more sophisticated mobile games. Easy to run the risk when there isn't much up front expense.

By the time companies were charging 99 cents for more sophisticated games the userbase had already grown dramatically and the App Store was better at promoting new games. Make enough of a splash with a good game and sales are almost assured. But games on par with Skulls of the Shogun easily cost $5 or more on the App Store. And regardless, unless everyone with a Windows Phone buys this game, it's going to take longer to recoup development costs than if they had gone with iOS or Android.


Computer equipment back in the 80s and early 90s was more expensive. Average incomes, however, were generally comparable when adjusted for inflation. That said, games back then tended to have much smaller teams. They might have had one guy doing development versus 4 or 5 today. True, there's a lot more outsourcing and hiring of temp workers today. But game development has also gotten a lot more complex. Despite all the creative ways companies find to cut costs, game development is a lot more expensive than it's ever been. It's probably one of the reasons why employees at these companies tend to work more brutal hours than they ever have before. Someone has to carry the burden of inexpensive gaming.

 

[Keith Wallace]

I can agree with the logic, but not that it is a legitimate cost justification. I mean, if you are REALLY talking about potential sales, then why are the Windows 8 licenses $15 (after the launch discount end) when you're talking 60 million+ users already? Why are the 20 million+ Xbox LIVE users not getting a discount from the $15 price tag? It's the same game across 3 devices, yet we're looking at 3 different price tags based on platform.

 

[Paul Acevedo]

Keith, if you're that hard up for money I'll loan you a couple of dollars the next time a game comes out. Otherwise, undervaluing games all the time just has no positive effect on the ecosystem or for developers.

Can anybody confirm whether the game's live tile shows the number of Skulls Anywhere turns the player has available?

 

[Keith Wallace]

I really don't have an issue with HAVING the money, just spending it. Maybe part of the issue is that my friends don't have Windows Phone (my sister has an 822 and my cousin has a 900), so buying games I won't play online much isn't worth it to me. I'm also just not a big phone gamer. I'm home most of my time, so if I want to play a game, I hop on Halo, not Skulls.

Case in point: I really like Skulls, but I haven't played it in probably 2 weeks. That would be because when I leave home, I'm usually going somewhere I'm not going to be able to play games (school or family stuff). That, and I'm trying to finish this buggy grindfest that is Gun Bros. and its achievements (I really like the game, but it's got issues launching correctly, among other things). I've also taken quite a liking to Tile Path (one recommended from the main site), so I just get distracted from Skulls in the end.

I've not played online yet either, as I want to really get the hang of and beat the campaign first (I finished the first 3 levels, but am going to redo those without losing a unit before going on).