One of the reasons Microsoft was able to carve out such a strong position in the console arms race was the strength of its exclusive franchises. To this day, the mere mention of the word “Halo” conjures up images of an Xbox console with an oversized Duke controller with late nights on a CRT TV. Throw in Fable, Gears of War, Dead or Alive, Forza, and Viva Pinata and you have not only exclusive games, but exclusive franchises all waiting to be exploited for mobile gaming. But it’s an opportunity being missed, and missed badly.
On the surface, this is a perfectly good argument, but I'd argue that a poor conversion would be more damaging than not having a Forza on the platform. And very few gaming platforms launch with their "must have" title in place. It took the Sega Megadrive/Genesis a year before it got the title it needed with Sonic the Hedgehog; while Halo 3 appeared around eighteen months after the Xbox 360 debuted. Programmers and developers need time to understand a platform's capability, and to have confidence in the market.
The confidence is starting to build now, and of course that confidence is also partially financial. Which explains why developers would like the marketplace to not get involved in a price war.
Angry Birds costs $0.99 on the iOS app store. It’s free on Android, albeit laced with annoying ads. On WP7, the same game is $3.49... There is no possible explanation that could justify that price increase for the same game.
Actually there are quite a few explanations, and I'll point you to Steve Litchfield's article on AAWP about this very subject (titled Overpriced at £1? Hard to swallow at £2? People have lost all sense of perspective...). Anyway, good to read Broughall's viewpoint. What do you think?