Don’t pull that again, or it will hit you in the head again.

Round 1

This morning while hanging washing on the clothes horse like the diligent house husband I occasionally am, my 15 month old son pulled excitedly on a sock I’d just hung, causing the whole thing to keel over, knock him on the head and then return to its original position. One minor tear break later and he attempts the exact same thing. This left me in an interesting position, do I step in physically and stop the thing from tipping over or let him learn from his own mistakes? In the end I went with a warning I think he probably understood a little bit of, but more likely he was suddenly distracted by Spiderman, Batman, a picture of an elephant, the idea of lions, or a near infinite variation on one of these themes and off he ran.

Kids learn in a variety of ways, through experience (pulling this=banged head), advice, terror, luck, watching etc. The idea of operant conditioning through negative reinforcement works when the idea of or excitement of a potential reward becomes weak or unattractive enough that it’s not worth the risk of being knocked on the head for. Then as the memory of the physical pain of being hit on the head fades, you might still try again if the allure of the reward or action is weighted appropriately.

With videogames, you’re being knocked on the head constantly during the entire experience. Every long term gamer has taken a lot of punishment over the years, but it’s because of this willingness to get slapped over and over again that they have accessed so many excellent experiences.

Typical Playstation 3 owner

The first punch in the face usually comes with the purchase, whereupon you rely on various sources like reviews, recommendations, box art, title, whatever, to make a decision to purchase. You take this fist to the face and hand over money hoping that you’ll get enough entertainment/enjoyment out of the game to help you forget how much it stings, perhaps even in hindsight make the pain seem like a good deal. When you find a bargain on the shelves you might feel you have already won that stage, as you’re all the more certain that the punch is definitely not going to hurt. 

With the iOS market, the app store and the increase in popularity of freemium games, this stage of punishment has been turned on its head to such a degree that not only do you know it isn’t going to hurt, but the financial justification level is so low (even free) as to become insignificant to most players. And thus did Apple save gamers from that first cruel blow that the games industry has been brutally administering since videogames began.

Ding ding: Round 2 coming soon.

Social gaming is a million sharks

On how social gaming companies are sniffing out the scent of desire and homing directly in on it.


It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear.


Like Skynet, the fictional self aware network from Terminator 2, social games and the new wave of companies making them are learning at a geometric rate. What we are seeing with social games is games as a business first, trying and testing and refining and exploiting different genres at phenomenal speed with no regard for traditional hangups and legacy cliches of the traditional games industry. Often because they don't know very much about the traditional videogame industry. They have no problem with providing exactly what is wanted by the audience, regardless of how it's perceived by 'gamers'.


In the process, social game makers have struck oil and brought into the public eye huge audiences who like playing games but aren't traditional gamers. These people are paying lots of money to these companies! In what seems the very definition of consenting adult behaviour, these companies are facilitating the easy transfer of money from these people in exchange for things they want - or at least as easy as possible while bending to the will of the lunch money demanding Facebook and their credit system. 

The internet before people went there.

Short, controlled bursts


One indie game designer/maker wrote fairly recently that they don't make games to monetise the bored, referring instead to some higher ideal (something about fun, ownership, maybe love). A romantic notion, but also almost word for word what all game makers do: monetise bored people. Of course what they meant was their games are better, less mediocre than banal and cynical than freemium crap. Depending on how you measure 'better' then sure, but what is the point attempting to be made here? The Wire might be 'better' than The X Factor and The Fat Duck might be 'better' than KFC. They are different products that co-exist within the same industry. 


The urge amongst gamers to dictate what is okay to be seen enjoying isn't unique to gaming but it does seem to be especially prevalent. Gamers and game makers offhandedly dismiss social/casual games as 'Skinner boxes' and feel compelled to tell people they are wrong for playing or liking games like Tiny Tower. "They are pointless." they say. "A waste of time.", "Barely even a game." Gamers are so used to living by arbitrary conventions rather than questioning them that they've created a set of complicated rules around their hobby. If you don't know the secret handshake then you can't come in. David Sirlin labels people who play by these sorts of self inflicted rules in fighting games as 'scrubs'. 


Maybe his visual acuity is based on movement.


While traditional game makers are wondering what all of it means for them and whether or not the bad men will force him to put some horrible things in his game, something is happening. Social casual gaming is getting closer to traditional gaming, but only where it makes sense to. It will inevitably get closer, but only where it makes sense to. The worry for traditional game makers isn't that the current wave of social games are stealing their audience. Their worry should be that if social gaming companies start encroaching on 'real' games territory, how much they'll decide is worth taking.

Farmville is just a Skinner box

On drawing lines in the sand and why indie game makers are stupid.


According to wikipedia, the official term for a Skinner box is Operant Conditioning Chamber, which is a much cooler name. It's a place that they (scientists probably, like from Half Life) put rats in and make them learn how to pull levers to get stuff. It's also used to describe social casual games on iOS and Facebook, generally in a derogatory way by 'real' or traditional gamers and game makers. 


Free me and weep


The majority of iOS game revenue comes from freemium now. The split between traditional 'pay up front' and the newer 'get hooked and perhaps some people will buy something in game' model was about 40/60 last year and it's about 60/40 now. I'd imagine it'd settle at around the same percentage ratio as there are iOS platform owners to iOS platform owners that are traditional gamers. What I'm saying is that traditional game makers making traditional games aren't in immediate danger of losing sales to casual freemium gamers because those people want to play Smurfs and Sims social, and always have done, except you never paid any attention to them because they were playing plastic Tetris games and handheld crossword consoles and completing puzzles in Take a Break magazines and maybe even playing PC games rather than actually being in the same (app) store as you.

It seems to be a fairly commonly held stance amongst traditional indie game developers that they don't want to include IAPs, (in app purchases). Wait, no, they don't want to include bad IAPs and cheapen their pure creative vision through shortcuts and other cynical money grabbing efforts which are in fact likely to turn off the audience they are trying to reach. Good for them, I mean it. Getting that breakout hit on the iOS marketplace is hard, like a lottery. In order to have a successful game release on iOS you perhaps don't even need a 'good' game, but if you do have a good game it may well be not enough, it probably isn't. I bet there are a several dozen very good iOS games that you have never played or heard of. That's a risk inherent to the platform unfortunately and it's up to indie game designers to be a bit more savvy about how they approach making and releasing games.


Our Tune

Don't be like this guy

I will tell you a sad story: A talented designer really wanted to make a game of his own. He hired a developer with his own money and together they worked long and hard making a neat little puzzle game (which happened to have an excellent original chiptune soundtrack). He released the game on iOS at the base price and sat back and waited. Time passed. A handful of copies were sold mostly to friends and the power of social networking didn't reach all that far. Defeated, the designer cursed his luck and walked off into the sunset, his dream of iOS success shattered. However, that guy had: no update plan, no Plan B, had given no thought to monetising the game in other ways. He wasn't a stupid person, just unprepared for the iOS market. He'd given himself one shot at success, one roll of the dice. He'd minimised his chances to be successful and to make money. By the way that game is called Trainer Drop and is now free.

Good/good Good/Bad Bad/Good Bad/Bad

An inferior product from an inferior producer/creator can make more money than a superior one, it happens all the time across many industries. Unless you're in a Miyamoto type position where you can dedicate your time and effort purely into the game and not worry at all about how you package and deliver and market and inform people about your product, then you need to worry about it. Even some of the makers who follow all the 'rules' and good practice are still finding they don't get the coverage they hope for or expect. The marketplace on iOS is tough, but people are there, (a lot of people!) the potential upside is huge and that's one of the main reasons so many people have been and are flocking to create games for iOS devices. 

Take it how you wanna take it


The figures in the iOS market show that freemium gamers are willing to spend money on stuff, and far more than they would up front. I believe as a game developer on iOS it's crucial you take this into account. I completely understand that you don't want to 'cheapen' your game, and that's cool, it's up to you to make it work well. Look at Angry Birds, that has an excellent example of IAP in the Mighty Eagle. It doesn't affect people who don't purchase it, it does serve as a shortcut but also functions as an entirely new way of playing through the game. Now look at Let's Golf 3, which requires you to pay money to play after you've used up your 'power' which equates to playing a few holes a day. This is currently seen as a very negative thing, so the reaction has naturally been pretty critical This is a shame because Let's Golf is a pretty decent traditional videogame experience that people in the past have liked and this may have turned off their audience. I don't know their figures but I'd say that's a pretty poor example of IAP. There are many poor examples of IAP out there, although it is interesting that paying for credits to play mobile games in Japan has been pretty popular, perhaps it has more of a link with playing arcade games?
By dismissing all forms of IAP you are potentially taking away opportunities for your players to express their pleasure with and allegiance to the game, and refusing to provide something that may be wanted and even expected by your audience. It's up to you as a game designer and maker to judge how you'll monetise your game and what you'll offer. The chance of releasing something and hoping to make money purely from sales at the base price point are getting smaller. I think there will be a market for the slightly more expensive, higher quality 'purer' type game on iOS (look at Kairosoft and Cave games). Selling a game at 69p/79c/99c makes it very difficult for you to make money in a crowded marketplace. Allowing your audience to give you more money in return for stuff they want is important. It's about pitching your proposition just right so that there's a mutual understanding where your players see your IAP as fair (ideally great value and highly appealing) rather than a poor value, forced or underhand purchase. That has to be done with a good understanding of your own game and the people buying it. 


I prefer the term 'videogame auteur'

I don't think small indies are finding it hard to make money because Skinner boxes are 'stealing their lootz', I think it's because there is a combination of tough to penetrate, crowded market, inability to deal with and understand monetising their game through other methods than one time purchase, insular thinking regarding games and the game market in general and a misunderstanding of what the role of indie games developer is. You need to be an entrepreneur, not just a craftsman. If you aren't prepared to accept the business reality and prefer to imagine that if you build something special enough the somehow people will come and you'll get lots of money and adulation and critical acclaim then you're probably going to struggle and you are minimising your chances of success. You are a chef that has created the most fantastic dish, but insists that people travel down a long country road for miles and miles in order to experience it. This kind of approach does occasionally work and is romanticised when it is, but it does require a great deal of good fortune, not to mention the walk to back up the talk. If you're making or intending to make a living from indie games then it's up to you how much you choose to leave in the lap of lady luck. There are already quite a few factors out of your control.