3 ms·
Is it really an original sin if ad-financed free content is, as the article indicates, a mere .275% of the online economy? > The price difference between deskt
by zeveb 11y ago
Is it really an original sin if ad-financed free content is, as the article indicates, a mere .275% of the online economy?
> The price difference between desktop apps and tablet/mobile apps does not make any sense, but everybody pretends it does.
I dunno, it makes a lot of sense to me: my phone has a screen which is under 11 sq. inches while my monitor is over 300 sq. inches, for a more than 28-fold difference in viewable area and hence game immersivity. I don't have a tablet handy to measure, but it's still small.
Moreover, when I use my desktop I have a full-featured input control surface, in the form of keyboard and mouse; in contrast, on a phone or tablet all I can do is tap & drag. That means that desktop games are more likely to be complex and engaging while still being usable.
Further, my desktop has many times the processing power and memory of my phone or tablet, which again means that games are more likely to be complex and engaging.
From my perspective, $25 is a steal for a desktop game and $1 is a bit of a rip-off for a phone game.
- geon 11y agoI have had easily 2 orders of magnitude more fun with desktop games (CS, Portal, HL2, Mirrors Edge) than mobile ones.
- tyingq 11y ago>ad-financed free content is, as the article indicates, a mere .275% of the online economy? That's the percentage of advertising income as a fraction of something like "Internet GDP" which is misleading. For them to be comparable, you would have to pad the advertising figure to account for job creation, etc. It's probably more interesting to compare total internet advertising revenue to total internet ecommerce revenue. For 2014, global internet advertising revenue was around $140 billion USD, where global B2C ecom was around $1400 billion USD. About a 1:10 ratio.