http://demiforce.blogspot.com/2009/03/onyx-rip.html

"Onyx is going to compete with the games pushed out by companies with a “loss leading” strategy."

This implies they won't be using Onyx (why wouldn't they? it's free) which means they will be rejected which means you will be screening participants.

Which means Onyx can't be free or open to all?

What Steve is proposing to do IS the future. There is no question. Whether or not a larger company steps in and brings a more sophisticated product is yet to be seen. Grass roots efforts are admirable but often sink in the ocean of corporate business.

Good point. My blog post (linked in the article) talks about this.

Onyx is not going to compete with the Spores or the Asphalt Racers, which are appropriately priced at 10 bucks. Onyx is going to compete with the games pushed out by companies with a "loss leading" strategy. These companies sell their games at a loss in order to build brands and get recognition on the top lists rather than make money. This strategy unfortunately chokes out independents, because they cannot sell at a loss. They need every one of their games to make money in order to keep their small company afloat.

Onyx helps independents by forming a network which makes the notion of the AppStore's "top lists" obsolete. Instead, Onyx will allow gamers to easily form friendships with eachother, driving sales through recommendations.

You stated your points very well and I agree.

The big developers are at a disadvantage to independent developers from the point of unit sales. If 2 games are equally well made then the 99 cent game will sell a whole lot more than the $9.99 game. This will cause the independent developer to place higher on the list.

The advantage of the big developers comes from a lot money invested into large programming teams and resources which have a better chance for a better game. A better game will sell more units and you should rightfully appear higher on the list.

If Apple ranked by sales dollars (unit x price) then the big developers would certainly lock up the top slots with their higher priced games that also generate large unit sales. The current system actually allows a good game that can't sell large numbers at $9.99 but can sell a bunch at a lower price point to compete with the "Big boys".

That said, I have been very impressed by the high quality games put out by many independent developers and I have been happy to give them my money by purchasing their games. Great job!!

It's funny how all the top games are around 99 cents, it's like Apple planned this all along for cheap value for the consumer, and now they can list "cheaper than ds/psp games" as a big feature

"So, how is it logical that the big developers would be able to afford to price their games more cheaply?"

They can't. And they don't. They don't need to as Joe the Plumber thinks EA's games are better.

This is a pretty puzzling statement. Independent developers have tiny teams, so the sale price only has to be split across 3-4 people, if even that many. Whereas the big developers often have HUGE teams, so the sale price has to be split across dozens of people. So, how is it logical that the big developers would be able to afford to price their games more cheaply?

If you price your game cheaply and it's a good game, you'll get a hell of a lot of sales, whether it was made by a small team or a big team, and for a small team that means more revenue per person.

Basically, what Steve says makes absolutely no sense from an economics or common-sense point of view.

Then Developers use the new system and the guys behind Onyx have some issues to deal with, i cant see why Apple wouldnt want to use any users Onyx has accumulated and do some deal.