20 ms·

The success of King.com really bothers me. Sure their games are not cheap and made very well, but it seems the whole "game" and all mechanics are just designed

by zyb09 13y ago

The success of King.com really bothers me. Sure their games are not cheap and made very well, but it seems the whole "game" and all mechanics are just designed to slowly get you hooked and extract money at the most susceptible time. And it's executed almost to the point of perfection. It's a shame it's working so well, because they are eating the cake in front of a very low confidence game industry. Smartphones are powerful now, yet games that manage to match the quality and depth of an SNES-era game are basically non-existent. After seeing the success of Rovio, Zynga and King, I don't think they will be made sadly. Let's just hope this doesn't affect other platforms as well.

gadders 13y ago
I'm on level 180 or so and have never given them any money. It's possible to make reasonable progress without paying them.
- soneca 13y ago
  I am on level 450 with no money also. Sure, it is possible; but it is clear how smart they are in the strategy of getting money. As a BizDev I actually used to praise them for this. They are so much better at it than every other casual game producer. But I see the parent point. As a gamer, this might level down the games for gamers. But I don't actually believe it will. Someday someone will make a very good game costing $20 to play on a phone and will be a hit as GTA and others. They are just different audiences. Casual gamers don't want to pay anything upfront, so you have to trick them into it like Candy Crush. Serious gamers like to show their praise for a game upront, and them play as much as they want with no off-game annoyances.
  - gadders 13y ago
    Basically you're trading money for your time on the game. If you're impatient to proceed, it costs you more.
    - batiudrami 13y ago
      It's kind of weird though because there's almost no motivation to proceed. There's no goal - other than addiction (and also, I suppose, the happiness gained from passing your friends on the board). Other successful games which have grinding such as this have something - loot, abilities, unlocks - something to strive towards. Candy Crush just presents you with another board which requires a certain amount of luck to win (because the board clears so frequently, it's impossible to look more than one move ahead anyway).
      - soneca 13y ago
        But there is a lot of strategy also. It is possible to think 2 (some rare times 3) moves ahead. But sure, a lot of it is luck. As I don't connected it to FB, I don't even use the social aspect of the game. So recognizing this is just to pass some time, and with no competition with friends, pay money to buy time doesn't make sense to me. I play it when I want to spend time (not buy it) Also, with the reward feeling of passing a tough phase (the were phases which I played much more than a hundred times) being so big! Actually I would be paying to diminish my pleasure.
        batiudrami 13y ago
        Honestly I think there's actually so little real strategy in the game that it doesn't even matter. 95% of the time a freckle crossed with a striped lolly will win the level for you, so most of the game is just spent looking for 5-in-a-rows. Because of that I never felt rewarded when beating a level (though I did play the game a fair bit so there is something there).
      - yfkar 13y ago
        For me the game was very addictive but playing it often felt compulsive instead of fun. Some of the levels were quite enjoyable but many of them felt like waiting for the random number generator to generate a level that was not impossible. Also, I felt that the new features as the game advanced were designed to increase the amount of luck needed. Basically, the gameplay felt like I was repeatedly throwing dice until I got a certain combination of numbers. Also, in the later levels, the dice may randomly explode.
- oneeyedpigeon 13y ago
  But you still have a crippled game - one which you can’t even play as often as you’d like without shelling out money. Do yourself a favour: delete it now. Stand up for decency and the future of the industry.
  - gadders 13y ago
    It's not crippled in terms of functionality, it just delays you slightly - whether it is getting friends to unlock the next level, or being stuck on the same level for 4 weeks as you won't pay for boosters. TBH, the 5 life limit is a bit of a relief and helps prevent addition.
    - oneeyedpigeon 13y ago
      If I bought a toaster/car/tv/pacemaker and it physically didn't work for long periods at a time, I'd consider it crippled. Of course, that's the business model, but that doesn't stop it being true.
      - gadders 13y ago
        The key word being "bought". I've bought nothing.
- tbarbugli 13y ago
  Especially when you realise you can trick the game by changing your system date :)
jrs99 13y ago
There are a lot of great indie titles out there. It takes some work though searching through them and trying to find the good ones. But ps4, nintendo, xbox are all starting to show support for indie titles and it is not hard to get a game onto those systems if you are an indie dev on the latest consoles.
- Cthulhu_ 13y ago
  Starting to show support? It's been going on for years now, at least during the xbox 360 and PS3; maybe even earlier. Microsoft just hands out XNA devkits for indie developers and lets them have a go.
  - jrs99 13y ago
    they need to because of the competition with steam. But I don't think they were ever really in love with the idea. The latest generation seems different though.
  - jaegerpicker 13y ago
    That's not exactly true. You need to have a published game or a working game demo of a certain quality level prior to them giving you a XBOX 360/Xbox One dev kit. XNA is no longer supported or a thing at all.
krallin 13y ago
Seems like Blizzard might be coming to mobile with their latest game, so those higher quality, richer games may eventually come to mobile as AAA studios get on board (with the actual games they are also pushing on other platforms).
- taude 13y ago
  I played their new card game Hearthstone for a few minutes. Not really sure why it's not a tablet game by default. Maybe I didn't play long enough to appreciate some of the graphics/transitions, etc. But the gameplay seemed natural enough for a tablet/phone. But if you're into that kind of game, check out Ascention [1] or [1] https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/ascension-chronicle-godslayer/id441838733?mt=8 https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/ascension-chronicle-godslaye...
  - jaegerpicker 13y ago
    The iOS version is in internal Beta. It's not available mostly because the game isn't ready yet and iOS lacks the ability to do a mass open Beta properly. I suspect that the iPad version will be available day one. This is likely a really bad thing for me, say good bye to gobs of hard earned cash. Hearthstone is a really really good game imo.
    - taude 13y ago
      Good points. I spent another night playing and starting to get into it...
Mahn 13y ago
> but it seems the whole "game" and all mechanics are just designed to slowly get you hooked and extract money at the most susceptible time Welcome to the games industry of today. It's all about this everywhere you look; in fact, if you are an indie doing games today and you don't build around monetization you'll pretty much be laughed at (not by the players evidently, but you get the point). > Smartphones are powerful now, yet games that manage to match the quality and depth of an SNES-era game are basically non-existent Well, people generally tend to have much shorter sessions with their smartphone than with a console. Stupid and simple works because that's where the demand is, so folks build more of it.
- msie 13y ago
  people generally tend to have much shorter sessions with their smartphone than with a console Couldn't agree more. A smartphone is different from a console/PC not only in terms of form-factor but also in its usage (bursts of activity as opposed to long sessions).
- vidarh 13y ago
  Exactly. 90% of my gaming these days is during 10 minute train or bus rides as part of my commute. The remaining 10% tends to be before going to sleep etc. While I occasionally play other games, the ones I play when I have time to sit down tend to be unsuitable for small screen devices.
sillysaurus2 13y ago
Smartphones are powerful now, yet games that manage to match the quality and depth of an SNES-era game are basically non-existent. After seeing the success of Rovio, Zynga and King, I don't think they will be made sadly. It's important to realize that our tastes aren't necessarily representative of people's tastes in general. Most people probably wouldn't enjoy Chrono Trigger or FF3 compared to Candy Crush. The evidence is that Final Fantasy games have been available for smartphones for a long time now, but they just aren't selling. The storytelling experience is the same, but people aren't as into them. It's easy to label the industry as "low confidence" but reality is more along the lines of "acts on hard data." It's wise to be cautious when it only takes one or two mistakes to kill your company.
- DanBC 13y ago
  I don't care about people liking Candy Crush. Match 3 is a huge genre. It's just sad that there isn't a clone that costs $4.99 to buy and doesn't need more purchases. It's even sadder that even if the clone did exist few people would buy it. I really miss the Doom model of give away a few levels cor free and buy the rest.
  - GFischer 13y ago
    There are free Match 3 games, at least on Android, I have downloaded and played several :) . Example - JewelsStar https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.game.JewelsStar https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.game.Jewel... However, I'd pay for a polished experience like a PopCap made game (Bejeweled).
  - sleepyK 13y ago
    Lots of games do that, and that seems to be the only respectable way to monetize.... that and in-game item sales.... but those tend to go too far and then cripple gameplay.
  - p_e_n_g_u_i_n 13y ago
    > I really miss the Doom model of give away a few levels cor free and buy the rest. Sadly, things like this get tons of hate in the reviews... People would rather be annoyed with stupid social media and IAP crap than pay a dollar for the rest of the game. The only way to really make it work is (from my experience) make an ad-supported, shortened lite version, so people can test it out before buying it. That's a real pain because now you have two malls to manage, update, and promote. At least that's how it works on iOS.
fhd2 13y ago
I've got the exact same concerns. But on the other hand, I think what we're seeing is a bubble. A few powerful companies are exploiting the current casual/F2P gold rush, but I doubt humanity as a whole will be into casual scam games forever. Games are evidently growing up. And legislators might eventually tackle games that focus on addicting and deceiving. All this will take time of course, but I still don't think we're in for a cultural wasteland in the near-term. Indies are already filling the gap, and it actually leads to success for some of them. Most in my circles don't focus on making money first and foremost, neither do I.
- pawn 13y ago
  I agree with several things in your post, but I don't want legislators anywhere near my games.
  - fhd2 13y ago
    It's not ideal, but I actually think it's a good thing that e.g. gambling is restricted to adults. A fairly difficult topic IMO. Ideally, people would just be educated/interested enough to identify and avoid scams. Definitely hoping for that.
    - Karunamon 13y ago
      But there's no gambling involved here. I agree with the parent poster, the last thing I want are out-of-touch politicians legislating more things they don't understand. That would be a worse outcome than all the scammy games in the world.
      - untog 13y ago
        I think there's at least an interesting debate to be had. Why is gambling restricted to adults? Presumably because children are unable to comprehend the way in which it persuades you to spend more than you ever intended to. Or maybe it's because the money is unlikely to be theirs. Either way, you could argue that Candy Crush is the same on both counts.
easy_rider 13y ago
What bothers me, is that the addictive nature and spending is up 2 par with poker sites/ casino's. You can play for free with playmoney there, and sure if you have discipline and constraint you won't deposit on such a site. Then advertising comes in..
aaronetz 13y ago
I couldn't agree more with your sentiment. The last mobile game I worked on at a (now defunct) company, started out as an innovative open-world exploration / action game (See http://www.slantsixgames.com/games/strata-scavenger http://www.slantsixgames.com/games/strata-scavenger). I can honestly say, having had first-hand gameplay experience with it, that this game could have been a standout in the mobile game crowd. Unfortunately, the day came when our CMF (Canadian Media Fund) money ran out, and the company had to look for external funding. Needless to say, publishers are not interested in this kind of game. They expect simple gameplay, in-app purchases, social features, etc. It it very hard, in the current mobile game climate, to come up with truly deep and innovative games. I applaud each and every indie dev trying to do so. EDIT: edited link above to point directly to the company's website
- robterrell 13y ago
  It's just business. Your game (which looks cool), if it had no IAP and social features, would make a few hundred thousand bucks if it was an outstanding success. Whereas, Clash of Clans / HayDay / Candy Crush make between $500k and $1M per day. If you were a publisher, where would you put your investment?
- krisgee 13y ago
  Yeah I've heard/played out this story a couple of times now. Investors want you to "make it like Candy Crush" and they get their way because the company has to make payroll somehow.
ThomPete 13y ago
it't primarily a controller issue. The type of games that the touch screen allow for optimally isn't those types of games. And so we are left with the old card & puzzle games. There is also room for some great RTS but we have to wait til the tablet market becomes a little bit bigger.
debacle 13y ago
I don't know. I would never buy a smartphone game at this point because they look so low quality. Square Enix has offerings in the play store that I know are going to be good, so I can pay a few dollars more for that game instead of spending 0.99 on DRAGON DUNGEON CASTLE LOLICON SAGA.
- cantfindmypass 13y ago
  Square Enix's offerings on Android are non-functional on newish versions of the OS. Look at the reviews: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.square_enix.android_googleplay.chrono https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.square_eni...
EvilLook 13y ago
>It seems the whole "game" and all mechanics are just designed to slowly get you hooked and extract money at the most susceptible time. And it's executed almost to the point of perfection. Like an arcade game? It costs $0.99 for a fresh set of lives in Candy Crush Saga. $0.25 cents in 1984, adjusted for inflation, is $0.54 today, so an extra set of five lives in the game is about double what an arcade game cost in 1984. So what's the big deal?
schenecstasy 13y ago
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYRcAKYYEG4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYRcAKYYEG4
jackgavigan 13y ago
> Smartphones are powerful now, yet games that manage to match the quality and depth of an SNES-era game are basically non-existent. 'Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic' for iOS being a notable exception, of course.
mattmaroon 13y ago
To be fair, the video game industry has brought this upon themselves. They haven't innovated much since the SNES era. 90% of the profits went to Call of Duty and Madden sequels for a long time. King and their ilk aren't cutting into that, they're innovating games for people who previously didn't play them. It's a positive thing.
- vectorpush 13y ago
  They haven't innovated much since the SNES era What a ridiculous statement. The first Call of Duty wasn't even released until 2003, more than a decade after the SNES. To say that gaming hasn't innovated since the SNES era is just wrong.
  - mattmaroon 13y ago
    *much
brokentone 13y ago
Isn't this what all of us are complaining about right now? Various business segments (video games, content, video aggregation) doing the bare minimum copying existing content and monitizing it with psychological usury? Clickbait-y headlines, overly gamified games, etc. All the same thing, but they only work because they work--people clicking, paying, etc... How do we as developers deal with these segments or agents we find intellectually dishonest?
vectorpush 13y ago
It's the form factor. Sure, a mobile RPG might be fun on a train ride, but realistically, the quality game audience is well serviced on platforms that don't have to force their control scheme into a crude touch screen abomination.
honestcoyote 13y ago
Games on iOS/Android which match or exceed SNES-era games are plentiful.[1] I'm not sure why this opinion persists. Mobile games have trash like Candy Crush, but SNES wasn't crap-free either. I don't have a lot of time for games these days, but my iPad has games like Plants vs. Zombies, Final Fantasy Tactics, an Infocom / Inform interpreter, King of Dragon Pass, Waking Mars, SpaceChem, Minecraft, Brogue, Skulls of the Samurai, XCOM, Pacific Skies, OOTP Baseball, etc. There's also some great board / card game conversions like Small World 2, Warhammer Quest, and Ascension on there. And this only scratches the surface of what's out there. [1] Pocket Tactics - http://www.pockettactics.com http://www.pockettactics.com - is a very good site, in the style of Rock Paper Shotgun, for discovering the more interesting mobile games. Their best of 2013 list is a good place to get started if you have no idea of what's available - http://www.pockettactics.com/pocket-tactics-best-2013-awards/ http://www.pockettactics.com/pocket-tactics-best-2013-awards...
noinput 13y ago
How is this different than playing Street Fighter, Contra, or any other arcade game? I remember pulling a roll of quarters out of the bank just so I could go to the arcade prepared to slowly spend money years back.

by zyb09 13y ago

gadders 13y ago

I'm on level 180 or so and have never given them any money. It's possible to make reasonable progress without paying them.

soneca 13y ago
I am on level 450 with no money also. Sure, it is possible; but it is clear how smart they are in the strategy of getting money. As a BizDev I actually used to praise them for this. They are so much better at it than every other casual game producer. But I see the parent point. As a gamer, this might level down the games for gamers. But I don't actually believe it will. Someday someone will make a very good game costing $20 to play on a phone and will be a hit as GTA and others. They are just different audiences. Casual gamers don't want to pay anything upfront, so you have to trick them into it like Candy Crush. Serious gamers like to show their praise for a game upront, and them play as much as they want with no off-game annoyances.
- gadders 13y ago
  Basically you're trading money for your time on the game. If you're impatient to proceed, it costs you more.
  - batiudrami 13y ago
    It's kind of weird though because there's almost no motivation to proceed. There's no goal - other than addiction (and also, I suppose, the happiness gained from passing your friends on the board). Other successful games which have grinding such as this have something - loot, abilities, unlocks - something to strive towards. Candy Crush just presents you with another board which requires a certain amount of luck to win (because the board clears so frequently, it's impossible to look more than one move ahead anyway).
    - soneca 13y ago
      But there is a lot of strategy also. It is possible to think 2 (some rare times 3) moves ahead. But sure, a lot of it is luck. As I don't connected it to FB, I don't even use the social aspect of the game. So recognizing this is just to pass some time, and with no competition with friends, pay money to buy time doesn't make sense to me. I play it when I want to spend time (not buy it) Also, with the reward feeling of passing a tough phase (the were phases which I played much more than a hundred times) being so big! Actually I would be paying to diminish my pleasure.
      - batiudrami 13y ago
        Honestly I think there's actually so little real strategy in the game that it doesn't even matter. 95% of the time a freckle crossed with a striped lolly will win the level for you, so most of the game is just spent looking for 5-in-a-rows. Because of that I never felt rewarded when beating a level (though I did play the game a fair bit so there is something there).
    - yfkar 13y ago
      For me the game was very addictive but playing it often felt compulsive instead of fun. Some of the levels were quite enjoyable but many of them felt like waiting for the random number generator to generate a level that was not impossible. Also, I felt that the new features as the game advanced were designed to increase the amount of luck needed. Basically, the gameplay felt like I was repeatedly throwing dice until I got a certain combination of numbers. Also, in the later levels, the dice may randomly explode.
oneeyedpigeon 13y ago
But you still have a crippled game - one which you can’t even play as often as you’d like without shelling out money. Do yourself a favour: delete it now. Stand up for decency and the future of the industry.
- gadders 13y ago
  It's not crippled in terms of functionality, it just delays you slightly - whether it is getting friends to unlock the next level, or being stuck on the same level for 4 weeks as you won't pay for boosters. TBH, the 5 life limit is a bit of a relief and helps prevent addition.
  - oneeyedpigeon 13y ago
    If I bought a toaster/car/tv/pacemaker and it physically didn't work for long periods at a time, I'd consider it crippled. Of course, that's the business model, but that doesn't stop it being true.
    - gadders 13y ago
      The key word being "bought". I've bought nothing.
tbarbugli 13y ago
Especially when you realise you can trick the game by changing your system date :)

jrs99 13y ago

There are a lot of great indie titles out there. It takes some work though searching through them and trying to find the good ones. But ps4, nintendo, xbox are all starting to show support for indie titles and it is not hard to get a game onto those systems if you are an indie dev on the latest consoles.

Cthulhu_ 13y ago
Starting to show support? It's been going on for years now, at least during the xbox 360 and PS3; maybe even earlier. Microsoft just hands out XNA devkits for indie developers and lets them have a go.
- jrs99 13y ago
  they need to because of the competition with steam. But I don't think they were ever really in love with the idea. The latest generation seems different though.
- jaegerpicker 13y ago
  That's not exactly true. You need to have a published game or a working game demo of a certain quality level prior to them giving you a XBOX 360/Xbox One dev kit. XNA is no longer supported or a thing at all.

krallin 13y ago

Seems like Blizzard might be coming to mobile with their latest game, so those higher quality, richer games may eventually come to mobile as AAA studios get on board (with the actual games they are also pushing on other platforms).

taude 13y ago
I played their new card game Hearthstone for a few minutes. Not really sure why it's not a tablet game by default. Maybe I didn't play long enough to appreciate some of the graphics/transitions, etc. But the gameplay seemed natural enough for a tablet/phone. But if you're into that kind of game, check out Ascention [1] or [1] https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/ascension-chronicle-godslayer/id441838733?mt=8 https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/ascension-chronicle-godslaye...
- jaegerpicker 13y ago
  The iOS version is in internal Beta. It's not available mostly because the game isn't ready yet and iOS lacks the ability to do a mass open Beta properly. I suspect that the iPad version will be available day one. This is likely a really bad thing for me, say good bye to gobs of hard earned cash. Hearthstone is a really really good game imo.
  - taude 13y ago
    Good points. I spent another night playing and starting to get into it...

Mahn 13y ago

> but it seems the whole "game" and all mechanics are just designed to slowly get you hooked and extract money at the most susceptible time Welcome to the games industry of today. It's all about this everywhere you look; in fact, if you are an indie doing games today and you don't build around monetization you'll pretty much be laughed at (not by the players evidently, but you get the point). > Smartphones are powerful now, yet games that manage to match the quality and depth of an SNES-era game are basically non-existent Well, people generally tend to have much shorter sessions with their smartphone than with a console. Stupid and simple works because that's where the demand is, so folks build more of it.

msie 13y ago
people generally tend to have much shorter sessions with their smartphone than with a console Couldn't agree more. A smartphone is different from a console/PC not only in terms of form-factor but also in its usage (bursts of activity as opposed to long sessions).
vidarh 13y ago
Exactly. 90% of my gaming these days is during 10 minute train or bus rides as part of my commute. The remaining 10% tends to be before going to sleep etc. While I occasionally play other games, the ones I play when I have time to sit down tend to be unsuitable for small screen devices.

sillysaurus2 13y ago

Smartphones are powerful now, yet games that manage to match the quality and depth of an SNES-era game are basically non-existent. After seeing the success of Rovio, Zynga and King, I don't think they will be made sadly. It's important to realize that our tastes aren't necessarily representative of people's tastes in general. Most people probably wouldn't enjoy Chrono Trigger or FF3 compared to Candy Crush. The evidence is that Final Fantasy games have been available for smartphones for a long time now, but they just aren't selling. The storytelling experience is the same, but people aren't as into them. It's easy to label the industry as "low confidence" but reality is more along the lines of "acts on hard data." It's wise to be cautious when it only takes one or two mistakes to kill your company.

DanBC 13y ago
I don't care about people liking Candy Crush. Match 3 is a huge genre. It's just sad that there isn't a clone that costs $4.99 to buy and doesn't need more purchases. It's even sadder that even if the clone did exist few people would buy it. I really miss the Doom model of give away a few levels cor free and buy the rest.
- GFischer 13y ago
  There are free Match 3 games, at least on Android, I have downloaded and played several :) . Example - JewelsStar https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.game.JewelsStar https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.game.Jewel... However, I'd pay for a polished experience like a PopCap made game (Bejeweled).
- sleepyK 13y ago
  Lots of games do that, and that seems to be the only respectable way to monetize.... that and in-game item sales.... but those tend to go too far and then cripple gameplay.
- p_e_n_g_u_i_n 13y ago
  > I really miss the Doom model of give away a few levels cor free and buy the rest. Sadly, things like this get tons of hate in the reviews... People would rather be annoyed with stupid social media and IAP crap than pay a dollar for the rest of the game. The only way to really make it work is (from my experience) make an ad-supported, shortened lite version, so people can test it out before buying it. That's a real pain because now you have two malls to manage, update, and promote. At least that's how it works on iOS.

fhd2 13y ago

I've got the exact same concerns. But on the other hand, I think what we're seeing is a bubble. A few powerful companies are exploiting the current casual/F2P gold rush, but I doubt humanity as a whole will be into casual scam games forever. Games are evidently growing up. And legislators might eventually tackle games that focus on addicting and deceiving. All this will take time of course, but I still don't think we're in for a cultural wasteland in the near-term. Indies are already filling the gap, and it actually leads to success for some of them. Most in my circles don't focus on making money first and foremost, neither do I.

pawn 13y ago
I agree with several things in your post, but I don't want legislators anywhere near my games.
- fhd2 13y ago
  It's not ideal, but I actually think it's a good thing that e.g. gambling is restricted to adults. A fairly difficult topic IMO. Ideally, people would just be educated/interested enough to identify and avoid scams. Definitely hoping for that.
  - Karunamon 13y ago
    But there's no gambling involved here. I agree with the parent poster, the last thing I want are out-of-touch politicians legislating more things they don't understand. That would be a worse outcome than all the scammy games in the world.
    - untog 13y ago
      I think there's at least an interesting debate to be had. Why is gambling restricted to adults? Presumably because children are unable to comprehend the way in which it persuades you to spend more than you ever intended to. Or maybe it's because the money is unlikely to be theirs. Either way, you could argue that Candy Crush is the same on both counts.

easy_rider 13y ago

What bothers me, is that the addictive nature and spending is up 2 par with poker sites/ casino's. You can play for free with playmoney there, and sure if you have discipline and constraint you won't deposit on such a site. Then advertising comes in..

aaronetz 13y ago

I couldn't agree more with your sentiment. The last mobile game I worked on at a (now defunct) company, started out as an innovative open-world exploration / action game (See http://www.slantsixgames.com/games/strata-scavenger http://www.slantsixgames.com/games/strata-scavenger). I can honestly say, having had first-hand gameplay experience with it, that this game could have been a standout in the mobile game crowd. Unfortunately, the day came when our CMF (Canadian Media Fund) money ran out, and the company had to look for external funding. Needless to say, publishers are not interested in this kind of game. They expect simple gameplay, in-app purchases, social features, etc. It it very hard, in the current mobile game climate, to come up with truly deep and innovative games. I applaud each and every indie dev trying to do so. EDIT: edited link above to point directly to the company's website

robterrell 13y ago
It's just business. Your game (which looks cool), if it had no IAP and social features, would make a few hundred thousand bucks if it was an outstanding success. Whereas, Clash of Clans / HayDay / Candy Crush make between $500k and $1M per day. If you were a publisher, where would you put your investment?
krisgee 13y ago
Yeah I've heard/played out this story a couple of times now. Investors want you to "make it like Candy Crush" and they get their way because the company has to make payroll somehow.

ThomPete 13y ago

it't primarily a controller issue. The type of games that the touch screen allow for optimally isn't those types of games. And so we are left with the old card & puzzle games. There is also room for some great RTS but we have to wait til the tablet market becomes a little bit bigger.

debacle 13y ago

I don't know. I would never buy a smartphone game at this point because they look so low quality. Square Enix has offerings in the play store that I know are going to be good, so I can pay a few dollars more for that game instead of spending 0.99 on DRAGON DUNGEON CASTLE LOLICON SAGA.

cantfindmypass 13y ago
Square Enix's offerings on Android are non-functional on newish versions of the OS. Look at the reviews: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.square_enix.android_googleplay.chrono https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.square_eni...

EvilLook 13y ago

>It seems the whole "game" and all mechanics are just designed to slowly get you hooked and extract money at the most susceptible time. And it's executed almost to the point of perfection. Like an arcade game? It costs $0.99 for a fresh set of lives in Candy Crush Saga. $0.25 cents in 1984, adjusted for inflation, is $0.54 today, so an extra set of five lives in the game is about double what an arcade game cost in 1984. So what's the big deal?

schenecstasy 13y ago

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYRcAKYYEG4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYRcAKYYEG4

jackgavigan 13y ago

> Smartphones are powerful now, yet games that manage to match the quality and depth of an SNES-era game are basically non-existent. 'Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic' for iOS being a notable exception, of course.

mattmaroon 13y ago

To be fair, the video game industry has brought this upon themselves. They haven't innovated much since the SNES era. 90% of the profits went to Call of Duty and Madden sequels for a long time. King and their ilk aren't cutting into that, they're innovating games for people who previously didn't play them. It's a positive thing.

vectorpush 13y ago
They haven't innovated much since the SNES era What a ridiculous statement. The first Call of Duty wasn't even released until 2003, more than a decade after the SNES. To say that gaming hasn't innovated since the SNES era is just wrong.
- mattmaroon 13y ago
  *much

brokentone 13y ago

Isn't this what all of us are complaining about right now? Various business segments (video games, content, video aggregation) doing the bare minimum copying existing content and monitizing it with psychological usury? Clickbait-y headlines, overly gamified games, etc. All the same thing, but they only work because they work--people clicking, paying, etc... How do we as developers deal with these segments or agents we find intellectually dishonest?

vectorpush 13y ago

It's the form factor. Sure, a mobile RPG might be fun on a train ride, but realistically, the quality game audience is well serviced on platforms that don't have to force their control scheme into a crude touch screen abomination.

honestcoyote 13y ago

Games on iOS/Android which match or exceed SNES-era games are plentiful.[1] I'm not sure why this opinion persists. Mobile games have trash like Candy Crush, but SNES wasn't crap-free either. I don't have a lot of time for games these days, but my iPad has games like Plants vs. Zombies, Final Fantasy Tactics, an Infocom / Inform interpreter, King of Dragon Pass, Waking Mars, SpaceChem, Minecraft, Brogue, Skulls of the Samurai, XCOM, Pacific Skies, OOTP Baseball, etc. There's also some great board / card game conversions like Small World 2, Warhammer Quest, and Ascension on there. And this only scratches the surface of what's out there. [1] Pocket Tactics - http://www.pockettactics.com http://www.pockettactics.com - is a very good site, in the style of Rock Paper Shotgun, for discovering the more interesting mobile games. Their best of 2013 list is a good place to get started if you have no idea of what's available - http://www.pockettactics.com/pocket-tactics-best-2013-awards/ http://www.pockettactics.com/pocket-tactics-best-2013-awards...

noinput 13y ago

How is this different than playing Street Fighter, Contra, or any other arcade game? I remember pulling a roll of quarters out of the bank just so I could go to the arcade prepared to slowly spend money years back.