Thank you TPReal this is the kind of advice I needed. The new price is $3.

i dont want to make this into a crazy discussion of prices, and i don't mean to make you lose your mind with confusion,

but i have the depressing feeling that when you price something so low like $3, the result will be no one will buy it.. they will take that $3 to mean that it's not worth the effort.

i think you should remember that its very hard to go up in price.. better to start at $10 and see how it goes and decide if you want to change later.

its so hard to make money on these kinds of things anyway, so it probably won't make a difference.. but my 2 cents is that if you are going to charge $3 you might as well give it away.  better to charge $10 and try to make enough money to support continued improvement.

I really respect what you think mouser.

But I may go up the price as I add functionnalities. I'll add something telling that this is a launching price and that the value is greater, so that people will know it is better to pay now and it will make easier to increase the price latter.

@Lanux : if you buy a licence you should receive it by email. It's automatic, there is no preorder, it's live.

I won't be there this we, but I'll read everything when I'll come back.

But I may go up the price as I add functionnalities. I'll add something telling that this is a launching price and that the value is greater, so that people will know it is better to pay now and it will make easier to increase the price latter.

maybe you could say "early adopter introductory special price of only $5.. price to go up soon."

I haven't tried it yet, so maybe I'm misunderstanding how it works, but I just keep getting this nagging concern that one day there will be a big fuss about the "no ads" part. Especially if you charge money for it. It just seems to me that the game developers aren't going to like having their games removed from the ad content that supports their development.

Three things:

I do think that the price can make a difference - 3$ is much more acceptable for a "non-essential" app (but I'm influenced by an unfavourable exchange rate as well). That's how most iPhone apps work, as I understand...

Unfortunately, the app does not always work for me. I would use it only for flash games which cannot be downloaded (i.e. must be played on the site). Out of those I tried, most did not work for a simple reason - another flash has been loaded (header, game list etc.). It is essential that the user can choose which swf to play! Example:

http://city.lego.com/en-gb/games/PoliceGame.aspx

It does work very well on Miniclip - those games cannot be downloaded and seeing them in fullscreen is really nice!

Currently the selection of the flash is done by taking the one with the largest surface. It works well on many sites, of couse it isn't a perfect solution. Selecting the flash would be better, but I'll have to do it once for each extension, so this is a quite a bit of work. I try to be smart by creating values, without creating too much work if possible.

I tried the lego thing and it does work. IE extension is a bit less efficient. I have to fix that. Did you use IE ?

$3 seems like a very good deal, even for something that doesn't always work. Actually I got 3 extra buyers, when I announce it. I'll ask them if they would have bought it for $5. I live in Euro area, so I don't really feel how much $5 is. For the beginning, I'd rather have more customers so that SwiffOut spreads versus earning money. I still need to charge I because I wouldn't like a free app that goes pay.

About ads, I agree what mouser has said. I don't think you click ads while playing. You click before and after. Beyond that, I would probably be rich before it represent a significant loss to gaming websites . This is annoying though because the perfect place to put ads for this would be gaming websites, but I'm not sure they'll like it.

I added a blog to SwiffOut. It'll make easier for you RSS users to know when a new version of SwiffOut gets out and if it benefits you to upgrade :
http://grownsoftware.com/blog/
You can also follow how the project advance. So far I've made 5 sells, I have more details on the SwiffOut blog.

On the dev side, the latest version support final-ninja without glitch. It remind me of atari and amiga time.

I created a button, but I have a hard time finding a good label that makes people click on it to know more. It'll probably become SwiffOut home page title and eventually ads too. I feel that the current title says a little bit too few.

Hi lanux thank. That's my first time successfully designing something over wordpress. I'll add a menu. In the meantime you can move your button in the address bar. I think I did that.

In Swiffout/Firefox the game as it is intended is displayed in the upper left corner. The rest of the screen, however, is not black - it displays the gameplay area normally invisible for the player I'm not saying it is a bad thing, mind you...

I believe this is an option in Flash that the developer chooses. As a developer you can choose for your content to scale with the window size (window gets bigger, pictures get bigger), or stay the same size and display more stuff (window gets bigger, you can see stuff that was offscreen).

When I did things in Flash, I was often a fan of displaying more stuff.

Do you know some flash games that would works that way ? Exploration games, like 'Universe' could benefit from that, but I don't know of any games that play that way.

I don't play a lot of Flash games, so I don't know of any specific ones that don't scale besides Final-Ninja, and a few experiments I did in Flash where a larger screen meant more stuff to show.

For example, here's a game I made a few years ago: Deozone

If you resize your browser window, the game will dynamically adjust to give you more (or less) space in which to see things.

I think that programmers are more likely to pay for software as they know that's a lot of work (some of them at least ) . Non programmer see programming as putting a button here and there. Actually I understand that as there is not a lot more to see than buttons and windows...

I had a discussion on kongregate forum there : http://www.kongregate.com/forums/1/topics/670?page=3 , I had to give free version to flash developers so that people stop arguing about the price and try it (I think that's fair anyway - good flash games support swiffout in a way ) ... It seems that many people don't even want to try something not free (may be the fear to like it and have to pay ? ).

It seems that many people don't even want to try something not free (may be the fear to like it and have to pay ? ).

That is, no doubt, because of the way development companies have treated the end user in the past.  "Try before you buy, because we offer no refunds".  I don't like to pay for something sight unseen without the option to get my money back.  That might be the best thing in existence, or it might be a great waste of money.  Experience has said that 99 times out of 100, it is the latter.  So even cheap offerings without a trial or moneyback guarantee is not worth trying for most people (myself included).  I want to see it, touch it, maybe use it before I buy it unless I know I can return it (and sometimes even if I can return it) regardless of the type of product it is.

As to your judgment of what $5 USD equates to - I have found one of the best methods of judging value of currency is what I call the McDonald's method.  McDonald's can be found in most countries around the world, and they have similar (though not exactly the same) menu's in each of them.  While you can see an exchange rate, you don't always know what the value is.  For example, if 3 Euro = 5 USD, that is the exchange rate, but 30 Euros may or may not buy a pair of jeans that $50 USD would.  However, food value (not price) stays fairly constant since it is needed everywhere (this is why my McDonald's method works so well).  My exchange rate of 3 Euro = $5 USD doesn't change, but when you realize a regular McDonald's combo meal averages $5 USD, whereas it is closer to 5 Euro, you realize it is closer to 1 to 1 in real terms.  Sure, 1 Euro is worth more than $1 on the exchange market, but after taxes, cost of living, etc., living on 300 Euro is closer to living on $300 USD instead of $500 USD (assuming these numbers were real - they are not nor were they intended to be).  So using this method - I can only tell you that $6 is the average price of a McDonald's combo meal in my neighborhood.  I have heard it is over $10 USD in New York City and as low as $5 USD in some parts of the country if that gives you any feel whatsoever for the value of $5 in the US.  Do note one point, however, I am taking a basket of product offerings and averaging them.  This is necessary to mitigate any special values or premiums on any given offer in a given area.