How You Have Destroyed The Mobile Market

@VNL Entertainment Games if you provide us with the important data... the stuff that really matters then I think we could make more accurate guesses.

How many "big" YouTubers have covered your game and recommended it?
How many "big" gaming-related websites have covered your game and recommended it?
How much of a presence do you have and how much coverage has it got on Facebook, Twitter and other such social marketing platforms?
Did you already have other games before this that had players you were able to leverage in your marketing for this one?
... and so forth.

 

12,532 downloads

 

98,202 downloads

 

LOL! Okay then... 123,456

 

This is kind of fun, reminds me of The Price is Right

 

I cheated and looked, the good news is that none of you went over the actual price of the showcase. Now remember to spay and neuter your pets.

 

Viewing this from an economic standpoint, I don't think the market can stay "saturated" forever. Because I think simple supply and demand will take over there.

1. Game development becomes easier than ever before, and tons of developers come to the industry and make a whole bunch of games, and it's relatively profitable for them.

2. As more games are made, games become extremely cheap and easily obtainable, and consumers expect cheaper and cheaper games.

3. Game developers start noticing that making games is no longer that profitable, and many developers stop making games and move on to other things.

4. The amount of games being made slows down and game prices begin to rise again, as the demand for games rises. And the cycle begins again.

Essentially, my point is, the market will basically always correct itself due to supply and demand. At times, there may be too many games on the market and demand for games will be low. And it's those times that are hard for developers. However, I still believe that people can succeed, even in a saturated market.

 

123,457 then.

 

Dayum! I cheated as well. That's between 5 and 10 millions installs. Only on Google Play.



How can you check iOS installs?

 

And now we just wait for the people to come in and say "I knew as soon as I saw the video it would do exceptionally well. I mean just look at the thingy. And then consider the zingy. And overall it just has a very nice bazinga. Not surprised at all."

 

Well, when I saw 1 million yt views, I figured, that probably got them a fair share of downloads... so I aimed "high" at 100k...

...I was wrong by a few figures... D'oh

 

Im suprised there isnt more talk about using multiple mass media advertising like facebook, twitter , youtube, etc..to generate customer follow to your game. I would think in the current over saturated market that would be the best way to get noticed. Got to spend money to make money...

 

I suspect there's some truth to that specific to the mobile and casual market. So that's right on topic.

There are plenty of counter-examples of games that succeeded or failed due to the game itself, but many of those are "core" games, where gamers were more tuned into (and value) the games themselves. Core gamers apply more logic and research in the decision of what game to spend time and money on next. In some cases, the theme just didn't resonate with people or whatever though, so it's not like core gamers are immune to fuzzy factors like that.

I had always hoped that at least some portion of casual gamers would eventually morph into core gamers that actually cared more. But it would seem that some folks are never going to move beyond Candy Crush or even look at what other match-3 games exist.

I think one problem with discussions like this on a game dev forum is that pretty much everyone here "cares" about games, so we're biased toward thinking that it's about the game itself. Often in the core gaming world it *is* about the game itself. But understanding the casual market requires us to engage in a different way of thinking.

Luckily I'm a hobbyist who doesn't have to worry about casuals. I do "core" style games, since that's what I like and understand. I don't pretend to understand the perceptions and emotions of the casual audience.

Anyway, here's a little nugget from 1976 that's as relevant as ever with regards to consumers and the illusion of choice:
http://www.acrwebsite.org/search/view-conference-proceedings.aspx?Id=9201

You can grab almost any paragraph from that, and it seems applicable. Such as:

 

I agree with this.

I looked at some vids of their game and their game is the problem. They remind me of developers who spend the price of a Mercedes to build a Ford Taurus and than bitch about not making enough money to stay solvent.

I have looked at their game videos and I am not impressed by it. It looks like something from 10 years ago.

 

No mobile game is worth $5. The problem is they "poured thier heart and soul" into a S*** platform.

 

That's an interesting view that I have heard (well read) from other people too. I'm not disagreeing with you just wondering why you feel this way? Is it because the controls on cell phones just aren't good for gaming or something else?

 

If i was kid today, I would totally play that game on my parents' phone/tablet. Cause school without supervision always turned into some kind of battle royal...rubber band war, wrestling tournament on the nice gym mats, snowball fights. Anyways congrats.

 

I don't agree with that. When I am on the road and travelling a lot I have a lot of downtime and no desktop available, I would easily pay for a good mobile game with some depth. Mostly I play roguelikes since they tend to have that with an interface that fits mobile.

 

Controls, Screen size, audio, immersion, etc.

Basically mobile games lack on every single aspect that real gaming platforms (PC, and to a lesser extent consoles) provide.

Why spend money on an inferior product when I can spend the same money on a better product?

Mobile games are only good for spending a couple minutes on while taking a dump, and thats not even worth $5.

 

Crudely put, but accurate. Casual mobile gamers play games in the gaps in life. On the bus, waiting for the train, on the toilet, in the ads on TV. And so on.

Games that are built for these time frames in mind do well. This means the game is quick to start, has short play cycles, has instant feedback and so on.

Sure there is plenty of luck and marketing and psychology that goes into mobile games. But until you can build a game that fits the platform none of this matters.

Try playing it. It's worse then it looked. The game appears to have tried to straddle the gap between core gamers and casual gamers. And it's ended up appealing to neither audience.

I fall into both camps, a casual and a core gamer. As a core gamer the game had no depth and limited options to control. Everything was random. None of my decisions seemed to matter at all.

As a casual the game had nothing exciting or engaging about it. There was no moment to moment excitement, it was long, and there were no addiction mechanics to bring me back.

 

Casual mobile games, yes. However midcore mobile is a very different story.

 

Must be nice to have people hanging around whose entire job is market intelligence.

 

It's very nice. Though it's largely analytics.

 

The game is worth whatever people are willing to pay for it.

IIRC Iphone had "diamond" app, and star citizen gets away from selling virtual ships that cost thousands.

There's no "worth X dollars". It is a matter of perceived value.

 

The problem with mobile is that there is no totalbiscuit or whatever whos willing to point out some good $5 mobile games.

I could easily see paying $5 for hitman go or laura croft go.

 

Agreed, I would pay $5 for those.

 

I figured I was being really, really generous at 12k downloads. The game doesn't look like anything I would ever play, but rather a generic F2P MMO from 10 years back. Like ROSE online, or something.

It defies my understanding and expectations.

 

@VNL Entertainment Games clearly this cannot be right. Don't you know that all gamers demand the best graphics possible? Because we know this it is therefore impossible for Bad Nerd to have a few million downloads.

Seriously congrats on that. And I am just having fun because I think your games have made the point very clearly that graphics only need to be good enough to present the game world. And from what I see in the video they do that very well.

 

You do understand the difference between platforms right? I'd seriously be very interested to see what'd happen if those games got released on Greenlight, actually going by past results it'd get straight in ..

But joking aside I'd be very interested to see how succesful they would be.

 

I wouldn't be surprised at all to see games on Steam with similar graphics doing very well. Same as I wouldn't be surprised to see games on mobile or Steam with similar graphics doing very poorly. Or games on both with much better graphics doing better and others with much better graphics doing worse.

 

Reminds me of a game I would have loved when I was a young teen. Heh. I guess it all goes back to the fact that games are a storytelling medium and people are primarily consumers of stories.

I used to dream about games where you run around a school, fighting terrorists or just the jocks and the goth kids. Long time since then.

When I realized how hard games were to make, I guess I lost sight of all that.

I think brilliant software engineering comes from laziness. But that attitude doesn't transfer well to game development. I think that's what has happened here.

It is nice to see that hard work and ambition can still pay off, if you can make something people want.

 

Well by that reasoning, nothing makes sense even though there are clear patterns in market segments. Those games doing well on mobile do not surprise me one bit, the market point, the choice of game and probably some decent marketing..

If games like those sold millions of copies on Steam, I'd have to sit down and really evaluate what the hell I'm doing with my life ..

 

You're living the dream

 

That unit z clone had 18 million free downloads on steam

 

Well that is what I have been saying for the past two years on these forums. lol For some reason though nearly everyone here places a tremendous amount of importance on the graphics. And no doubt it is very possible if Bad Nerd had better graphics it may have got a few hundred thousand more downloads. At the same time though people have to keep in mind there are many games with much better graphics with less than 1,000 downloads. It's not the graphics quality or lack of it that is causing success or failure in games. Yet so many people point to that one thing each time.

A game is all about an experience. I usually say the "gameplay experience". Which I think is basically what you are calling the story. It's when I go on an epic quest of some sort in a game world. Something that has some kind of meaning to me. Graphics can make a gameplay experience more likable, more interesting looking purely from the art perspective. But you have to have a great game idea first of all. And you have to have the ability to get your game the exposure needed to be successful.

Bad Nerd I think is a great example of a very good game experience. I don't know how well it actually plays but the experience it offers is something a lot of people can probably relate to and have even daydreamed about doing. Being bullied, pushed around, picked on, then rising up and kicking all of their asses.

It's great stuff really. The story of an underdog that most people can relate to in some way. Then tying it into the school environment itself just lends it a touch more reality. It is actually the kind of thing I could see some politician or other whiner going on about as a perfect example of a game that is bad because it is promoting violence in schools. But really it is just letting gamers live out a daydream they've had for a long time.

Still it is probably not the only game like it. And others here could make the same kind of game with graphics that are super duper and be lucky to break 1,000 downloads on Mobile. And no I am not saying I believe if the game had better graphics it would be less popular. lol I am saying I think that has nothing to do with it. The important factor is this developer knows how to get the exposure their games need to be successful.

 

TL;DR. atleast not everything, sorry.

if the market is saturated with unpolished, mediocre games, make a polished, original game. And I am not talking about another 2D space shooter, with good graphics. Not. enough.

My personal feeling is that the mobile market does change, from a costumers way of perspective;
At least for the Apple Appstore and reading through german reviews, I would say players WANT damn good games, without adds, without In-App Purchases; reasonably priced around 2-4 USD.

 

So by your reasoning, what's the point? Why do AAA spend millions on art and graphics? Why go through all the hardship of trying to make a game look good?

You're pretty much saying anyone that spends time making their game look decent is a moron, even though the likes of CryTek became a multi-billion dollar outfit on that single premise.

You seem to have all the answers.. So what is it chief? Do I stop putting effort into it and stick it up on Steam, will they get a sense of how good the game is by a small demo video and a few crappy screenshots? How do I get around the marketing proponent, shall I do some CGI screenshots then get ripped apart as soon as they play the game and it looks crap?

 

Ha ha! I just came here to post some stuff for the OP and saw this.

Man I do not have all of the answers simply because I do not believe graphics are as important as some people do. That is the only real difference here. I think?

Awesome graphics can get you some attention, right? They can make some heads turn and help get more eyeballs on your game. From that perspective they are important. I'm talking about when actually playing a game the graphics are not that important. Again for some people. I agree there are people who really place a lot of importance just on how the game looks. I just don't believe the bulk of gamers are that way. That's all.

As far as why they spend so much time and money on constantly pushing graphics forward. Well, they have always done that. And I think it is mainly because of a couple simple reasons: first the challenge (and bragging rights) of doing so. If a company produces the best looking game of the year they'll get exposure for that. They'll get credit for making the best looking game of the year. And it is a hell of an accomplishment. Right?

Second, I think in addition to the challenge aspect it all comes back to being able to keep the games very close to their last game. They already have a "winning recipe" so to speak. They've already built successful brands. Rather than stray too far from that and risk alienating their players what is the easiest way to show improvement? And by easiest I am speaking purely from the idea/brainstorming side. Not saying it is easy to make games look so amazing. Anyway, the "no brainer" answer is "let's make this one look even better than the last one". That's my reasoning why they do it.

 

Oh dear, we're back down the age old debate of graphics again. I really think that is missing the point of the OP.

Graphics make certain games possible(read: enjoyable) that wouldn't be possible with lower fidelity. Does that mean all games need awesome graphics? No of course not. Can we finally stop talking about this.

 

Hey @N1warhead I did some research this morning and found these on Steam.

There definitely are people who like this kind of game.

Some have a good number of positive reviews others are mixed. You'll have to check out the Mixed to find out what the issues are. One issue I remember from glancing at the reviews was talking about poor camera tracking / angle.

Anyway, I think this is the kind of thing you are going for, right?

Poi

Deo

Jones On Fire

Woodle Tree Adventures

Refunct

 

I think probably graphics have different degrees of importance based on the audience. If the audience is generally shallower and goes based on appearances without wanting to get in deeper, then they are probably persuaded more by the initial impressions visually (particularly men can be more visual than women). But there are also people who are deeper and who may look for a deeper experience past the visuals. Probably it varies by genre a lot. Like on mobile you see a lot of very simple-styled games doing well because that idea of simplicity/clean-look/easy usability is attractive to a younger crowd and to people who don't want to engage as much. Nice graphics can be nice on mobile to (rayman for example), but I think generally bigger screens typically need better graphics.

 

School of Chaos may not have AAA graphics, but it's a fully working MMO, and that's no easy feat. Plus it's a funny idea. If I was a kid I'd love to play it with my friends just for laughs, and MMO have this thing that make you want to commit.

 

That all makes sense to me. And naturally leads to the question... so why didn't you spend months and years on the graphics of the games you've shared with us to make them look top notch? As you said, if they had superb graphics more people would have gave them a try.

 

@GarBenjamin - Yeah just like them games only more Banjo kazooie style + old school graphics.

And as your new post says about top notch graphics for VNL.
I could easily make my game with top notch graphics - I just don't want that, I think it ruins the ambiance that old games produced.

But nevertheless - I'd rather make my game with old school graphics than new school and loose out on a 100 million dollars and only make 1000 dollars. Meaning - I'm not making this game for the money, only to get this goal in my head out of my head so I can continue on with my life. This idea has been eating at me sense I was just a kid to make games like this. Like I can start a game - nearly finish it then out of nowhere - completely abandon the game when it's 99% complete because it's not what I want to make, I WANT to make my old school banjo kazooie style game! lol.

 

Thanks for the honest answer and for not letting that stop you. I can about 99% guarantee if you had shared your WIP on these forums some of the first and most feedback you would have got is along the lines of "needs better graphics", "gamers these days especially on mobile want great graphics" and so forth. lol I just think it is awesome you didn't let your lack of artistic ability become an excuse to not make good games that obviously a lot of people are playing!

Anyway enough of that. You've done very well. Hopefully you'll keep making the kinds of gamers want to play.

 

@VNL Entertainment Games is pretty much spot on, let's take the gloves off and call as spade a spade for a moment. Mobile is a different market to PC / Console, it's made for short blasts of fun (well until you get suckered in). Graphics aren't the key focus, sure yeah I know DICE were experimenting with putting BF4 on mobile but still it ain't the platform (yet)..

On PC / Console, we should all know from a fiscal perspective it's graphics that gets you the interview. But gameplay that get's you the job and allows you to keep it. The cost of shiny graphics is what requires repeat custom, so you'd better have your gameplay tight.! Tons of examples of style over substance, like Order 1886.!

Also as VNL said again, even on PC / Console as soon as you start asking for money things change. The expectations go through the roof, now all of a sudden many who wouldn't really care about graphics want it. Because why not? They're paying for a product, customers don't care if you're a no name dev or if you're EA!.

 

Yeah when playing those I thought they were a little too much on the graphics side (based on your target) but those are what I found on Steam when I did a quick dig this morning.

Looking forward to trying it out and I hope you find a big audience for it.

 

Hehe yeah - I mean don't take me wrong they did look fun! Just not what I'm trying to compete with lol.
I mean I'd play the heck out of WInd Waker any day - because they made the Cel Shading beautifully into the game to where it's fun to play the game just to look at the beautiful art lol.

P.S. - I did send you a new test update a couple of hours ago.

 

I don't agree with PC gamers all wanting great graphics. I'm not sure if you're talking about AAA game companies (interviews) or gamers.

But since I haven't made a game yet for Steam release I cannot prove it firsthand. You can be sure though when I do release a game for Steam it will look horrible by your standards simply because like VNL I don't have the skills, time or money to spend on that stuff. So' I'll focus only on making a great game. And it may tank completely. It all depends on how much exposure I can get it. But I don't see why I should deprive the world of my game with crap graphics. lol

 

I meant it metaphorically, like graphics (Interview as in, get people to look at it) and gameplay (Job as in, get's repeat custom and good reviews)..

Again, it all depends if you want actual money for it. I'm sure if it's a freebie nobody will care, but you gotta remember there's a lotta games on Steam now.. Many probably do have great gameplay already, so what are you doing that makes you any different? Because there are a lot of games with good gameplay flopping completely at the moment..