3 ms·
> Originally, I called it "Real Games" (a pun on Real Names). The idea was, instead of publishing dreck from mainstream publishers, who were giving us mediocre
by bhousel 14y ago
> Originally, I called it "Real Games" (a pun on Real Names). The idea was, instead of publishing dreck from mainstream publishers, who were giving us mediocre product because they didn't expect us to succeed, we court the independent developer community: the people who in 2013 are trolling Kickstarter for their 2D "retro" RPGs and German-style boardgames. We court these developers and give them a platform that does for them things they can't do for themselves, plus access to an enormous number of players.
Wouldn't the "real" games also want to launch on Facebook (and mobile), eliminating your edge?
- michaelochurch 14y agoThe idea I had is that there'd be a 6-month (possibly 12, but I'd prefer to keep it short) exclusivity, and that the platform would provide services (such as playtester matching, for developers not ready to release their work to the wild) that others would not. The 6-month exclusivity would be a small cost (for the developer) compared to what we'd be offering, but give us just enough time to become the "go-to" site for this game, a long-standing advantage similar to the one that Facebook has in general "Social". Compound this across hundreds of high-quality games and G+ is the go-to site for games, even though those same games become available everywhere over time. Of course, we'd also serve games that were already available in most places, like Angry Birds (a high-quality casual game, not Zyngarbage). However, we'd give the best terms to our brand-defining games that would have to start out exclusively with us.