|
[In a Gamasutra special feature, we talk to five leading iPhone game developers, including the makers of hit titles Rolando, iShoot and Flick Fishing, on the state of making games for Apple's explosively popular platform.]
As both a gaming handheld and smartphone, on paper, the iPhone has very few weak spots -- and fewer by the day. But what the spec sheet doesn't convey is how quickly the iPhone as a gaming platform is evolving.
Some developers -- those who don't subscribe to the Get-Rich-or-Die-Spamming school of iPhone development -- are using this opportunity to rethink the art of making games from design, promotion, and updates.
We rounded up five heroes of the App Store and got them talking about not only how the iPhone is changing development, but how development is changing the iPhone.
Participants
Simon Oliver - Developer, Hand Circus Notable Games - Rolando
Bruce Morrison - Senior Producer, Freeverse Notable Games - Moto Chaser, SlotZ Racer , Flick Fishing , Days of Thunder
Ian Marsh - Developer, NimbleBit Notable Games - Hanoi, Textropolis, Scoops
James Bossert - Co-Founder Fairlady Media Notable Games - Whack 'em All
Ethan Nicholas - Founder, Naughty Bits Software Notable Games - iShoot
"There are some games that should not be made for the iPhone, but there's also a huge group that should," begins Bruce Morrison, senior producer at Freeverse -- the mobile game company responsible for such successful apps as SlotZ Racer and Flick Fishing. "With the iPhone we get to strip out all the extra crap and focus by narrowing the gameplay."
Part of this need for focus arises from the way consumers play games on their phone, mostly in transit. As Simon Oliver, the developer of the critically acclaimed app Rolando puts it, "Portable gaming is all about convenience."
And Ian Marsh, a one-man-development team credited such hits as Textropolis and Scoops, explains that "The biggest advantage the iPhone has over other platforms is that it is a phone or iPod -- a device carried around by millions of people every day. That option to play is suddenly always there, just an unlock swipe away."
 Ethan Nicholas' iShoot
And it's this idea of convenience that meshes so well with relatively simple game mechanics. Morrison expounds on the point by praising another participant, Ethan Nicholas, the recently day-jobless creator of iShoot. "If you look at the top 10 games, they all have a focus. iShoot didn't try to build a social network, it focused on what was core to the game, shooting."
And yet focusing on one particular aspect of a game, especially on a device with no tactile buttons, can be head-spinning for a developer. "There is a different mindset you have to get into with iPhone games," continues Morrison. "The lack of tactile buttons is a huge obstacle. And I think it's interesting that every person here has overcome the need for physical buttons."
But where the lack of tactile buttons represents a significant challenge to developers it also makes the device more accessible. "I definitely agree with Bruce that the absence of physical buttons does present a significant challenge and requires considerable thought to work with, but with care and attention most genres can be represented well," says Oliver.
"The immediacy and accessibility of the accelerometers and touchscreen make it a really un-intimidating device to use," continues the Rolando developer.
Consider then that Rolando, one of the most well received games on the platform utilizes simple tilt-based controls and an inviting, bubbly cartoon art-style. The final control scheme and mechanics took considerable effort, though. "The very first control scheme [for Rolando] was command-based, more like Lemmings or an RTS," says Oliver.
"The idea was that you would pan around, select the little creatures and instruct them to do things by swiping on the screen -- such as roll left, right, stop or jump -- and they would just carry on until told to stop. The trouble is that controlling them became a bit of a nightmare as they were always rolling off the screen, doing unusual things and generally dying."
"As the control scheme evolved, it definitely affected genre -- originally there was considerably less emphasis on the platforming element, with the main focus being on puzzle and strategy," says Oliver.
"Personally, I find this one of the most exciting aspects of iPhone development, as it offers you the chance to really explore and create on this new canvas, as opposed to creating within an established genre on an established device."
|
I like the way apple sells macbook, macbook pro, desktops, Itouch and Iphones. Smartly keeping some features and removing some at a prize difference. I hate Apple for that sometimes but do we have an option?
I would be releasing my game next month which is a multiplayer game on same and multiple devices.
To fight the .99 prize tag and at the same time marketing it smartly I will be keeping three versions of my game if app store allows that.
1) The famous and free Lite version.( single player and one AI enemy)
2) .99 version multiplayer allows 4
3) 2.99 version full features with wifi.
If player likes the game he goes to three or may be I am dead at 1 or 2. possibilities of reaching 2 exist.
I hope this strategy helps. Any views.
Vijay Sharma
www.createplayshare.com
(Note: I say this as an iPhone dev myself, so I have a bit of first-hand knowledge on the matter)
I agree with Sean. Drop the middle version or make the middle version the entry version. I think that the middle version would give the customer the most to experience and get them want more of what you have. You could even lower the multiplayer number to 1 or 2 people.
When it comes to demos (which is essentially what you are doing with the free version) you want to whet the player's appetite and make them want more. Just the single player experience might not be enough to get them interested in the full experience.
Ephriam I understood what you saying and I guess that is what I should be doing. I feel i will give away too much if I give even two multiplayer in demo version but what you saying is also a way.
I will study again on this.
Thanks Sean and Ephriam.
Like the article says, most times it's something I do when I have free time. It's not like my DS, 360, PC where I sit down to play a game for a few hours. Sure I've been hooked for a few hours unexpectantly, but if you are going to charge anything over 5$, you dang well better have a lite version.
I think too many consumers have been burned by some apps they paid for that really really suck. I think that more than anything contributes to people not being willing to pay more for an app. A lite version helps counter that. But still 10$ is really over the high end of what I would think to pay for an app. Sure it's a port of a 30$ game apparently, but you have to know the platform you are working with, and what the audience expects to pay. I'll be very interested if it does well at 10$. Wolfenstien shot up into the top 25 after one day at 5$, so I think that show it's the optimal price for a nice game. Maybe 5.90 also, but there is only one game in the top 50 over 5.99 MLB at bat. That's 10$, and it has constantly changing content.
The shovelware issue is huge. It is so hard to find the good games in between thousands of apps that are barely games at all. Many of the current offerings make "casual" pop-cap style games look like World of Warcraft in scope and complexity.
While there have been some pretty good game apps released, there isn't one that I would call a "AAA must-have". Even games with brand names like Silent Hill and Metal Gear leave a LOT to be desired. I have no issue with 59.99 for a 360 game, 39.99 for a PSP game, but with the current assortment of iPhone offerings, even the best ones are barely worth $10. This creates a huge dilemma, as developers seem unwilling to put in the work/money for what could be an AAA game, based on the prices apps are going for, but there are very few apps currently out that would warrant a higher price. I think this will change over time, but it seems to be currently a catch-22.
This interview gives some great insight, and it will be interesting to see how iPhone development evolves, which I'm sure it will.
To touch on a few elements:
DLC: using the "razor blades" model (the handle is free; the blades are not) may work, but there's a lot of resistance to this from users who tend to view it as an attempt to gouge more profit - and most attempts to produce episodic gaming have failed (Sam and Max/Grimm/Strongbad being the only ones to date which have managed to sustain interest). The Maw recently got savaged for releasing DLC too soon after the game - though labelling the new levels as "lost levels" certainly didn't help with perceptions. The trick will be to balance the timings to avoid both loss of interest and claims of profiteering.
Past there, I think it's safe to say that there are distinct parallels between the iPhone market and the decline of the 8-bit market in the UK (more specifically: the ZX Spectrum). In a potted nutshell: the market opened in 1982 with a blitz of low-quality arcade clones, before steadying down as quality improved and original IP began to appear. The market continued to grow and expand through the early 80s - however, cracks began to appear. Games were supplied on audio cassettes, which were easy to pirate. Software houses devoted to low-cost releases (Codemasters, Mastertronic) appeared, offering games at 1.99 GBP and 2.99 GBP (sound familiar?) - and often, the quality was on a par with the price. Bigger software houses started to get into the act by offering older releases either at budget prices or as part of a compilation. Over time sales dropped - Wikipedia's Mastertronic page quotes sales declining from 50'000 in 1986 to 5'000 in 1990 for the average title.
Another major factor was the availability of "free" content: magazines competed with each other by licencing and giving away games: for instance, Crash was offering 4 free games and demos for just 1.50 GBP in 1989 - even cheaper than the budget releases!
The decline of the viability of the Spectrum as a gaming platform is also a factor, but there's certainly parallels to be drawn between this and the iPhone market - the advent of the internet has simply accelerated the timescales. New releases have to compete in a saturated market (if anything, the "long tail" principle makes it worse: older games don't vanish off the shelves any more) and fend off competition from low priced (or free) titles of varying quality.
In the end, what saved the software industry back in the late 80s was the shift over to the 16-bit market, where piracy was (for a time at least) harder, and the increase in power (memory/cpu/storage) meant that innovative new features could be added to attract customers.
The problem with this iteration is that any future iPhone is liable to be backwards compatible, so the issue with market saturation isn't likely to go away. Equally, there's unlikely to be the same quantum leap in power and storage when iPhone 2.0 is released (although the article notes some interesting things being done via integration of online features).
Finally, it'll be interesting to see how Apple manage the iStore going forward. After all, in many ways it doesn't matter to them if there's ten good games which sell a thousand units each, or a thousand mediocre games which sell ten units each: in the end, they still get the same cut. The question is whether the "pile them high and sell them cheap" strategy is going to work in the long term: both Microsoft (XBLA) and Nintendo (Wii) have encountered similar issues - and in Microsoft's case, have responded with a redesign of the XBLA UI and threats to cull low quality/low selling titles.