Where have all the iOS games gone?(minotaurproject.co.uk)
minotaurproject.co.uk
Where have all the iOS games gone?
http://minotaurproject.co.uk/blog/?p=376
210 comments
I really don't think the top 200 is as impressive a metric as you think for so called middle ground. I mean really, extend it to other industries.
The top 200 highest grossing album, concert, football player, movie star, corporate executive etc, are all making big money too, and not because these industries have a great middle ground, but because the top 200 on the planet in just about anything is the top 0.1%.
For example, I took a look at the very bottom of the list, the first company that had a report on its website I opened, which was Iggs, second to last game on the top 200 list, and it had 860 employees, mostly in low-cost areas like China. (more power to them, but for many HN readers, the prospect of competing with a team of 5 people who total your salary in the iOS game industry probably isn't very appealing). I'll grant, it's not their only game on the list, but if it was it'd still be a very sizeable studio.
This is by no means a middle-ground company. The notion you don't need to be top 10 or top 100 and that top 200 is good, too, is meaningless when such companies can have almost 900 employees. Check the list and you'll find lots of big ones, from EA, Disney, Zynga to Bethesda, hanging around at the bottom of this ostensibly middle ground list.
Anyway I do agree, there is a lot more middle ground than people make it out to be, but it definitely feels like an industry where mediocre talent doesn't really fly. Small studios have to do something special, unique, in a niche. That's a bit different from some other industries where you can make a living without really standing out. In that sense, the app store does feel like a place where the middle-ground is scarce and relatively competitive. And that's a new reality from 6 years ago, when you could still make money on flashlight apps, which is a lifetime ago in the appstore, but a short time for an entire industry in general to undergo such a paradigm shift. I think a lot of the myth you talk about is a narrative that contrasts the story we had not very long ago, when every app idea was relatively new and got the guaranteed downloads you mentioned already.
The top 200 highest grossing album, concert, football player, movie star, corporate executive etc, are all making big money too, and not because these industries have a great middle ground, but because the top 200 on the planet in just about anything is the top 0.1%.
For example, I took a look at the very bottom of the list, the first company that had a report on its website I opened, which was Iggs, second to last game on the top 200 list, and it had 860 employees, mostly in low-cost areas like China. (more power to them, but for many HN readers, the prospect of competing with a team of 5 people who total your salary in the iOS game industry probably isn't very appealing). I'll grant, it's not their only game on the list, but if it was it'd still be a very sizeable studio.
This is by no means a middle-ground company. The notion you don't need to be top 10 or top 100 and that top 200 is good, too, is meaningless when such companies can have almost 900 employees. Check the list and you'll find lots of big ones, from EA, Disney, Zynga to Bethesda, hanging around at the bottom of this ostensibly middle ground list.
Anyway I do agree, there is a lot more middle ground than people make it out to be, but it definitely feels like an industry where mediocre talent doesn't really fly. Small studios have to do something special, unique, in a niche. That's a bit different from some other industries where you can make a living without really standing out. In that sense, the app store does feel like a place where the middle-ground is scarce and relatively competitive. And that's a new reality from 6 years ago, when you could still make money on flashlight apps, which is a lifetime ago in the appstore, but a short time for an entire industry in general to undergo such a paradigm shift. I think a lot of the myth you talk about is a narrative that contrasts the story we had not very long ago, when every app idea was relatively new and got the guaranteed downloads you mentioned already.
I don't think he's saying top 200/0.1% is middle ground. He said that level can probably support hundreds of employees, and that they take in ~10k/day, which is 7 figures annually.
He's saying he himself is in the middle ground, which is a 2 man operation pulling in 6 figures.
He's saying he himself is in the middle ground, which is a 2 man operation pulling in 6 figures.
Which myth? Did we read the same article?
> That there's no more middle ground in the app store, only the Clash of Clans and Candy Crushes and the rest with no downloads
Did he say anything like that?
In the version I read he said that his games weren't making enough money to be viable, though he expected the market to be big enough to support their work. No mention of middles, Clash of Clans or anything.
FWIW: I also let my Apple dev license lapse, for similar reasons. Perhaps I could have gained that 'valuable knowledge' through years of experience, to get to a point of making a modest return. Perhaps. But, like Jeff, I found other platforms to be much more financially viable.
> That there's no more middle ground in the app store, only the Clash of Clans and Candy Crushes and the rest with no downloads
Did he say anything like that?
In the version I read he said that his games weren't making enough money to be viable, though he expected the market to be big enough to support their work. No mention of middles, Clash of Clans or anything.
FWIW: I also let my Apple dev license lapse, for similar reasons. Perhaps I could have gained that 'valuable knowledge' through years of experience, to get to a point of making a modest return. Perhaps. But, like Jeff, I found other platforms to be much more financially viable.
Sure, and to be fair to author, my point wasn't made to combat his article. I was more responding to the headline which reminded me of the "indieapocalypse" articles that make news all the time.
Sorry to hear it didn't work out for you. If you found more viable platforms of course that makes sense to pursue. I think that's what more developers who complain about the meager app store sales ought to do (explore alternatives), rather than just whine about the apocalypse and hope their downloads magically change.
Sorry to hear it didn't work out for you. If you found more viable platforms of course that makes sense to pursue. I think that's what more developers who complain about the meager app store sales ought to do (explore alternatives), rather than just whine about the apocalypse and hope their downloads magically change.
I think it's more interesting that to keep maintaining the games he was forced to keep purchasing an Apple developer license, and that it was cheaper for him to pull the games than to risk reputation all damage with crashing apps, even if they are free.
This genuinely sounds like a problem for Apple. Without a healthy App Store ecosystem there is little reason to purchase an iPad!
This genuinely sounds like a problem for Apple. Without a healthy App Store ecosystem there is little reason to purchase an iPad!
To be fair, Llamasoft has be deliciously weird since I was a kid playing their stuff on the C64. It's not mainstream work. Their stuff generally looks terrible but is a delight to play. You live or die on the appstore based on screenshots and price point.
[deleted]
I can't help but note that the only game in the top 200 that is not "Free" is Minecraft.
NBA 2K16, Bloons TD 5, Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, Terraria, Geometry Dash, Trivia Crack, Heads Up!, Neo Monsters & Plague Inc. also made it into top 200 grossing games in Q1 in US on iPhone.
Worldwide wise, paid games are doing worse off overall -- so US is over-indexing on paid games compared to the rest of the world.
Worldwide wise, paid games are doing worse off overall -- so US is over-indexing on paid games compared to the rest of the world.
Well, there's free and there's 'free'.
Indeed, this is the "Top Grossing 200"
I wonder what percentage could be classified as abusive software.
If that's the path I have to take to make money on iOS, I'll take a path on a different platform.
I wonder what percentage could be classified as abusive software.
If that's the path I have to take to make money on iOS, I'll take a path on a different platform.
I agree. All my interest in the platform (mobile in general) dried up when I realized people really wanted free, and the way to monetize that path was rife with dark patterns. I don't like playing games like that, why would I want to make one?
Money and greed. It's as simple as that.
Poor and stupid - Simple you are. In a civil society those that provide a utility (or "fun") to others are rewarded and incentivized.
I have nothing against people being rewarded for doing stuff others enjoy. What I have a problem with is the freemium model that seems to have taken over. It's nothing but greed what some developers are doing. I had quite a few games that I paid for. Then, one day, the app claims that "due to compatibility issues, I need to download The New $game to continue receiving updates". Then you go and look at the "new" version to find it's free and full of IAPs. THAT is nothing but greed.
>> "If that's the path I have to take to make money on iOS, I'll take a path on a different platform."
I think this is about much more than iOS. Anything that can be delivered online (software, music, movies etc.) is something that consumers think should be free. Strangely they are willing to get milked after download through things like in-app purchase.
I think this is about much more than iOS. Anything that can be delivered online (software, music, movies etc.) is something that consumers think should be free. Strangely they are willing to get milked after download through things like in-app purchase.
"Milked" is seriously loaded. AAA console games cost $60 and up - do you know how hard it is to get a paying freemium user to even $10?
Yes. There are people that spend thousands. They also spend thousands on $60 AAA games as well.
The idea that players get "fleeced" is ridiculous. Spent $15 on Candy Crush, a game that you spent months playing? That really doesn't seem like a lot to me.
Edit: I should acknowledge that certain games, like Candy Crush, do play on psychological weaknesses. Not all free-to-play games (hell, I'd say vanishingly few in the sea of free-to-play games on the App Store) do. Free-to-play is the new shareware and try-before-you-buy. It's also the only real path to sustained revenue, and anyone that runs a game studio knows what I'm talking about with the roller-coaster that are games that take 1-2 years to develop and have an earnings bell-curve of 3 months.
Yes. There are people that spend thousands. They also spend thousands on $60 AAA games as well.
The idea that players get "fleeced" is ridiculous. Spent $15 on Candy Crush, a game that you spent months playing? That really doesn't seem like a lot to me.
Edit: I should acknowledge that certain games, like Candy Crush, do play on psychological weaknesses. Not all free-to-play games (hell, I'd say vanishingly few in the sea of free-to-play games on the App Store) do. Free-to-play is the new shareware and try-before-you-buy. It's also the only real path to sustained revenue, and anyone that runs a game studio knows what I'm talking about with the roller-coaster that are games that take 1-2 years to develop and have an earnings bell-curve of 3 months.
There's a difference between Clash of Clans and GTA V, though. There is nothing on any mobile platform that can compete in any way with any AAA game made in the last 10 years (the most advanced mobile game I see is GTA:SA, which came out in 2004 or KOTOR which came out in 2003). Hypothetically, if someone spends $60 on Candy Crush and $60 on a AAA console release, the Candy Crush developers are seeing a much more massive profit from that than EA or Activision see from their games. AAA budgets are well into the hundreds of millions of dollars. Candy Crush could be exactly replicated by a 14 year old in a high school Python class.
Only 2.3% of Candy Crush players pay any money. Meanwhile, King has 1400 employees and revenue of over $2.2 billion per year. But you know what's not fair? Take-Two, the parent company of Rockstar and makers of a whole hell of a lot more AAA games than just GTA, has a profit of $2.3b. I think the profit scales are tipped a little more towards the app developers than towards the AAA developers on this one, especially considering damn close to 100% of the players of GTA V paid for their game, and paid $60 for it.
Sure, not every developer is King and not all IAPs are shitty like that. But the minute I see "buy more gems for $1.99!", I delete the app. You might not get any downloads if you charge money for your software, but then again, as a mobile developer, you chose to enter that market. Which means you chose to be compared to all the other bullshit IAP scam games that dominate the "highest grossing" list. Don't want to be compared to the scam artists? Then don't play the same games as them.
Only 2.3% of Candy Crush players pay any money. Meanwhile, King has 1400 employees and revenue of over $2.2 billion per year. But you know what's not fair? Take-Two, the parent company of Rockstar and makers of a whole hell of a lot more AAA games than just GTA, has a profit of $2.3b. I think the profit scales are tipped a little more towards the app developers than towards the AAA developers on this one, especially considering damn close to 100% of the players of GTA V paid for their game, and paid $60 for it.
Sure, not every developer is King and not all IAPs are shitty like that. But the minute I see "buy more gems for $1.99!", I delete the app. You might not get any downloads if you charge money for your software, but then again, as a mobile developer, you chose to enter that market. Which means you chose to be compared to all the other bullshit IAP scam games that dominate the "highest grossing" list. Don't want to be compared to the scam artists? Then don't play the same games as them.
So, GTA brought in 2.5B, not all of Take-Two.
By mid-2013 Candy Crush had over 500m downloads, and in 2015 was still pulling over 340m monthly players. By comparison, GTA 5 sold about 235m units total so your apple-to-apple comparisons are not so much.
As for "playing their game," I've been in this business since before the iPhone. I didn't choose to work in an industry that raced to the bottom for pricing. Mobile gaming is fun and enormous and provides opportunities for small devs that consoles never did. That said, there is a wide range of free-to-play monetization, not all of which is pure pay-to-win. But this is the industry - you can bury your head in the sand, but you'll go out of business.
You may think jumping from one industry to another is easy, but you'd be mistaken. But you know, compare us all to King if it makes you happy. There are many people beating that drum, but they simply can't grip the economic realities of software and the mobile industry as a whole.
We work to make games people love to play. We have a lot of players. They've all told us how they prefer to pay for our games so that our families might eat. That's fine with me, and with our employees who love making games.
By mid-2013 Candy Crush had over 500m downloads, and in 2015 was still pulling over 340m monthly players. By comparison, GTA 5 sold about 235m units total so your apple-to-apple comparisons are not so much.
As for "playing their game," I've been in this business since before the iPhone. I didn't choose to work in an industry that raced to the bottom for pricing. Mobile gaming is fun and enormous and provides opportunities for small devs that consoles never did. That said, there is a wide range of free-to-play monetization, not all of which is pure pay-to-win. But this is the industry - you can bury your head in the sand, but you'll go out of business.
You may think jumping from one industry to another is easy, but you'd be mistaken. But you know, compare us all to King if it makes you happy. There are many people beating that drum, but they simply can't grip the economic realities of software and the mobile industry as a whole.
We work to make games people love to play. We have a lot of players. They've all told us how they prefer to pay for our games so that our families might eat. That's fine with me, and with our employees who love making games.
According to Wikipedia, Take-Two's revenue in 2013 was $2.3b
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Take-Two_Interactive
>I didn't choose to work in an industry that raced to the bottom for pricing.
I'm sorry but it doesn't matter how long you've been making games. If you choose to produce mobile games and then choose to make them F2P with IAPs and gems and bullshit, you did make that choice. You don't have to do that. Sure it might be the best way to make money on the iPhone, but selling drugs is a pretty darn good way of making money on the streets. It's a great way to make sure your family can eat. It still makes you a horrible person.
If you were making money before the iPhone, then there's your business model. Otherwise, go back and read your comment again, this time imagining a drug pusher explaining why he sells to addicts. "Sure meth is bad, but hey I'm making money and I'm giving people what they want, you just have to come to grips with the economic realities".
Thanks for killing the industry. Glad you're making a profit though.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Take-Two_Interactive
>I didn't choose to work in an industry that raced to the bottom for pricing.
I'm sorry but it doesn't matter how long you've been making games. If you choose to produce mobile games and then choose to make them F2P with IAPs and gems and bullshit, you did make that choice. You don't have to do that. Sure it might be the best way to make money on the iPhone, but selling drugs is a pretty darn good way of making money on the streets. It's a great way to make sure your family can eat. It still makes you a horrible person.
If you were making money before the iPhone, then there's your business model. Otherwise, go back and read your comment again, this time imagining a drug pusher explaining why he sells to addicts. "Sure meth is bad, but hey I'm making money and I'm giving people what they want, you just have to come to grips with the economic realities".
Thanks for killing the industry. Glad you're making a profit though.
Your personal preference for GTA V over Candy Crush is fine -- we're all entitled to our own likes and dislikes. But it's foolish to conclude, apparently based on your personal preference, that Candy Crush is trivial to replicate or less deserving of the money they've undoubtedly worked hard to earn.
AAA developers aren't entitled to make more than mobile games.
Even if you're not among them, I'm sure there are plenty of players who elected to make IAPs and are more satisfied with their purchases than if they'd spent their money on AAA games. To throw one more anecdote on the fire, I'd happily pay $60 for all my time in Candy Crush ... and another $60 to NOT have to play GTA V instead (just not my cup of tea, though some friends swear by it ;).
PS. Candy Crush is owned by Activision.
AAA developers aren't entitled to make more than mobile games.
Even if you're not among them, I'm sure there are plenty of players who elected to make IAPs and are more satisfied with their purchases than if they'd spent their money on AAA games. To throw one more anecdote on the fire, I'd happily pay $60 for all my time in Candy Crush ... and another $60 to NOT have to play GTA V instead (just not my cup of tea, though some friends swear by it ;).
PS. Candy Crush is owned by Activision.
>But it's foolish to conclude... that Candy Crush is trivial to replicate
It literally is, because it's literally a clone of games that have been around for decades prior. http://www.businessinsider.com/the-history-of-bejeweled-2014...
I'm not arguing that mobile developers have less right to make money than AAA developers, that's a reply to the guy above me saying that AAA developers are ripping off consumers by charging $60 when mobile users won't even pay $10. AAA games take hundreds of millions of dollars to make. There's never been a hugely successful AAA game made by one guy in his dorm room over the course of two days (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flappy_Bird). Mobile games are inherently cheaper and easier to make than AAA titles.
>PS. Candy Crush is owned by Activision.
Yeah, I almost added a line about "that's why Activision bought King for $5.5 billion." Because they make a shit load of money scamming players and their games cost absolutely nothing to produce.
It literally is, because it's literally a clone of games that have been around for decades prior. http://www.businessinsider.com/the-history-of-bejeweled-2014...
I'm not arguing that mobile developers have less right to make money than AAA developers, that's a reply to the guy above me saying that AAA developers are ripping off consumers by charging $60 when mobile users won't even pay $10. AAA games take hundreds of millions of dollars to make. There's never been a hugely successful AAA game made by one guy in his dorm room over the course of two days (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flappy_Bird). Mobile games are inherently cheaper and easier to make than AAA titles.
>PS. Candy Crush is owned by Activision.
Yeah, I almost added a line about "that's why Activision bought King for $5.5 billion." Because they make a shit load of money scamming players and their games cost absolutely nothing to produce.
> But the minute I see "buy more gems for $1.99!", I delete the app
Why not just play iOS games that you buy outright without IAP then instead of downloading the "free" trash that makes money then getting upset when they try and make money off you.
Why not just play iOS games that you buy outright without IAP then instead of downloading the "free" trash that makes money then getting upset when they try and make money off you.
That what I do, but you get game companies that later go back and change the game to free to play and / or add in a ton of IAP's. Buying outright is no protection in the iOS app store.
I've paid money for more than enough games that pull the "buy more gems" bullshit on top of my purchase price. You can't win.
I'm happy to pay $15 or even $60 for a game I really enjoy and play for more than a few hours.
I'm not willing to pay to win though, which is what most of the top grossing mobile games require.
I'm not willing to pay to win though, which is what most of the top grossing mobile games require.
No, but the point of this thread was that there is room in the middle to make money, you don't have to be in the top 200.
We use rewarded video and advertising and IAP in free-to-play games our users play, but we have no desire to be exploitative.
The amount of room between basic free-to-play and psychological warfare on your players is enormous.
We use rewarded video and advertising and IAP in free-to-play games our users play, but we have no desire to be exploitative.
The amount of room between basic free-to-play and psychological warfare on your players is enormous.
If you sorted your customers by the amount of revenue they generate? How much revenue comes from the individual at the bottom of the top 50% of revenue?
It's mixed. Our most popular game is still supported by an old style of advertising, and some players that have played daily for years still prefer to look at/ignore advertising than pay the $2.99 (now $4.99) to get rid of ads. In fact, that's true of the majority of players - less than 5% of our revenue comes from that IAP. This is why I say people have told us how they want to pay us for their fun and our server costs. They've had the opportunity to pay us with money forever. Most never will.
Rewarded video makes up about 10% (currently it's not in a very prominent placement, some games make a majority of their money that way - see Shooty Skies).
So to kind of answer your questions, the longer people play, the more they're worth to us, which feels fair to us (and again, they can pay to rid themselves of ads anytime they want). We will be featuring rewarded video more prominently, which allows the user to have more choice in the matter (although I'm betting they chose ads over cash most of the time, but that's just years of experience talking).
Edit: I should add that our ARPU (average revenue per user) is less that $4.99, so we'd still much rather people buy ads away with IAP.
Rewarded video makes up about 10% (currently it's not in a very prominent placement, some games make a majority of their money that way - see Shooty Skies).
So to kind of answer your questions, the longer people play, the more they're worth to us, which feels fair to us (and again, they can pay to rid themselves of ads anytime they want). We will be featuring rewarded video more prominently, which allows the user to have more choice in the matter (although I'm betting they chose ads over cash most of the time, but that's just years of experience talking).
Edit: I should add that our ARPU (average revenue per user) is less that $4.99, so we'd still much rather people buy ads away with IAP.
I paid a ton of games. the one that got closer to being a game i can actually play for more than a week was FTL. but then playing on the phone/tablet is pure hell on higher difficulties (which is required to play it besides the very first week)
after years searching, i am back at an open source chess client. sadly they are trying to add their own in-house-chrome-cast instead of just improving multiplayer.
...think in the end i always pick the games that give me an excuse to code patches. sigh. I am a lost case.
after years searching, i am back at an open source chess client. sadly they are trying to add their own in-house-chrome-cast instead of just improving multiplayer.
...think in the end i always pick the games that give me an excuse to code patches. sigh. I am a lost case.
I should clarify. I meant they were getting milked in that if the game cost $1-5 dollars (a one time fee) they would be against paying it but they are oblivious to paying $15-20 over a year through in-app payments. I did not mean that the developer was extracting more money from them that the product is worth.
>Strangely they are willing to get milked after download through things like in-app purchase.
I don't think that is true. I doubt many pay at all. I think there are a small number of people who are massively exploited to generate the revenue for these apps.
I don't think that is true. I doubt many pay at all. I think there are a small number of people who are massively exploited to generate the revenue for these apps.
I'm curious if you feel that WoW at $180/yr is an exploitation. And if not, why would you consider someone paying the same amount of money for bonuses on Candy Crush to be exploited?
I cannot speak with much authority on either game because I have played neither of them.
At the start of the year was the player aware how much a years worth of play would cost them? The key to whether or not something is exploitative in this respect is whether or not the player is spending more than they were prepared to.
Does either game disguise the cost and bring in extras incrementally to promote a sunk-cost fallacy? Do they force the decision to spend at points of particular tension in the game? Some games certainly do.
This is quite a good read.
http://insertcredit.com/2011/09/22/who-killed-videogames-a-g...
At the start of the year was the player aware how much a years worth of play would cost them? The key to whether or not something is exploitative in this respect is whether or not the player is spending more than they were prepared to.
Does either game disguise the cost and bring in extras incrementally to promote a sunk-cost fallacy? Do they force the decision to spend at points of particular tension in the game? Some games certainly do.
This is quite a good read.
http://insertcredit.com/2011/09/22/who-killed-videogames-a-g...
Given the average WoW player likely plays 500+ hours a year, sounds cheap cost wise, but expensive time wise.
Years ago when one of my social circles decided to play WoW together, most of us found we had more money in the bank at the end of the month. It was far cheaper entertainment per day than most of the other options we would choose. One night out for drinks and you've paid more than a monthly subscription.
I feel like you're ignoring the ancillary cost of grinding heroics until the early morning hours with friends. There were some large pizzas, a bunch of soft drinks, and probably a packet of biscuits to accompany Tea...
That's gotta be at least a couple of rounds of drinks each :D
That's gotta be at least a couple of rounds of drinks each :D
When I said we had more money in the bank at the end of the month, that wasn't a figure of speech. I meant that we had more money in the bank.
People spend 1,000-10,000$ per month on pay to win games. You don't need a lot of them to break even.
PS: It's actually become a fairly common issue people seek addiction counseling for.
PS: It's actually become a fairly common issue people seek addiction counseling for.
I think they should have developers choose a monthly limit for their games. This limits the abuse and prevents addicted "whales" from spending all their money on the game. And if the limit is too high ("free (up to $1000/month!)") people might think twice about buying it.
I'm not against this at all. I don't want to survive as a studio on people paying $10k/month. $10/month I don't mind.
For what it's worth, "rewarded video" is, IMHO a nice middle-ground. It's a trade of time for value that doesn't require an out-of-pocket spend, and is user-initiated, and still allows a studio to survive.
For what it's worth, "rewarded video" is, IMHO a nice middle-ground. It's a trade of time for value that doesn't require an out-of-pocket spend, and is user-initiated, and still allows a studio to survive.
The context is that this is Jeff Minter's blog. His iOS games have received high acclaim over the years, especially early on in the App Store.
Yep. I hope a few people reading this know who the hell Jeff Minter is and why he's worth listening to.
(PS Jeff - if you're listening to. A new take on Llamatron would make me a very happy man)
(PS Jeff - if you're listening to. A new take on Llamatron would make me a very happy man)
One of those iOS games was in fact a new take on Llamatron:
http://minotaurproject.co.uk/Minotaur/minotron.php
It's very good :). If it's not on the store anymore I hope you find some way to get hold of it.
http://minotaurproject.co.uk/Minotaur/minotron.php
It's very good :). If it's not on the store anymore I hope you find some way to get hold of it.
Ah yes - I actually played it when I had a borrowed iPad for a while.
It's essentially a port though. I'd love to see what Jeff would do with the Robotron format 25 years after his previous attempt.
(This makes me wonder why - given his love of Williams arcade games - Jeff has never tried a take on Defender...)
It's essentially a port though. I'd love to see what Jeff would do with the Robotron format 25 years after his previous attempt.
(This makes me wonder why - given his love of Williams arcade games - Jeff has never tried a take on Defender...)
> My two person iOS dev studio has pulled in 6 figures a year for the past 4 years.
This statement does not say much, because in the worst case, that's $100.000 divided by two equals $50.000, which is less than average wage for programmers.
In the best case, you make a pretty good salary :)
Anyway, I just wish Apple would disclose some numbers about app sales. There's one thing worse than government regulating a market, and that is a company regulating it.
This statement does not say much, because in the worst case, that's $100.000 divided by two equals $50.000, which is less than average wage for programmers.
In the best case, you make a pretty good salary :)
Anyway, I just wish Apple would disclose some numbers about app sales. There's one thing worse than government regulating a market, and that is a company regulating it.
>This statement does not say much, because in the worst case, that's $100.000 divided by two equals $50.000, which is less than average wage for programmers.
Depends on where you live. Not everybody lives in the US, or even the valley.
Plus, even if $50000 is easy to pull in a lot of places as a programmer, with the mobile games they get to do it being their own bosses and creating the programs they want -- which beats working for a pointy haired boss or pulling all nighters for some "Facebook for turtles" startup.
Depends on where you live. Not everybody lives in the US, or even the valley.
Plus, even if $50000 is easy to pull in a lot of places as a programmer, with the mobile games they get to do it being their own bosses and creating the programs they want -- which beats working for a pointy haired boss or pulling all nighters for some "Facebook for turtles" startup.
Yeah but if it's passive income for majority of time on existing titles, during the year that's great.
The sentiment is totally right -- especially if you take other countries into account. The numbers you mentioned are pretty far off for US -- a typical rank 200 game in iPhone earns around $4000-6000 or so per day, but worldwide we can expect the top 100 app to earn around 100k / day on both platforms, and the top 200 app earns roughly half of that.
This is wonderful because this kind of revenue can sustain a lot of companies and studios -- and it does not take ad revenue models into account.
This is after apple/android 30% cut.
This is wonderful because this kind of revenue can sustain a lot of companies and studios -- and it does not take ad revenue models into account.
This is after apple/android 30% cut.
"A lot of companies"? With 2+ million apps in each app store, the top 200 is still the top .01%. It does nothing to refute the idea that app store income follows a power law distribution.
Even if being in the top 5% was sustainable, that's still a far cry away from the rest of the computing field.
Even if being in the top 5% was sustainable, that's still a far cry away from the rest of the computing field.
"I hear this myth"
With it happening to more and more developers, you can't really call it a myth. You can say that maybe their stuff wasn't really that good, or that they're an outlier, but you can't call it a myth.
With it happening to more and more developers, you can't really call it a myth. You can say that maybe their stuff wasn't really that good, or that they're an outlier, but you can't call it a myth.
As the number of developers grows, so does the number of failure stories. That tells you nothing about the proportion of developers that are failing.
Success is based on market presence, knowing what you are doing, ability, and luck (and other things). With a lot of developers, many of them failing, the threshold of success is really high. That tends to say to me, avoid.
There is also the problem of other people engaging in the sunk cost fallacy. If your competitors keep throwing good money after bad that tends thrash your business as well. Problem because there is always a greater fool with more money than you.
There is also the problem of other people engaging in the sunk cost fallacy. If your competitors keep throwing good money after bad that tends thrash your business as well. Problem because there is always a greater fool with more money than you.
>not only the top .1%
>look at the Top 200
There are more than 200,000 apps out there.
>look at the Top 200
There are more than 200,000 apps out there.
True, but this tell you nothing about percentage of profitable companies versus the number of companies who make games full time. Most games are not made by fulltime mobile dev companies doing so as their sole income.
And my point with the top 200 was that that's way beyond profitability for a small studio. None of our apps are currently in the Top 1000 grossing (I don't think).
And my point with the top 200 was that that's way beyond profitability for a small studio. None of our apps are currently in the Top 1000 grossing (I don't think).
True, though they're not all games.
Games is the biggest category. http://www.pocketgamer.biz/metrics/app-store/ says there are over 500,000 games active now.
How many of these games are made by full time salaried studios?
So would you say there is no middle-ground for new developers? It seems what you're saying is that people with an already locked-in user base continue to thrive while newcomer apps are crowded out, regardless of quality.
Hmm, interesting question. I would say it's just rarer to make a sustainable business from it with no experience and existing users today, because you have no room for error or experimentation.
For example it took us 5 failures before we figured out what worked. Unless you're rich or have very understanding investors, you just won't get 5 opportunities to fail today.
Despite that, I still think anyone can make it to a sustainable small studio if they understand the app store market and their demo and have the resources to execute their plan.
For example it took us 5 failures before we figured out what worked. Unless you're rich or have very understanding investors, you just won't get 5 opportunities to fail today.
Despite that, I still think anyone can make it to a sustainable small studio if they understand the app store market and their demo and have the resources to execute their plan.
Are you sure it's 5%? Apparently 250,000 games shipped for iOS last year. If true you're suggesting of those quarter of a million games 12500 of them are making enough for a small studio? I have a feeling that's a pretty high number but I have no evidence to back it up. 1% would be still be 2500 games and even that seems high.
I certainly haven't looked at 2500 games in the last year, probably not more than 100 if that (then again I'm not a the target consumer so I have no idea how many games people look at). Still 2500 games (1%) is over 6 games per day.
I certainly haven't looked at 2500 games in the last year, probably not more than 100 if that (then again I'm not a the target consumer so I have no idea how many games people look at). Still 2500 games (1%) is over 6 games per day.
Not game-related, but in the "app utility" space, there's still a lot of room to grow if you're creative and can actually build tools that enhance people's lives. We've done 6 figures the last couple years on that alone.
If you don't have a freemium game (I strongly dislike that business model), I would love to know what you're working on
EDIT: Nevermind, think I found it down below: http://www.bmcm.co/
EDIT: Nevermind, think I found it down below: http://www.bmcm.co/
Care to share a link to your games?
Search his username on github and it will tell you his dev studio name. You can then google his dev studio and find out his niche.
[deleted]
> top 100
> middle ground
pick one.
> middle ground
pick one.
Weird, I was a die hard mac developer (since 1984), and I immediately stopped when iOS came out with the app store. Like, stopped /dead/.
The reason I could be a Mac Developer was the small pond; There wasn't a LOT of work, but there was enough for good people, and it paid well. On balance I /never/ developed anything for windows, because of the 'tree vs forest' problem : Even if you are REALLY fantastically good, there are so many people on the market that you can't possibly stand out.
And that's why I never even wrote a single iOS app, even tho i was a wiz at ObjC and OSX (Imagine a Classic MacOS dev thrown together with a UNIX wiz, and that's me); it was guaranteed to bring in the 'forest' to OSX as well, and make any 'edge' more or less pointless.
Also, from what I've seen, if anyone comes out with a nice app/game, there's a dozen or more group of people who will throw their dev team at copying it immediately, diluting any hope of revenue. It's these guys business model after all, you just can't win, and it's not like you can defend your IP anyway.
So, 2016, I wonder what took people so long to realize it was all doomed but for a tiny fraction of apps.
The reason I could be a Mac Developer was the small pond; There wasn't a LOT of work, but there was enough for good people, and it paid well. On balance I /never/ developed anything for windows, because of the 'tree vs forest' problem : Even if you are REALLY fantastically good, there are so many people on the market that you can't possibly stand out.
And that's why I never even wrote a single iOS app, even tho i was a wiz at ObjC and OSX (Imagine a Classic MacOS dev thrown together with a UNIX wiz, and that's me); it was guaranteed to bring in the 'forest' to OSX as well, and make any 'edge' more or less pointless.
Also, from what I've seen, if anyone comes out with a nice app/game, there's a dozen or more group of people who will throw their dev team at copying it immediately, diluting any hope of revenue. It's these guys business model after all, you just can't win, and it's not like you can defend your IP anyway.
So, 2016, I wonder what took people so long to realize it was all doomed but for a tiny fraction of apps.
I'm not sure I understand your position. The iOS platform has probably made more indie dev millionaires than any other platform in history. And countless others making a living, or make a few bucks off side projects. Or are employed by app companies.
So yeah, the amount of money attracts a lot of competition, and no, its not easy figuring out marketing and distribution. Most of us fail, but that's really just the nature of entrepreneurship.
If you choose not to participate on a platform that generates billions of dollars annually, I suppose thats on your choice, and you could be correct that it is a waste of time for most people. But what is the cost of being a software developer who ignores this giant wave of mobile device adoption? You can't succeed if you don't give yourself a chance to succeed.
So yeah, the amount of money attracts a lot of competition, and no, its not easy figuring out marketing and distribution. Most of us fail, but that's really just the nature of entrepreneurship.
If you choose not to participate on a platform that generates billions of dollars annually, I suppose thats on your choice, and you could be correct that it is a waste of time for most people. But what is the cost of being a software developer who ignores this giant wave of mobile device adoption? You can't succeed if you don't give yourself a chance to succeed.
> I'm not sure I understand your position. The iOS platform has probably made more indie dev millionaires than any other platform in history.
I think the assertion is something along the lines of that being possible because more indie devs are on that platform than ever existed before. Sure, there's a lot that made it big, but so many are in the pool that it's still a relatively minuscule chance.
I think the assertion is something along the lines of that being possible because more indie devs are on that platform than ever existed before. Sure, there's a lot that made it big, but so many are in the pool that it's still a relatively minuscule chance.
I suppose that makes logical sense. But I don't know of any platforms or markets where the proportion of risk to reward is much better. And if that opportunity was much better, economics dictates that it eventually would draw in more competition until risk-reward became par with any other market. No free lunches out there.
The whole point of the article is the the proportion of risk to reward is non-existent on the platform.
The unlucky developer will LOSE money by releasing their apps. The average developer might break even or make a ridiculously small amount. Only at the very top/lucky end will you get projects (that due to social media, word of mouth or just random luck) that nets between decent to good money.
The unlucky developer will LOSE money by releasing their apps. The average developer might break even or make a ridiculously small amount. Only at the very top/lucky end will you get projects (that due to social media, word of mouth or just random luck) that nets between decent to good money.
Most people enter game development because of passion rather than risk-reward. So the market is distorted and will stay that way.
The entire reason indie devs were making so much money in 2008-2009 was due to the mismatch between a wealthy customer base demanding apps for their new iPhones and the tiny ObjC-competent developer community at the time.
Now that everyone and their dog knows ObjC or Swift, plus the fact that most mobile problems are solved, the easy money is long gone.
Now that everyone and their dog knows ObjC or Swift, plus the fact that most mobile problems are solved, the easy money is long gone.
Weird - so you were uniquely position to capitalize on the growth period, but because you predicted that it would ebb a decade later, you decided not to take part?
After 20 years working on the same platform maybe he didn't want to go into that fight, knowing the eventual outcome anyway.
I have seen that quite often with my ex-colleague. Some people have been working on the company for ages, solving issues in the same business realm and just at the beginning of the next big thing in the company, they decide it is time to go someplace else.
I used to think they were just afraid they could not compete, or were technically rusty. With many more years in the industry, I understand that the most likely reason is that they didn't want to commit to another round of the same bullshit with new shiny tech on top of it and they simply needed some fresh air.
We are lucky to be employed in an industry where you can still say fuck it and find something else to do instead.
I have seen that quite often with my ex-colleague. Some people have been working on the company for ages, solving issues in the same business realm and just at the beginning of the next big thing in the company, they decide it is time to go someplace else.
I used to think they were just afraid they could not compete, or were technically rusty. With many more years in the industry, I understand that the most likely reason is that they didn't want to commit to another round of the same bullshit with new shiny tech on top of it and they simply needed some fresh air.
We are lucky to be employed in an industry where you can still say fuck it and find something else to do instead.
Yes, because I'm an engineer, not a gambler or a marketer. In that time, I also saw OSX become more and more iOS like, with fisher-price grade APIs replacing old, working ones, etc.
Quite frankly I still compile my old stuff now and then, but I have no regrets leaving it all for the hipsters to fight over.
Quite frankly I still compile my old stuff now and then, but I have no regrets leaving it all for the hipsters to fight over.
I can definitely see where you're coming from, but I would have still gambled if I had been in your position :)
I'm curious what OSX APIs you saw being replaced?
While not the person to whom the question was directed, I'd offer that the move from QuickTime to AVFoundation (taken directly from iOS) & friends (CoreMedia, CMIO) was one such example. Core Media I/O was released a few years ago to replace vdig and/or sequence grabber IIRC. Despite being released a few years back, the only documentation available for CMIO is a sample project. AVFoundation was limited in terms of codec support relative to QuickTime offering only support for built-in codes. Just as an example. Of course QuickTime had no 64-bit future so Apple had to do something but it was and still is a bit of a mess years down the road.
Are you kidding?
AVFoundation is in nearly every way superior to QuickTime, minus the fact that you couldn't make ref movies with it until El Capitan.
QuickTime's API sucks in comparison.
Source: I write a video editor for macOS.
AVFoundation is in nearly every way superior to QuickTime, minus the fact that you couldn't make ref movies with it until El Capitan.
QuickTime's API sucks in comparison.
Source: I write a video editor for macOS.
Not kidding at all. There was a lot of noise during the transition on various mailing lists, as I recall. Even as an end-user the issue presented quite a few problems. While AVFoundation is generally a better API it remains less capable than the QuickTime umbrella was. Again refer to the functionality provided by vDig and Sequencer APIs. A simple case: try to slap together a video mixing app sometime that takes input from the camera or other source, processes some effects on it, and dumps the output back as pseudo device that can be used by other apps. Unless things have changed drastically the last time I looked into the matter, such a thing isn't possible within the constraints of AVFoundation itself. You have to resort to the essentially undocumented CoreMedia IO API. Apple does provide similar functionality for other types of devices at a higher level i.e. scanners, digital cameras via some other API I can't recall off the top of my head at the moment. =]
I think it's possible that the "Technology adoption life cycle" can be applied to app development. With iOS you were in a unique position to be an "early adopter" getting tons of early exposure on the app store. If you were to try today you would not get much at all.
i don't know what to make of this. so you correctly predicted that 5-10 years of lurcrative sales in a closed system didnt feel right to you because you were a big fish in a pond that woud become larger, so you stopped /dead/ and did what? again, I am not trying to be rude, just trying to figure out what provided a better opportunity cost and was more interesting for you to work on that you gave up 20-30 years in the mac ecosystem?
Out of curiosity, what did you do instead of developing for Apple platforms?
Well, I had a parallel career as low level unix/linux/embedded development, so I went full on on that, and I couldn't be happier really; that ALSO has picked up a lot, and since it's not 'sexy' and technically challenging it's still a bit self-walled gardened...
I feel it's worth pointing out this isn't just some blog by any old indie development studio. This is a blog by Jeff Minter. The man practically invented home computer gaming. I was buying his games with my allowance 35 years ago, because they were great. And I still buy them today, because they are still great. If Jeff Minter can't make the App Store work then no-one can. (Although he probably could have done if he had been willing to make crappy games with in app purchase rather than make good games. )
> If Jeff Minter can't make the App Store work then no-one can.
As a counterpoint I grew up on no small amount of Jeff Minter games, lost more hours to Tempest 2000 on the godawful Jaguar than one should admit to in polite company, and have downloaded almost all of Llamasoft's iOS games due mostly to the fawning reviews in Toucharcade and played them for not all that long because -- frankly -- they are simply not very good. They aren't bad games but they certainly don't stand out among the hundreds of games I've tried for iOS.
The comparison he makes in this blog post between the income of (a) games he independently released on iOS and (b) a game Sony paid him to make for the PSVita but was shut down from release on other platforms because it too closely copied T2K is beyond disingenuous.
As a counterpoint I grew up on no small amount of Jeff Minter games, lost more hours to Tempest 2000 on the godawful Jaguar than one should admit to in polite company, and have downloaded almost all of Llamasoft's iOS games due mostly to the fawning reviews in Toucharcade and played them for not all that long because -- frankly -- they are simply not very good. They aren't bad games but they certainly don't stand out among the hundreds of games I've tried for iOS.
The comparison he makes in this blog post between the income of (a) games he independently released on iOS and (b) a game Sony paid him to make for the PSVita but was shut down from release on other platforms because it too closely copied T2K is beyond disingenuous.
So the reality is that even if you're a semi-famous developer who has a practically guaranteed revenue and media coverage from your fans, it still isn't enough. You need to make a game that competes on quality with the studios that spend $millions on their apps.
Thats not a very promising proposition to anyone considering making a game.
Thats not a very promising proposition to anyone considering making a game.
> So the reality is that even if you're a semi-famous developer who has a practically guaranteed revenue and media coverage from your fans, it still isn't enough. You need to make a game that competes on quality
Yes
> with the studios that spend $millions on their apps.
No, there are plenty of studios that compete on quality without spending millions.
Yes
> with the studios that spend $millions on their apps.
No, there are plenty of studios that compete on quality without spending millions.
> You need to make a game that competes on quality with the studios that spend $millions on their apps.
No, for example Crossy Road or Flappy Bird made some good money with a minimal team and minimal investment.
Not $millions like those studios, but also the creators didn't spend $millions in marketing and assets.
> Thats not a very promising proposition to anyone considering making a game.
Risks.
That's why most people find a job and not make games for the AppStore/Play Store in their room.
No, for example Crossy Road or Flappy Bird made some good money with a minimal team and minimal investment.
Not $millions like those studios, but also the creators didn't spend $millions in marketing and assets.
> Thats not a very promising proposition to anyone considering making a game.
Risks.
That's why most people find a job and not make games for the AppStore/Play Store in their room.
> No, for example Crossy Road or Flappy Bird made some good money with a minimal team and minimal investment.
Could describe a lottery ticket win the same way.
Could describe a lottery ticket win the same way.
I thought the point of the parent comment was that the quality of his games has gone down.
Sort of. I wouldn't say the quality went down so much as what would was a great game in 1983 turned out to be meh in 2013. Also the level of polish in Txk (the "1000 x revenue" PS Vita game) vs any of the iOS releases is pretty stark.
I love Jeff Minter, and have bought a bunch of his games on iOS. But I'm not sure he really embraced the limitations and controls of touchscreen devices. The games I have feel like they would have been much more fun on a large screen with a joystick.
The amazing thing to me is that at WWDC, Tim Cook (I think that's who announced it) seemed genuinely thrilled that there are over 2,000,000 apps for iOS. So sad and useless. You could hear the barely contained horror of the assembled developers. iOS has become a victim of its own success.
I guess the market will eventually sort it out, but when? 2030?
I guess the market will eventually sort it out, but when? 2030?
Usually it takes one turn or so of the technology cycle. Basically the market is poisoned as long as it's too competitive for customers to really differentiate between alternatives. Developers realize this, and stop paying attention to the market. Adjacent technologies (eg. iOS platform libraries, hardware capabilities, backend systems, market penetration) continue to improve, but nobody notices their improvement because everybody's given up on the space as unprofitable. Eventually somebody combines 2-3 of these new emerging technologies together in a way that makes a big difference to consumers, their growth rate starts to look like a hockey-stick, and they get bought for a billion dollars or so (if they weren't already in a big company). Then people start paying attention again, you get another gold rush, etc.
We went through this with the web between 2000-2004. All the money-oriented folks gave it up for dead with the dot-com crash, a number of tinkerers started to move in and play with it, and eventually we ended up with the GMail/GoogleMaps/Flickr/Facebook/YouTube/Reddit/AJAX/Rails explosion around 2004-2005. So usually 3-4 years.
We went through this with the web between 2000-2004. All the money-oriented folks gave it up for dead with the dot-com crash, a number of tinkerers started to move in and play with it, and eventually we ended up with the GMail/GoogleMaps/Flickr/Facebook/YouTube/Reddit/AJAX/Rails explosion around 2004-2005. So usually 3-4 years.
When do you think those 3-4 years started for this bubble?
For iOS, probably last year (2015). Assuming Apple doesn't massively lose consumer marketshare (certainly a possibility in hardware, just ask Motorola), indie development on macOS/iOS/watchOS/tvOS will likely become viable again between 2018-2020.
This is an interesting time in computing history, though, because there are multiple overlapping tech cycles and multiple big companies driving them. During the web interregnum, the dominant tech company was Microsoft, and Microsoft basically completely controlled the channel to the customer. So we just weren't getting fundamental innovations in the browser - there was XmlHttpRequest and hidden iframes that sparked a lot of Web 2.0, and there was Flash from Adobe, but that was largely it. Today, we have innovation in cloud computing from Amazon and Google; we have innovation in programming languages from Mozilla, Jetbrains, and Apple; we have innovation in big-data tools from the Apache foundation and others; we have innovation in machine-learning from Google and a number of startups; and we have innovation in computing devices from Apple, Google, Pebble, Oculus, and a large number of other companies. So while the Apple ecosystem itself may face a dot-com bust, there could easily be a killer app brewing in technologies outside of the pure iOS ecosystem that uses an iOS app to deliver its service to the customer.
This is an interesting time in computing history, though, because there are multiple overlapping tech cycles and multiple big companies driving them. During the web interregnum, the dominant tech company was Microsoft, and Microsoft basically completely controlled the channel to the customer. So we just weren't getting fundamental innovations in the browser - there was XmlHttpRequest and hidden iframes that sparked a lot of Web 2.0, and there was Flash from Adobe, but that was largely it. Today, we have innovation in cloud computing from Amazon and Google; we have innovation in programming languages from Mozilla, Jetbrains, and Apple; we have innovation in big-data tools from the Apache foundation and others; we have innovation in machine-learning from Google and a number of startups; and we have innovation in computing devices from Apple, Google, Pebble, Oculus, and a large number of other companies. So while the Apple ecosystem itself may face a dot-com bust, there could easily be a killer app brewing in technologies outside of the pure iOS ecosystem that uses an iOS app to deliver its service to the customer.
It does seem utterly tone deaf to celebrate this fact at a developer conference but they seem to do it every year.
Why? From Apples standpoint it means developers are continuing to keep iOS popular.
And honestly developers, individual and companies, are peer pressure driven. As long as others make it a popular platform, they'll develop for it.
And honestly developers, individual and companies, are peer pressure driven. As long as others make it a popular platform, they'll develop for it.
From Apples standpoint yes it's great, I think developers would prefer to hear facts such as about how many users are active on the store, distribution of downloads, median number of downloads per app and revenue. It's like a boss holding a meeting to discuss how great his/her own bonus is this year.
It's more like the boss showing off the stock price. It gets everyone excited because the company is doing 'well.'
The only thing your metrics would do at WWDC would be to cement that unless you're the top app in your category, you're not making money, and Apple knows this. As long as they're super popular though, developers will keep trying.
Also, why would Apple do anything at their event other than make themselves look great.
The only thing your metrics would do at WWDC would be to cement that unless you're the top app in your category, you're not making money, and Apple knows this. As long as they're super popular though, developers will keep trying.
Also, why would Apple do anything at their event other than make themselves look great.
Saying there are 2 million apps for iOS doesn't mean it is popular for app buyers. It just means it is popular for app developers.
The market may never sort it out. Apple doesn't need to fix the app market to make money, and they're really the only one who can.
So unless they start allowing third party stores, nothing will change.
So unless they start allowing third party stores, nothing will change.
> So unless they start allowing third party stores, nothing will change.
What would a 3rd party store do to make profitability? Best case thy take zero revenue and you get 30% more money - from TFA it doesn't sound like 30% or even 300% would have made a difference....
What would a 3rd party store do to make profitability? Best case thy take zero revenue and you get 30% more money - from TFA it doesn't sound like 30% or even 300% would have made a difference....
A third-party store could do a lot of things differently other than just lower the revenue split — you could have a recommendation engine like Amazon, or you could add curation, or you could change the way search works, or any number of other (possibly crazier) things.
Heck, you could literally just copy Steam in every respect and you'd end up with something significantly different from the current App Store.
Heck, you could literally just copy Steam in every respect and you'd end up with something significantly different from the current App Store.
Different stores would allow competition on store policies and inventory. Would a store that differentiates by disallowing certain in-app purchasing strategies by useful? It would to me, because I don't want to support companies that use certain sales strategies.
By disallowing certain IAP tactics, the price of an app might rise to meet the required profit margin. Would you be willing to pay more in that case?
> By disallowing certain IAP tactics, the price of an app might rise to meet the required profit margin.
To the degree the market will bear that price, sure. I suspect we would see both a raise in prices (of course), but also a realignment at the studios as to what the expected profit margin is.
> Would you be willing to pay more in that case?
If I could demo it to confirm it was worth the cost, or there was a fairly thorough review, then yes. Even if the "demo" version was ad-supported (and/or limited in some other fashion), that would be fine with me, I could update to the ad-free paid version with less permissions required if it was good. The problem is that they've discovered that ad-supported doesn't hold a candle to in-app purchases powered by game resource scarcity. That gameplay doesn't generally translate well to a paid version (unlimited gameplay resources makes it no fun), and it's too much work to expect them to essentially make two different games.
At this point I've basically given up on most app store apps. I do occasionally put the odd game on there from Humble Bundle though, and those are ones I pay for. You could say I'm getting a really good deal because I'm paying $5-15 for 5-10 games each time, but since I generally only play one of them...
To the degree the market will bear that price, sure. I suspect we would see both a raise in prices (of course), but also a realignment at the studios as to what the expected profit margin is.
> Would you be willing to pay more in that case?
If I could demo it to confirm it was worth the cost, or there was a fairly thorough review, then yes. Even if the "demo" version was ad-supported (and/or limited in some other fashion), that would be fine with me, I could update to the ad-free paid version with less permissions required if it was good. The problem is that they've discovered that ad-supported doesn't hold a candle to in-app purchases powered by game resource scarcity. That gameplay doesn't generally translate well to a paid version (unlimited gameplay resources makes it no fun), and it's too much work to expect them to essentially make two different games.
At this point I've basically given up on most app store apps. I do occasionally put the odd game on there from Humble Bundle though, and those are ones I pay for. You could say I'm getting a really good deal because I'm paying $5-15 for 5-10 games each time, but since I generally only play one of them...
Only in the case of professionally developed apps. There's tons of free (as in beer) apps out there that I just can't find because there's no way to filter out the IAP products.
Personally, I'd just be satisfied if they made a new category FREE+IAP and then we could search for and browse genuinely free stuff.
Personally, I'd just be satisfied if they made a new category FREE+IAP and then we could search for and browse genuinely free stuff.
That's like counting the quality of the code from how many lines of code there are
I think we could send a huge message if at next year's WWDC everyone goes silent when they announce 2.5 million apps - or whatever it will be.
As a user who frequently opened the AppStore just to browse, discover new apps, and who used to buy a lot, I've just stopped opening the AppStore over the last three-four years. Browsing and discovery has become too hard for me, and I feel like they're pushing games too hard.
I used to buy a lot of games as well, but often I was just in the mood to look for some neat applications. If I could somehow filter out all games and just browse apps across all categories, I might still browse the AppStore regularly and still buy apps (including games, when I'm in the mood for that). The end result now is that they've lost a customer who used to buy new apps every week.
I used to buy a lot of games as well, but often I was just in the mood to look for some neat applications. If I could somehow filter out all games and just browse apps across all categories, I might still browse the AppStore regularly and still buy apps (including games, when I'm in the mood for that). The end result now is that they've lost a customer who used to buy new apps every week.
The AppStore has a category listing.
Of course category search is not going to work for everybody with 2 million entries.
If you want to search the games for genre, price, etc. go to toucharcade.com
Of course category search is not going to work for everybody with 2 million entries.
If you want to search the games for genre, price, etc. go to toucharcade.com
How is it that Sony PS4/Vita stores can sell these same indie games for $20 a pop? Sony pushes these games hard and gives every one of them a fair amount of free marketing. They also celebrate their game developers by writing about them on their blogs and press-releases.
The Apple App store in its current iteration is just mentally exhausting. Everytime I open it up I'm presented with a new grid of app icons and no context to why I should care.
To further detriment, Apple has trained the market to stay away from 3rd party curation of iOS apps in any kind of useful way. So we're left only with a gateway of lists. That's nice, but not worth my time.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but ultimately an indie game has limited replay value because they're just so small in scope, but they're usually a lot of fun. So a one time upfront payment to enjoy for a few weeks is a great business strategy I think.
Edit: Not to sound like I'm bashing Apple here, as I don't think the Google Play store does it any better.
The Apple App store in its current iteration is just mentally exhausting. Everytime I open it up I'm presented with a new grid of app icons and no context to why I should care.
To further detriment, Apple has trained the market to stay away from 3rd party curation of iOS apps in any kind of useful way. So we're left only with a gateway of lists. That's nice, but not worth my time.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but ultimately an indie game has limited replay value because they're just so small in scope, but they're usually a lot of fun. So a one time upfront payment to enjoy for a few weeks is a great business strategy I think.
Edit: Not to sound like I'm bashing Apple here, as I don't think the Google Play store does it any better.
I'm a lifelong gamer who's entered a bit of a rut these past few years. I would love to pay to play great apps on my phone. But I don't have the slightest clue as to how to find them. The top grossing lists are all complete F2P junk, and there's nothing close to the cottage industry that's built up around PC and console gaming. Every time I try to go look up good mobile games I get hit with lots of dodgy top-10 compilation linkfarm spam sites. I don't even know where to go to find the best mobile games, and every so often after investing another ten fruitless minutes of research (into what should be fun!) I'll give up all over again.
Contrast with my recent gaming experiences on the PC -- Civ V, The Witcher 3, Kerbal Space Program, and Faster than Light. All excellent games well worth their price that I was able to find out about easily. I don't know if anything comparable exists on mobile gaming, or if it's all just shit, nor do I even know how to find out. Back in the day Sony and Nintendo owned and published official magazines that were excellent sources of finding out about games, and many other non-official rags filled any potential void left over (I'll forever look back fondly on my afternoons after school spent reading issues of PC Gamer, PSM, and EGM cover-to-cover). Nothing comparable exists for mobile gaming, and Apple and Google could be doing a much better job of curating their gaming content.
Contrast with my recent gaming experiences on the PC -- Civ V, The Witcher 3, Kerbal Space Program, and Faster than Light. All excellent games well worth their price that I was able to find out about easily. I don't know if anything comparable exists on mobile gaming, or if it's all just shit, nor do I even know how to find out. Back in the day Sony and Nintendo owned and published official magazines that were excellent sources of finding out about games, and many other non-official rags filled any potential void left over (I'll forever look back fondly on my afternoons after school spent reading issues of PC Gamer, PSM, and EGM cover-to-cover). Nothing comparable exists for mobile gaming, and Apple and Google could be doing a much better job of curating their gaming content.
Actually if that's what you want I'd advise you to buy a windows 10 tablet. They run old (and gog.com) games and come with decent mouse emulation and actually last 4-5 hours on battery. Taking games like Spelunky on a 400 gram tablet with you for on the train/plane is nice.
Even something like Civ 4 is playable.
Even something like Civ 4 is playable.
If I were going to get an entire dedicated system for mobile gaming, I think a PS Vita or Nintendo 3DS XL would be a better choice -- they're both way cheaper, have dedicated controls for gaming, and have large libraries of purpose-built games. But I'm just not interested in more devices, especially ones I'd have to remember to charge and bring with me. I already have a smartphone, several desktops, two laptops, a Kindle, and an Android tablet. It's enough already.
Some renew your office subscription and get you excel updates etc for another year, and cost like 20-30$ more than just the office subscription itself.
I don't use any of that stuff either though. I'm a big GNU/Linux guy (at home and at work), and I exclusively use Windows for gaming. Office 365 subscriptions hold no value for me.
Just curious: how the heck do you play Spelunky on a touchscreen? That game is hard enough on keyboard or gamepad, I can't imagine playing it on a touch screen with any degree of success.
Actually bought a Vita specifically for Spelunky, plays beautifully the D-pad is probably the best I've ever used (and I've owned most handhelds/consoles)
TxK, Persona 4, Binding of Isaac, etc were the icing on a great cake.
TxK, Persona 4, Binding of Isaac, etc were the icing on a great cake.
Apple has fantastically bungled the management of their app store. It could have been a lively and creative ecosystem of indie developers but instead it's just a trash pile of exploitative junk. They will pay the price for their negligence as apps become less and less of a differentiator between their extremely expensive phones and much cheaper but equally capable Android devices. I believe we're seeing this already.
And their iPad "pro" initiative is DOA because everybody knows you can't make money selling productivity apps on the iPad.
Getting into the app business in 2016 is a mistake.
And their iPad "pro" initiative is DOA because everybody knows you can't make money selling productivity apps on the iPad.
Getting into the app business in 2016 is a mistake.
...which is why they just introduced subscription pricing for productivity apps.
This may, or may not, make a big difference for serious apps on the iPad.
This may, or may not, make a big difference for serious apps on the iPad.
Not to mention that it is nearly impossible to glean anything about the app/game from its ratings, if any are available at all. It truly is a confusing mess.
I deeply regret the day I got an iPad for my son instead of an Android device. At least ratings aren't censored or hidden there.
I deeply regret the day I got an iPad for my son instead of an Android device. At least ratings aren't censored or hidden there.
I recently tried for about 10 minutes to find a game that met my criteria, using the iOS version of the App Store. I wasn’t asking for much (at least, so I thought): I wanted a game that could be purchased once (no In-App Purchases), and I wanted a particular category. The search was practically futile; every single match was In-App Purchases. I even decided to stop caring about the category and it was the same.
The browsing experience was almost unbelievably inefficient; I found myself scrolling through handfuls of games when I should have been able to rule out dozens. Apple likes to show you “only the icon” most of the time, which is really quite a terrible way to browse; you keep having to go in, out, in out, to learn anything about what’s in the list.
I ended up buying nothing at all because I couldn’t even tell if there were games that supported buy-once without any of the usual bullshit gem-buying tactics. Despite having simple goals, the App Store just failed me.
The browsing experience was almost unbelievably inefficient; I found myself scrolling through handfuls of games when I should have been able to rule out dozens. Apple likes to show you “only the icon” most of the time, which is really quite a terrible way to browse; you keep having to go in, out, in out, to learn anything about what’s in the list.
I ended up buying nothing at all because I couldn’t even tell if there were games that supported buy-once without any of the usual bullshit gem-buying tactics. Despite having simple goals, the App Store just failed me.
There are games like those you're looking for but they use In-app purchases (IAP):
Games with ads and that are incomplete, where you purchase the "complete game with no ads" with a single purchase.
So it's like a demo that you upgrade to full version.
The problem is that because there's no "demo" functionality in the app store, they get labeled as games with IAP which turns many people, me including, away.
Before IAP, there were Free and Full versions of the same game (with and without ads and other perks), like Angry Birds and others.
If they made a "demo" category where the game has ads and fewer levels, or limited play time that you could upgrade to full game without ads, I'd be much happier as a dev and as a consumer.
Games with ads and that are incomplete, where you purchase the "complete game with no ads" with a single purchase.
So it's like a demo that you upgrade to full version.
The problem is that because there's no "demo" functionality in the app store, they get labeled as games with IAP which turns many people, me including, away.
Before IAP, there were Free and Full versions of the same game (with and without ads and other perks), like Angry Birds and others.
If they made a "demo" category where the game has ads and fewer levels, or limited play time that you could upgrade to full game without ads, I'd be much happier as a dev and as a consumer.
> The problem is that because there's no "demo" functionality in the app store, they get labeled as games with IAP which turns many people, me including, away.
This would make no difference, people would just play the demo then move on to the next game. There are 2,000,000 apps in the store.... if your title is any good someone will clone it and put a free version up anyway.
This would make no difference, people would just play the demo then move on to the next game. There are 2,000,000 apps in the store.... if your title is any good someone will clone it and put a free version up anyway.
For what it's worth, if you click on the "games" button on the featured apps page, then look around for "buy once and play", you can find a collection of games without in-app purchases. I know that doesn't fix the overall issue, but it helps a bit.
What type of game are you looking for? Do you believe there's a untapped market?
I do. All I want is something like boxcar2d.com that runs on iOS. It exists on Android, but the web version is Flash and even the HTML5 clone is far too slow in mobile Safari.
I like leaving it running while I work on other things, checking on it like a fish tank.
I like leaving it running while I work on other things, checking on it like a fish tank.
So your problem has nothing to do with search, but it's simply a game that isn't available on the AppStore.
What did you expect?
The search to port the game for you?
What did you expect?
The search to port the game for you?
You do realize that my comment was in a reply to someone asking what games a person would like to see developed, and in particular, what games are actually missing from the app store, right? Nothing to do with being able to find them. The idea is that they don't exist at all. So yes. You're completely right.
Yeah it's a challenging market.
Just to add another data point, we're small indie (games) developer, we spent over a year on our first title with very little marketing budget and these are our sales figures from our launch: http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/YacineSalmi/20160519/273030/E...
In short, decent sales but not enough to recoup our costs. Still, we never expected that we would hit gold on the first try. I think to be as sustainable on iOS you either have a successful niche product or a collection of product, with each release building a further revenue stream.
Just to add another data point, we're small indie (games) developer, we spent over a year on our first title with very little marketing budget and these are our sales figures from our launch: http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/YacineSalmi/20160519/273030/E...
In short, decent sales but not enough to recoup our costs. Still, we never expected that we would hit gold on the first try. I think to be as sustainable on iOS you either have a successful niche product or a collection of product, with each release building a further revenue stream.
That game looks pretty neat. You just sold a copy :) But it's a game I've never heard of before, and I'm pretty good about checking the new games lists on the App Store each week. So I think the takeaway from this shouldn't be that premium games (is $2.99 really "premium"?) don't work, but rather that you can't rely on free marketing to sell your game. Once a game falls off the lists, it's pretty hard for people to stumble across it unless they're looking for it specifically.
Thank you!
That's another problem, there are so many good games coming out on a weekly basis, it's hard enough to stand out among those, let alone the 800 other games coming out every week.
We've experimented with various marketing ideas. Advertising is very challenging, especially when it costs more to acquire a user than we charge for the game. The F2P user acquisition market insanity has made this a complete non-starter. Press seems to have very little impact unless it's a big publication. So we're focusing on word of mouth and quality and a longer term outlook.
That's another problem, there are so many good games coming out on a weekly basis, it's hard enough to stand out among those, let alone the 800 other games coming out every week.
We've experimented with various marketing ideas. Advertising is very challenging, especially when it costs more to acquire a user than we charge for the game. The F2P user acquisition market insanity has made this a complete non-starter. Press seems to have very little impact unless it's a big publication. So we're focusing on word of mouth and quality and a longer term outlook.
At $3 a pop there isn't much margin to pay for marketing either.
Leaving higher ARPU (free to pay) or viral customer acquisition. But yeh it's a tough market.
Leaving higher ARPU (free to pay) or viral customer acquisition. But yeh it's a tough market.
It's very very hard to make premium games on the App Store now. A typical top 25 premium game (which worldwide in Q1 were games like Five Nights at Freddy's or Scribblenauts Unlimited or Bloons TD 5 HD) earned about $300,000 in Q1 worldwide.
Top 25 game free to play game (which were games similar to Summoners War or Star Wars™: Galaxy of Heroes) earned about $15,000,000. There's a huge gap and this is apparent in what games actually gross a lot.
These are both iPhone only numbers.
Top 25 game free to play game (which were games similar to Summoners War or Star Wars™: Galaxy of Heroes) earned about $15,000,000. There's a huge gap and this is apparent in what games actually gross a lot.
These are both iPhone only numbers.
This is when you need to build on your experience and go back for another shot. Maybe try a free variant with IAP.
We had a similar run to you. Built http://www.hexiledgame.com/ and had great reviews and some flurries of downloads, but outside of features and basic press, it's hard to really get rolling. Our game was free with one optional IAP to unlock extra modes more quickly, remove ads, etc - I thought that was a reasonable middle ground.
If I was doing it over and wanted to make money, I'd spend more time on virality, incentives to keep people playing, and not cap the most a hardcore fan can spend on that single IAP we had.
The reality is that a paid game needs to get especially lucky to maintain features or word of mouth and see a serious return.
We had a similar run to you. Built http://www.hexiledgame.com/ and had great reviews and some flurries of downloads, but outside of features and basic press, it's hard to really get rolling. Our game was free with one optional IAP to unlock extra modes more quickly, remove ads, etc - I thought that was a reasonable middle ground.
If I was doing it over and wanted to make money, I'd spend more time on virality, incentives to keep people playing, and not cap the most a hardcore fan can spend on that single IAP we had.
The reality is that a paid game needs to get especially lucky to maintain features or word of mouth and see a serious return.
Please edit your comment and add http:// in front of the link so that HN will abbreviate it. Without that, your comment messes up the page width on mobile.
Fixed, thanks for the head's up.
It's often hard for indie developers without marketing budgets, but in the same vein the whole gaming market on iOS is doing tremendously well. Here's a high level snapshot of iPhone earning by country, month by month:
https://cloud.githubusercontent.com/assets/993499/16283312/2...
The industry grew a lot - surely driven by the most successful titles, but also for the longer tail of developers. More of the total revenue and earnings are captured by the top 100 publishers -- but still, even compared to 2012 or 2013, the 10000th biggest app is earning more due to the opening of all the new territories.
The game earning model moved from a hits based model, where you launch with lots of hype and reviews and generate a lot of earnings in the initial months to a model where long playing loyal players stick with the game over many months & years and monetize via longer term in app purchases. It's not possible to bring back 2010. We need to be ok with that and learn to engage users over longer timelines.
https://cloud.githubusercontent.com/assets/993499/16283312/2...
The industry grew a lot - surely driven by the most successful titles, but also for the longer tail of developers. More of the total revenue and earnings are captured by the top 100 publishers -- but still, even compared to 2012 or 2013, the 10000th biggest app is earning more due to the opening of all the new territories.
The game earning model moved from a hits based model, where you launch with lots of hype and reviews and generate a lot of earnings in the initial months to a model where long playing loyal players stick with the game over many months & years and monetize via longer term in app purchases. It's not possible to bring back 2010. We need to be ok with that and learn to engage users over longer timelines.
The problem is that games designed to "stick over many months & years and monetize the player" are generally garbage, as far as the quality of the actual game goes.
Of course these things are relative or subjective and what have you, but it's pretty rare for people who have a lot of experience playing games to seek out stuff on iOS because of the great quality of games there.
If you build a system that incentivizes garbage games, that's what you get, and well, that is what we have.
Fortunately if you are someone like me, who wants to make actual good games, there are still platforms where you can do that, and do quite decently money-wise. I am hoping those don't go away.
Of course these things are relative or subjective and what have you, but it's pretty rare for people who have a lot of experience playing games to seek out stuff on iOS because of the great quality of games there.
If you build a system that incentivizes garbage games, that's what you get, and well, that is what we have.
Fortunately if you are someone like me, who wants to make actual good games, there are still platforms where you can do that, and do quite decently money-wise. I am hoping those don't go away.
Jonathan, I would disagree about the generality of the games being generally garbage.
The parallel on the PC side of things of games that have recurring revenue sources lies in the spectrum of WoW / Dota 2 / TF2 / League of Legends to little known asian market MMOs where you buy xp boosts.
The top grossing games are played by a lot of users who play a lot. Similarly, the top titles on mobile have very repeatable revenue sources with high retention rates. I can't blame companies and businesses for investing in predictable revenue streams.
Now without a doubt there is a point of conflict between long user retention and addiction, and the drive to maximize LTV can be taken too far, but I don't think this is happening to most games. As an example, Farmville (2) is a well crafted experience in terms of mechanics, art style, pacing and progression for what it is trying to achieve. I can appreciate the work and thought that went into the game.
I can also similarly appreciate The Witness and I was happy to pay $40 for it. I appreciate the game for different reasons and different set of skills in game design and story telling and pacing of challenges. I love games all about gameplay -- heck, I spend time playing a pure maze puzzle game ( http://www.pathery.com/ ) that about 300 other people play. But this does not stop me from appreciating and respecting the game design work and decisions that went into making the mass market IAP driven games.
I might disagree with the long term reward-loop design of some of the titles, but I would not call them garbage.
The parallel on the PC side of things of games that have recurring revenue sources lies in the spectrum of WoW / Dota 2 / TF2 / League of Legends to little known asian market MMOs where you buy xp boosts.
The top grossing games are played by a lot of users who play a lot. Similarly, the top titles on mobile have very repeatable revenue sources with high retention rates. I can't blame companies and businesses for investing in predictable revenue streams.
Now without a doubt there is a point of conflict between long user retention and addiction, and the drive to maximize LTV can be taken too far, but I don't think this is happening to most games. As an example, Farmville (2) is a well crafted experience in terms of mechanics, art style, pacing and progression for what it is trying to achieve. I can appreciate the work and thought that went into the game.
I can also similarly appreciate The Witness and I was happy to pay $40 for it. I appreciate the game for different reasons and different set of skills in game design and story telling and pacing of challenges. I love games all about gameplay -- heck, I spend time playing a pure maze puzzle game ( http://www.pathery.com/ ) that about 300 other people play. But this does not stop me from appreciating and respecting the game design work and decisions that went into making the mass market IAP driven games.
I might disagree with the long term reward-loop design of some of the titles, but I would not call them garbage.
Depends on the user's definition of garbage. I have no interest in the games saturating the free-to-play ranks, but a lot of them looked very polished to me. Quality illustrations, very much "juiced", etc.
Garbage to me is the Flappy Bird clone with poorly sized graphics, ugly buttons and default fonts.
Garbage to me is the Flappy Bird clone with poorly sized graphics, ugly buttons and default fonts.
> The problem is that games designed to "stick over many months & years and monetize the player" are generally garbage, as far as the quality of the actual game goes.
It's what the kids want to play.
I don't think the author's games are much better.
It's what the kids want to play.
I don't think the author's games are much better.
Which platform is that? I don't see console as viable for a lone indie, and PC market is similar tbh (tho much better now with greenlight).
There are only so many combinations of the words [Lord|War|Clan|Battle|Fight|Clash|Of|Reign|King].
Aside some interesting comments here I find very true, my theory is that you should treat your game has a startup product: customers will not come, you have to chase them. And get them talk to their friends about your game. Just launching a game and making some marketing wont work. You need: feedback loop + word of mouth + growth.
I just thought I would just need to make a game and pay $99 a year.
Do you mean that's not enough?
(sarcasm)
Do you mean that's not enough?
(sarcasm)
The platform cratered with the dominance of pay to win games and the "freemium" model. This allowed the store to be cluttered with junk. I can't shop there, because I'm not sure what I am buying.
This loss of trust amongst consumers is what caused the original video games crash in the 80's. Nintendo's seal of quality is what restored consumer trust. Apple may need to get more aggressive about the App Store.
Well, they had a category (maybe still do) called "Pay once games" or something like that. Basically highlighting games that you paid for once, up front, like normal games, and that didn't have a bunch of IAP.
They also show on every single app whether or not it has IAP (and you can see what the IAP is with a tap), so you can do your own filtering when looking at the new games list if that's an important criteria.
But you often have to play the game for half an hour before you start running into really gross IAPs, though. If you want to find games that don't have those predatory game loops and IAPs, the only way seems to be to go outside of the app stores and find review sites - but no site can keep up with reviewing every game that gets released.
Usually the reviews on the app store itself are enough to tell if the IAP is particularly intrusive. I've skipped plenty of games after finding the reviews full of people complaining about it. Similarly, I've played some IAP games after app store reviews praised the game for making the IAP not intrusive (and the reviews were right).
I dunno, if you look at the list of IAPs offered, and see that most are for "gems" or "coins" or something like that, you can be pretty sure that they've got something up their sleeve.
Your opinion is valid, but there's plenty of people who thoroughly enjoy many of the games you've stereotyped as junk. I'm among them; some of them I find good reasons to pay for, and others I just enjoy the free experience. One man's junk is another man's treasure I guess. Stick to what you like; it's just for fun!
Pretty much this. They could have added better filters around things like "Cosmetic-only IAP" or "Ad Supported" or "No IAP whatsoever" but they did not.
Well, try your luck at Android or Consoles or PC.
Never noticied the AppStore was some kind of heaven where money rained.
Seriously, so much entitlement. If you want to make money selling games, you have to spend a lot in advertising, how much does Clash of Clans and etc spend? It's the rules, it always has been, what's the surprise? Maybe it worked for a couple of months out of novelity, but it doesn't work any more.
Get real, people.
And yes, it's free games with IAP the rules. Because they are designed for kids without credit cards that at most buy iTunes gift cards. And yes, it's jewel and candy games, because that's what there is for girls, which are 50% of the population that the "mainstream gaming" has abandoned.
Never noticied the AppStore was some kind of heaven where money rained.
Seriously, so much entitlement. If you want to make money selling games, you have to spend a lot in advertising, how much does Clash of Clans and etc spend? It's the rules, it always has been, what's the surprise? Maybe it worked for a couple of months out of novelity, but it doesn't work any more.
Get real, people.
And yes, it's free games with IAP the rules. Because they are designed for kids without credit cards that at most buy iTunes gift cards. And yes, it's jewel and candy games, because that's what there is for girls, which are 50% of the population that the "mainstream gaming" has abandoned.
The first part was a bit harsh, but you make a good point about games for girls. (my now 20 daughter plays a lot of console games, but hates "ugly" scenery)
I saw this article yesterday about how more and more apps have become abandoned:
https://techcrunch.com/2016/06/21/the-apple-app-store-gravey...
The App Store will keep growing but it won't be good if half the apps are abandoned.
https://techcrunch.com/2016/06/21/the-apple-app-store-gravey...
The App Store will keep growing but it won't be good if half the apps are abandoned.
Apple, goddamn. You had a potential major gaming platform on your hands – but almost 10 years later, we're stuck with $5-10 CPIs and store that doesn't even try to do anything with the long tail. Just open up Steam sometimes if you wonder how it should've been done.
I was looking for a proper English way to say this, but exactly; the long tail in the Appstore is nearly unrecoverable in the Appstore. And even outside it; I ran a review service (one that actually make enough to live on) for apps years ago and most (all on some sites) reviews are bought so they are skewed towards deep pockets. It stinks and I'm sorry I ever even did that.
That's because Apple failed miserably at creating any kind of community - the thing that helps the most with skewed reviews, lowest-denominator titles, and other trash like that.
Once again, I'm too lazy to explain this in detail; just look at Steam again.
Once again, I'm too lazy to explain this in detail; just look at Steam again.
I have a game that I made over a 4 day period on iOS and Android. It's not brining in much revenue, but it was a cool challenge. My game isn't really that great, but I haven't touched it in over a year as well as there is no motivation to keep working on it. Once too many bugs start showing up, I'll probably pull it from all 3 app stores.
Which one is it? I always find it interesting to see what someone can do in a short time.
- https://joeblau.com/orb/ - The idea was based on bullet time so when you're moving the Orb, time is passing, but when you pick your finger off of the screen, time pauses. The goal is to dodge all of the smaller black orbs as long as possible.
It's sad. You don't need to see income metrics to support this, just look at the quality of the games. I'm an avid consumer of iphone games and the quality of them has been getting worse and worse.
Really neat and creative games seems are gone and we're left with 'Qbert' and 'Bejeweled' clones being recommended as 'featured games'. Most of the great iOS shops seems to have left the market or have been drowned out in a sea of 'crapware'.
It seems that to be successful in this market you need to go back to advertising. Apple makes it very very hard to sort crap from quality, so you have to get your brand/name out there.
Really neat and creative games seems are gone and we're left with 'Qbert' and 'Bejeweled' clones being recommended as 'featured games'. Most of the great iOS shops seems to have left the market or have been drowned out in a sea of 'crapware'.
It seems that to be successful in this market you need to go back to advertising. Apple makes it very very hard to sort crap from quality, so you have to get your brand/name out there.
Wait a second:
" the first non-iOS game I did after spending two years on iOS, released on a Sony handheld that many describe as being “obscure”, generated literally thousands of times more income for us than two years and ten games on iOS with its potential billions of users."
What was the platform? I wonder if there is a strategy to be carved out making games for Windows 10, Linux mobile, etc.
" the first non-iOS game I did after spending two years on iOS, released on a Sony handheld that many describe as being “obscure”, generated literally thousands of times more income for us than two years and ten games on iOS with its potential billions of users."
What was the platform? I wonder if there is a strategy to be carved out making games for Windows 10, Linux mobile, etc.
Other replies have mentioned it's the Vita, but I have to mention the game is called TxK. It's the third version of Tempest 2000 I've played over the years and it's an amazing piece of work. I can hardly believe I've been playing this guy's games for almost 30 years now.
The Vita. A "dying" console. It's actually the best handheld gaming device I've ever owned.
[deleted]
I've seen other indie game developers say that they made decent money on the Vita: Vita owners are a small market, but they're very active and prepared to spend money.
"Better to be big fish in a small pond than a small fish in a big pond" type of thing. I seriously doubt that since you limit your growth.
How do you see this experience relating to Windows 10? Windows is the opposite of an obscure platform.
I'm guessing he is referring to the Xperia Play
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xperia_Play
He's not. He's shipping on the Vita.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Minter
TxK (PlayStation Vita, 2014)[43]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Minter
TxK (PlayStation Vita, 2014)[43]
Sony gave it away 'free' as a PS+ title for subscribers as well, I don't know what affect that had on his income.
You know the situation is bleak when even the legendary Jeff "llama" Minter says he can't make money on the app store.
These lists in no way take account of ad revenue. For the average indie game ad revenue now makes up at least 50% of the gross daily revenue or if well integrated can make up 70 or even 90% if the game is an advergame like the Ketchapps one finger frustration games.
There is still quite a lot of revenue in the market place, just like there is on web. You need to be shrewd and think more about business than just creating and releasing a fun game.
There is still quite a lot of revenue in the market place, just like there is on web. You need to be shrewd and think more about business than just creating and releasing a fun game.
Same reason I stopped making games for iOS years ago. I too did truly enjoy making them though. I created original games and the effort all outside working hours overnight and weekends did at least teach me skills I still utilize today.
If you’re looking for “the free .apks that we have put up for our Android ports of five of the iOS games on this site”, they’re at http://minotaurproject.co.uk/Minotaur/donate.php. The five games are Super Ox Wars, Five a Day, Caverns of Minos, Goat Up, and Gridrunner.
Someday, we'll realize that games on a tiny, fiddly touchscreen with no tactile response, is kind of a stupid idea. I would much rather play games on my dusty old Gameboy Color than struggle with a phone.
Toucharcade is a great site / resource to find and learn about iOS games.
>To give some idea of just how awful iOS was for us, the first non-iOS game I did after spending two years on iOS, released on a Sony handheld that many describe as being “obscure”, generated literally thousands* of times more income for us than two years and ten games on iOS with its potential billions of users.*
Yeah, but the Sony handled has like N titles, whereas the iOS has 1000xN.
Yeah, but the Sony handled has like N titles, whereas the iOS has 1000xN.
As someone who enjoyed Tempest, isn't Minter a bit of an industry grump now? Albeit someone who's shipped games unlike Chris Crawford.
history will look back on this iphone era we are living as the second dark age.
Agreed, I do feel there could've been much better games made on the phone. For example, I remember Nintendo was about to make a push to bring its old classic Gameboy Era games /Gameboy Color games to the phone to no avail
Would you have been happy to pay $5-$8 per gameboy/gbc title?
Yeah didn't think so, but Nintendo DS owners are.
Yeah didn't think so, but Nintendo DS owners are.
Apple needs to move the "standard price" from 0.99 one time download -> 0.99 per year
Delete app to unsubscribe
Remove 0.99 one time pricing
$5.00 minimum one time download price
Delete app to unsubscribe
Remove 0.99 one time pricing
$5.00 minimum one time download price
Apple and Android should instead take a Valve/Steam like approach and create a good community around the store that includes curators, flash sales etc.
The last thing we need is little apps you never use nibbling away at your bank account.
Uninstalling things you use on extremely rare occasions is ridiculous. If I play something I want to keep the high score, etc. even if I never really use it. I'm not paying for that privilege.
Uninstalling things you use on extremely rare occasions is ridiculous. If I play something I want to keep the high score, etc. even if I never really use it. I'm not paying for that privilege.
So nobody would pay?
People that download games from the AppStore are kids that don't have a credit card, so subscriptions are not even an option.
People that download games from the AppStore are kids that don't have a credit card, so subscriptions are not even an option.
That is unaffordable to most consumers in the world. You will end up limiting urself to a market of few rich communities in rich countries.
that is not true. again, we aren't talking about a coursera course and paywalling information and vital self-learning here. We are talking about a dollar for a luxury game on a device that costs nearly $1000 and $100 a month for service. This is leaving aside that the economics of $4-5 a game would be better than a free game that is unwinnable unless you spend > $10.
I believe the parent, and if not then certainly I, am talking about games that are subsciption based and promote full releases that get upgrades and create community. not a 0.99 clone. this market is largely rich communities anyway if you use the world income scale, but we aren't using that scale, we are talking about iphone owners with discretionary income already willing to spend 1-30 a year on games...
I believe the parent, and if not then certainly I, am talking about games that are subsciption based and promote full releases that get upgrades and create community. not a 0.99 clone. this market is largely rich communities anyway if you use the world income scale, but we aren't using that scale, we are talking about iphone owners with discretionary income already willing to spend 1-30 a year on games...
> a device that costs nearly $1000 and $100 a month for service
If you're going to make a fiscal argument then don't exaggerate your numbers by 60-120%.
They start at $400 and top out at $750.
If you pay $100/month for service that's your own fault, I don't know anybody paying over $60/month.
If you're going to make a fiscal argument then don't exaggerate your numbers by 60-120%.
They start at $400 and top out at $750.
If you pay $100/month for service that's your own fault, I don't know anybody paying over $60/month.
The site seems to be down.
Link to the Google cache: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:-8QtKz9...
Link to the Google cache: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:-8QtKz9...
One iOS game I enjoyed and recently rediscovered is GeoDefense. I highly recommend it (at $3.99 I think) and it is definitely a middle-ground app. I estimate they made between 500K - 5M lifetime sales over 4 years with both games.
Oh well. I'm about to finish up a tiny game that I've been working on, and it will be fun to see what happens. At the very least, I've enjoyed learning SceneKit and practicing Swift.
So much conversation and not a single reference to App Annie? Look at the data yourselves.
The truth is there's plenty of us in the middle still. My two person iOS dev studio has pulled in 6 figures a year for the past 4 years. The problem is not that there's no middle ground, it's that the everyone used to get guaranteed downloads, and with the removal of new releases and the never ending flood of apps, 90% of apps will get just about zero downloads after launch nowadays.
But there's still plenty of room for small studios like us who know their target audience and what works on the app store to make a sustainable business. So I'd say top 0.1% for the insane successes that can support hundreds of employees, but for a small studio, just getting in the top 5% can work.
If you're curious about numbers, check thinkgaming.com, to see that the top 200 grossing game is still pulling ~$10K a day on iPhone in the US alone. When you add all countries, tablets, and Android devices, you start to see you don't need a top 10 or even top 100 grossing app to make some serious cash.
So while it has gotten a lot tougher in the app store and it's increasingly difficult for newcomers with no experience to hit it big, there's still very much a thriving middle ground between the insane successes and the utter failures. I suspect that it's not well known is due to the fact that those in similar positions to us don't want to dish out the valuable knowledge they've acquired through years of experience that could only increase the competition.