GDC 2010: No More Giggles

By: Derek Yu

On: March 19th, 2010

A week after Tommy Refenes (Super Meat Boy) declared the Apple App Store to be the Tiger Electronics handheld of this generation (part of the Indie Game Maker Rant session), Apple has removed his zit-popping game Zits & Giggles from the App Store. As an experiment, Tommy raised the price tier every time someone bought Zits & Giggles, with people eventually buying the game for $300. He concluded that the iPhone audience was not primarily gamers and that games like Street Fighter, Assassin’s Creed, and Mega Man, which play poorly on the iPhone (like games ported to the Tiger Electronic Handheld), are nothing more than a way to sell a brand.

Apple has not responded, so it’s unclear whether they are retaliating against Tommy’s rant or his price-raising experiment. Or both.

  • Gutter

    I like the cut of that guy’s gib.

  • ECM

    He’s pretty much exactly right, and I do quite enjoy his meta-game (yea, I’m sick of the phrase, too, but it fits) of raising the price every time it was purchased since he was kinda playing the people buying it.

  • Adam Atomic

    i don’t know much but I do know this: tommy just wants his family back.

  • Dodger

    Interesting experiment, but I’m curious, did they pull his game because he kept incrementally raising the price OR was it because of his rant about iPhone customers not being gamers?

    I have no data on the subject, but I’d have to agree, most iPhone owners aren’t gamers… they’re mostly just trendy assholes (like The Offspring once said). Or are just technophiliacs who can’t live without buying the newest technology available, the kind of people that buy things not for their usefulness but for their look or how they think people will look at and perceive them for owning this gadgetry (again, because they’re pretentious assholes). I don’t think that about all of the iPhone customers, just the majority. Not that there aren’t inventive and fun ideas and games for the iPhone, I just think the customer base is filled with half-wits.

    Still, when exactly was his game pulled? Was it before or after the rant? Obviously you can’t bite the hand that feeds you but I think Tommy will survive quite well (with Super Meat Boy and future developments) even without the appstore.

  • Phasma Felis

    I don’t own an iPhone. It looks fun and useful, but it’s too pricey for me, and fuck their closed ecosystem. It sucks that Tommy’s game got pulled, too.

    That said. I am so sick of this wanky self-important “they’re mostly just trendy assholes/the customer base is filled with half-wits” bullshit, over pretty much any technology item the speaker doesn’t want. Xbox owners say it about PS3 fans, PS3 says it about Xbox, they both say it about the Wii, PC and Linux and Mac users all say it to each other. Get over yourself. People are allowed to have different needs and tastes than you. They are not faking it just to be trendy.

  • Dodger

    You wrote that just to be trendy! ;-P

  • Radix

    Phasma Felis: I really don’t think that was the point here.

  • C.A. Sinclair

    Yeah, he’s right. The iPhone isn’t primarily a gaming platform and most of the games people play are “casual” type stuff that’s good for five minute sessions on the bus. I don’t really see what’s so bad about that though.

    Also, calling people “not gamers” in a derogatory manner is on the level of the Gamespot forums.

  • C.A. Sinclair

    Can someone delete my earlier comment as well as this? I just realized I made myself look like an idiot.

  • Let me say it

    Yeah let’s use tigsource to make publicity for this guy, because he’s a friend of a friend.

    @Casinclair: don’t worry, you always look like an idiot.

  • Paul

    For whichever reason they pulled it (and his experiment was incredibly distasteful), this only serves to further showcase the problems and dangers of Apple’s grip over the store. God forbid a world where all software is vetted and monitored.

  • Derek

    10: Oh yeah, I forgot that rule of the internet that if you mention someone who someone knows in real life you are “circle-jerking”.

    Well, you know what, it feels good and it helps maintain a healthy prostate! When you make some friends you should try it out.

  • Garbled

    It’s hard to find his experiment distasteful when he’s “preying” on the rich and foolish.

  • AGuy

    Yeah, but they could’ve misread the prices : Although I guess that’s unlikely, or else the prices would not have gone up, they would’ve just stayed at their original volume

  • Tommunism

    Just so everyone knows…you can return apps on the appstore. Most haven’t. Also the price was listed at $349.99 or whatever. The store doesn’t round up. Now, to further perpetuate my scam, everyone send me $400 for no reason.

  • Noyb

    Do we know that everyone who bought the game at the inflated price did so intentionally? Maybe some kid did it as a laugh, and sent a desperate email complaining to Apple once his parents found out? Or another customer bought it, misreading the price as 100-fold cheaper?

    Regardless, the lack of communication between Apple and the developer is absolutely terrible. The sad part is that this experiment will probably result in Apple making the App Store even more restrictive, with moderation for expensive games, or possibly an XBLIG-style cap on how expensive an app can be.

  • Noyb

    Hmm… did the app description still read that it cost “a friggin dollar” when it was pulled? They might have been able to use that discrepancy to pull it on a technicality.

  • AGuy

    *else the sales would not have gone up

  • Jay

    Apple, despite what their 1984 tv ad would have you believe, loves to censor. Anyone else remember this 2005 gem?

  • Seamus

    Dick move from both parties.

    Tommy’s right though. The iPhone/pad/touch is bad news for gaming on many levels.

  • Dodger

    I like the idea behind the experiment, but I’d like to know why exactly the game was pulled. Was it the rant or the inflation?

    Also, Apple and Microsoft are both already very restrictive in their markets. They didn’t create a particular app (and you did) then they want control of it – same old story, however they already have markets cornered so gouging isn’t really necessary for any business to be healthy, they’re just taking advantage of the situation. If either company can monopolize (which they have) then they will, and will continue to do so. It’s good business for them, and some people see monopolies and capitalism as smart and not entirely unethical, but I’m not so sure.

    I like the little experiment Tommy did though. I don’t know what initially made him want to do it and what does it really say about the iPhone consumer base? I don’t know, but it’s still damn interesting. If only we could find out why people would keep buying it as the price went up and what demographic do they fall into?

    It would be nice to see more experiments like this, that don’t involve scamming. Clearly, everyone who paid for the app saw what the price was and they weren’t forced to buy it, so what’s the motivation?

  • Anarkex

    Steve Jobs said one day that the iPhone is a legitimate handheld gaming system despite having no buttons or games. I still don’t know how he got people to run with that.

  • Snow

    This is a response to the post and to all the comments:
    >.< What’s it going to be??? Do you like or hate iPhones/iPods? One week, one sees praise for the platform, the next week, everyone’s shitting on it. Who cares what the opinion of one indie developer is. To each his own. If it hadn’t been for the personal computer – many many indies would not have existed. At first the computer wasn’t meant to be a gaming machine either, it was meant just as a tool to improve daily life. The iPhone too is a tool, but is gaming capable.

    And what’s so bad about casual gaming? If I made and sold a game that was only played for 10 minutes by a businessman waiting for a taxi… is that bad?

    I’ve played games for the last 28 years. Everything from Atari 2600 and table top arcades to the present xbox and visually dazzling FPS’s on my gaming rig. I’ve played all kinds of games. Little 10 minute time-wasting casual games are absolutely no threat to any other type of game PERIOD! Personally I enjoy them. Sometimes I get tired of constantly rebuilding my sentries in TF2. Sometimes I sit back and amuse myself for a few minutes with the likes of Doodle Jump or some little GameMaker project I found online.

    As a newbie developer myself, I’m very excited about this platform, because I WANT TO MAKE CASUAL GAMES. It all comes down to “having fun”. If it’s fun, it’s worth it.

    As for commercial AAA giants selling downgraded content on the iPhone… well what do you think? Who the hell wouldn’t want Mega Man in their pocket!? Ok, so the controls suck or the graphics/sound are shitty. It’s still FREAKING MEGA MAN! I can always go home, fire up my little MAMECube and play the most graphically and colour-perfect Mega Man 2 you could ever see on an HDTV. (Yes I play roms and yes I do own an actual NES and actual MM2 cart) But, perhaps I’m on my daily commute and just need a bit of Mega Man fix.. don’t have my gba or ds with me, but, I got it on my iPhone.

    Also, to finish off with the downgraded AAA titles… again why would they NOT be on the best selling list!? They’re versions of top-rated games sold to millions of gamers. The marketing is already DONE. The super-versions of each game has already been out so long that the majority of gamers and non-gamers alike know about them. – Casual non-gamer business stiff, looking through the list of games for some new ones to waste time with.. sees a familiar title… “Oh, hmm, I’ve heard of Modern Warfare. I think I saw an ad for it on TV or something or a write up about it in the entertainment section of the newspaper. I think it was quite good. Shit! It’s only $10! Well, I’ll download it and try it out.”

  • Snow

    Whoops sorry. Mean’t to make the “frustrated” emoticon, but now I learned how to post a block quote. :D

  • culvet

    The idea that it is impossible to have a good game on the Iphone or that the Iphone is “dangerous” to gaming is absurd. It can be a fantastic platform for casual and puzzle games. Nowhere else will you find multi-touch touch screens. This means that games like Eliss are impossible to do anywhere but the Iphone. Heck, the Gamma IV one-button gaming competition shows that you can make a fun game that only uses one single button.

    The app store, however, is a completly different story.

  • paul eres

    it’s a pity they took that off, i had hoped to see how high it would go ($1000? $5000?). apple hates art games, it seems.

  • judgespear

    not really an artgame, more like a joke just to see how well it’d actually sell

  • Garbled

    Art, joke, joke, art… sometimes they are one.

  • Oddball

    His experiment doesn’t really show anything if he hasn’t surveyed the people who payed for the game. Everyone is merely making assumptions about who has bought the game and why, and in the end we don’t get any real answers.

  • Bob

    The real answer lies inside each and everyone one of us… if you only stop and listen.

  • JWK5

    His experiment proves that if you don’t give people the benefit of the doubt when it comes to intelligence you can make a lot of money from them. I once saw on Ebay a guy selling his toenail clippings, which I think got him like $5 in the end, yet another guy was selling a date with himself *for free* and couldn’t get a single taker.

  • SunnyKatt

    Ugh, I hate apple. They are such totalitarian dictators, removing anything at all that they feel threatened by.

  • bateleur

    My guess would be that Apple received a complaint from one of the users who paid a crazy amount for the game.

  • Kinten

    I fail to see the point of this.
    To me it just feels like stating the obvious.

  • Super anon

    People won’t donate five bucks to a starving freeware developer because they’re not “getting anything in return”, but they will gladly spend hundreds of dollars on shovelware for their trendy handheld device.

    This shit really depresses me :(

  • Seamus

    I don’t think the iPhone is ‘dangerous’ for gaming, but I really detest the closed system that Apple has created. Microsoft got burned to hell and back for having the sort of monopoly that Apple does.

    @ Culvet – The only reason multitouch interfaces are not seen on other systems is because Apple went to great lengths to patent the technology. Which is really a bit like when Atari tried to patent the platform game, except Apple actually succeeded.

  • chrknudsen

    Huh? Apple doesn’t have a monopoly on multi-touch screens. You can buy plenty of netbooks with multi-touch screens. Or do you mean on smart phones?

  • Rhodesy

    It’s a lot easier for an start up, indie developer to make something a small “casual game” for platforms like the IPhone… over spend months and months making a larger game which may flop.

    I like the app store, but I don’t like the control Apple have over developers.

  • Seamus

    @ chrknudsen – I believe the patent covers small-form portable electronic devices or something similar. Eitherway I know they’re trying to sue the pants off HTC for including multitouch on some of their handsets.

  • Sean

    I halfway agree with what this guy is saying. I think his experiment was kinda funny, too, but I can totally see how Apple wouldn’t like it. If left to continue, it would be the go-to evidence for the statement “most iphone owners are rich tasteless tools who buy things for no reason.” Yeah, I can see how that wouldn’t fit with the image they’d like to have. That said, if the shoe fits…

    And for those iphone owners out there, I don’t really mean the above quote, because you can’t really make a generalization about millions of people from a couple dozen, but 110% of average people aren’t good at statistics.

    As for the part I agree with: the iPhone is terrible for console games. But consoles are terrible for RTSs, the Wii is terrible for waggle-gestures (can we use that for expressive controls instead of a poor substitute for buttons sometime before the console dies?), the Xbox is terrible for atmospheric games (You got an acheivement! Thanks, Microsoft. Glad to know you wanted to ruin the moment telling me about useless things), the PC is terrible at standardization. Those are the short list of platform-specific weaknesses. As developers, we should learn to work WITH the strengths of a platform, not against their weaknesses. The problem with all shovelware is that it’s a cash-in based primarily on putting a particular brand on a given platform without a care about whether it works well or belongs there.

  • chrknudsen

    @Seamus: Yeah, I tried to see if I could find some other smart phones with multi-touch, but Google only turned up some articles about possible upcoming multi-touch smart phones from some companies (as well as some way to enable it on HTC, I believe). It’s incredible what Apple has patents on. :/

  • Yakatori

    Good for Apple to lay the smackdown on this very immature act.

  • Archagon

    Eliss, Mini Squadrons, Flight Control, Space Invaders Infinity Gene, MinMe, Labyrinth 2, Cross Fingers, Edge, Angry Birds, Spirit, Hook Champ, Unify, Canabalt, Spider, etc. There are plenty of unique, platform-specific games on the iPhone. So what if they’re “casual”? Core mechanics are far more important than hours and hours of content, in my opinion.

  • Archagon


  • MichaelJackson’sGhost

    He has a point but is it really such a big deal. There are also good apps in the appstore too. What is he proposing? Apple should shut down the app store? Just another self-proclaimed indie complaining about something for the sake of complaining about something. Immature and unprofessional.

  • jon schubbe


    I think the appstore is a way to bum money off people in the first place. It’s probably one reason they aren’t implementing Adobe Flash Player into it. You could just play Flash games for free then instead of buying them from the store.

    They know people who travel a lot and buy the product in the first place have spare cash to just spend sporadically when they’re bored. It’s a business but some could call it a scam as well, just allowing nearly any crap game to advertise itself on an equal level as the other actual good games on there.

    And that was Tommy’s point. (Maybe). The appstore just allows anything to be on it and compete with everyone else so people buy a shitload of shit games. If you walk into Gamestop you will find that there are far fewer games in there than in the AppStore.

    It’s probably a bad example nowadays but 150 exclusively published games are probably going to be better as a collective than 50000 cheaper games.

    He was probably experimenting to find out how many people would buy an app just for the sake of buying it like many do on many other apps and not making educated purchases like they are supposed to.

  • ShawnF

    Interesting to me that he’s blaming the app store when what’s really at fault here is retarded consumers who care more about brand than quality.

    apple allowed people to publish pretty much whatever they hell they wanted, and it turns out that most of what got bought is garbage. he’s ranting in the wrong direction.

  • Sninnyer

    My HTC Hero has a multi-touch screen. Lots of phones have them.

  • Radix

    I didn’t pick up a sense of *blame* either way; just ranting about the state of the thing.

  • Caiman

    It’s a bit pointless though, isn’t it? All the experiment showed was that with a large enough audience, someone will fall for your scam. Doesn’t tell you anything else about the audience though. What does the amount of people who fall for scam emails tell you about people who use email?

    I have an iPhone, and it’s one of four gaming platforms I own (PC, 360, PSP, iPhone). There are certainly some excellent games on there that use the touchscreen interface intelligently, but it’s no surprise there’s a lot of crap there too as with any device with a large audience.

  • Dodger

    If you want to play games buy a DS or DSi, or a PSP. You can now purchase all kinds of great downloadable content for either console at decent prices AND you won’t be a trendy asshole for doing so! ;-P Gamers buy game related materials, they don’t go out and buy iPhones so that they can play games.

    Also, the argument of wanting to play “casual” games is moot since you can purchase tetris, bejeweled, and a shitload of other casual games on most cheap cell phones. The iPhones usefulness is basically summed up in the Eric Clapton commercial where he plays the thing like a guitar (or a harmonica – who the FUCK wants toplay the harmonica in public!?!? *jk* but do you really want to walk around playing your cellphone like a harmonica?? More power to you!). What a novel idea, that should last me a whole 5 to 10 minutes… Too late, the novelty has already worn off. I actually appreciate some of the games that I’ve seen on the iPhone, but my problem is the whole reason a lot of people even buy the damn thing. If the only reason you’re buying the damn thing is to impress others and constantly show them how well you can play the harmonica (for gods sake stop that shit!) then you’ve wasted your time and money.

    *_”Some”_* of these people buy iPhones to look like a “hipster doofus” or “a neo-maxi-zoom-dweeby”. NOTE: I said some, the word some is underlined, the word SOME is in quotations, the word SOME means not ALL… just thought I’d emphasize for those who have a hard time with reading comprehension. ;-)

  • Seamus

    @ Sinnyer – That’s exactly why Apple are in the process of trying to sue HTC.

  • Aaron H.

    The iPhone seems to have a very wide variety of games for a mobile platform.

    AAA high cost production, indie, art, to outright crap.

    The idea that it can’t be a gaming platform is … short sighted?

    I didn’t hear anything really rational in there.

    The “experiment” seems more like an impolite gesture than any sort of fact finding mission or even a coherent statement. Not only is it irresponsible, it’s disrespectful. At what point did indie game developers become better people than the rest of the world?

  • bolm

    i’ll have whatever you’ve been smoking dodger

  • Snow

    A phone is a phone. In 5 years from now those using an iPhone will look normal and you’ll all rant about “trendy doofuses” using the latest Windows 8 smartphones. The iPhone is simply a tool but that is also gaming capable.. like some users said, it is a cool platform for games if its technology (tilt, touchscreen) is used intelligently.

  • Dodger


    Only the good stuff, but it isn’t for trendy people. ;-)

    On that note, I’ve set up my own experiment, to see how many people actually read a full comment before replying with something absurd. My conclusion: Everyone replies with something absurd, it’s the nature of a discussion through a written forum. Therefore my findings prove that human beings do not evolve they only erode.

    I guess Alphonse Karr was right (I’m not sure if he coined the original phrase but he’s the last and oldest reference I know of to use it) – “The more things change, the more they stay the same.”

  • paul eres

    “A phone is a phone. In 5 years from now those using an iPhone will look normal and you’ll all rant about “trendy doofuses” using the latest Windows 8 smartphones.”

    that’s a bit doubtful — apple doesn’t plan on ever lowering the price of the iphone + its subscription fees to be within the range of most people, it’d ruin their image. apple’s market is the upper middle class, not the lower middle class. windows markets to everyone. it’s been this way for about 20 years or more. so my guess is that in 5 years or in 25 years apple will still be seen as trendy and windows still be seen as plebian.

  • th15

    “apple doesn’t plan on ever lowering the price of the iphone + its subscription fees to be within the range of most people”

    Hello Paul, over here in Singapore the iPhone 3GS goes for SG$250 + SG$56 a month (for 12gb data bandwidth, which is impossible to use up short of running bittorrent on your phone or something) which roughly translates US$178 + $US40, that isn’t overly much is it? A current android/HTC is about as expensive as that. Is it just that we get stuff cheap over here? I never got the whole trendy and expensive thing from the iPhone. The iPod and macbooks are expensive yes, but I honestly never thought the iPhone was very expensive.

  • Dodger

    Ya, that’s expensive, since you can buy a cellphone (purchase it outright) for between $59 – $79 bucks, pay for the minutes (however many you need – I spend no more than $10 – $20 a month depending on how much traveling I might be doing and I there’s no other need to use the cellphone excessively), and still download and play casual games on it. So yes, the iPhone is comparably expensive. Think about it, if what you’re saying is correct then you’re paying about $200 for the phone, then $40 a month, after tax that translates to $700 dollars a year! That’s one expensive electronic harmonica! ;-) Then, because you don’t want to seem like you wasted your money on the bloody thing, you’re going to pay for a number of absurd apps from the appstore… why? Because you need something to do with the iPhone right? After wasting so much money you can’t just use it as a phone… can you? That wouldn’t be intelligent would it? Not really, and I would never say that people who purchase iPhones are unintelligent (obviously a number of people can afford them and don’t mind paying through the nose), but it is obviously a trendy thing to do and it’s made up of little novelties. Sure they’re interesting, neat, or even fun for a while, but ultimately it’s a novelty. What else can you do with it that a cellphone can’t? It’s got touch screen? Whoopy! I’ll fork over extra cash so I don’t have to press 7 – 10 digits… It can emulate a kazoo, a banjo, or a harpsichord? Really? Let me break out my Bach or Jimi Hendrix on my iPhone so you might be amused for 5 minutes or so… “wait, are you laughing with me or at me?”

    It doesn’t make much sense. You want one? Go for it. You can afford it? Great, you can have it. Nobody can stop you from spending the money you’ve earned, but, you’d still be a trendy person because you can’t prove to me that there’s more than a novelty (or novelties) to owning the thing. I haven’t heard any arguments good enough to convince me otherwise.

  • butr0s

    Sorry, felt compelled to post something. I can’t believe this “news” is actually making the rounds.

    His app was pulled because he was screwing around with the price, end of story. The precedent for this was Apple pulling the “I Am Rich” app, which people bought mistakenly.

    Obviously, with digital distribution, you’re going to get some people just trying to cash in, while others use the lower entry barrier as an opportunity to make some cool stuff.

    Anyone who thinks the iPhone’s target market is “gamers” shouldn’t really be taken seriously, anyway.

  • th15

    I’ve been reading Virginia Woolf on my iPhone. That’s pretty much all I use it for (reading books) besides putting the Internet in my pocket, music and talking.

    But anyways my point is more that it isn’t any more expensive than comparable phones. My previous phone, a htc touch, cost me even more. Fuck the beer and boob apps wikipedia anywhere I am is priceless.

  • Mr. Podunkian

    the difference between the tiger handheld and the iphone is that the iphone is a much more open platform — sure it’s not open to PC users as much as it is mac users, but compared to trying to get something onto a tiger handheld, the apple store is much more open to fledgling developers. with multitouch technology being as relatively new as it is, should we really blame game developers for not utilizing it to its full potential? then what about canabalt, which replaces the whole ipod screen with a single button? isn’t cave story for the wii just using the wiimote as a nintendo controller? i recall super meat boy using the wiimote sort of like a nintendo controller as well. isn’t it obvious that game developers are still adapting to new technologies, and that despite the advent of things like motion capture and multi-touch, the paradigm of a joypad is still a difficult paradigm to topple?

    maybe tommy was really talking more about the ignorance of the consumer for paying exorbitant prices for gimmick iphone apps. but this is new technology. take a look at the sales numbers for wii fit. look at the number of terrible wiimote based minigame collections that were released on the wii. can you really blame a consumer for being curious as the to the capabilities of their new gadget? likewise, can you really punish a developer for experimenting with a platform? many of the gimmicks i see in the apple store aren’t things i necessarily find useful, but they’re usually things i find at least clever or interesting.

    as a post script: a lot of people are arguing about the price of the iphone, and they’re taking into account the price of its contract. let’s take that out of the picture with the ipod touch, then. the ipod touch can do most of the things that the iphone can do (minus the camera, gps, and making phone calls — which i don’t think very many games/apps utilize anyways). i recently purchased an ipod touch, which plays music, surfs the internet via wifi, finds maps/routes via psuedo gps, and, of course, is able to run apps, for a pretty cheap price. how about we stop the derail here and talk about what’s actually being discussed in the news post?

  • Alex May

    Agree with Arthur.

    I also do not think that it is possible to say anything about the people who bought Tommy’s app other than that they bought it. I do not think that this experiment/talk proves anything, although they do speak volumes about Tommy’s character (not that one can criticise someone for actually ranting at an indie game maker rant – but one might expect such a rant to achieve something).

  • paul eres

    in retrospect it’s kind of a mystery why this rant was even posted at all — it seems more like something suited to a forum post than the frontpage. is it really indie game news that some guy rants about the iphone?

  • Bennett

    People always complain that it’s impossible for developers to make money on the app store if their game isn’t one of the top 10. But this is false, in my experience. My games are near the bottom of the popularity lists and they still make decent money.

    I think it’s far more likely that Zits and Giggles got pulled because it exposes both the developer (and Apple) to a fraud lawsuit. Talk about ‘bait and switch’! If Adam and Tommy don’t face a lawsuit after this mess, that will be down to good luck rather than legal reality.

  • Dodger

    Really? Who could possibly sue Tommy for his little experiment? The people who bought his game? If Tommy purposefully tried to deceive people into spending $300 dollars when the consumer thought they would only be spending $3 dollars, that might be a case, but considering you can see the price of an app when you go to buy it that easily deflates any sort of reasoning behind a lawsuit. When you get to a checkout if the teller informs you that the price of the item you picked up is higher than you actually thought it was and you still decide to purchase it, who’s responsible? The consumer has 3 choices, A) choose to not buy the item, B) choose to buy the item anyway, or C) ask for a manager and tell the manager you want it for the price it was advertised at… In this case the price was made available to everyone that purchased the game. If you’re blind then you really don’t need apps for the iPhone (until they can workout a way to create apps in braille format). Things might be different if Tommy somehow figured out a way to make the price show up as one thing but when purchased the consumer would be charged another thing, or, if Tommy was part of some union where developers are held to some sort of contractual agreement where they can’t raise the price of their product beyond said amount… In this case it was up to Apple to make that stipulation, but considering people paid right up to $300 dollars the only fault I see is that of the consumer.

    It’s not that people wouldn’t try to sue, there are plenty of pathetic people out there who try to make a living at it.

    There aren’t any damages incurred, so I don’t see why there would be a lawsuit. You have a child that bought the app at $299 without your permission? Easily remedied, don’t give children items which they cannot be responsible for, keep it away from them, lock it up, etc. etc… What damage could possibly have come from this experiment? Someone’s ego was hurt? C’mon, this is nonsense. Sorry Bennet but legal reality in your opinion means we can’t look at each other cross-eyed for fear we might sue one another.

    Next time someone farts in an elevator – I’m definitely going to sue, it’s my legal right! *rolleyeshere*

  • Bennett

    Dodger: first, it’s my understanding that when the prices started to change, the app’s description field still mentioned the original low price.

    Secondly, I think you are way too optimistic about the responsibilities of the consumer regarding fraudulent sales. This is only one step away from those ebay sellers who sell a photograph of an xbox for $399, counting on people not seeing the word ‘photo’. I’ve no idea who wins a lawsuit in those cases, but I highly doubt that the judge would dismiss such a lawsuit as frivolous.

    The customer could easily argue that when they saw $299, they (reasonably) mistook it for $2.99, the original price of the game. Charging $299 when you know some people are going to make this honest mistake seems like an abuse of the customer’s trust.

    I’m not wishing a lawsuit on Tommy and Adam by any means, but I do think that the ‘experiment’, apart from proving nothing, was legally reckless.

  • Bennett

    Perhaps I should clarify that I’m not trying to suggest that the customers would win a lawsuit against Tommy on this, but I sure wouldn’t bet on it not making it to court. If it gets to court, he’s going to be out thousands of dollars in lawyer’s fees.

  • Zaphos

    Can’t you return apps on the app store though? So, wouldn’t an unhappy customer just return the app, instead of suing?

  • Dodger


    When something like the ebay situation happens where someone sells a “photo” of an xbox 360 for $399, and the customer mistakenly believes they’re purchasing an xbox 360 then that is fraudulent, and it is wrong, but the people customer and seller will most definitely have a problem with each other and eBay would end up having to get involved in some way so that they could cover their own asses. When word gets out about those kinds of things it doesn’t make a tool or service such as eBay very reputable, yet I’d still say that it’s an excellent tool for buying and selling both new and used goods. You’ll find many more positives than negatives, and for those that can’t be bothered with any of it they simply don’t bother with it.

    The problem here is the situations can’t be compared in that way since the goods people would receive for purchasing Tommy’s game at the app store are always the same and as far as I know the price was always clearly listed. The consumers paid and ended up with a game. The only difference being the price listed was being incrementally increased with each purchase. People don’t have to like it, but then, they don’t have to buy it either, right?

    I haven’t heard anything concrete yet where the price was listed as $3.99 and yet Tommy was actually charging $13.99, then $23.99, and so on and so forth, only the price was still listed as $3.99, but I don’t think that was the case at all. If that was the case then you’d be absolutely right and I think Tommy would have already been in trouble before this article or even before his rant came up.

    That doesn’t mean people won’t pursue a lawsuit, especially in the US, I would never put it below people to pursue a lawsuit where they might make gains rather than have to work for their money. We see that sort of thing every day (you can see it happen in the US whether you live in the US or not).

    Again, the problem here is what sort of damages were incurred by this “experiment”? Was it dishonest? Only if you purchased the game thinking that it was one set price only to find out that you were charged another, but I haven’t heard anything mentioned where this was the case.

    For Tommy, it could have been a test, or an experiment in marketing, whatever, he knows the purpose and if others want an explanation that they can understand then why not just ask him. For the consumers it was simply an “item” or “goods” that increased in price every time they went to check out what it was about.

    If anything Tommy’s experiment was beneficial so that prices of such items, services, applications, goods, whatever you might refer to them as, don’t become grossly inflated or at least create awareness at how grossly inflated things COULD become when people decide to stop caring about price jacking or how our willingness to buy without thinking could ruin us. Take your pick.

    If that makes me an optimist then I’ll take it, at least I can live with myself, unlike people who survive only by sapping off others, “sewers” or sue-ers as they’re called.

  • Bennett

    Suppose I see Tommy’s rant, and decide to post a game on iTunes for $500, figuring I’ll make a few easy thousands at the expense of my idiot customers. Sure enough, 4 people buy it, and only 1 of them checks his credit card bill and returns it. I put it to you that this is the behaviour of an asshole, whether it’s technically legal or not.

    The only difference between me doing that and what Tommy did is that Tommy did it first and called it an ‘experiment’. The customer is still out $300 (or whatever) unless they go over their credit card statement every month, which most don’t. You only have 90 days to return an app. Do you think the customer cares whether the developer is doing it for the money or to prove a point?

    There is no way I’m going to accept that this was a ‘beneficial’ thing to do. He basically scammed a bunch of suckers.

    Thanks to Tommy’s experiment, we now know that you can fleece suckers for all their cash! Who knew?!? Hilarious!!

  • Bennett

    Also @Dodger:

    According to the Gamasutra article, which was written after the rant:

    “Its official description still claims it costs “a FRIGGIN DOLLAR.”"

    So there you have it. The description says it costs a dollar, but it charges your credit card $350. It’s just fraud, bro.

  • BMcC

    Bennett, seriously? Tommy didn’t scam, fleece, or defraud anyone. He wasn’t playing a trick on or trying to steal from anyone. He simply changed the price of his game on a whim. That’s it.

    Also, the prices are clearly marked, (surely unintentionally) unchanged description or no. Someone might mistake $299 for $2.99, sure, but it would have been listed as $299.99 or whatever anyway, so that point is irrelevant. (More importantly, I guarantee you this wasn’t Tommy’s intent!)

  • Bennett

    BMcC: Right, I assume it wasn’t his intent to screw the customers, but I’m saying that from the customer perspective, that’s what his ‘experiment’ did.

    If the only difference between what you’re doing and what a fraudster is doing is your intent, I would suggest that nobody cares what your intent is.

    I guarantee you that the customers don’t care what his intent was, they care that they read ‘A FRIGGIN DOLLAR’ and got charged $300. You know, real money, on their real credit card.

  • Yakatori

    One-click buy is enabled for most iTunes users, so when someone reads the description “…a FRIGGIN DOLLAR.” A lot of them will just click the buy button and then BOOM, $400, good work fraudster.

  • BMcC

    **@Bennett:** Ah, sorry, I had the impression you were calling Tommy out as some sort of scam artist (like I’ve seen elsewhere) when he certainly isn’t.

    Anyway, why do you seem so worked up about this? Yeah, maybe Apple removed the game ’cause it looked like fraud. But, given the timing, it seems at least as likely it was because of the rant. I’d like to believe the latter, ’cause it’s funnier, but what difference does it make? :)

    If your concern is the customers… I dunno. I don’t think it’s fair to say they were all ripped off. We don’t know if *any* of them mistakenly bought the game. There are plenty of other possibilities.

  • Bennett

    What are the other possibilities?

    1: that they wrongly decided the game was worth $300

    2: that they’re mentally ill (note that ripping off the mentally ill isn’t exactly great shakes)

    3: that they’re all billionaires who don’t care about $300

    4: that they’re children who got hold of dad’s iphone (again, ripping off children: not a great thing to do)

    5: that they’re bored of life and decided to throw away their money

    Please tell me if I’ve missed anything, Brandon. But it looks to me that all the other possibilities either a) don’t rescue the ‘experiment’ from being unethical or b) are extremely unlikely, relative to the possibility that the buyers mistakenly bought the game thinking it was ‘A FRIGGING DOLLAR’.

    By far and away the most likely possibility is that the customers didn’t realize that the game was going to charge them $300. That money goes into Tommy’s pocket, and unless they all return the game within 90 days, that’s where it stays.

    Why am I worked up about it? First, because everyone is laughing at the expense of the customers, who have done nothing wrong other than to be stupid, mentally ill or naive.

    Second, because everyone seems to agree with Tommy that this ‘experiment’ reflects badly on the app store, which is clearly wrong. You can trick stupid people into giving up their money in any store (or on the street, for that matter).

    Finally, this bugs me because now the app store has to become yet another place where you have to pore over the fine print every time you make a purchase. You read in the description that it costs $1, but you had better double-check or else we’ll charge you $300!!! That makes the world a slightly less nice place to live in.

  • BMcC

    First, it wasn’t always priced at $300; it was raised tier to tier. This is important! And you mustn’t ignore the fact that it *started* selling, and sold *more and more*, as the price was raised. This lends some weight to his experiment and goes completely against your coloring of it as a trick or a trap or whatever. People were conscious of the price, absolutely.

    Of course there are more possibilities than the ones you listed. Off the top of my head: As a joke, as a gesture, to support Tommy directly, for bragging rights — all with full knowledge of the cost.

    I mean, who are you to say what something’s worth to someone else? Do you really have to be a billionaire to waste $300? What about $3, or $15, or $50? And all this about “ripping off” children and the mentally ill… um, really? Now you’re saying Tommy preys on children and the mentally ill? *Really?*

    As for the faulty description, I’ve only seen that mentioned in the Gama post. If it’s true, that sucks, but it’d be an honest mistake, not deception. Besides, tell me, why didn’t these “stupid, mentally ill, or naive” users buy the game when it *actually was* a dollar? You’re not being totally logical here, I’m sorry.

  • BMcC

    P.S. I see how this bugs you, of course. I just don’t see any serious harm being done here. I think it’s safe to say iPhone users aren’t a pack of tech-retarded shlubs with no money to spare. :P

    Plus, why worry about checking descriptions in the App Store? The price doesn’t go there. (Has it ever?)

  • Bennett

    Naw, look, I don’t think Tommy is deliberately preying on anyone. But I think he made a bad mistake with this ‘experiment’, both in terms of its conception (since it doesn’t prove what he says it does) and its execution (i.e. the ‘A FRIGGING DOLLAR’ part). People shouldn’t be cheering and clapping when they hear about it, they should be booing.

    The iphone version of the app store makes it very easy to miss the price of something when the official description lists a different price. Then you hit the ‘buy’ button, and put in your password, and it’s charged. It never asks you if you’re sure you want to pay $300. So even if Tommy didn’t mean it as a scam, it is the exact procedure for a scam that would work pretty well.

    And for all your optimistic alternative explanations, the odds are very good that a few people have been left feeling very screwed over. That is not anything to cheer about.

    But ultimately, regardless of the feelings of the customers, the issue is that Tommy’s ‘experiment’ is just exactly like a scam in every sense other than his intent. Let’s not forget that Tommy has made over two thousand dollars in this ‘experiment’. I don’t see any sign that it’s all going to charity (and it still wouldn’t be 100% ok even if it was).

    If someone reached into your wallet and took $300, and told you it wasn’t theft, but rather that it was part of an ‘experiment’, how would you feel? Would it matter to you that he genuinely was motivated by scientific curiosity rather than greed? Somehow I doubt it.

    Don’t get me wrong – I’m a big fan of Tommy and Adam’s work, and I’m sure they’re great guys. But he made a real boneheaded, dick move here, and we owe it to ourselves not to clap and cheer for that stuff. I don’t know about you, but I don’t want my customers to think that that’s what we’re about. I think the video posted here reflects very poorly on the people in the audience, and the indie developer fraternity by association.

  • Bennett

    Also, to answer your question, why did it start to sell more when they raised the price?

    There are many possible explanations.

    One is that people had just been dying to give Tommy a $300 donation and couldn’t find a way to do it until this little-known iPhone game went up in price.

    Another is that they wanted ‘bragging rights’ for paying $300 for a casual iphone game. I do notice that nobody has come forward online to lay claim to this glorious achievement, though.

    A more reasonable explanation is that apple probably puts higher-priced apps higher up the search results, either to drive their revenue or to compensate for the lower sales volume that expensive apps will usually have (or both). What do you think?

  • BMcC

    Ah, does Apple do that? That would make a pretty big difference, definitely.

  • Bennett

    I don’t know if they do or don’t, but I would, if I was running their store.

    Given the small numbers of customers, though, it could be anything! It could even be that the price hike didn’t make any difference at all, and the sales jump was a coincidence. I get weird high-sales days on the app store every now and again… I always assume that it is either down to a) complexities in Apple’s search engine results, or b) random fluctuation.

  • Dodger

    So the fact remains that there is little basis for a lawsuit. There hasn’t been any proof shown that Tommy advertised the game as “A FRIGGIN DOLLAR” – yet people were charged $300 dollars. And, what Tommy did may have been frowned upon by Apple or even some consumers, but it wasn’t unethical given the context of the whole experiment and the fact that I haven’t seen anywhere showing that the game was advertised at one price but people were actually charged another. If he outright tried to deceive people then I’d be siding with everyone else who feels what Tommy did was both a sin and more importantly “Un-American” (Riiiight) and just downright dirty and deceitful. May Tommy burn in hell for a million years since this is tantamount comparable to the Holocaust (some people are bordering on the ridiculous).

    But the fact is I don’t believe any of those. It came down to consumerism and perhaps the nature behind some people being gluttons – for anything new, trendy, fad-worthy, or perhaps it seemed “cool” at the time in their opinion. Whatever the reason, they were given an option and that didn’t even mean that any of these people had to go and check out the game in the first place.

    You’re right to try and figure out the “Why’s” behind those people motivations, but none of us can really assume the motivations behind any of it until we have all the facts straight and that includes pointing the finger at Tommy.

    So I still don’t see what the big deal is with the whole experiment… Are people really this upset over a game that is self explanatory in subject matter yet has an ever increasing value? Does that really bug the shit out of people? Am I missing something or am I just too busy living to care about things that really aren’t that detrimental to every day life? If everything about the iPhone and everyone who develops for it is this wicked then why buy it in the first place? If not everything about it or everyone who develops for it is wicked then what the hell are people complaining about?

    I’d really like to see a screenshot taken of the latest purchase screen for Zits & Giggles before it was taken off the app store so I could actually see what the fuss is about, and so that there could be some sort of proof to peoples allegations.

    Either way, we know Tommy is just a bad man, and he should suffer ten thousand lashes by a 6 foot 250 pound Japanese man (because when it comes to the Japanese, they truly know how to give out the lashes – or so I’ve heard). At least then he will have repented for his sins!

    Ugh, enough sarcasm to make myself sick.

  • Tommunism

    @Bennett They don’t order apps by price in a search, if they did, we wouldn’t have a race to the bottom situation in the appstore.

    Also it was never $300, $350, $400, $50, etc, it was $299.99, $349.99, etc. Legally that was the price, and legally apple has to display that both on the store where you click the buy button and on the receipt. So mistaking for $3 instead of $300 is impossible unless the people that bought it have no concept of decimals. If a person mistook $299.99 for $3.00 or $2.99 then they are by definition stupid. This is what a $349.99 application (which is the price tier Zits was at the time of the rant) looks like in the search:

    and here’s what its store page looks like.

    As far as Apple goes, they don’t owe me any explanation. It is their store, they can do with it what they want. They pulled it because it was brought up in the Rant and that rant was pushed to a bunch of sites and it got attention. If I owned the AppStore I would have done the exact same thing.

    As far as the “FRIGGIN DOLLAR” in the description, yea I probably should have taken that out. Honestly it didn’t cross my mind because that description was written over a year ago. But if someone saw that in the description and then clicked on the big blue button that said very clearly $349.99…that’s still their fault. Descriptions are constantly out off date, those prices and the receipt are concrete. Also…you can return apps within 90 days. That’s apple policy…I do not know if it says this on the receipt, but if they really mistook the price for something else…when they went through the apple help desk, they wouldn’t even speak to a person, they would see “Return an App” and no human man power would be used up in issuing a full refund.

    As far as the lawsuit, I actually hope it happens. In no way what so ever could a lawsuit against me for pricing an app via the appstores pricing tiers ever result in anything other than the case being thrown out before even going to court. Also, the publicity would be fucking amazing.

  • Tiffany Jewelry

    That sound s good.I will try.And I am trying to search Tiffany Jewelry online store

  • Anthony Flack

    Aw man wishing for that sort of publicity is pretty tacky.

  • Antwan

    Speaking of tacky, how’s Cletus clay coming along?

  • Alex May

    > If a person mistook $299.99 for $3.00 or $2.99 then they are by definition stupid.

    And therefore deserve to be ripped off! A small bonus to the greater goal of proving… that people on the app store are not necessarily gamers? What kind of conclusion is that anyway? Of course people on the app store aren’t fucking gamers, man. Gamers are a niche group of society. You don’t need to do a flawed experiment to tell you that. I also dispute your assertion that not everyone on the app store is a gamer (an obvious conclusion based on device uptake and feature set) means that the app store is “shit for just about everything” – it’s a nonsense statement based on zero reasoning. Oh, badly designed games play badly? Great work, professor.

    Bennett is completely correct here.

  • Dodger

    @Anthony Flack,

    I think he only said that last bit because he was tired of hearing people talk about lawsuits (when one really isn’t warranted). I understand what he meant by the publicity but I also get what you mean by that kind of publicity being tacky because that’s really not the way to go about getting publicity (and I don’t think that was the initial intention of Tommy’s experiment) but like I said, I’d probably be snappy too after reading some of the negative comments posted here. Even if the publicity would increase my popularity and future sales, attempting to receive a lawsuit wouldn’t be the way to go about it.

    @Bennett: I do agree with Tommy about the pricing as well. The price is clearly shown beside each app (as I thought) and when you go to purchase the app it shows the price once again before you actually make a purchase – contrary to what many people were trying to pass off as “Scandalous”. That’s also why I couldn’t follow or agree with what Bennett was saying (you weren’t exactly knocking Tommy as a human being, but referring to Tommy as lucky for not receiving a lawsuit was stretching it). Who knows though, perhaps after long discussions like this people will convince themselves that there is money to be made in creating a lawsuit against Tommy (and others who raise their prices)… but I doubt it the lawsuit would go anywhere.

    As for the game being pulled from the appstore and Tommy’s Rant – I would have pulled the game as well had I heard the rant and his game was being hosted and sold through my popular download service, at least that makes sense. People were going on about his game being pulled because he was “Ripping people off” though, by holding a gun to their head and forcing them to buy something that they had no intention of buying and because they couldn’t see that this thing they were buying actually had a price right beside it. At least now we know the reason and even Tommy understands what happened (and would have done the same himself). I think people just enjoyed blowing this thing out of proportion and pointing a finger at Tommy, for whatever reason (aren’t there much bigger and better – or worse – things to become mobbish about?).

  • Dodger

    @Anthony Flack,

    BTW, Cletus Clay isn’t tacky, it looks great, just make sure you release it on PC (or PSN – under Microsofts nose) as well! ;-)

  • BMcC

    **@Alex:** Man, can you really blame Tommy for speaking hyperbolically in an impromptu five-minute rant? It’s not like this was its own session, “The Great App Store Experiment” or whatever.

    I still don’t think changing a clearly marked price is ripping anyone off, even stupid people. (Anyway, it’s highly unlikely anyone’s stupid enough to miss a decimal point and two digits, but smart enough to navigate the iPhone’s interface and App Store!)

    Also, if you know Tommy you know this flat out does not “speak volumes about his character.” Ugh. Still, I am mostly reacting to the numerous “this guy’s a dick” comments I saw on other sites. It pains me to see that here, ’cause it’s so not true! :(

    Just out of curiosity (and I promise I’ll shut up after this, haha), if the description didn’t have “A FRIGGIN’ DOLLAR” in it, would you still find this so reprehensible? He clearly didn’t realize that was in there at the time of the rant.

  • Alex May

    Yes, it would still be a bit of a dick move, but it wouldn’t be as bad. The fact that the “I’m Rich” app was removed is not tolerated on the app store; moreover it would still prove nothing about the original hypotheses and changes nothing about the incorrect conclusions drawn.

  • Alex May

    Re: character, I’m referring to stuff like “prefers a laugh over thinking deeply about what he is doing” which is fine (it’s good to have a laugh, although I’d have been thinking twice about entertainment gained by other people’s misfortune or stupidity as that’s a very negative derivation of entertainment imo) until you actually stand up and try to justify what you’ve done for a laugh as something more meaningful.

  • BMcC

    Ah, fair enough. :)

    In his defense, he’s been pretty single-mindedly programming away at SMB. I can understand the Zits ‘n’ Giggles “experiment” not being so important to him.

    In MY defense, I saw this rant as more of an amusing anecdote than anything. Never was I laughing at the stupidity or misfortune of others! (I didn’t even consider that angle until I read these comments.) I just took it at face value: The game only started selling when he raised the price… which is pretty funny. :P

  • Dodger


    That’s how I took it and yet again I think it’s yet another small thing that people have blown out of proportion.

    I agree with you though, people started trashing Tommy and were being dicks themselves (the hypocrisy) on numerous sites and forums, when none of this “experiment” was hurting anyone. There are far greater things to worry about and if people are going to rally together to fight the evils that be, why not find something that truly is evil to fight about or for?

    I really don’t understand the people that were knocking Tommy for what he did. Had he set out to rip off poor old blind women I’m sure we’d all be out with our torches and pitchforks but the relevancy of this “thing” that Tommy did is so insignificant on its own that I can’t help but wonder if people join in on mob-rule just because their lives are simply that boring… and it’s easy to hide behind an internet connection. Doesn’t matter really, it’s ridiculous.

    His app got pulled for the right reasons, people started bitching at and about Tommy for all the wrong reasons.

    People are funny organisms.

  • Alex May

    BMcC: I had another comment which needed approval as it contained a link, not sure if you missed it.

  • BMcC

    Ah, there ya go, sorry. I don’t get notified of flagged feedback, just have to check every once in a while.

  • someone

    Wow he made loads of cash from a novelty game without doing anything… that’s so un-indie!

    Wish I’d thought of it… :(

  • Anthony Flack

    @Dodger – releasing on PSN under Microsoft’s nose? Ha! As much as I might want to, MS would roast our testicles over an open fire. We’ll do whatever we can, but my hands are pretty much tied on this one. Anyways, if my past experience is anything to go by, these things have a way of migrating to other platforms over time.

    Back on topic: I think that some people (and I am one of them) believe that grossly overcharging people for anything is kind of a dick move. So the negative comments don’t surprise me. I understand that other people take more of a “fool and his money are soon parted” attitude, but personally I wouldn’t feel comfortable selling something for more than I thought it was worth.

  • sloth

    Can anyone just step back and appreciate the hilarity of all of this? I read the whole comments section and all I can really do is laugh.

  • Dodger

    @Anthony Flack,

    I agree with you (about both ;-) The Migrating of games over time *nudge, nudge, wink, wink* – And about the “Price Jacking”).

    The thing is, in the context that the price was grossly inflated I think peoples outrage was blown out of proportion. If you keep in context what Tommy did, is it really so bad? The reason I ask that is because I wonder if people even know what happened. The app that he was selling was a game about popping zits. You can’t get more ridiculous than that. I could see it as a novel casual game experience, but certainly people could only see it as a novel idea for a short period of time… And that’s besides the fact that aside from subject matter it’s a clone of 50 other “popping” games. I’m more annoyed that people actually kept buying the game even though the price was going up rather than being angry at Tommy for raising the price. I would have liked to have done the same sort of test to see how people would respond, and without the anger (after the fact), I’m still surprised people would buy the game at that price.

    Again, I have no idea what the data proves, but something is obviously wrong and since Tommy really wasn’t out to roast peoples nuts I think it was just an idea put into practice that had gone awry. I don’t think it made Tommy rich, he may have made some money and of course people got carried away afterwords with the negative feedback but I have to keep going back to the context and subject matter. Why? Why would people spend this on that? I don’t want to see good people ripped off either, in this case though there had to be some sort of motivation for wanting to do something foolish… more foolish than raising the price, that’s for sure, foolishness such as paying that price… for a zits popping game…!?!? See what I mean? It just makes me curious… and it’s the kind of action that annoys me even more so than someone inflating a price as a test. But don’t get me wrong, I do agree with how you feel about not wanted people to be ripped off, hopefully you understand my confusion and befuddled reaction and even curiosity to these consumers choices (and whatever the hell possibly motivated them into action).

    Aside from that, it’s good to hear that Cletus Clay will in fact be coming to PSN! Some time in Late 20xx (like the beginning of any good Mega Man game!) *JK* ;-P

    Oh, and if Microsoft gives you any “Flack” – Flack, just tell me and I’ll personally kick Steve Ballmer in the balls, so hard he’ll be able to taste his urethra. ;)

  • Anthony Flack

    “Aside from that, it’s good to hear that Cletus Clay will in fact be coming to PSN!”

    Okay, I DEFINITELY didn’t say that! We have all kinds of binding contractual obligations etc. that make that prospect EXCEEDINGLY unlikely in the short/medium term. However the IP rights are still held by us, and our code was designed to be cross-platform, so who knows what might happen in 20XX. I mean, just look at what happened to Perfect Dark…

    I don’t believe that games are as disposable as people commonly think. I think the games we make today may still be around for a long time to come. I hope that in the future I will be able to make my back-catalogue as widely available as I can, in whatever form that may take. But for the time being at least, Cletus Clay is an XBLA exlusive, hopefully with a PC version to follow.

  • Dodger

    @Anthony Flack,

    No, you didn’t say any of that. I was just joking around. I’m not trying to get you into trouble or anything, that was me just wishing out loud. I know the people at Microsoft have a skewed sense of humor so I won’t bug much, but it was just a joke (to any M$ reps who might stumble upon this).

    But, I’d still be willing to kick Steve Ballmer in the balls… for free! It would be like an XBLA game all on it’s own – Unlock “The Douchebag Achievement”.

    (This discussion was properly derailed by: Dodger)


  • purestream technology

    In computer science , source code (commonly just source or code) is any collection of statements or declarations written in some human.