It's important to realize that our tastes aren't necessarily representative of people's tastes in general. Most people probably wouldn't enjoy Chrono Trigger or FF3 compared to Candy Crush. The evidence is that Final Fantasy games have been available for smartphones for a long time now, but they just aren't selling. The storytelling experience is the same, but people aren't as into them.

It's easy to label the industry as "low confidence" but reality is more along the lines of "acts on hard data." It's wise to be cautious when it only takes one or two mistakes to kill your company.

Most successful games on phones are extremely casual, meant to be played for 5 minutes at a time while waiting for something else. The games you cited were meant to be played hours at a time.

That lowers people expectations as well as the price they're willing to pay for the games on phones.

Also, the fact that almost all interactions have to be done through the touchscreen makes many game types impractical.

20ish year old games with minor graphical enhancements are not worth $15.99

It feels like they're insulting my intelligence, in other words.

Now, SNES emulators are something else. It's worth pointing out that downloading ROMs is not technically legal. And (at least on the iPhone) you can't use one without jailbreaking your phone.

Would you pay even half that for a mobile implementation?

As to the legality of roms, let's say I own a rather extensive SNES library (including every SE game available on Android). As far as I'm concerned, my conscience is clear. Nothing wrong with format shifting.

Great games or not, trying to sell them at a price that is two or three times that of a "premium" game like Grand Theft Auto is ludicrous. The market has been conditioned to expect mobile games to sell for a dollar or two.

I have no problem with downloading a ROM for a game I already own. Plus, you can't even prove I did it if I download it through a VPN and deleted it off my phone afterwards.

I'm not sure how many of these are ports from the DS version, though. Possibly all of them.

Based on the screenshots of FF3 for Windows, it appears to be a port of the DS re-make rather than the Famicom original

I don't see it ever becoming more, as a gaming platform, than it is now -- something to do to kill time while waiting in line or whatever else. I feel like the people who want a real gaming platform are, for the most part, more likely to go out and buy a full computer, an XBox, a Playstation, etc.

And it's a very real gaming platform for the millions of people that play and enjoy casual games like Angry Birds and Candy Crush. No it probably won't apply to people that were into gaming before it was mainstream, or to gamers that look for something with a bit more content, but for a lot of people it's awesome. Or addictive. Or both.

All surveys of gamers over the last 5 years show that the average gamer is female, late twenties to thirty, and puts in gaming hours way above anything your average FPS gamer would. (and the figures from before that were badly skewed by having the 'hearts' players removed for not being 'real gamers' (and some even removed commercial casual games), despite being the overwhelmingly largest group of gamers (arguably, if they'd included them, we might have seen the rise in casual gaming sooner))

The iPhone is the biggest gaming platform in the world. It is also where the main gamers are playing the most hours of games. Isn't that 'real' enough for you?

Phones need a different input device and a different display before they can be comfortable to game on for extended periods of time.

On the one hand it sucks to carry two devices on the other hand, many of the really good games are designed to be played with D-pads and buttons, not a touch screen and softkeyboard.

I know there have been Android phones introduced designed for gaming, and I think they flopped pretty hard (I didn't hear much about them for long). But maybe instead of a whole phone, a company could produce and sell a gamepad that plugs into the phone? Then they ("they" being the producer of the gamepad, and any companies that it enables to sell bigger titles) could target the DS/PSP/portable console market.

Interesting thought.....

I get it, most of the games are from $1 to $4, but I don't understand why. Either you pay $1-4 for a dumb little game with no depth, or you pay $16 for a quality of game that used to cost $50, when hardware was less advanced. Why?

I could have a superior experience with a SNES emulator.

Further, depth of a game has nothing to do with price. False dichotomy. The choice isn't between cheap games with no depth and expensive games with depth, the choice is between high value and low value.

There isn't a $16 value in what SE is putting out. There's not even a $5 value.

This is what you wrote. I haven't been a gamer for a long time, other than some $2 and $5 games, so I'm on your side.

I'm trying to understand why we're not interested in paying $50 for a game anymore. I have a stack of them at home, I paid $50 in 1990's and 2000's money for them.

I agree that you shouldn't pay $50 for a rehash of some old game that was never designed for touch, on a platform that doesn't provide really any other options for input control.

I'm just trying to understand why nobody is putting out NEW games that you would pay $50 for. Nobody is even targeting this price point. Is it because distribution channels are so much cheaper, and there aren't as many middle-men trying to take a cut? Is there some deficiency in the platform to explain why they /can't/ sell us games at the $50 price?

I'm not talking about Candy Crush Saga. The consoles are still successful at selling new games for $50+. Nobody is doing it for Android or iOS as far as I can tell. Are we waiting for NVidia Shield and Ouya, or is there some other reason why nobody is producing for this platform any new, original games of high quality that you would pay $50 for?

I'm making a 2D JRPG right now - first wave of platforms being PC/Mac/maybe-Linux, second wave being mobile and tablet devices. The PC version will be priced between $15 and $20; the mobile one will by necessity end up around $8-$10 because that is the ceiling that people seem willing to pay for games (and not a lot of them at that).

From where I sit, the mobile market is largely quality-inelastic (unless you measure quality on 'reactivity of your Skinner box') and while I'm porting my game, I wouldn't bother otherwise if it wasn't solely a learning experience for me. Even if I was at an AAA shop I certainly couldn't justify spending the sort of money necessary to "validate" the existence of a $50 title on iOS.

I see now that's not what you wrote at all, but that was the point that drove my response.

Since there is more people buying those games, a popular game can be profitable at a lower price now than a popular game could have been profitable at in the past. There is also no mark-up through as many distribution channels. There's no physical shelf space necessary, there's not the same sort of publisher relationships needed. A team (of any size) can create a game and publish it directly.

So because of changes in distribution and an increased market, the price should go down due to reduced expenses. But the other side is that many of these changes also reduce the barrier to entry of new developers. This means that there's more competition which means that the price will go down due to reduced margins from competition.

It's not so much that it's $1-4 for a dumb game and $16 for a quality game. It's that people sell quality games for less than 5 dollars and still make money. It's also the perception that "this game was already made". Chances are the people who are buying it have already played it because these rereleases are generally for fans of the game. So you're paying again for a game that's 20 years old. Does it make sense to pay more than a new game?

That said I'm in total agreement that the biggest thing about it is form factor. People don't buy SNES rpgs on the phone because phones aren't the best way to play SNES rpgs.

Phones have a small screen, long term playing on such a small screen causes eye strain, phones have touch screens, which are great for angry birds, because it's a very intuitive use for touch. Touch screen gamepads are not intuitive, and occlude the screen. Phones are always on you which is very handy for games that you want to pick up or put down, but not so important for marathon sessions. Phones have batteries which need to be considered, so again, you want to avoid the marathon gaming sessions.

The reason we have so many casual games on the phone is because the phone is the ideal target for casual games. Games that you can pick up and put down. Go and play a level of candy crush saga on the toilet. Go and shoot some angry birds waiting for the train. I've tried to play some RPGs this way and you might get through a minor segment of a story line or some plot exposition on the can before your legs start to get numb.

You often find $60 PC games for sale. We haven't moved to a point where games are all $1-4. We just have moved to a point where casual games are $1-4, and bigger games demand a different delivery method than a little phone screen and substandard (compared with the alternatives of a console or PC) hardware. If you're going to pay $60 for a game, you're probably planning on putting some real time aside for it, which means sitting at your desk or on the couch. When you get an app for the phone instead, you do it because you might get some use out of it when you can't spend the time to sit at a desk or on the couch.

Now many people are shelling out just as much for tablets and phones (or through subsidy plans, eventually paying as much as for TV consoles). Today, I have a Wii Mini which was $99, pay extra for more controllers, $10-30 a game since mostly all Wii games are used, or at least are priced as used... and I couldn't be happier that there's no way to hook it up to the internet and Pay-to-Play.

I wish that some of the games were more casual, but from a small sample, the Lego LOTR game is engaging, multiplayer, and really just couldn't be done at all on a small screen with a touch interface. Same goes for Just Dance, or Michael Jackson Experience. Still I can't help feeling like the makers of games for iOS and Android are sandbagging the market. It is about depth for me, and I honestly can't say that I've seen a lot of Android games competing on a much higher level than even the crappiest Wii games that I got for under $10.

Then again, I haven't paid more than $7 for any Android game.

I played Zenonia 2 on my iPad when I first got it and it was pretty solid.

They've now released a few more Zenonia games for several platforms at this point.

It's just sad that there isn't a clone that costs $4.99 to buy and doesn't need more purchases. It's even sadder that even if the clone did exist few people would buy it.

I really miss the Doom model of give away a few levels cor free and buy the rest.

Sure, I've played the same level for weeks on end, but I haven't bought anything.

Of course I've been tempted to push the button, spend 99 cents and bypass the level, but I have something called willpower and a certain amount of pride that every level I've beaten is legit.

> ...but I have something called willpower

This is why people think Candy Crush is bad -- because most people don't have this willpower, and it plays on this weakness, almost to an exact science.

However, I'm actually quite happy to pay for the content directly. Developers don't work for free, and they're constantly adding to the game. I like to support them (and other devs) as so many people expect to get hundreds of hours of gameplay for free these days.

I don't see an issue with paying for content gates in such a fashion -- but I do dislike the "Pay $0.99 to get 5 more moves, you've nearly done it!" mechanic, and others like it, so I don't pay for those.

There are several levels you'll play where you have absolutely zero chance of winning (particularly the later levels where you need X of this and Y of that) because the colors just don't come up. Yeah, that's down to randomness, but it's one of those things that could be resolved. Also, when playing if you receive a call or switch to some other app in the middle of a game you lose your game and that life. Yet another way to pluck more money out of people. Then you have the arbitrary play limits (3 days to unlock another pack via bonus levels, 30 minute waits for lives, etc).

I'd have much less of a problem with the game if each level had a solvable method to it. Then you can make it pay to pass or skill to win.

Which levels are you talking about? Definitely there are levels where it all comes down to luck, but even with 0.5% of winning, you'll probably get there after a couple hundred games. I'm not even sure it's a good business decision for them, more like poor design imo -- I suspect there are more people who get frustrated and quit than those who actually pay...

I don't know if it was poor design or purposeful to get more money out of people, but I tend to think the latter because of just how many places it begs to buy things.

People probably do get frustrated and quit. I know that's what I end up doing. Especially when my gaming habits are 30 minutes here and there. I just want a short session, not play for 5 minutes and have to pay more or wait 30 minutes to play more.

But, I wonder if all of the levels actually are beatable. I haven't been able to figure out if some of the levels are random or not. It seems like there are definite patterns for some levels, but not all.

This is what bothers me. I want to know that any given board can be beaten. If it can't and then they charge you to keep playing, that would be dishonest.

I just haven't figured out it that was the case or not.

The only one I've had a problem with so far was 417 (which is basically a lottery level), but if I didn't have enough free powerups in storage, I am quite sure I would get lucky one time...

http://seriouspony.com/blog/2013/7/24/your-app-makes-me-fat

The fact that people are playing it regardless of whether they are paying or not helps king.com make profit to demolish games like Banner Saga (note: this is a game I backed).

You might wonder how - but it's rather simple. Even if you pay zilch to play and you get to level 153, your friend brother, mom, sister, father or acquaintance will see this and try it out, and perhaps get hooked (if it's someone that would pay money to 'compete' in levels with you, even better).

It's a numbers game. Games like that depend on few gamers that spend in the thousands (aka 'whales'), and to get to them they need to wade through a sea of people that spend 0$ but are connected to the so called 'whales' .

So yes, thanks again for helping King.com ruin The Banner Saga for me...

Sadly, things like this get tons of hate in the reviews... People would rather be annoyed with stupid social media and IAP crap than pay a dollar for the rest of the game. The only way to really make it work is (from my experience) make an ad-supported, shortened lite version, so people can test it out before buying it. That's a real pain because now you have two malls to manage, update, and promote. At least that's how it works on iOS.

I also believe this model is executed well on the App Store — I personally play and purchase Tell Tale's episodic games, the Layton Brothers Mystery Room game, Phoenix Wright, Ghost Trick, and so on. All of them use this sales model.

One of the biggest, most loved games ever also used this model: Letterpress. It is free and offers a single purchase for unlimited multiplayer opponents. People love it.

I've read about more interesting Android games on this article's comments (didn't know there were Layton games for Android) than in several unsuccesful searches. And all the "most popular" Android games the Play store shows me are not for me.

http://twolivesleft.com/Crabitron/

A blog post about what happens when Yogscast briefly mentions your game would (I hope) be appreciated by HN.

We post all our sales (including what happened after Yogscast) on our "Crabstarter" page: http://www.crabstarter.com

Is the change in platform somehow making the difference? Is it that Doom was perceived as technically advanced, while these smartphone games are not? Has the audience just gotten less mature, and more entitled?

I'm a huge fan of Match 3 games and I can honestly say there's plenty enough choice in that genre without having to rely on Candy Crush.

Once I've played the first x levels, I've usually satisfied my curiosity about the game and, if there is a pay wall, move on.

I do appreciate the chance to try before I buy, but maybe because I'm not 'investing' in the game (either by paying money upfront or time investment in a free game), it's easy to move on to one of the hundreds of other good games out here.

Practically speaking, a lot of these freemium games just have a lot of money to spend on creating content. It's usually a better more polished game even if you don't spend money on it. That $5 clone has to come up with all the development budget up front, while the freemium version has constant cash flow.

Example - JewelsStar

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.game.Jewel...

However, I'd pay for a polished experience like a PopCap made game (Bejeweled).

Games like Castlevania, Mario, Zelda, Metroid which have simple but well-executed mechanics have basically gone out of flavor because the broader populace... I originally said this is because they do not enjoy difficult or lengthy games, however I think that may be incorrect. I think the wider populace craves achievement, and being able to show something for the time they've sunk into the game (as well as probably being put off by games with difficult learning curves). Games like Farmville, Candycrush, and most MMORPGs, while time consuming, award "something" the player can "show off" afterwards.

I think games like Spelunky are more along the lines of games the OP and many people I speak with miss. The indie game community on PC and XBLA have done wonders as of late. It's a shame it's not quite gone so well for mobile, but PC and mobile gaming are two massively different audiences. Quality games are far, far, FAR from dead, you just need to look to places where people with like-minded interests from you are.

One kind of game I expected to do really well and I'm still waiting, is graphic adventure games.

In either case, I think the problem is recognizing that smartphone games are similar but different to handheld consoles, I'm sure there are plenty of insights to be had - maybe game sessions of 5-15 minutes instead of whatever handhelds have

This article says they're equal, but maybe it's a chicken and egg problem :)

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/iphone-gaming-sessions...

"traditional mobile games are played for around six minutes at a time"

"with Rolando .. the average play session is 22 minutes"

I don't have and don't plan on owning any Apple devices - not useful and too expensive in my country, the local ecosystem uses Android, so I hope they release more games for Android :) I thought they hadn't released, any but apparently they just did !!! Should show them some support by buying it :)

www.slimgamer.com/16504/telltales-the-walking-dead-season-one-finally-comes-to-android/

should I watch the TV series before?

Thank you for pointing me to that game :)

So no, you don't need to watch the show or read the comic to enjoy the game, but as with all license properties it never hurts.

The last mobile game I worked on at a (now defunct) company, started out as an innovative open-world exploration / action game (See http://www.slantsixgames.com/games/strata-scavenger). I can honestly say, having had first-hand gameplay experience with it, that this game could have been a standout in the mobile game crowd.

Unfortunately, the day came when our CMF (Canadian Media Fund) money ran out, and the company had to look for external funding. Needless to say, publishers are not interested in this kind of game. They expect simple gameplay, in-app purchases, social features, etc. It it very hard, in the current mobile game climate, to come up with truly deep and innovative games. I applaud each and every indie dev trying to do so.

EDIT: edited link above to point directly to the company's website

If you were a publisher, where would you put your investment?

Welcome to the games industry of today. It's all about this everywhere you look; in fact, if you are an indie doing games today and you don't build around monetization you'll pretty much be laughed at (not by the players evidently, but you get the point).

> Smartphones are powerful now, yet games that manage to match the quality and depth of an SNES-era game are basically non-existent

Well, people generally tend to have much shorter sessions with their smartphone than with a console. Stupid and simple works because that's where the demand is, so folks build more of it.

Couldn't agree more. A smartphone is different from a console/PC not only in terms of form-factor but also in its usage (bursts of activity as opposed to long sessions).

While I occasionally play other games, the ones I play when I have time to sit down tend to be unsuitable for small screen devices.

A few powerful companies are exploiting the current casual/F2P gold rush, but I doubt humanity as a whole will be into casual scam games forever. Games are evidently growing up. And legislators might eventually tackle games that focus on addicting and deceiving.

All this will take time of course, but I still don't think we're in for a cultural wasteland in the near-term. Indies are already filling the gap, and it actually leads to success for some of them. Most in my circles don't focus on making money first and foremost, neither do I.

Either way, you could argue that Candy Crush is the same on both counts.

Candy Crush is ostensibly skill based, being a bejeweled-match-3 type game and Farmville and the like are based around time, not chance. (You get X actions per day, and can spend money to get more actions)

The early version will be $10, no in app purchases. The latest one will be $0.99, with a million in app purchases.

In-app is fine. (As someone else says, devs need to get paid.). But some companies exploit confusing conversions (X gems to unlock! Y gems for $0.99!) and similar shady tactics.

And they do it because it works.

People do filter buying decisions by price, or number of good reviews.

But I see the parent point. As a gamer, this might level down the games for gamers. But I don't actually believe it will. Someday someone will make a very good game costing $20 to play on a phone and will be a hit as GTA and others.

They are just different audiences. Casual gamers don't want to pay anything upfront, so you have to trick them into it like Candy Crush. Serious gamers like to show their praise for a game upront, and them play as much as they want with no off-game annoyances.

As I don't connected it to FB, I don't even use the social aspect of the game. So recognizing this is just to pass some time, and with no competition with friends, pay money to buy time doesn't make sense to me. I play it when I want to spend time (not buy it)

Also, with the reward feeling of passing a tough phase (the were phases which I played much more than a hundred times) being so big! Actually I would be paying to diminish my pleasure.

Because of that I never felt rewarded when beating a level (though I did play the game a fair bit so there is something there).

Basically, the gameplay felt like I was repeatedly throwing dice until I got a certain combination of numbers. Also, in the later levels, the dice may randomly explode.

TBH, the 5 life limit is a bit of a relief and helps prevent addition.

[1] Pocket Tactics - http://www.pockettactics.com - is a very good site, in the style of Rock Paper Shotgun, for discovering the more interesting mobile games.

Their best of 2013 list is a good place to get started if you have no idea of what's available - http://www.pockettactics.com/pocket-tactics-best-2013-awards...

Look at the reviews: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.square_eni...

King and their ilk aren't cutting into that, they're innovating games for people who previously didn't play them. It's a positive thing.

What a ridiculous statement. The first Call of Duty wasn't even released until 2003, more than a decade after the SNES. To say that gaming hasn't innovated since the SNES era is just wrong.

And so we are left with the old card & puzzle games.

There is also room for some great RTS but we have to wait til the tablet market becomes a little bit bigger.

[1] https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/ascension-chronicle-godslaye...

'Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic' for iOS being a notable exception, of course.