How You Have Destroyed The Mobile Market

This is an interesting discussion. Personally, I do not believe the success has much to do with the game itself. I mean sure in cases where obviously the game is crap and it is doing poorly yeah. But then again I've seen some lame games that are highly popular on the web gaming portals.

Definitely I don't think it is the key people seem to think it is when it comes to the other side. I think there are many games that anyone would think would be doing exceptionally well and yet they are not.

The thing with games is there is no accurate way to judge them.

Take a look at this game.
So... is this the kind of game people should be making to see outstanding success?

How about this one?

I'd guess anyone honestly answering without looking online to check would say "No that is not what I mean by quality. These look like the kind of rubbish most folks are announcing every week around here!"

The first game is Dumb Ways to Die 2: The Games which has over 10 million downloads.
The second game is Jelly Jump which also has over 10 million downloads.

There are many examples like these and yet I can almost guarantee that if someone here had made these games they would be sitting out there with less than 1,000 downloads. And maybe someone here did actually make these games. In that case, what I mean is if someone else here had made them they'd almost certainly be sitting at less than 1,000 downloads.

And going the other way I am positive I can find examples of games that people would expect must be doing well and yet are struggling with less than 10,000 downloads.

I think this is a myth that needs to go away and is a big part of why people get so frustrated. Because even if they do put in a lot of hard work and time making a quality game often they still find no success. Yet the exact same game could be made by someone else and be a big hit.

 

Quality isn't the only factor, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't strive for it, because it is certainly one of the bigger variables. It's also relative. If you are making a first person shooter your competition isn't the other indies on Steam. Consumers don't care if something is good for an indie. They care about quality in absolute terms. So your FPS competition is Call of Duty. Finding out how to maximize your success is not just about being "Good for an indie" it's about finding an area where you can excel in absolute terms relative to other offerings. It's about knowing how to run a business, it's about knowing more about marketing than the other guy. Yes, luck plays a part. But if all the other factors are running on all 8 cylinders, the amount of luck you need is lower. Unfortunately very few of us, myself included, are able to hit all of those needed skills that go beyond the creation of the actual game. That doesn't mean that abandoning the things we can excel at and hoping for luck to carry the day a horrible idea.

 

Okay, I get all of that and agree.

However, let's look at those two examples above. I've certainly seen many games released by people here this year that look like they should have achieved every bit of the success those two did. What I am saying is if someone here posted videos and screenshots of the games I just shared in the previous post do you honestly think people would have said "oh man you've got a big hit on your hands with that one! That is going to do awesome!"? Would you think that?

I think most feedback would have been nit-picking this and that talking about how simple the one game is how the graphics could be better and all of the usual nonsense. Throwing out all of the reasons why they would fail and so forth. And I doubt anyone would have expected they'd see more than a few thousand downloads at most.

 

Mobile devices make it difficult and frustrating for the average user to install anything that doesn't come from their own store/marketplace. New hobby developers make their first game and want to share it with friends. The logical and easiest way to do that is to put it in the store. Thus, the marketplace is flooded with S***ty free games.

I don't make mobile games but that's my take on the situation.

 

@HemiMG - That is exactly the unicorn stuff I am talking about. The biggest factor in what massive amounts of people do is what all of the other people are doing. To reach a massive audience you need a celebrity endorsement or to somehow go viral. Quality means nothing. When something is popular, it becomes acceptable. People try it. They buy it just to fit in.

Think you can you predict what will become popular to an audience of millions of people? Guess what, you can't. Because people get paid to figure this stuff out, and they still fail.

So yeah, I am personally tired of hearing about how quality and sound business principles are the key to getting millions of downloads. It's a mythical unicorn. A fairy tale. No matter how many people believe that it is real, it's not.

Now you want something that could work? Niche game, tailored to a specific audience, sold for more than $1.99 per copy. That does work. You can find real life examples of that. But can you find your niche and offer a competitive product? At least that's an actual challenge with conditions you can meet.

Hey, it may not be pretty but it's better than praying to a golden statue of Rovio and taking a second mortgage on the house to fund an indie game. It isn't a smarter use of money than gambling.

 

I probably wouldn't expect them to become great hits. But they don't look bad. And that's the point. Their quality might not be AAA, but it isn't Microsoft Paint either. One of the important variables in the equation was less than it might have been. Now evaluate the rest of the equation. We can't do that because we don't know it. Are they developers professional marketers? Did they spend lots of money on marketing? Did they have a string of smaller level successes that gave them a loyal fan base which helped to avalanche those releases to the success they had?

It's easy for a developer to create a game they think is quality and say "Oh, well quality doesn't matter. It's only luck." It's just as easy to incorrectly look at the successes based on perceived quality alone and say the same thing. Both instances are ignoring the rest of the equation. If you have X = A + C + D + W + Y + Z, you can't derive Z (luck) by knowing X (sales) and having a vague idea of A (quality).

 

Those 2 examples do have quality art, but I think if you made a game like that the chances of succeeding are going to be low. If you make a game like towers of gun or ziggarut i doubt your game is going to be a failure.


You could go out there with a get rich quick idea, something so stupid thats it sure to be the next big thing IE " chair F***er" or you could try to make a quality product.
http://forums.tigsource.com/index.php?topic=51335.0

http://steamspy.com/app/266110
http://steamspy.com/app/308420

 

Looks like there might be something for me to fall back on then, I did DX / GL integrations mainly and some middleware (lighting systems etc.).. I enjoyed it, was fun..

Issue with being a specialist is, when you've done most of the work they kinda didn't need you that much. There's always general purpose permanent staff that deal with API duties. Sure they're not great at it, but good enough to keep things running.. So I generally got a lot contracts as opposed to being offered perm because they were of course cheaper.

If I was to leave "indie" land my dream job would be just mess around with tech all day. New post tech, new dynamic lighting tech, new API tech, shadow tech etc. etc. Give me a budget and I'll make your stuff shiny, awww yeeeahh!.

 

That's pretty much exactly what I said. So I'm not sure why you are disagreeing with me or accusing me of believing in unicorns. You are saying that quality doesn't matter, yet then saying that you need to have a competitive product. Which is it?

 

Nothing is ever that simple, able to boiled down to a single factor. Quality is certainly critical, given the breadth of the market, visual quality and presentation is pretty much a minimum bar to gain interest. It is pretty easy to make a game that looks good and has a professional look and feel. But that only opens the door. Game play is the key factor, and that is where most of them fall off. In fact a lower quality game in appearance, can succeed if the game play is truly engaging. If a game isn't engaging and solid game play it won't make it. Like with game in the op, as @BoredMormon illustrated, its not a very impressive or engaging game. Doesn't matter what the developers think, if people aren't playing it, it ain't good. The devs of that game had much more interest and viral marketing than the majority. If it were an engaging game, it would have done better.

While quality is critical and really required to break out, it definitely isn't the only factor, it is a competition. It may be seem like a great game, but if there are others that are better it is all relative. You have to give players a reason to want to play and continue to play your game. Game play and offering better play than other similar games is what is required. Otherwise you earn a participant badge, which doesn't pay the rent, and doesn't let you keep building.

 

I am saying you can't just make a good game and throw it out there. It will almost certainly fail. That's what I am saying. If you agree with me, that's great.

I am saying that having quality art, sound and music are not the same as meeting the requirements of a genre. There are too many games with dated or outright inferior graphics that are kicking ass.

I don't know how you are reading it, but I would suggest the literal interpretation.

 

If it's a free mobile app with IAP or something, sure I really don't mind at all if your graphics are great or not.

Although let's say on steam for example, all you get before you buy a game is a few screenshots. Maybe a video and a description that's obviously going to be fluffed..

Two things, your graphics suck I won't buy your game simple as that. Yeah I understand some games are all shine no substance, I understand that some "inferior" looking games play like a champ. But unless a lot of people took the hit first and reviewed it, again not touching it. Does it need to be AAA worthy? Nope, just a decent amount of effort..

Secondly, no you can't just throw a game out there.. But you gotta start somewhere right? A lot of people have warned me off doing a demo, it will probably result in less sales. I agree it most likely will, but that's not the point.

The point is to get it in the hands of as many people as possible, if they like it then I might see a small rate of conversion to get them through the ending. So I will be just "throwing" the game out there for nothing more than a feeler, I don't expect it to do very well but dipping my toe into water feels a little easier than diving head first. Because what happens if you do spend a metric boat load promoting a product that might not be well received?

Yeah I understand get beta groups etc. but it doesn't necessarily give you a wide enough data net.

 

See now I think you are the only one who is getting / seeing the same thing I am.

I don't know why but every time I try to explore this topic people get hung up on the graphics and it turns into a graphics discussion. When I said looking at those games would people honestly think they are the stuff hits are made from I wasn't talking about the graphics. There is more to a game than graphics.

I mean everything. The actual games themselves. The gameplay. And yes the graphics, sounds, music and so forth. Just looking at them as games as a whole. And yes they don't look bad graphically. I agree completely. The point is there are a ton of other games that look every bit as good or even better that don't have 1/100th of a percent of the number of downloads. And yet there are games that do look worse just as you just stated that were / are very popular.

But I don't want this to go down that same old discussion about graphics. I was purely talking about the games.

I think there is value if we had a good discussion to really lay out what the differences are. Why there are people here working for months and years on games getting less than 1,000 downloads. And it is not because the graphics are bad. And I only say that because that seems to be the first thing on so many people's minds. lol Anyway, and why there are other games nearly identical to those "failed" games that have been released before that got 10 million downloads and, more importantly, why there will be more games nearly identical to those released after those "failed" games that will get 10 million downloads.

That is where the true answer lies to succeeding in this.

 

Making a living as game developer is hard as F***. It's even harder to keep doing it year after year, release after release. People have this idea that because the tools are free, the job is easy.

It's not.

 

I don't believe you... TV told me this:

 

Dumb ways to die is an interesting case.

First up, its not a game. Its a rail safety awareness campaign. Its a public service announcement put out by the Metro Trains in Melbourne. Its worth a lot of money to these guys if people don't step onto the tracks and get run over. First there is the clean up, then there is the paper work, then there is the investigation, then the line has to be closed down for various services, then there is compensation, then there is counselling for the driver and all of the passengers, then you get some politician that wants to ban trains because of their safety record. You get the idea, killing someone on the tracks is a expensive and time consuming operation.

So the Metro Trains decides that a rail safety campaign is a good idea. The hire a big shot advertising firm. The advertising firm says lets try something different, no one is paying attention to your "no crossing" signs anyway. They come up with a video that shows a bunch of people dying being stupid. The last few seconds show a few people dying on rail tracks. The message is don't be dumb around the tracks.

The video gets uploaded on YouTube. It gets screened on prime time TV. It gets played on repeat at train stations. There are pictures of the characters up in every train station. You can't live in Victoria without having heard of this video. Meanwhile on YouTube everyone loves it. Watching people die is a nice change from watching cats. The video goes viral. It gets picked up by news media as an interesting safety message. Other train operators start spreading the message. It gets seen over 2 million times in the first 48 hours.

Six months later the marketing agency decides to follow up with a dumb ways to die app. The game play is okay. Its not brilliant, but they don't make any real mistakes in the design. By this point half the planet has heard of dumb ways to die. Tons of people check out the game. It gets the same publicity treatment that the video did.

Now the second game is being released. They are selling a brand as much as anything else. And just like @zombiegorilla's little promotional video that's coming out in a few weeks, people will be interested because of the existing brand.

 

If there was a succinct, clear answer I think we'd have heard it by now.

Plus I can define success as having people like my little games. That's what I want, after all. The rest I don't know. If you were serious about making money through games, join a company that has an established business in that area.

 

@BoredMormon excellent write up. And I think that is certainly a very good clue as to why some games (it looks and is described as a game by folks online so I call it a game) achieve huge success.

 

I think a part of the reason a clear answer is never uncovered is because the discussion never really gets off the ground. We either have people talking about quality is the key (which doesn't explain why all of the games that are of fine quality are not succeeding), unable to move past the graphics or whatever.

Sometimes it almost seems like folks don't want to actually look at it to try to figure out what it is. lol

Anyway, yeah I hear you about your success definition. I'll be happy when I complete my Christmas game just to have it completed. That is a success. I'll be happy when the people who know about it that told me it looks interesting and want to play it are able to do so. That is some more success.

When it comes to making money from games I've got my own ideas and plan and will just follow that, analyze the outcome and adjust accordingly.

Making games for fun is fantastic hobby. Sitting around making little games is a fun time.

 

I think another reason is that the people who know what all of the parts of the equation are, are the ones making money and aren't too keen on telling. It isn't all about quality, and it isn't all about graphics. But graphics is a part of the quality equation, and quality is a part of the final equation. I'd say that both of them are a pretty big part of their parent equations. The successful games with below lackluster graphics are generally really fun to play. So the quality equations balances out to still be a high value. You don't see a lot of success stories that are both ugly and boring. And you see even less success stories that are just plain boring. So quality would appear to be a bigger part of the overall equation than graphics is of the quality equation.

There are also many many factors that can go into that final equation. One formula for one game, might not work for another game. Relatively lackluster graphics might get a boost from great marketing. Fancy graphics might reduce the need for great marketing. One person can't really say that X, Y, and Z will certainly lead to success. But poor gameplay mixed with poor graphics, for a poor overall quality, will almost certainly not be successful. We can conclude that those things are indeed important parts of their respective equations.

Another factor is that simply knowing the equation doesn't mean a whole heck of a lot. In the most general terms we could say that success = quality + marketing + luck - market saturation. Who among us is a purely objective judge of the quality of our own work? The first part of the equation becomes blurry from our own bias. Very few of us are also marketing whizzes, so the second variable might as well be a constant, hovering around the 0 mark. The same bias that goes against us for quality also goes against us for market saturation. Everyone thinks that have the most original idea ever, but that idea usually boils down to "popular game X meets popular game Y." What people think is carving out some niche of its own is really just the same old same old.

It would be easy for a disheartened developer to look at Dumb Ways to Die and say, "My quality equals their quality, but their sales are higher, therefore their luck is higher." That ignores their marketing prowess, which is significantly above our average developer's constant of near 0. That isn't to say that luck played no factor. Their luck might very well have been better. But with millions people aware of the brand, and the entire effort spearheaded by a marketing team, the role of luck is exponentially smaller than our fictional disheartened developer originally estimated. And all of that ignores the comparisons of market saturation, and all of the other variables that we don't know about. As each of those variables rises in favor of Dumb Ways to Die, the luck required by them lowers further.

Yest whenever a developer fails, they incorrectly assume that they've maximized the equation, and ignore all of the variables that they didn't account for. The solution isn't to conclude that quality doesn't matter and start cranking out crap. It's to determine what those other variables are and maximize those as well.

 

We don't have the budgets to "maximize the equation".

 

Thanks. I've always thought studying the successes, and learning from them, is more relevant then studying the failures. For Dumb Ways to Die it was the existing brand that can be credited for the success.

Jelly Jump looks like a Ketchapp game. I'd imagine this means heavy promotion with their existing user base on existing games. And while they are relatively new, Ketchapp have been around the block a few times. They know how to make games that sell.

Look at other games that are successful in the mobile space. Crossy Road was a success. The same guys made Shooty Skies, which was also a success. And they did PacMan 365, which I didn't care for much, but appears to be successful.

When the same guys repeatedly make games that sell, the best conclusion to come to is that they know what they are doing. The market is not some random roulette. A good game developer across the board will be able to succeed.

 

Although I agree with some of the comments in the article regarding people who download apps. Quality has never been a right to make money. Look at the top grossing movies and music most years, they are often garbage and are mass marketing to the lowest common denominator.

I had a quick look at the game on youtube and I wonder what they thought their sales would be? From what I can see it seems a complex game that will appeal to hardcore gamers and not the casual gamers that populate the appstores.
The graphics seem cartoon like so that may put off the more hardcore gamer and the complexity will certainly put off casual gamers.

Most people use their phones for pick up and play games and hardcore gamers prefer PC/console games. I think a PC port is the way forward and perhaps should have been their first port of call, not mobile

 

I'm not sure about Mobile, but for PC / Console it seriously ain't rocket science.

 

Ragarding the article, I'm not going to post my thoughts here when you can hear a great summary of them from a guy with a smooth voice and a British accent:

For the love of god...
I do not understand why people think it's different in the world of mobile gaming. When you're creating mobile games, you're creating games for CASUAL GAMERS. That's your audience. You absolutely have to understand this.
Casual gamers have basically nothing in common with core gamers. A fundamental difference is that while the casual market is huge, you will never grow a solid fanbase there. Those are people who play those games to kill some time while on the train. They do not care about those games and will forget about your game once a shinier app is released. On top of that they don't give half a S*** about you. You either go viral or you won't get any downloads. That's the only big difference between successes and failures here: Some went viral for whatever reason, while the others didn't. One thing they have in common is that they're all merely short-lived fads. How many people still talk about flappy bird? Making a 10 million downloads app doesn't mean anything. It can be the only success you're ever going to have no matter how many apps you churn out.
Know what you're getting yourself into. Why is this such a difficult concept for so many people?

There are no guarantees for success? Thing is: There never were.

The idea of creating core games for this market is ridiculous and the author of the article is a complete moron for a) thinking otherwise and b) blaming others for his stupidity.
Core gamers are willing to pay hundreds of dollars for dedicated gaming machines. If your argument is to make them able to play games on the go, your game better be on a proper handheld, not an objectively inferior tablet/smartphone.
The word "objectively" has to be seen in context here: Core gamers care about what the best gaming experience. Having to carry an additional device doesn't speak against handhelds anymore than smartphones having phone/messaging/social networking/etc. built in is speaking for them. In fact, a handheld not being able to interrupt your gaming sessions because someone posted something is actually speaking in its favor.

I think the author (and the others who create core games for the mobile market) are either naïve or want to have their cake and eat it too, by having all the benefits of the core market, but with the huge casual crowd on the mobile devices that are happy with shovelware-apps you can create without much work.
The thing is that his game might be great for the mobile market, but is a nothing to write home about when held up to the standards of the core gaming sector.

tl;dr:
Get your heads out of your asses and accept that when you're creating mobile games, you being successful is comparable to you winning the lottery in regards to how much influence you actually have.
Alternatively, if you're targeting the core market, accept that you'll have to deal with much harder direct competition and that the quality standards being much higher as well.
Most of the projects I see here on the forums (and other places like IndieDB) aren't anywhere near those standards. So you better lower your expectations or get ready to fight this uphill battle.

 

It's not rocket science on mobile either. Most people simply don't follow the formula. Or as in the case of the article in the OP, follow a formula for a different platform.

This, all of this, twice over. I think I said it before, mobiles are not portable consoles. And decs that treat them as such deserve to be buried.

 

Doing a better job won't guarantee a predictable higher amount of success, but rather a better range of outcomes, which would be a better range of outcomes than not doing a your best job.

Doing a better job is relative. Maybe you did an excellent job by your own terms, but not in a way people -who have the money you measure success by- appreciate, not what people care for. You have to be careful not to give caviar to an elephant, so to speak... that's if you care about the money at least. The truth is what you see as ''caviar', others might see as 'icky salty stuff'.

 

If we did we wouldn't be making Indie Games. Sometimes it seems like a lot of folks around here see Indie Games as just near AAA quality games only smaller scale. I think that is one definition of the games and the one these people want it to be. Probably simply because that is the kind of game they personally want to make. In reality, a successful Indie game may be a tiny exceptionally well done game, a large scale game with minimum graphic quality or anywhere in between.

I mean that is kind of the whole point of making Indie games to begin with. If it simply meant making AAA style games only on a smaller scale we wouldn't have nearly the number of people into it. The reason we have so many people into it is because they know they can make games just as good as many of the successful Indie games.

It's funny too because people here say time and again that gamers don't care whether you're an Indie or not they just want a high quality great game. And I don't know where these ideas come from. I certainly care. Many people I know certainly care. A lot of people out there on the Internet care. A lot of the people making videos care. The difference comes in the form of expectation.

Not sure if it was Total Biscuit or another YouTuber who put it quite well when he said when playing Indie games he goes into it with different expectations a different mindset. He expects the graphics may be just okay or perhaps just plain bad. He doesn't expect to see things fine-tuned and polished as he would from a AAA game. Some games do have those things but on a whole it is not something to be expected. What he does look for is just a fun game. And perhaps something a little fresh and different. "That is the only thing one can expect from these quirky little Indie games" (pretty sure that is how they put it).

So again... I sometimes have a hard time relating to folks around here because I don't know where they get their ideas from. Like in this case it seems to be completely missing the whole point of what an Indie Game even is. And not just in my opinion but I mean in the gamer world, the people doing video reviews and so forth. It should be common sense if these games were to be basically AAA what would be the point in them? Why play a mini version of a AAA game when you can just play the big daddy / mama version of the real thing?

 

I am kind of weirded out that so many people are making mobile games, to begin with.

 

That's because the market has pushed all "core" (I find the term ill-defined) gamers away.

I don't like free to play and I want *some* substance in my games. I haven't played a mobile game in a while. I would like to though.

 

There a number of core games that do well on mobile after they get big on pc, ie down well you can't get more hardcore than that. You could come up with a game that has a unique mechanic ie braid platform with time manipulation, a twist in story undertale, unique graphics style down well, something so stupid it wins over the youbers shower with your dad simulator, but if your playing it straight not bringing anything new to the table then you need to have the high production values.

 

Because you play PC / Console games you're somehow allergic to mobile games are ya? Oh no the mobile burns my hands it's not "core gaming". That's silly, a lot of people play mobile games out of boredom.. On lunch breaks / trips to places, when the TV sucks and can't be bothered walking over to a PC / console.

Sure some might never play games on PC / Console but just because they do it doesn't mean they don't fill gaps either.

 

Right off the bat this article shrieks of the developers having the wrong expectations about the platform and making the wrong kind of game for it and then blaming the platform for their mistake. That's what's really broken here. Yet another story of people not wanting to really admit that they are the ones who made the mistake and to then spout the sour grapes saying that it was everyone else's fault. Mobile is what it is, it isn't going to adjust back to people spending $10-$20 per game and sitting down for 3 hours playing some super-creative in-depth thing. Unrealistic expectations. What it basically boils down to is the age-old problem - they did not understand the audience and what the audience wants, and instead tried to push their own agenda.

 

Also, telling the world that a very nice, well reviewed game didn't get the success it deserves, also doubles as a nice marketing gimmick. :-3

 

Because that's what I said...

Because I don't like ads, because I don't like game where I don't know how much I have to pay to enjoy. I liked tiny wings, but even that is a complicated game right now.

I want more "the room" less "flappy bird clone".

 

Honestly I think too many people are absorbed into the idea that the `game itself` is all that's important and where all of the focus should be, or that it is the whole reason why the game succeeded or not. Then people look at various games as examples and ask themselves what it is about this game that made it a success or not - is it the graphical style, is it the depth, the length, is it the characters, is it the design, bla bla bla... and they really can't pin it down because it's NOT about the game.

Games are played by people. Games exist in people's minds. The actual game on the device is nothing but a medium through which the person, in their own mind, creates an experience. It is a tool - a means to an end, and not an end in itself. The graphics whirling around on the screen are only there to stimulate or trigger reactions or emotions or imagination etc, and other internal experiences. The actual 'experience' is happening inside the player, NOT on the device. The game is only there to provide a service. It is not there to be hero-worshipped or put on a pedestal. Nor are we meant to look at the form of the game - its shapes, colors, animations, sounds, whatever, and then think that this is why the game is great. That has nothing to do with anything. Because what this completely ignores is a really huge ingredient in making a game experience what it is - the player. You need a human attached to the device - and that human needs to be having experiences - and that is at best out of the hands of the developer. The game only goes so far to stimulate or suggest an experience - the player does the rest.

Philosophical question: If a game is running on a device and there is no-one around to interact with it, is there really a game?

Answer: No, because there is no meaning or feeling or experience happening unless a person is involved. And when the person is involved, all of those things are brought by the person and are happening in the person, and the thing running on the device remains completely meaningless and passive.

We keep hero-worshipping games like they're the reason why we are so excited or interested. They are nothing more than suggestions, and it's totally up to the experiences happening inside the player as to what people actually go through when they are exposed to it. People get to decide how they USE the game. And if the game does not do a proper job of getting the hell out of the way to allow the user to create their own fantasy, the user will realize the 'tool' sucks and will put it down because it does not understand them. They are having a relationship with it and if the game slaps them in the face, you can bet they will have a human reaction. I can tell you pretty much the point in time when I quit any game is the point where it suddenly did something that was too frustrating or unfair and that just made me angry and so I walked away. Game fail.

You should be making games for people, real people, not just so the game itself can have its own identity or be a `brand` or have everyone worshipping it. Everyone is trying to be so `special` and important - it's not about you! Or your game! And the only reason you should be making the game is to provide a service. If you have your own agenda and if your agenda doesn't align with serving the user, then you can bet the game is going to flop. We keep trying to always focus on making the game great, making the game a success, the game, the game, the game.... it's the same thing as our ego's saying "me me me". We're self absorbed.

A good game is invisible. A good user interface gets out of the way. It must weave an illusion of the player not even noticing the journey they are going on in their minds as a result of the game's machinery. People don't want to chew on some alien annoying piece of fat that they have nothing in common with and don't like and doesn't remind them of themselves. They want to see their own reflection in an empty mirror. They really don't care what's in your game or what makes it special, only that it serves them and helps `facilitate` a journey without making a big deal about itself. It's not about what happens in the game at all, it's about how that touches on things happening in the player or what it elicits in them or helps them to access in themselves. That could be achieved with ANY kind of visual presentation.

Developers sit there crafting games and gloating about how much they think it's cool and great and is going to change the world and have everyone bow down and praise it, only to discover that this fantasy is dead the minute it gets released. If you want everyone revolving around you and kissing your feet, that's your EGO. Most games are created from ego and attempt to be huge ego's. But the really great games are so carefully polished and gently crafted for the user that they powerfully evoke all kinds of amazing experiences NOT because of what they do, but more because of what they DON'T do. They are not self-important. If I'm able to buy into the illusion it's because it's believable and immersive. If I can't, it's because the game sucks at being invisible and is instead busy being narcissistic. And that's because the developers are.

 

My main issue with mobile appstores is the discoverability from a players perspective, it pretty much never recommends games to me that I like. The appstores need to get better at helping users to find the types of games they like to play. It just feels so rudimentary at this stage, I think in 10 years we will look back and go "wow, how did anyone ever find good games back in the 2010's, that's crazy."

 

You did say "drive away all core gamers" so it's not really what you said is it?

@imaginaryhuman

Oh come on, CryTek made a 1 Billion dollar PA company out of graphics. When you sling up a game on Steam / stores they see screenshots of your game and a description.. That's all the have to go by, some words and visuals..

The bigger question is why would you want to make your game look like **** anyway? Lack of skill? Be better, can't do it? Don't sell it, keep it in hobbyville. When you ask for money, you're in competition with other developers from one man bands all the way up to AAA.

It's "not about the game" is utter bull, go tell that to Square Enix or Capcom on the edge of bankruptcy. They got greedy, released sub par products that was aimed at "everyone".. Or in Square Enix's case, I'm not sure who their target audience is? Aliens perhaps, this isn't opinion either.. People don't like there games, fiscal accounts show people stopped buying there games, try and argue it how you will but there isn't ANY surprise why they are struggling.. Not one bit.

Whilst sure you gotta release a game to target specific segments and make stuff people actually want, as an Indie you can't exactly afford to copy + addendum what the big boys are doing. Because why would they choose yours over a well polished AAA version with a decent reputation / brand name?

Back on the mobile market, today it's an issue of whose got a fat wad for marketing. The big players are advertising on prime time TV, that's like $60,000 every time they show your ad (probably more)..

Oh on the Aliens bit, umm Aliens Isolation anyone? Heard of it? Sorry chief, but half of that doesn't even make any practical application sense.

 

With core in quotes and a parenthesis that I said that the term was ill defined.

But you removed all subtlety from what I wrote and expanded upon and attached silly arguments to what I said.

So no, that's not what I said.

If that's what you think I said, fine. But know that that's on you.

I'm out of this thread.

 

My first game made to sell as a solo game dev will have a graphical style like DownWell. That was a very smart move on their part because although the game looks great the graphics would not take a ridiculously long time to produce meaning they can focus more on the actual game. For me it's just because I want to focus most on depth and gameplay so focusing low on graphics is a perfect trade-off.

 

Games have become a storytelling medium. You are obsessing over grammar when you focus on the game only.

Why do you not understand this?

 

Ohh nooo it's on me, well I'm not sure how I'll get out of bed tomorrow Arrow. Shame about you leaving the thread, it's going to go downhill now..

I'm messing with you, you're a game dev right? Talking about success a thick skin is a number one requirement!.

 

Every time I click on a link and it takes me to a Polygon article I feel like I just got rickrolled.

 

ironically, im trying to make it (well.. giving it a half assed attempt) as a mobile developer, but I dont download a single mobile game (well... 1-2 which I play for a very short time).

 

Thats a good idea and you like hard core old school games so it will at least appeal to the demographic. Downwell did both well on steam and mobile, so if you are doing a hardcore mobile game that seems like the way to go.


http://steamspy.com/app/360740

 

Yeah I checked on Steam and surprisingly found only positive reviews. People really love the very simple sorta abstract graphics style and of course most importantly the game play. Many commented on the low price asking why it is only $3 and they'd spend $10 on it.

I don't like that they charged such a tiny amount for an exceptional PC game but if they are happy I guess all is well.

 

For example if this game is a hardcore space game, go for something 16 bit or something with retro music sound effects and appeal to oldschool hardcore gamers who is still willing to pay for there games. Theres nothing stopping them from reskinning and trying again

 

Ha ha. That's actually the market I plan on targeting because it is the only one I can relate to. The folks like me who like having a free tiny demo just as a taste and then pay $× to get the full game. Modern gamers would cry about it from what I've read.

I figure there have to be a few thousand of us left. lol

 

Very interesting discussion! Lets play a little game. Don't look up this game yet. Watch the trailer of our game and take a guess at how many downloads we have.

 

That's just it. There is no way to accurately judge based solely on looking at a game. Your game could be sitting out there with less than 100 downloads or it could have millions of downloads. Or any place in between.