|
This new canvas does indeed provide new and intriguing gameplay aspects, many
of which are increasingly social due to the hyper-networked nature of the
device. Morrison and Freeverse, for one, have employed various social gaming aspects.
"The iPhone gives us developers a lot of freedom to try new cool things
that other consoles and handhelds restrict," he says. "Flick Fishing has sent out over 150,000
Brag Emails since we launched the feature and SlotZ Racer lets you email tracks to friends."
Other
social games like Mafia and Parallel Kingdom use email, SMS and location
data from Google Maps to enhance gameplay. Nicholas has recently added online
multiplayer to iShoot, but
contemplates the use of location based gaming.
"I'm thinking about [a
location based game] inspired by, say, Tradewars
2002 which pays attention to your real location and has you trading and
interacting with other nearby players. One of you guys go ahead and build that,
because I want to play it," he invites.
But
where social gaming presents a number of avenues for new styles of gameplay it
can also aid in promotion and advertising. "Access to contacts allows for
social and viral game features, which are especially important when your game
relies on being spread by word of mouth," says Marsh.
For a platform that relies on digital distribution
instead of traditional retail outlets, word of mouth and viral promotion are a
tremendous part of selling iPhone games. Morrison and Freeverse employ a
multi-pronged strategy.
"We are lucky to be and older established Mac
company with existing relationships with gaming press and online ad agencies,"
he says. "We do a standard press release, as well as social media. We
have a large Twitter following where we frequently post promo codes and
discount coupons."
Smaller
operations like Marsh and NimbleBit have taken full advantage of social media
due to time and budget constraints. "The first few days your app's life
are probably the most important. Towards the end of development I start
building a buzz on social websites, Twitter, iPhone forums, and YouTube. Plus,
all of my games have links to the rest of my games in the App Store, and I try
to coincide necessary updates to my other games with any new releases."
Still, there are other unorthodox ways to drum up interest in your game; James
Bossert and his game Whack 'em All being the prime example.
"Originally, we had 10 sales a day when we released our paid game, but
then it was pirated and we saw 400 [illegal] daily downloads."
"When we contacted
the pirate and asked him why he was pirating the app and blogged about it, we
got a ton of free exposure via articles on torrentfreak, Digg, Reddit, News.com, and more. The exposure we
got this way was probably the second biggest reason why our game got into the
top 25."
"Cross promotions also work pretty well. We trade about a 1,000 clicks
per day with Zynga
Live Poker. This
type of thing could help the longevity of your app in the top 100."
Breaking into the Top Paid Apps list remains crucial
to a game's viability, and as such the App Store, Apple's submissions/digital
distribution/reviews portal ultimately holds the keys to the kingdom.
For the
most part, upstarts like Bossert and Marsh laud Apple's policy and openness as
it allows small operations such as theirs to flourish. "The great thing
about developing for the iPhone to us is the relatively low barrier-to-entry.
You pay apple to become a developer and you're off and running. No publishers,
no agents, no big companies to mess with," says Bossert.
"Prior to
the App Store, you needed to go through a long and tedious approval process
with each of the [telecom] carriers independently."
Marsh
agrees, saying, "Removing concept approval as Nintendo have done with the
Wii opens the door for many serious developers with their original and unique
ideas." Although he does caution that "it also opens the shovelware
floodgates."
With
such an open agora, the fruits of success are plentiful for newcomers like
Marsh and Bossert, but the laissez-faire game development has an ugly side,
Marsh cautions -- and it appears to be shaping the economics of the App Store.
"The simple fact is that if you look at the history of the App Store, the
cheap simple content rules the roost. Top spots go to stuff like Koi Pond, iFart, and iShoot rather than epic role playing or
simulation games," says Nicholas. "It's difficult to sell even a
$9.99 app on the iPhone, and the increasing perception of this has led to
shovelware. This is having an unfortunate effect on the iPhone ecosystem,
where 90% of the apps out there just plain suck," he concludes.
Bossert agrees: "It's a bit frustrating, really.
Keeping things simple is good though, I think Ian does a fantastic job with his
games in that respect, but hopefully the better apps will rise to the top and
set an example."
And yet that may be exactly the problem. "It's
really interesting to me that at this point in time, Whack 'em All and Rolando
are competing against each other. We never intended to compete with a game with
the complexity, depth and production values of Rolando."
To combat this race to ninety-nine cents, however, Simon
Oliver, the creator of Rolando,
contemplates bracketing off the Top 100s into separate dollar amounts: "The
primary factor in sales and exposure is of course the top 100 list, and while
the price cuts that people are willing to make to get into that list are
understandable, they are definitely having a significant effect on the
perceived value of Apps. High-budget games are clearly going to struggle on
this platform."
|
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.