Apple Arcade...

Just announced, coming in fall.
- subscription, 100 games at launch.
- exclusive titles (a few biggies)
- pick up play where you left off
- curated
- heh... 100% playable offline, unlike streaming, not dependent on your connection.

Not much else yet, but some really cool looking games.

 

I'm sure this will go about as well as Apple's other gaming initiatives.

 

exclusivity, so hot right now.

Still, interesting to see how this plays out

 

Not so sure the subscription is better for the devs because its curated.
It probably will work out well for the bigger players but Indies might lose out if the curation is favouring the known studios

 

It will be interesting what the details bring. I have heard some other information about the revenue works, but I don’t know if it is the same for all developers. It also appears that the focus is on story driven, single player and experiences. Not multiplayer or ongoing endlessly updating games.

It does appear to be very focused on a certain segment. Which makes sense. Apple makes millions, daily, off their big titles in the App Store. They are not going to canabalize that by just jamming games into a subscription like amazon tried.

 

Apple has been reaching out to indies for a while now this kind of stuff. (Though the context hasn’t been clear until now). I think the content will be heavily indie, with a few big names. Larger studios aren’t producing the type of content that seems this platform is targeting and exclusive to a single platform isn’t attractive to a huge studio. Big studios want the next Clash... without iap and ads, it’s not worth it to them.

 

My issues are less that it's curated and more what the actual revenue from this going to look like, what metrics they're using to determine payout, and how many people will buy into the platform.

 

I think supporting all 3 platforms will be a requirement to participate "Jump from iPhone to iPad, Mac, and Apple TV." which is also needed "pick up play where you left off" to work...

Also, "If you’re working on a groundbreaking, unreleased game and would like it to be considered for Apple Arcade, we’d love to hear from you" => https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6516036040002797569/

 

Having a closely curated store is actually a big advantage for Apple. This makes twice as much sense for a subscription-model service. In the current digital-distribution market, open platforms flooded with content is more the norm. For the typical Apple consumer, that's not that appealing. A hand-picked number of titles that you pay a subscription to have unlimited access to is pretty good for the consumer.

For the developer, it is a different matter. If Apple handles this well, they could actually rope in a sizable number of developers. But there will always be certain developers who avoid this kind of service. I don't know exactly how the profit-sharing will work out for this, but I would imagine that developers will get a largely fixed amount. So some smaller, indie developers may actually be quite attracted to this, especially if the cut is large enough. But more ambitious developers with bigger plans will likely shy away from this. A service like this one with its recurring revenue could provide significant stability for developers. But it would also likely limit the overall amount they could expect to get from their games. And there's always the chance that Apple will drop you from the service.

 

That could be the requirement that kills it, at least for indies - if you have to support Apple TV - with that utterly abysmal (for games) controller, and additional porting pains (having to use/rely on iCloud for save data, etc). Supporting two more platforms on top of iOS is potentially a fair bit of work.

If they're aiming for bigger budget titles... then I'm not sure where the money is going to come from. If they're launching with 100+ games, they'll hit 1000+ very quickly, an everyone will be looking at a very tiny cut of those subscription fees.

Feels like another attempt at the 'Spotification' of gaming. Gamedev really has been going the way of the music industry. Anyone who puts in enough time/effort in can eventually make competent music/games. But only the tiniest percentage of creators can earn a decent living from it, for the rest it's got to be relegated to a hobby.

 

Apple tv Numbus controller is great, apple should have included one from the beginning and the platform would have taken a different turn.

 

It's not an open system and not for garage hobbyist who are not willing to put enough effort in to their products.

 

If they would have improved upon the design of the Roku remote and added some Nintendo DNA, they would have had a controller perfect for games not needing analog support. They might have had a decent slice of the TV gaming market already.

The Siri remote is one of the worst input devices of all time considering its use case. I use one every day.

 

Reluctance to support Apple TV with it's limited userbase and hopeless controller has nothing to do with willingness to put effort in, it's about directing effort into much more worthwhile things (especially for small teams with limited resources that they can't afford to waste)

Yes, serious developers will be prepared to jump through a lot of hoops to get their games onto possibly-lucrative new platforms, but it doesn't mean they can't resent being made to jump through some of the hoops...

 

Apple TV's sales of Minecraft were so bad that it had to get pulled from the platform. I don't see much changing.

 

Apple is funding the development of games that are exclusive to their new platform.

https://venturebeat.com/2019/03/25/apple-will-fund-exclusives-for-apple-arcade-game-subscription/

 

Will that be a long-term thing though, or just to ensure an impressive line-up of launch titles (and some Apple TV content...)?

Would definitely be cool if they put the majority of subscription revenue back into funding development of new non-F2P games, and avoid the 'spotification' - where it could become a dumping ground for quick ports of old games, quickly oversaturated, with developers earning next to nothing.

 

Unlike Google Stadia, Apple Arcade has "Play offline"

 

I'm not sure how they plan on actually getting anyone to pay for this subscription service, honestly. They mention themselves that people aren't super interested in paying for premium games, but also the games people tend to be interested in playing on mobile devices aren't the ones they showed either. Mobile games very much favour burst play, sessions where the time played at a time maxes out at maybe fifteen minutes if you're lucky. Who is this for, exactly?

 

I want to believe that it will be a long-term feature of the platform as this approach is clearly working for Netflix, but outside of people sharing experiences with each other and these news articles I don't know how much information we have on it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_original_programs_distributed_by_Netflix

 

I’ll be an early adopter for sure. There are already a couple of announced titles that I would expect to pay premium for. That alone would presumably cover a month or two subscription, assuming it is in the 10$ range.

The idea of creating games that don’t have monitization as part of the game design and where the game is a complete experience excites me as a player and developer. I miss the days where you “finished” games. Not entered in to a long term relationship with them.

 

Unless the monetisation on the dev end is based around time played.

 

I doubt Apple would pay devs for a game that is not played a lot
Will Apple buy the game ?
Will dev be paid per user playing their game ?

 

If games are based on time played, we're just going to see S***loads of games as a service on the platform. They will be infinite content generators. Please try and use context.

 

I’m fairly sure it won’t be based on time played. It’s much closer to the movie/show model. License fee/costs and likely performance bonuses.

—-

It’s also important to remember that this isn’t google or amazon or whatever. This is apple. They know this market, they created it and dominate it. More importantly thier current model is massively successful and constantly growing. This new product is fairly distinct from the current one, the aren’t going to risk canabalizing a billion dollar revenue stream on a whim.

 

It could be based on time played. It shouldn't be, but it could be.

I'm not quite certain how Apple will shake this out, but I'm fairly confident that they know enough not to base it on time played. Providing developers with the right incentives is going to be important for something like this, and basing revenue share on how "popular" a game is is the wrong way to go. They are already going to have other problems to worry about.

Specifically, the content restrictions for such a service will be an issue, and will drive certain developers away from participating. ESRB ratings will likely be mandatory, and it is highly likely that Apple will push developers to keep any game submitted for this service family-friendly. There are certain types of content that will likely not be approved for inclusion. This may loosen with time, but I would expect Apple to keep things as vanilla as possible in terms of boundaries early on.

 

I would have 'liked' this statement x 1000 if I could have...

 

The presentation shown they want different kind of games, quality games and story based ones.
I don't think we'll see the average thousand rogue dungeon game on the Apple Arcade LOL

 

Yeah, promotional materials don't mean S***, especially when we saw like eight games out of the 100+ they touted.

 

Like all things apple, things can and probably will change over time. But, I am confident at this point, the revenue isn't based on time played, at least not for everyone. (interpret that how you will).

Consider that most games don't fall into the "making tons of revenue for years and years" category. Very few do. Many of the good/successful ones make a certain amount of revenue over lifetime, and if the game was particularly popular and critically reviewed, they will make a follow up game(s). Imagine that if, instead of taking the risk and handling the marketing costs, you were just paid that amount.. through the development process. Just like Netflix or network TV. The studio pays for the development. The actors aren't working for free, they get a paycheck. If it is a hit, the studio orders more. If it is a huge hit, the development studio can negotiate for more money for next one. That sort of thing.

 

There's also the fact that Apple would not benefit from flooding their new service with a bunch of identical games. They aren't going to be concerned with quantity. They are going to want to focus on quality, and variety. For a subscription service, there needs to be a little bit of something for everyone, and what they have of it needs to be good. Quantity comes over time, where they add a limited number of new entries every year. That keeps the subscribers coming back for more and renewing their subscriptions. But the carefully curated approach allows Apple to set themselves apart, and somewhat justify their subscription service.

 

I hope that this will be a long term thing. Apple could pay for the content up front. With no need for ongoing payments to the devs.

This eliminates the need for death by a thousand cuts microtransactions. It also eliminates the incentive to pad the game out with pointless grinding to increase play time. It will cut out the need for ridiculous sales and discounts. It will also reduce somewhat the need to hit mass market appeal. My understanding is that this is similar to how the netflix model works.

In general I see this as a general positive for devs. Let the distributors worry about play time, marketing, revenue and audiences. The devs can simply focus on building the best games possible.

 

A place where games can just be games and not just money making machines.
That's a place I'd like to visit.

 

Moreover, they have a history of creating new markets as well as competing in existing ones.

People comparing this to existing games platforms and saying it won't satisfy existing audiences could well be right. And that's fine.

For many people / niches they only need one Stranger Things or Star Trek: Discovery. How many people subscribed to Netflix for one show alone, and then stuck around afterwards indefinitely?

I did the same thing with Humble Monthly, subscribing because it was a cheap way to get one game I wanted, then sticking around for several months before I looked at the upcoming games list and decided "no thanks" (more because I already owned them than a lack of quality).

 

Also, its part of the Apple ecosystem. Meaning subscribing is completely frictionless, there will likely be a one month free trial and one click subscription. Underlying all their products and services, Apple has made spending money really, really easy.

 

And, generally speaking, the fact that someone owns an Apple device is generally an indicator that they're at least open to paying a premium for something.

 

Okay, but I'm not seeing either of those.

 

It also eliminates the need to update your broken game when new devices come out etc.

 

...Where are you getting that idea?

 

Apple Arcade is just a subscription not a physical device. If anything you will have more work to do for your game as you will need to support more platforms (macOS in addition to iOS) and more devices (desktops and laptops in addition to phones and tablets).

 

I quoted a comment about wanting apple to pay upfront and all the problems that would solve, so i was pointing out the problem for apple that would create.

If I'm a dev and have been paid for a game that's now live, why should i keep it working on new devices post launch?

 

Since it's a subscription service? To ensure that money keeps coming in.

 

Ah. You meant that they won't have any motivation to keep supporting it once they've already been paid.

 

Presumably that would would be defined in the contract, paid as needed or something like that. If Apple paid for the development, it would be in their interest to pay for updates, especially if the updates are because of updates to the OS(s).

 

And even if it wasn't, that whole idea makes very little sense. Why would you invest time and money into making a game for a subscription service if you were going to intentionally hamstring its ability to perform financially. If you want a game to tank, the App Store is right there.

 

Or it means that you'll need to do 3x the updating as there'll be Mac and AppleTV builds too?

(But at least, being Apple-exclusive, you're saved from dealing with Android...)

 

Buying a game on the store is also frictionless and one click, like buying a game on Steam, nothing new.

It's similar to working in a game studio making games for big game companies, for example Platinum games or Retro Studios. The main difference, it's indie games not triple A.

I think it's good for small indies, but not good for talented and experienced indies studios, they will loose money when the game gets massive success as they won't be paid per game sold and won't get directly player money.

The only advantage, is for games costing lot of effor that would not sell well, it would not matter as the indie studio already got paid by Apple Arcade for the game they produced.

Why some indie game studio that needed less time and effort to produce a game for Apple Arcade would be paid the same money as another studio putting lot more effort and time for another Apple Arcade game ?
I think Apple should propose to negociate with each studio a game price.

It's all speculations until Apple Arcade make prices annoucements

 

I can't envisage at this stage how this could be good for developers - it'd be great for Apple revenue-wise but the devs? Can't see it. Especially as the store gets bigger - the subscriptions will only cover so much.

 

One thing that it does have going for it, is that games on AppleTV are mostly crap. Cheap ports from mobile games, hardly any real big standout games. Shovelware. But with these high-quality, apple-supported games, it will at least bring some options for much better/bigger budget games onto the platform. Hopefully that might in turn encourage more developers to port or make better games for it also. I do agree it should've included a decent gaming controller right from the start, that more or less killed any impression that it was ever intended as a "console" and robbed it of a ton of potential. That they allowed for conditional controllers later and then lifted the conditions tells you that's what they should've done from the beginning. Trying to support the stupid remote is a huge limitation. They just never really launched it as a gaming console, it was all about "apps" and tv shows. Just another glorified app store. Hopefully this will improve it some. Not sure I like the subscription model though, gotta commit to like a month or whatever even if you don't play games that often. Those who game a lot would benefit.