I installed Shadow Era yesterday... and I've been hooked since. In short, it's a dumbed down version of Magic: The Gathering, faster/less cards/slightly different mana-cast style.
It runs great on the nook (CM7-N165 is what I'm running), though you must be online to play which is a small downer. I believe it will install from the new market, though if not then it's easily gotten from the webs. Since it's free to install and play no need to worry about stealing.
The largish adds are slightly annoying, but they're gone during actual play.
For those wondering about the long-term aspect of the game, here's a run-down:
You start with one deck of your choosing.
Other full decks are available for purchase.
As you defeat the computer you'll earn gold, of which can be spent on buying more cards for your deck.
1.5-6 wins per card.
The deck editor is tolerable.
You may also challenge real people to duels.
MTG doesn't translate well to digital games, i.e. the fail PS3 versions. This one seems to strike the balance between strategy/toughness and playtime/replay value.
Is the AI any good, or do you need to find other players for it to really work? Also, is there any kind of game browsing or matchmaking service, or do you need to know who you want to connect to?
The AI is decent. Luck of the draw is the real power player in this game. I've been owned within turn 7, and visa-versa. The skill comes in when/what you select to sacrifice to create resources, and how you manage your deck in the editor.
I have not really tried out the multi-player much. You do have to create and join rooms to play. I don't think there's matchmaking.
So this is just a general philosophy type question, but it bugs the hell out of me.
One of the games that I was addicted to, for quite a while, was Airport mania 2. One of the best features about this game is that it had support for multiple users. That way, on our family tablet, I could play it, my wife could play it, and so could my daughter, and all our progress and scores were separate. This was so awesome it's hard to describe. Kind of like having an epiphany.
So the main question is, why do other uber popular games like Angry Birds, Cut the Rope, etc not support multiple users.
Tablet are becoming more prevalent these days and most families I knew have one tablet that is shared. Not being able to separate my game scores and progress from those of other family members is really bad. I don't play most games any more because someone else in my family already does and I want to play a whole run by myself.
From a programming standpoint it doesn't seem like it'd be that hard. A separate set of stored data for each profile and a screen to let the user choose which set of data to load. However since very few games do this, I'm guessing there's more to it than that, or they just don't care...
Anyway, just rambling but wanted to see if anyone know of a reason that more games don't do this since it'd be such a great feature in a shared device world...
I would 100% agree with you. While its of more use in the Tablet world, as phones, in my experience, are shared less frequently, I really why developers of all types don't see this as a big goal in their game design process.
I mean, whether it's easy or not is relative to the code a developer produces, but in theory it is a simple addition to most games' source.
As the title says, are in-app purchases as effective as I'd like to think they are?
As we're all fully aware, there are a lot of people around the internet who will do whatever they can to get a game or app that they shouldn't be able to.
Obviously developers have to make money when they choose to because otherwise they could be making a loss and not want to continue to develop any more. What is their best option to make money?
1) They could have a price on their app/game but once paid for, no more money will need to be spent in the app/game.
2) They could use the popular method of creating a free version and a paid version.
3) Have the app/game free of charge but have in-app purchases to make some money from it.
There are of course downsides to each of the options above but in my mind, the best option is 3) because it's not as easy to be able to get around the paying system. The only way around, that I can currently think of, would be by using cheat systems such as GameCih.
Whereas with the other 2 options, it's fairly easy to be able to bypass the required payment.
A perfect example of in-app purchases working is with Shadowgun Deadzone.
If the app had not been free, chances are I wouldn't have been interested in it because I couldn't test it before buying.
As the game is free, I tested the game out and because I thoroughly enjoy the game, I've since bought in game gold numerous times and will continue to do so.
I know that not everyone will have the same mentality as me but it proves, in my case, that in-app purchases work.
What are your thoughts on in-app purchases or what do you feel are the benefits of simply putting a price on the app/game?
From my experience, In App Billing is really good.
In my truck parking game, 3D Truck Parking, there are about 4 level packs for free and 1 that you have to buy with IAB. I must say that I got a lot of purchases daily!
IAB is better, you don't have to maintain two different versions, its easy to set up. Also users can't cancel an order they make through IAB & its linked to their accounts. On a normal paid app you can copy the apk and cancel the order, making it easy to steal.
When i started to work with android app i did two version free and paid. Now i'm sure that it's wrong. One free application with in-app payments is the best choise.
Question
Hi Guys!
I'm writing my academic thesis about the market of the app stores and I would like to interview some developers about the monetization, revenue models etc... If you could answer some questions please contact me at [email protected] It would be a great help! Thank you very much!
Freemium and IAB
Hi,
I believe Freemium is a good model for many apps, specially games.
And IAB is the best option to support the Freemium model, to my experience.
I tried other options such as free app with paid apk acting as an unlock key, which is a quite popular model on the Play Store, but not as powerful and flexible as IAB.
So I would really recommend IAB, specially latest version 3 which is easier to use.
Make sure you use the helper class provided by Google, but be careful, there are a few bugs in it...Look for fixes in stackoverflow !
Good luck!
Eric
I can certainly say I wish I had implemented in app purchasing instead of a free and paid version of the same app. As mentioned before, the ease of not having to maintain two versions, as well as the advantage of free app entry is a big plus. Definitely the way to go if the app is designed in a way that makes sense for that style.
In-apps are gr8, the only problem is that the app must be developed rly good (if not excelent i.e. nice in-game economy) to encurage ppl to use them. Freemium FTW!
I would love to move to IAB but I already have a paid/free app combo in the store. That would just be another app to maintain
Sent from my Nexus 4 using xda app-developers app
Just to say, Google Play bans ALL apps with in-app purchase here.
Besides, I can't but any apps in GP.
What a shame, Google.
F2P is here to stay
When you look at the top grossing list on both Google Play and iTunes you will see that, in fact, free-to-play titles make more money than paid titles. Of course, market for premium titles will still exist, especially for high-quality utility apps but in games F2P is dominating and, I think, this trend will continue.
As you experienced yourself, this model is super-convenient for players, you can test a game and, if interested, pay for additional items, etc. The only one thing which is tricky is keeping balance, ie. not making a game pay-to-win.
Last but not least, it's so much more exciting from a dev perspective to have 1 million of players enjoying your title than 10k Making money of them is yet another matter.
As a user I still like the idea of purchasing an app once and using it for as long as I like, but maybe I'm getting old...
I don't like the pay2play model, for example in real racing 3 you can only race a couple of rounds and then your car needs maintenance. This maintenance takes just long enough to hate it, but with in game coins you can make it happen instantly, which you can buy with real money.
The same goes for buying new cars: you don't make a lot of money racing so buying a new car takes ages (if you don't pay for quick maintenance that is) but you can again buy credits with real money to make it faster.
This probably makes for a continious money flow for the developers, but it annoys me; I would much rather just pay once and then play forever, and after that maybe pay some more for some dlc or something, but i don't like paying just to keep playing...
I don't mind what model developer choose. But I'm really disappointed by the lack of proper filters in Google Play. Free and Payed is not enough! It's cheating that demo or IAB applications are listed together with really free applications. There should be at least third category, which would gather demo, IAB etc apps - apps that aren't fully free. I would also love to have "open source" category.
Google's IAB is simple to implement in the app/game, but it has a huge disadvantage: if no server verification was implemented, then it is very easy to automatically hack IAB, there are many hacking tools available. Server verification is not an easy to implement. At least, a dedicated server is needed + experience in server programming.
IAP is good, but takes work
I have deployed apps with both IAP as well as the free/paid model.
IAP allows a single app with combined ratings and DL count (and free apps get more casual attention)
IAP takes more work - code, testing, and setup in portal
Paid apps on different app stores are easy. IAP solutions from each app store are not compatible with each other.
I plan to use IAP as the primary model on my next app (as well as ads), with no paid version. We'll see how that goes. I decided to try subscriptions, which is a tougher sell.
For a first app, however, the free/paid model may be much easier for many devs. Just hit a switch to show the no-ad layout (or whatever other features the paid version has) and dump the separate apk up on Google Play.
BTW I blog on ad networks and Android app stores at http://www.projectjourneyman.com. I created a report with charts showing my experience with a paid app as well as a free app w/IAP on Amazon and Google Play (plus paid app on Nook). Getting it signs you up to my email newsletter, but you can unsubscribe right away if you want
As a user I agree with an earlier poster that a once off fee for a full featured product is the most satisfying.
The biggest problem is IAP is that it needs to be very well implemented and generally this is not the case. More often than not it becomes a pay to win scenario which is just silly.
Too many games entice you to make a payment and then you feel you've been robbed as there was little value in the purchase.
I understand it is a good business model to get money from your hard work as a developer but personally I find it almost unethical. It becomes a little like gambling where games are addictive and require you to keep feeding in money to continue playing. This is not dissimilar to the pokie machines (aka slot machines) which are a very political issue here in Australia. I can imagine this pricing model in mobile games also becoming a political issue for similar reason if it is not self regulated by developers.
Also, hacking IAP apps is often pretty easy to do to avoid payment so this model is not immune to piracy.
Developers who depend on freemium might find their market drying up when their customers finally realize it's really a scam.
Im sorry for putting it this way but it's more honest to say so.
Freemiums are making money right now because of new smartphone owners who dont know any better.
But just like kids growing up, they will realize its better to buy outright a game than to keep throwing money into a game to get in game items just to play it well. It becomes pretty expensive later on.
The gold rush isnt going to last.
Here's my 2p's worth as a consumer, not a developer. The Freemium model is OK if its implemented correctly. Hill Climb Racing and Jetpack Joyride are two examples of what I believe to be decent titles. They're both so well made I have ended up spending real money on them both, not because I had to in order to progress or complete them (I'm looking at you Glu Games) but because I enjoyed the titles so much I wanted to play faster and support the developers. As for Real Racing 3, well I've got all the cars fully upgraded and I've never given EA a f***ing penny, nor will I.
There are limits.
I personally love the free / paid app model and almost all the tools and system apps I now use or have used were free versions I found invaluable and subsequently paid for. Hell, I've even bought 'Donate' versions that are exactly the same (Orux Maps) purely because the apps are that good.
Ultimately if people want to steal your work they'll find a way. Theft isn't going anywhere. But neither is the desire to reward decent work that is genuinely good value. I guess the way to get paid is to strive to create something of value.
bong4316 said:
Developers who depend on freemium might find their market drying up when their customers finally realize it's really a scam.
Im sorry for putting it this way but it's more honest to say so.
Freemiums are making money right now because of new smartphone owners who dont know any better.
But just like kids growing up, they will realize its better to buy outright a game than to keep throwing money into a game to get in game items just to play it well. It becomes pretty expensive later on.
The gold rush isnt going to last.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I do not agree, not all games use aggressive freemium model to milk the money from the users. In-app purchases are often used to buy additional unnecessary content (for example, extra levels) or to remove ads (because all free games are supported by ads). So the game just gives users a choice: either live with ads, or convert game into ads-free version.
nishyt said:
IAB is better, you don't have to maintain two different versions, its easy to set up. Also users can't cancel an order they make through IAB & its linked to their accounts. On a normal paid app you can copy the apk and cancel the order, making it easy to steal.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
totally agree! IAP is much better!
Hello!
I decided to make a post with details about our game Tap Master Mondrian, the first we released, one year ago, and how it ended up having way more downloads on WP8 than on other platforms.
I'll get into the details of why I chose to make a game for WP8, what the download numbers were for the three platforms and how much money I made on each. I also talk about how I marketed the game and why I think the game ended up being way more successful on the arguably smaller platform.
Hope the information is useful, and if you'd like to know any additional information just let me know.
Full post with graphs and numbers can be found here
Well, it's a really interesting story and a real example of how a bigger market isn't always the best one for small devs., as with a few publicity moves and bit of luck your app. can be noticed way more rapidly on the smaller market.
Plus Windows has a really dedicated audience, also a slow but steady growth ( that includes marketshare + store apps numbers ), and generally good apps tend to get observed by the community and given 5 stars, the better the overall score the app has, the quicker the chances are to be featured on the front page.
Also the Store has the New+Rising section, where a new app/game with relatively good score will get featured also.
We've only released Hyper Rift for 3 weeks but its download has already surpassed the total iOS and Android downloads, where the game has made its debut 3 months ago. I can agree with you.
Also the Store has the New+Rising section, where a new app/game with relatively good score will get featured also.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yep, Tap Master was in this section for a long time, on brazilian store for the most part, which is where most of the downloads come from.
information
this is a very nice point for all very useful information for us carry on
All things considered, its a truly fascinating story and a genuine sample of how a greater business sector isn't generally the best one for little devs., as with a couple exposure moves and bit of fortunes your application. can be seen way all the more quickly on the littler business sector.
Besides Windows has a truly committed group of onlookers, additionally a moderate yet consistent development ( that incorporates marketshare + store applications numbers ), and by and large great applications have a tendency to get saw by the group and given 5 stars, the better the general score the application has, the snappier the chances are to be highlighted on the front page.
Additionally the Store has the New+Rising segment, where another application/amusement with generally great score will get included too.
Hello,
I've recently created different flappy bird clones and tried to jump on the flappy bird train, but it didn't work out, as there simply is too much competition.
I wonder if creating apps for android is profitable for small developers anyway. Are there any suggestions on which kind of games to focus? Which genres are you targeting on?
What are your experiences with casual games?
Everyone likes high end graphics games.... but so far the only game i havent seen on the play store... its a soccer game...fifa 15 & 16 just sucks... cant play international games ect... maybe a worl cup game with narrators? Since its just around the corner!!.. & maybe charge $5 bucks for it..
Sent from my SM-N920P using XDA-Developers mobile app
The thing is, as a single developer, I can't afford high end graphics. So I'm looking for market gaps.
Never thought of a football game... I might give it a try, thanks.
Simple games sometimes do very well. Look at flappy bird. I would go for a simple game with simple easy to understand input.
Phone games are meant to kill time. Make a game that requires no skill at all.
Side scrolling 2d games....that have a storyline!
There is no silver bullet. You could never know which one will be hyped.
If you have a lot of money to spend on marketing you can sell any game, otherwise it doesn't matter if your game has high- or low-end graphics. If some people start to play with it and start to share it you'll win
Just make games you would like to play with
jglm4u,
Its too hard to develop soccer games on android and need expensive licenses for stars like messi or ronaldo.