GDC 2010: No More Giggles

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

i’ll have whatever you’ve been smoking dodger

@bolm,

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.”

“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.

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.

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?

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?

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*

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.

Bennett,

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.

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: 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.

**@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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

@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?).

**@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.

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,

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.

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

@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.