Soft-sell no longer works in these competitive times

The old shareware model used to be the apex of the small-time software market: Give away an episode, sell three. And that’s no good anymore, and hasn’t been for some time. But today, I’m not trying to convince you that the old pull-market model isn’t efficient. I’m going to convince you that today’s method of 1-hour time-limit sales tactics are outdated and can’t be sustained forever.

First, a history lesson:

Soft-sell only works in a domain in which there is little-available or hard-to-get content, but still a strong demand. The domain can be defined as any number of factors, some of which compound: price point, platform, genre, and lifestyle (mobile vs. sit-down-and-play, for example). And as the domain is populated, hard-sell techniques are necessary to stay abreast of emerging competition.

In the days shareware reigned, access to shareware was limited, usually only available by mail-order. You had to pay $3 for a disk and wait a week or two for it to arrive. (You might have been one of the bleeding-edge users and got your shareware from a BBS, but it’s just as likely you got the full version from that same BBS, and so why buy at all?)

In this regard, even though there may have been millions of shareware games around the world, it was tightly filtered through an access point: Only a handful made it into the shareware catalogs. (And they were often the same games, month-to-month.) The intra-domain competition was, at least in the eyes of the user, very low.

Then comes the Internet.

All of a sudden, this entire world of shareware products explodes, and everything you could ever want is at your fingertips. Catalogs grow exponentially. Niches bloom into genres. The audience expands, the potential blossoms, and it becomes a very attractive proposition for developers, new and old.

Then the space floods.

Competition is fierce. It takes more and more to stand out. The model used previously is changing. Developers don’t have to encourage their visitors to share their wares, anymore–anyone can get them in the blink of a baud over the net. And one thing is abundantly clear:

Soft-selling isn’t working anymore.

With all the competition, no player goes without a game. There’s an alternative to everything out there. You can play an episode a day and not run out of games to play.

And developers eventually wised up, realized the landscape had changed. What was necessary before (encouraging people to share the software) was not only not necessary anymore, but actually hurt. Soft-sell gave way to hard-sell: 3 guns, 2 levels, 1 hour…

And it worked!

But now we are in another, different world with portals aggregating game releases. They still adhere to the old “proven” practices, ignoring the reality of the changing landscape. No longer is even an hour of gameplay enough. Because, even with only an hour of play, a user can move on to any number of the clones and get their fix, without spending a cent. (And this is, of course, ignoring the gaping hole introduced by the portals’ failure to work together and disallow cross-site extension of trial limits.)

So what we need more of, is less. Less trial time. Less content per trial. Less time spent thinking about what used to work in a different domain.

Otherwise, you’re wasting your time.

I’m patiently waiting for replacement parts to arrive and a laptop to back me up in the future.

Thanks for your patience!

Nuclear Eagle - somewhat flawed kinetic interaction

Take the kinetic action of the Wii, roll it into a beautifully presented Flash game, and you’ve got Nuclear Eagle. You take the role of a giant, mutant eagle terrorizing the suburbs. Swoop down to pick up humans and toss them into your nest full of feeding babies.

Why should you play?
Nuclear Eagle has a kind of kinetic control that’s hard to implement, and it does it with flying colors. The control never feels mechanical, nor does it feel too precise. It features an intuitive mechanic that takes some time to master, but always feels right.

What could be better?
Picking up people is awkward, so click-and-miss is frequent. Additionally, the game could use some more dynamics. (I envision some mini-feats, such as throwing humans through hoops and such.)

If you’re a fan of the Wii, kinetic gameplay, or giant, mutant eagles, then you can take some cues from Nuclear Eagle. This game isn’t one to throw to the birds!

[Play Nuclear Eagle] [via JayIsGames]

How far does your money take you?

Air New Zealand has a neat feature that displays how far you can fly for your dollar.  By intuitively adjusting the expense slider, you can tune your trip to see exactly what locations are available to you, within your budget.

On the one hand, this is quite handy to get a broad look at the destinations your money will take you.  On the other hand, however, how often do you travel without a destination in mind?  While this is a neat plaything, I suspect it will never be much more than just that: a toy.

In game design, it’s important to fill the player’s experience with entertaining diversions and fun things to explore, but they should always have an underlying purpose–a function that they serve.  Games aren’t utilities, however, so a feature’s purpose may simply be to enhance the player’s emotional state.  Particle effects, for example, are not strictly “necessary”, but they often reward players with a satisfying display of achievement, and serve as clear positive feedback.

Do you ever implement a feature or mechanic in your game without justifying the reason for its existence?  How does it (or does it not) complicate the game?  Does its emotional value justify the cost spent developing it?

[Read More] [via Information Aesthetics]

Diner Dash once lacked the personable charm it’s known for today.

In addition to launching a brand new website, casual innovators, gamelab, unveiled some exclusive, historical images from Diner Dash’s development cycle. From concept sketches to mock screenshots, you can follow Diner Dash’s production from conception to launch. (It’s interesting to note the working title appears to have been, simply, “Lunch.”)

In addition to concept art of Diner Dash, and many of their other games, you can pore over some thoughtful (though lengthy) commentary on their Shopmania game, or an analysis of the level design in Egg vs. Chicken.

While casual gamers might have little interest delving deep into the development of their favorite titles, you can be sure these resources are an invaluable insight for other developers. Many thanks to gamelab for adopting a transparent facade!

[Read More]

Hoping to leverage her “universal appeal”, Nintendo has signed Nicole Kidman to promote their Brain Training casual games series

In a move that will further thrust casual games into the mainstream, Nintendo has chosen Oscar-award winning actress Nicole Kidman as the official face of their newest Brain Training ad campaign.

Casual games differentiate themselves from the hardcore industry on many levels, not the least of which are their thematic elements. As our industry matures, we learn that modern culture is an attractive element to many casual gamers. Swapping fantasy and sci-fi for pop-culture, we see even more new gamers attracted to casual gaming.

We must learn to recognize the cultural and social divide between casual and hardcore gamers. Further, we must learn to merge casual gamers’ real-world interests into their gaming experience. Beyond the superficial licensed property, in what ways can pop-culture influence the way casual games are played? How can the deeper game mechanics reflect a pop-culture influence?

[Watch the ad] [via Mind Hacks]

Death Worm - An intuitive mechanic that’s easy to learn

While the content is not exactly casual game material, Death Worm exploits a very intuitive game mechanic that is easy to learn and enjoy.  Ecco the Dolphin meets Tremors, you control a meat-hungry Death Worm that tunnels its way through the earth until it finds suitable prey to feast upon, where it erupts from the ground in an Earth-shocking rumble and sprays its victim’s blood in its wake.

Why should you play?
The control of the beast is immediately obvious, and the goal of the game doubly so.  Few games adopt intuitive mechanics of this level, making it a game almost anybody could play.  (Sans the gruesome thematics.)  Not only is the mechanic easy to pick up, but it’s immediately clear which victims are appropriate for digestion and which will cause harm to your monster.  Death Worm also features a very satisfying screen rumble effect every time you break through the earth–something you have to see to appreciate!

What’s wrong with it?
The graphics are a sub-par and the theme is more than a little mature, but both work for the underground (no pun intended) indie audience it’s trying to target.  It might be a little more intuitive with a mouse-based control, and some power-ups or advanced movement mechanics might spice up the play somewhat.  (I’d like to be able to somehow keep my monster in the air to create massive combos, for example.)  Finally, playing up the some heavy physics effects might make it more visually interesting.

Despite the blood-heavy presentation, casual developers could learn a lot from such intuitive and natural game mechanics!

[Play Death Worm] [via TIGSource]

“The built in Internet enabled features give you direct access to thousands of levels to play. The improved tools in Ricochet Infinity help you browse, categorize and rate levels so that you can find the levels that YOU want to play. The new ranking system also keeps things interesting as you play the endless supply of levels.”

With the success of socially-driven websites like YouTube and MySpace, it’s about time the casual industry entered the game!

[Read More]

Merscom, in partnership with Double Trump, recently announced they will be offering five of their games under a novel pricing structure: play as long as you want, for only $0.01 per minute.

“…users can download and play any game they want for as long as they want, and pay only for the actual time they have played. It’s like buying the game one piece at a time, with the ability to stop whenever they don’t want to play that game any longer. Their maximum charge per game is limited by the list price of that game, so they will never pay more than the original game price.”

Players may appreciate the flexibility, and publishers may hail the death of the 1% player, but is this a good thing? It would take over 2,000 hours minutes to recoup a single $20 sale. Compare this to the $0.25 to $2.00-per-play of your typical arcade game, who’s audience appreciates the high-intensity challenge required to keep them pumping quarters into the electric joybox. (And ignoring, for a moment, that brick-and-mortar arcades are crumbling like an alcoholic by noon.) Is this devaluation the shot-in-the-arm our industry needs to thrive and grow to mainstream acceptance?

Surely there are more constructive pricing structures?

[Update: Thanks to lexaloffle for pointing out that it’d take 2,000 minutes to recoup $20, not 2,000 hours. That’s quite a discrepancy!]

[Read More] [via GameZebo]

It’s impossible to make the perfect game, so don’t bother. Identify your goal (a game), your constraints (your budget), and focus 90% of your attention on the 90% of the game the user will spend her time with. Otherwise, you might never achieve your goal within your limitations.

If you’re a perfectionist, you may run out of money (or time) before you reach your goal. And if you’re sloppy, you may release a sub-par game. By identifying the most important facets, which are usually the most mundane–jumping, moving, swapping–you’ll foster an immediately more enjoyable game for the player.

“…you must pick your battles, deciding in which areas ‘most’ matters and living with ‘least’ the rest of the time.” –Seth Godin

That’s not to say the rest of the game isn’t important, but we live in a discrete world with finite resources. The more carefully you manage yours, the better game experience you can provide for your expenditure and audience!

[inspired by Seth’s Blog]