Congratulations on taking the plunge into the mobile games market! No doubt it’s been a remarkable and difficult journey for you and your game, but the design is nearly perfect, and you’re ready to share your creation with the world. Mobile games have come a long way since we first figured out how to put Tetris on our graphing calculators in high school, and it’s an exciting field that’s evolving and improving every day.
Sadly, when you dwell exclusively on the cutting edge of game development, it’s easy to lose sight of the basics. There are a few core tenets of mobile design that should be prerequisites for publishing nowadays, yet every so often, even the most experienced of developers forget them. No matter how impressive the graphics or how amazing and innovative the controls are in a game, it pains us when designers still get some of the basics wrong after all these years. Continue reading Mobile Game Design – Don’t Forget the Basics
You’re getting ready to unleash the best game ever upon the unsuspecting public. This game is addictive, clever, charming, challenging, and fun as hell. The design is coming together nicely, the art is jaw-dropping, and your focus testers love it – even your mom loves it, and she doesn’t even play video games. All anybody wants to know at this point is, when and where can I play this thing? So, what’s your answer – can they download it, or can they play it in their browser?
Before you answer, take a moment to consider the major differences between releasing a browser-based game and a dedicated, standalone application. Better yet, take a moment to consider how many differences don’t exist between the two as of recently. Browser games have come a long way since the Bejeweleds and Desktop Tower Defenses of the world first began to appear. Not only have programmers gotten more out of Flash, but new platforms like Unity, Silverlight, and HTML5 now allow for the kind of rich game visuals, animation, and sound that one would expect from standalone games. The Chrome Web Store, in fact, offers a browser version of Bastion – graphically and functionally identical to its Xbox and PC counterparts – that will run in one tab while you read this blog in another.
Bastion in a Browser
If browser games can deliver everything that non-browser games can, is there a difference at all? Why shouldn’t everybody go with the browser route, and all of the accessibility and compatibility that comes with it? The answer is because, as capable as the browser may be, it is still a platform that isn’t a perfect fit for every game. It’s an issue of presentation: not everybody wants to browse and play at the same time.
Think about the word “Browse.” Merriam-Webster defines browsing as the act of “looking over casually,” or “to skim through.” While most of us frequently use a Web Browser throughout our days with a bit more purpose or direction, the meaning still applies. How many tabs do you have open right now besides this one? Five? Ten? A few dozen? The modern browser user is accustomed to multi-tasking, frequently changing focus and giving each tab only as much attention as it absolutely needs.
Framing and presentation are an important part of an experience. You wouldn’t want to watch Schindler’s List or The Shawshank Redemption at a matinee full of laughing children, nor would you want to try to take in van Gogh’s Starry Night through a telescope. When you play a game in a browser tab, you’re engaging in casual gaming. This isn’t to say that browser games are inherently “casual games” –we’ve already established that browsers can deliver “hardcore” games like Bastion, or 3D MMOs like FusionFall, or games from any genre. It’s that you are playing the game casually, giving it half your attention, and allowing for perpetual interruptions from the rest of your desktop.
This is appropriate for any number of games: any title meant to be consumed in brief, bite-sized chunks of time, or any turn-based affair makes a perfect fit in a browser tab. Being able to flick over to a simple Facebook game like Solitaire Blitz or Triple Town, play for 90 seconds, and jump right back to another task is wonderfully convenient. There are even games which stray towards the “hardcore” side of the fence, with tricky gameplay and emphasis on immersion and difficulty, yet are broken up into discrete instances or turns. For the typical multi-tasker, these experiences are great diversions to keep open alongside their email and news feeds.
Other games, however, demand the full measure of their players’ attention. How is a game like Deus Ex expected to establish the suspense of stealth or the intensity of a firefight if the player keeps glancing up at his Twitter feed? Who would want someone on their Modern Warfare team who kept idling during the match in order to read a new round of Huffington Post articles? There is a reason these games typically run in a full-screen format. More than just idle diversions, these are experiences that are trying to establish stories, characters, and moods, and you’re doing them – and yourself – a disservice if you’re not paying attention.
Some may argue that many browser games, from the average Facebook farming facsimile to the aforementioned Bastion, also give players the option to run in full-screen. If that’s the case, however, then the entire question of presentation is rendered moot. If a game operates as a discreet, non-streaming download, and occupies your full attention when in use, then the only real differences are technical – is your delivery mechanism a browser, or some other digital distribution platform like Steam or Impulse? Which one will provide you with the biggest audience? Is your company able to build a game that fits into HTML5 or Unity, or will you have an easier time developing your own code structure?
As technology improves and these differences continue to evaporate, the question of presentation will remain as the deciding factor for your game. To those who still doubt the value of environment and framing, consider the famous experiment run by the Washington Post, involving world-renowned violinist Joshua Bell playing anonymously in a Metro Station, to the utter indifference of a thousand people. Now, imagine that you’re Joshua Bell, and the game you’ve crafted carries the majesty and spirit of Bach’s “Chaconne.” Do you present it in a proper symphony hall setting, or does your audience pass right by because it’s just one more bit of fluff in their busy day?
Micro-transactions have taken center stage lately as a hot-button controversy in social gaming, particularly on Facebook. But the debate over micro-transactions in other genres, particularly massively multiplayer online (MMO) titles, has been going on for quite some time, even prior to the advent of Facebook. The reaction to micro-transactions as elements of game play in MMOs has often been virulent, with proponents on both sides attempting to sway the other to their point of view.
Why such strong feelings toward one game element? For many MMO players, particularly those in subscription-based games, the use of micro-transactions comes down to a concern about fairness. For the hardcore “raiding guild” players, why put in so much effort and hours of play time into a game, only to have others succeed in the game by buying their way into it? For average MMO players, incorporating micro-transactions into core game play can also create an in-game society of “haves” and “have nots,” with some the players unwilling or unable spend the cash to be a viable part of the game universe.
Auction page from Audition, a F2P game from Redbana
One could posit the theory that—for Western gamers at least—the issue is really not about fairness, but that micro-transactions violate the virtually sacred principle of what we consider capitalism, or at least its idealized “American Dream” version: “work hard, and ye shall be rewarded.” To many MMO gamers, micro-transactions violate that principle by offering rewards to the user who merely pays extra cash. In some ways, it could be argued that this is a more pragmatic (or realistic) view of capitalism, i.e., “pay money, get what you want.”
It’s not just the players—the micro-transaction debate is an ongoing headache / concern for game designers, particularly those in the West, who have long struggled with the dilemma. In the past, Western designers have steered clear of incorporating micro-transactions into their mass market MMOs to avoid throwing off game play balance and risk losing their loyal customers. However, free-to-play games (F2P), which are supported through micro-transaction purchases such as enhanced character customization, special clothing and weapons, have long been popular in Eastern markets like Korea and China and are now rising in popularity in the Western world. With the increased success of the F2P model, game designers are taking a closer look at this model as a new means of monetization, customer retention and attraction of new users in order to survive in a new era of gaming.
The solution to this dilemma will most likely be a combination of the subscription-based model with a judicious use of micro-transactions, enabling both the idealized and pragmatic versions of in-game capitalism to coexist to the benefit of end users. Ultimately, all successful MMOs will need to include some content in the form of micro-transactions as an additional revenue stream as well as a method by which to obtain and retain users. As an example, one has only to look at Blizzard’s juggernaut World of Warcraft, which recently introduced two vanity pets for purchase (the first micro-transaction that has been offered in this game).
Capitalism in its ideal and real forms can indeed mesh in an MMO economy; by offering convenient and cosmetic enhancements that do not impact core game play on a micro-transaction basis, developers can give gamers the opportunity to purchase items that allow them to express their individuality and personality while still enjoying the fruits of their labor. This solution works for both gamers and game designers, as enhanced content can be added relatively quickly, provide entertainment and ultimately keep the player as a long-term customer.
Yesterday, I had the pleasure of presenting at the monthly Social Media Expedition Memphis breakfast meetup. It was a great chance to take a look at “social gaming” from a different perspective, as many attendees knew little about the video games industry, but they were all social media enthusiasts.
The result? An exploration of the connection between video games, technology and social media, and what it all means for marketers. For brevity, I’ll just say that the relationship between gaming and social media is, by all means, symbiotic. For a more thorough explanation, check out the full presentation on SlideShare below.
In such an emerging space, one can never have all the right answers. Let me know what you think – insight, opinions, questions… All feedback is more than welcome!
In-Stat reported today that online gaming subscriptions will grow a projected 20.4% between 2005 and 2013, while unit sales of video game consoles will decline in 2010. Recent research by In-Stat found the following:
Each of the three key vendors [Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo] is positioned to generate hundreds of millions of dollars in annual online gaming revenue from online service subscriptions, download revenue and/or online advertising.
Microsoft’s Xbox Live service will clearly lead, with projected revenue of over $1 billion in revenue annually by 2013.
Worldwide broadband subscriptions will reach 562 million in 2009. The combination of broadband, installed home networks, and pervasive Wi-Fi in gaming devices, is fueling online gaming subscriber growth.
In 2008, total video game console unit shipments reached 88 million worldwide, up 7% from worldwide unit shipments in 2007.
OnLive Inc. announced their on demand video game platform at GDC this week. The OnLive service and console streams advanced video game instantly to any TV using their inexpensive MicroConsole.
The new platform is supported by many of the top names in the video games industry including Electronic Arts, Ubisoft, Take-Two Interactive Software, Warner Bros. Interactive Entertainment, THQ Inc., Epic Games, Eidos, Atari Interactive and Codemasters. According to the press release, “it typically only takes a few weeks to extend an existing version of a game to work on the OnLive service, so there is little cost incurred by developers and publishers to support the OnLive platform.”
Speaking to Edge Online, Wedbush Morgan analyst Michael Pachter commented, “We don’t expect an immediate impact [on console sales] (the service likely will be rolled out in early 2010), but think that if priced right, OnLive could favorably compete for 1-2 percent of the overall games market.”
Online activites for consoles and portables increase from 19% in 2008 to 25% in 2009. PCs showed a slight decline, but is still the dominant online gaming platform.
Xbox 360 is the leader with 50%, with Nintendo Wii increasing from 18% in 2008 to 29% in 2009.
Xbox 360 and PS3 owners download more content than owners of other systems, although downloading has slowed compared to 2009.
OnLive Inc. announced