Monument Valley loses 5* ratings to 1* ratings for charging for additional content

Now that's ridiculous! http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/nov/13/monument-valley-new-levels-reviews

I wonder what's going on lately. I mean usually games did cost $50+ in the good old C64 days and were probably less complex than nowadays mobile games. These guys don't complain about the price of a burger but complain for additional content? Is f2p so common already? Maybe they should have added a $99 coins pack. lol

 

Spoiled users...

 

Building for the mobile market is like posting on Imgur. You're just as likely to be downvoted to oblivion as you are to be crowdsurfed to the front page.

 

There's a Gamasutra discussion about this. My comment there was:

Monument Valley (MV) is a SHORT game. Charging customers for 8 more levels, in an already short game was lazy thinking. Daniel Cook makes the argument that effort != value to the consumer and in this case, I agree. Other paths they could have taken include:

* 1) Release the content free, and market like crazy! This can work (see Lars article).

* 2) Release a new game! Feature by Apple, new customers, no negative reviews. Bigger portfolio!

I wonder how they'll end up. MV was a wild success in a fickle market. To thrive, they'll have to build a successful company, which requires just as much try;fail;improve as building a great game. Some in their shoes have made unrecoverable mistakes and some, like Vlambeers, use it to build momentum.

Gigi

 

Its funny when you think of how people complain about spending a measly $3 as if that's a huge investment.

 

Actually, it is if you're a kid with your parent's credit card. Which I wouldn't be surprised to find comprises a disproportionate number of these types of users.

 

How things change, when I was growing up many moons ago it cost 25c every time you wanted to play a game lasting about 3 minutes, imagine that model now.

 

Is it the amount? I think maybe it's the deviation from what people expect. When I expect to pay $40 for a game, $20 is a bargain, and $60 is expensive. When I expect games to be free, then $2.99 for a unique 40 minute experience seems like a lot. Much as I respect Monument Valley, I didn't purchase it. Which says a lot!

Monetization gives me headaches! So, this weekend, I released Christmas Crush - completely free, with Google Ads. The downside is minimal income. The upside is there's no barriers to entry, no tracking of keys, and it's much simpler to develop. It was a fun project and with it, I think I've now tried every possible style of monetization.

Gigi

 

I don't know, I'd actually expect some free update content before charging, personally. Maybe that's just me. But considering the game wasn't long to begin with, perhaps people would have responded better with a couple of free levels first.

There's still time. Simply update with a free level.

It's a learning process, no reason to argue and get all emotional, because clearly that is changing nothing, at all, whatsoever.

 

People are much less likely to complain about non-free new content if they were satisfied with how much content they got the first time they paid.

In this case, I think very few people felt that the original game had enough content. What they had was great, there just wasn't enough of it.

So I'm not surprised that they call it out for charging for more before they felt they got their money's worth.

 

Yeah exactly. There's no point in fighting the public, just make it easier for them to purchase on their terms. If you fight the public you end up like fish did.

Ultimately they are minted from this game - a few million in sales is a dream scenario, so therefore the right action would have probably been to THANK the customers for their support with a free download of updates. Then a couple weeks later a paid expansion. But, learning process and we are all wiser in hindsight and all that

 

And goodness knows, we don't need more of that. I think Lars Doucet has a strong approach with his free updates to Defender Quest. And then blogging about it to draw attention to his studio - to build momentum for his new release. Clever.

Gigi

 

I thought the game was short & was surprised at the charge for additional content. At leased release a few extra levels for free to get the juices flowing.

 

I think i read somewhere they had sold million units so i doubt they really care anyway.

The amount of people that bothered to rate it 1 star is pretty low anyway, seems like bad winners to me. They should have gave those levels for free and then later released a sequel.

http://www.appannie.com/apps/google-play/app/com.ustwo.monumentvalley/
http://www.appannie.com/apps/google-play/app/com.ustwo.monumentvalley/

 

I'd prefer more quality games like MV over the 99c shovelware and freemium games fungus that currently occupy it. Charge what you want, just quit making garbage.

 

I don't see where the developers were wrong in any way. Many people believe the users are always right. I don't. If people do not have enough common sense to realise that paying 2.49 for a great game they really enjoyed was already a bargain then society is in worst shape than I realized. Paying another 1.49 to get double the amount of levels is very reasonable. Why would anyone expect to pay 2.49 and receive updates content for free? If they paid 25.00 I could understand but the price of a fast food meal?! Nope.

 

Actually, it's about half the cost of a fast food meal >_<

 

Because those rules don't apply to the mobile market. It's a different market. Different rules.

Mobile has evolved to be mostly free to play, with premium offering a decent amount of content. If playing by your rules, then the port of this to console would get shot down in flames and stomped on for having too little content.

I know it sounds entitled and I am strongly against entitlement but it's not a battle you can ever win on mobile. It's one of the reasons I'm keen *not* to see free to play dominate the console or desktop markets. It would screw things up like this, and it's irreparable.

 

Yeah another reason I don't get into the whole mobile game dev craze I guess. It seems to me like most players can't notice or appreciate any difference in effort between a RTS game and Happy Bird.

 

The top paid apps (not top grossing) in the app store are 5 nights at freddys $2.99 and minecraft 6.99 so its not like people wont pay for it, they should have just raised the price to 4.99 and gave the update to existing customers for free. And Monument valley is still #6 top paid.
http://www.appannie.com/apps/ios/top/?device=iphone

 

Where are they on "Top Grossing"? Unfortunately, #1 top paid (Five Nights) puts you at #55 in top grossing, #2 for Minecraft puts you at #28. Yes, those numbers seem wrong and yet all of these fall way behind Cookie Jam, Slotomania, and Skype. Sad and true.

Unfortunately, I fear Steam is already heading this way. Free titles are now all over the featured section. I expect, in two years time, Steam will look a LOT like the market mobile, only with bigger numbers.

Gigi

 

Why? Consider:

"Watching the first episode of <insert TV series here> was a short experience. Charging me to watch the second episode is lazy thinking."

I routinely pay more for a cup of coffee than I did to play MV, and the cup of coffee doesn't last as long. Should I not have to pay for more coffee?

I played through MV and was perfectly satisfied with what I got for my money. Sure it was short, but I don't really care about that. What matters is that I enjoyed it, it was unique and, if you want something measurable-ish, I got more enjoyment out of that $5 than I've had out of some games which cost me far more. I don't see how length is a useful metric here.

Putting my money where my mouth is, I plan on paying the $3 (?) for the new levels and I'm confident I'll enjoy them.

If you can suggest a way I can get equal or greater enjoyment for $3, please tell me and I'll do that as well.

 

This.

It's not just that paying for quality is reasonable. It's also the fact that plenty of people (myself included) complain of a lack of quality in mobile games. If there were better games they'd happily pay more for them. But then... this? If they genuinely don' t think the levels are worth half of a coffee then they can, you know, not buy them...

This complaining about length alone implies to me that people would rather longer games of lower quality than the opposite. Is that the case? (Obviously longer and quality is best, but what do you expect for the price of a coffee?)

 

But both minecraft and five nights at fredy's have a PC version

 

people love to complain ..even for free stuff...human nature ..or cultural / society evolution...dunno

 

Did you try the, "If you don't buy the $99 coin pack we're going to corrupt your device!" monetization technique?
I'd be interested on the analytics of such an offer.

 

Someone really did that? LOL.
Just waiting for federal agents to kick my door in if I did that LOL.

 

Why would they? You're not actually corrupting their device, just a silly popup message that could be taken as "part of gameplay"...

 

I wouldn't be sure about that, especially on Android: http://developer.android.com/reference/android/Manifest.permission.html#BRICK

 

Isn't that called ransomware?

They literally hold your device data as hostage until you pay them. Otherwise they delete everything.

 

Just to come back on the initial subject, don't give too much importance on a simple buzz effect.

The initial down-rating of Monument Valley was only a temporary effect due to 500 angry people. At the time I write this message, the game was rated by 38 349 peoples. The current note is 4.7 / 5 and if you remove the 500 "activist" votes, there is no visible difference, 4.68 to 4.72 is always displayed 4.7 on the Google Play Store

Numbers :
5 stars : 30016 people
4 stars : 5848 people
3 stars : 1497 people
2 stars : 484 people
1 star : 504 people

The problem is mostly due to the very short lifetime of this game (1h30 according to game sites reviews, it's rare and very low for a puzzle game) and its high price compared to other similar products on the store (3,59 euros).
If you divide the price by lifetime, it's actually one of the most expensive game of the Play store, even if it's a ridiculous amount of money and a very good game.

Personally, I've discovered this game because of the Gamasutra article and bought it to understand the fact. I've enjoyed it, and now my children enjoy it. At last, I'm not sure if all this buzz was really bad for ustwo Ltd

 

I just bought it without knowing anything about it just to support it.

 

Hey, I'm #16 right now, Pulling USA!! I'm only 10 spots from Monument Valley, but not selling millions! Wow... that would be amazing!




OK, yes I'm bragging about my good luck now:

#10 Top Paid Games (and #56 Farming USA)
#2 Top Paid Racing
#3 Top Paid Simulation (and #13 Farming USA)

I feel very privileged to have my two games ranked like this right now and I did them by myself. I really don't think I am that great, but I have somehow tapped into niche markets and got lucky. And I'm doing pretty good on Google Play as well. If only Windows Phone would pickup more than 1 download a day...hahaha.

 

I buy $5 coffees without even blinking, but a $1 game will require due diligence.

Am I alone in this mindset?

 

No. The thing is, for me it's not the price of the game that requires diligence, it's the time investment.

I can enjoy a coffee while also doing most other stuff.

I can not enjoy a game while doing most other stuff.

So regardless of the price of a game, when I think about buying one I ask myself "do I really intend to spend some hours playing this game instead of doing something else?" I don't have to ask that question when buying a coffee.

 

I usually tell my phone I don't negotiate with terrorists and then let the battery die.

 

The typical strategy is to remove the data from your device, either into volatile storage (RAM) or a remote host. So your battery is working against you, not for you, because once it's dead your data is gone. Otherwise you could just turn your device off...

It's pretty insidious.

A significant version control hosting provider recently went under due to exactly this kind of scheme, by the way. Their service was hosted and backed up via Amazon and only via Amazon. Someone got their master account password, logged in, changed the password, and started asking for money otherwise they'll start deleting client accounts. Because the master account was the sole access to both the working data and the backups... they were stuffed.

 

Why? Is it because there are a lot more games vying for your dollar than there are different kinds of coffee?
Or do you just not think a game is as valuable as a cup of coffee?
Or... something else?

I am genuinely interested in the answer. To me all temporary things especially food and drink are worth very little. Things that provide lasting value (entertainment or otherwise) I value much more.

 

Was there no IP logging on the server? Could they not just stall until they got the IP from the IT guy who is supposed to be keeping track of stuff like this?

 

What use is IP logging on a server that a) they no longer have access to and b) has been utterly, 100% compromised? Even if they could get it, what's an IP address going to do for them?

 

Those people put negative review due to some device issues.
I saw one idiot put 1 star because he couldn't download a game due to insufficient space.

 

When they get ahold of the location of the terrorists (assuming the proxy sites cooperate, if there are any being used), they can go get their money back and then put the hacker's heads on pikes, to deter future problems

 

I've been getting moms leaving 1 star reviews saying that they bought it for their son to play and they have to buy money to play the game...

No, it's more like you don't start with the BEST of everything, you have to play the game and work your way up, which is the concept of EVERY game...geez!

 

I read more and more stories of devs going to the premium model now. Hopefully there will be a shift back to bringing some value back to these games. I think the app stores should do their part assisting with that.

 

They should add a new category called top grossing paid. Because they only reward the games that sell the most units (which means you want to lower the cost), or the freemium which is going after the big fat whales.

The more traditional model with no IAP would probably give a list of better quality games, and abit of curating you can see minecraft, five night at freddies, Grand theft auto, Terraria
http://www.appannie.com/apps/ios/top/?device=iphone

 

Don't focus on the whiners. Develop for the people who do care and appreciate. Here's a review by Macsparky. That guy has a huge tribe and I'm sure he drove a ton of traffic to MV. http://macsparky.com/blog/2014/11/monument-valley-update

 

I saw this story yesterday and it just kind of blew my mind. Guess you can technically game the charts.
http://venturebeat.com/2014/11/18/a...-is-broken-promoting-games-like-119-and-1111/

 

I know!!

"For indie devs who just released their games and were hoping for some downloads due to this placement, its a disaster."

^^That's me. Ergh!

 

Well, why isn't your game called +1337 then?

 

I can't even see how Apple allows games with insanely stupid game titles in their app store. I always got the impression they were very stringent on their quality control and curation.