The following blog post, unless otherwise noted, was written by a member of Gamasutras community.
The thoughts and opinions expressed are those of the writer and not Gamasutra or its parent company.
I commend Mochi for hosting the first of what I hope will become the
annual Flash Gaming Summit. It clearly took a ton of work to put
together, and I lost track of the number of developers I spoke with who
traveled all the way out to California for the single-day event without
even bothering to attend GDC.
But ultimately, much of it felt like a missed opportunity. While a
good portion of the speakers shared some really useful and important
information, others, well, not so much. But I can understand a few bad
panelists. What bothers me more is the amount of crucial information
that was completely skipped over, or summarized in such an
oversimplified manner that itâ€™s no longer accurate.
Here are a few important points about the Flash industry that
someone likely never would have figured out purely from a visit to the
Flash Gaming Summit:
1. Distribution is not all that important.
There was a whole panel on Flash game distribution. John Cooney of
Armor Games hit the nail on the head early on, then several people
throughout the whole event spent far more time directly contradicting
his word of truth. When asked how distribution is handled, John said,
â€śViral, viral, viral.â€ť
I recalled Warlords: Call to Arms, Kongregateâ€™s most successful
sponsorship to date, with over 40 million views across the web. It hit
100,000 click referrals (not views) within days of being uploaded onto
Kongregate â€” technically during its weeklong â€śexclusivity periodâ€ť
(usually I donâ€™t bother with site-locks, instead requesting that
developers wait a week before actively spreading a game). Ben Olding
had a similar experience with Achilles.
Time and time again throughout the summit, emphasis was placed
on how hard you need to work to distribute your game. But thatâ€™s
overlooking a huge point: If you need to work hard to distribute your
game, then it is likely not successful. Your time is better spent
working on another one. Spend a couple of hours submitting your game to
the top portals â€” Kongregate, Newgrounds, Addicting Games, Armor Games,
etc. Encourage other portals to host the game, either in the game
description or within the game itself (â€śadd this game to your siteâ€ť).
If the smaller sites donâ€™t start picking it up on their own and hosting
it without any work from you, then itâ€™s likely time to move on. It is
not time to spend 2 weeks uploading it to every site you can imagine,
then ranting about how much work distribution is.
For example, working your ass off to distribute a game might
get you 300k total views instead of 100k. Sure, thatâ€™s three times as
many, but itâ€™s still not going to pay the rent, and youâ€™re not creating
any viral spread here. Most Flash games have an initial spike, a drop,
then a long tail, but the spike and drop is accentuated with games that
are heavily distributed by the developer, and the tail is usually
It is not terribly uncommon for a game to hit a million views
across the web within a week after simply being uploaded onto
Kongregate and Newgrounds, as itâ€™s grabbed by hundreds of smaller sites
and rehosted. And that is where the real traffic lies. Thatâ€™s the
traffic that doesnâ€™t go away when you stop working on distribution.
2. For successful games, in-game advertisements are your #3 source of revenue.
Why did the summit spend so much time talking about in-game
advertising? For games that cross the sponsorship-worthy barrier,
sponsorships and site-locked, non-exclusive licenses pay magnitudes
more than in-game advertising networks. (Contract work pays more than
all 3, but in this case youâ€™re building a game for someone else rather
than creating your own â€” plus, you actually have to land those jobs
I could probably count on one hand the number of times the
words â€śsponsorshipâ€ť and â€ślicensingâ€ť were used during the entire summit.
If you want to make significant money from your game, you need to
understand how these work before you release your game to the public.
FlashGameLicense.com is an excellent cure for the
misguided belief that making a game and simply releasing it with
in-game advertising is the path to becoming a full-time indie Flash
developer who can afford to eat (though thereâ€™s certainly nothing wrong
with taking advantage of this additional revenue stream, assuming your
sponsorship terms allow it).
Chris Hughes of Flash Game License briefly raised the point
that your game isnâ€™t worth as much to a sponsor after it is released,
due to the standard traffic pattern (big spike at the beginning,
followed by a long tail). He is correct, but his point deserves further
emphasis â€” your game is actually worthless to a sponsor after it is
released to the public. This is one of the most common points of
confusion among Flash developers, and it needs to be explicitly
explained: You will lose out on your #1 source of revenue if your game
is released prematurely. Even if sponsorship branding is added to your
game before the bulk of its traffic has occurred, it is nearly
impossible for a version with sponsorship advertising to compete
against an older version of the same game with no outside links thatâ€™s
also floating around the web. It would be like baking a batch of
delicious chocolate chip cookies, setting it on a table, then baking a
second batch of the same cookies with raisins, setting it next to the
original batch, and hoping that everyone suddenly has a craving for
dried grapes rather than delicious chocolate.
3. Seriously, you can make a living off of your own Flash games. Itâ€™s
really hard; make no mistake about that. But itâ€™s not impossible, and
dozens of people and small studios around the world are doing it
without having to sacrifice their IP (or work with someone elseâ€™s) to a
giant corporation. One panelist actually said that it is impossible. I
was sitting next to John Cooney at the time, and I asked him if this
meant that he didnâ€™t exist. I was wondering if he might start fading
away, Back to the Future-style. (While he is an employee of Armor
Games, think for a moment about why hiring him on full-time made any
So no, it is not impossible. Itâ€™s just impossible if you rely
on the only revenue stream actually discussed in the panel about
monetization. If you take full advantage of the resources available to
you by aggressively pursuing sponsorships and non-exclusive,
site-locked licenses (be sure that these are allowed under your
sponsorship terms!), then the revenue from in-game advertising will
most likely become an afterthought (in the case of performance-based
sponsorship models, it may even be a detriment). It is only with games
that end up making just a few hundred dollars that in-game advertising
will be the primary source of revenue.
4. So what does make a game successful, anyway? And what is successful?
The panel about what makes a successful game was by far the most
entertaining, and also the most informative (I must confess that I
missed most of the very first panel, but I heard that that one was also
pretty good). If only we had actual developers on the monetization
panel as well!
The whole idea of top-down vs. bottom-up game design was
alluded to quite a bit, but never explicitly explained. Brad Borne did
a great job of explaining why Fancy Pants is so successful. He took a
simple, fun mechanic and built on it. This is the definition of
bottom-up game development, and itâ€™s a common theme throughout the best
casual game developers out there, from Popcap to Paul Preece. Edmund
McMillen spent a bit of time riling up the panel with the debate of
games for art vs. games for profit, but itâ€™s worth noting that his most
successful game, Meat Boy, has really fun basic mechanics. The same is
true for Aether, a game he cites as his personal favorite. Art and
fun/success need not conflict.
Top-down design (starting with the overall idea, then fleshing
out the basic mechanics later) is tremendously difficult for Flash
games because it means youâ€™re basically forfeiting your greatest asset
and trying to compete with consoles, which your players likely already
have sitting in their living room. It is demeaning and inaccurate to
say that Flash games are merely the poor manâ€™s console games; many
players actually prefer Flash games because they can get a new and
interesting experience as often as they want. Plus, graphics and
production values donâ€™t automatically equate to fun. (Even if players
donâ€™t prefer Flash games over consoles, theyâ€™ll still often play both.)
But donâ€™t pretend that your players donâ€™t have Mario Galaxy and Halo 3
sitting 10 feet away. You can entertain and addict them, but you will
probably not impress them.
Tyler Glaiel is an incredibly talented Flash developer with a
lot of industry experience, and he took the opportunity to ask a panel
why it was that the games he spent the least amount of time on did
really well, while the games he spent the most amount of time on were a
little more disappointing. He never got a straight answer, but I
believe it all ties back to the bottom-up vs. top-down game design
philosophies. Tyler started developing successful games at a relatively
young age, back when most of us were struggling with basic algebra. His
early games are definitely not nearly as impressive as his newer ones,
but a lot of them have fun little mechanics at their core. I still
remember my college roommate ignoring our collection of console games
to play Magnetism for hours on end.
By contrast, Blockside 2 clearly took a ton of time to develop,
and a lot of talent and thought went into it, but its problem is that
itâ€™s all top-down design. Thereâ€™s no fun little hook at its core like
there is with many of his quicker games, including Aether.
Another question from another developer that never got a direct
answer was whether 1.4 million gameplays in a month was good. The
answer is yes, itâ€™s pretty good, but itâ€™s not quite the big hit that
sponsors are usually chasing after. There seemed to be avoidance of
giving actual numbers on the monetization panel (unless they were
talking about in-game advertising CPMs), but Iâ€™ll take the plunge and
estimate that the game was probably worth roughly $4k or so from a
sponsorship. Revenue from licensing is much more difficult to predict,
but there would likely be several buyers in the $500-$1k range (note
that licensing revenue is more difficult to acquire for smaller games
than in-game advertising or sponsorship revenue, but for more
successful games, its value scales much faster).
Oh, and the finger puppets in the gift bags were really, really awesome.