游戏邦在:
杂志专栏:
gamerboom.com订阅到鲜果订阅到抓虾google reader订阅到有道订阅到QQ邮箱订阅到帮看

开发者谈iOS游戏开发及运营的种种难处

发布时间:2012-03-07 18:06:31 Tags:,,,,

作者:Chris Buffa

2012年2月见证了林书豪的一炮而红。在2月4日NBA联赛的一场分组比赛中,林书豪使纽约尼克斯队战胜了新泽西网队。随后他带领着整个球队获得了节节胜利,吸引了全世界球迷的眼光。

事实上,如果球队中没有任何一名球员受伤,教练没有派林书豪上场,他也不可能迎来如此风光的NBA生涯。

从林书豪的故事中我们想到了Steve Demeter,他在2008年制作了一款名为《Trism》的iPhone益智游戏,并在短短两个月时间里赚得了25万美元。而在此之前甚至很少有人听过这个名字,并且他也从未与任何知名发行商,如Capcom,世嘉或EA进行合作。但是林书豪在获取巨大成功之前曾经为金州勇士队和休士顿火箭队效力。

trism_original(from macworld.com)

trism_original(from macworld.com)

Demeter创作的游戏在苹果App Store诞生后的两个月内便迅速成为iOS应用的代表作。在这里,你不一定需要市场营销者,公共关系公司或者无数开发者的支持;你只要拥有一个出众的想法并深刻理解iPhone操作系统,然后再投入一定的努力,便能够创造出奇迹。

如果以乐观的心态来看,发布一款成功的iOS游戏可比赢得NBA联赛简单多了,但是实际上,白手起家并获取巨大成功的案例还是少数。无数受到Demeter之类故事鼓舞的开发商在经历了各自艰苦探索后领悟到,要想创造出下一个热门游戏不仅需要投入100%的努力,同时也需要具有一定的天赋以及适当的运气。

失败之声

Appy Entertainment品牌总监Paul O’Connor说道:“这里并不是遍地黄金。如今,许多新闻和报告都是关于iOS开发的淘金热,关于开发一款iOS应用如何帮你发大财等。打个比方来说,就像进入一个赌场,你能够听到的都是成功的欢呼声以及老虎机源源不绝的出票声。因为这时候你的耳朵里容不下任何一丁点失败的声音。这就是当前游戏市场中所面临的现实情况。”

鉴于此,任何充满雄心壮志的开发者都不应该抱着快速赚钱的想法开发游戏。因为这么做只会适得其反。

Mighty Rabbit Studios的Ben Moore表示:“开发智能手机游戏并不是那么容易赚钱。很多时候,人们只是听到一些成功案例便开始幻想只要是可行的游戏便能够在这个市场上大获其利。但是事实并非如此简单。大约只有八分之一的游戏能够长时间成为众人瞩目的焦点,并获得较高曝光率而赚取巨大利益。这就是为何发行商需要使出浑身解数提高游戏曝光率的重要原因。如果你拥有自己的发行商,那么在苹果收取30%的抽成后,发行商也将会跟你提取20%至50%的盈利抽成。所以即使开发者创造出一款成功的大型游戏,他们最终拿到手的利益也只剩下原先的35%至50%了。”

更重要的是,设计师还必须想办法保持财政稳定。

The Game Bakers的Emeric Thoa说道:“资金是任何新兴工作室所面临的最严峻的问题。对于大多数游戏来说,从发行到收益需要经历一个较长的阶段,但是这期间你还需要不断为团队的开销而支出。就比如你有5万美元的制作预算,那么只有获得7万的销售额才能帮助你达到收支平衡。而如果你希望在3个月内达到这一目标,你就需要预先准备3个月的资金外加一个月的奖金,因为苹果是每两个月向开发商支付报酬。但是你也要清楚,一般很难在游戏发行后的第一个月便能够获得盈利。”

最后,Thoa提醒所有开发者切忌想当然。“很多开发者在最初开发iOS应用面临的最大问题便是认为,iPhone拥有上百万的用户群,他们自然也能够轻松获得数十万用户。但是孰不知这却是一个很难达到的远大目标。”

公司结构也非常重要

Bolt Creative创始人Dave Castelnuovo说道:“我认为,不论开发公司拥有何种规模,任何一款能够引起巨大轰动的游戏都是一个天时地利的结果。有时候,你可能只是制作出一款默默无闻的游戏,但是有时候,你也有可能创造出一鸣惊人的好成绩。我认为很多公司总是在面对失败时过快将责任归咎于应用商店拥有太多竞争游戏,相反地,他们应该更好地利用这种运气元素。有效地管理你的团队,让他们能够维持长期的小成功,不断优化现有游戏并制作更多新游戏,直到真正创造出大热门的游戏。如果你创造出一款非常优秀的游戏但是却很少有玩家对此做出正面反应,也不要太在意,想想那些称不得上是大片的优秀电影。你要清楚,我们总是很难预测观众的真正想法。”

开发关键要素

想法也是阻碍任何一家开发商或工作室发展的一大问题。

Castelnuovo说道:“开发者总是会选择一些超过自己能力范围的游戏设计。我认为一开始应该尝试一些较小的想法,并根据自己所拥有的技术和技能组合开发游戏。大多数畅销游戏都是一些非常简单的游戏,所以一开始选择一些自己所熟悉的内容开发游戏才能够帮助你更快速地完成工作。对于任何小型开发商来说,他们首先需要在应用市场中积累实战经验。太过自不量力只能让你的游戏最终面临惨淡的销量。更糟糕的是,你可能在还未完成第一款游戏制作前就花光了所有积蓄。”

在这种情况下,开发者更需要明确自己何时才能完成游戏制作。

Housemarque的Sami Koistinen表示:“许多缺乏经验的开发者为了能够创造更棒的游戏体验总是不断在游戏中添加更多内容。但是这么做的结果却往往事倍功半:他们应该想办法删除游戏设计中任何多余的内容。一般来说,优秀的游戏玩法设计都很简单。如果游戏能够让玩家面对更少的按钮和核心机制,玩家可能会更喜欢游戏。如果一款游戏拥有精致的图像设计但是游戏玩法却很糟糕,那便不可能吸引玩家的注意;但是如果游戏拥有非常棒的玩法,那么即使它的图像不是很突出,它最终也是一款非常出色的游戏。好好想想,如果你创作越简单的游戏,那么最终需要你掩盖的设计缺陷也就会越少。”

Moore也表达了类似的想法:“任何人都可以随便说出一个想法并实践它。而根据我们自身的经验,如果想要在这个饱和的市场中创造出真正杰出的游戏,我们就需要投入更多的时间和努力。”

开发者还需要考虑质量控制问题。很多游戏经常会收到来自玩家的负面评论,并且只是因为游戏不能继续顺畅地运行。

InterWave Studios的总经理Igor Raffaele说道:“一款游戏中大约有80%的内容是由一些无形部件所组成,并且只有当这些部件不能正常运转时玩家才会注意到。玩家并不会关心游戏的软件开发,除非开发者不能让这些游戏模块正常运转或相互协调。而当玩家注意到这些问题时,那就意味着游戏中一定有某一环节出现差错了。”

自我促销的阴暗面?

缺少曝光率也是游戏发展的一大阻碍。并不是每一款游戏都能够在App Store中获得广泛的关注,所以开发者都必须想方设法推销他们的游戏,即使这意味着他们也需要对自己的游戏做出评论。

sketchy_star_ratings(from lifeinlofi.com)

sketchy_star_ratings(from lifeinlofi.com)

Raffaele表示:“我们也曾在App Store中评价自己的游戏。这种行为在很多网站上其实很平常。任何商店的用户评级系统都是公开的,即任何用户都可以在不同网站上相互比较和对照。对于开发者来说,对游戏进行评价只是他们在经历艰苦的游戏开发过程后所抒发自豪感的表现,并不会因此影响其他用户的评价。”

他继续说道:“在App Store中还有一些更潜伏的方法能够帮助你有效地推销游戏;并且你可以打着营销旗号去实践这些方法,不会有任何人对此感到抱怨。开发者应该更多地关注于这些潜伏的方法,而不再只是盲目地给自己的游戏挂上5颗星的评价。”

Castelnuovo表示:“这么做就像是在选举中给自己投票一样。如果应用开发者甚至不能说服自己的好友去购买自己的游戏并给予评价,那么只能说明他的游戏本身不够具有吸引力。虽然评价能够引导玩家做出决定,但是当用户在寻找游戏相关评价的同时,他们也只是在寻找一个支持自己内心决定的论据,也就是说他们其实已经做好了自己的决定。所以如果你的游戏真的非常糟糕,那么尽管开发者给予游戏虚假的5颗星评价,但是来自于玩家的负面评价也会将其掩埋于下。”

Thoa也说道:“让整个开发团队为游戏做评价不是问题,包括朋友在内可能最多只能够创造出30多条评价。但是这个数目却远远不及一款成功游戏所接收到的评价(可能超过1000条)。外挂张贴评论才是个大问题。这会让很多小型开发者明显受挫。”

O’Connor表示:“我总是在我们的游戏发行或更新时给好友或家人发送电子邮件,鼓励他们去下载游戏并做出评级。但是我认为我们唯一能够操纵玩家评价的方法便是提供给他们最优秀的游戏体验。我们的游戏拥有上千条评级,而这是只靠朋友或家人所做不到的。”

情况就是这样,如果没有发行商的支持,开发者就必须自己参加各种“草根活动”而宣传游戏。

Moore说道:“我在Mighty Rabbit最艰难的工作便是负责传统的PR以及市场营销活动,并且没有任何预算。这就意味着我们必须从头开始做起,包括参加所有活动,进行各种选择,并将游戏推向各大网站等。其中也包含参加各种‘草根活动’,促销展会,游戏大会,并接触各大社交媒体,不断向各大游戏网站宣传自己,直到他们愿意为游戏做评价或写报告。同时你还必须发挥创造性,让你的游戏能够凸显于饱和市场中那些拥有较大预算并且采用付费广告,或者通过分发大量虚拟商品而备受瞩目的游戏。”

Moore继续说道:“如果你正全身心地投入于一个游戏项目中,那么对于任何小型工作室来说最大的一个问题便是缺少足够的成本。不要在生产过程中投入过多资本去宣传游戏,因为这会让你失去创造性控制,或者在游戏能够盈利时而不能够继续分享游戏。”

Ernest Woo也跟我们分享了他的观点:“独立游戏开发者常常会忽视游戏的市场营销。因为我并不擅长PR,并且说实话,我更愿意花时间进行编码而不是思考如何推销游戏。”

除此之外,还有一些网站提供了一种需要收费的快速宣传方式,尽管这种方法违反了新闻的本质属性。好多年来,一直有反对者在指责评论员收取发行商的钱而帮助他们做出一些虚假评价,但是却没有明显的证据能够进行说明。而因为许多开发者都发现了这种方法的有效性,所以手机产业中已经有许多人开始利用无形“委托人”的方式谋取利益。

来自NASA Trained Monkeys的Carlos Sessa说道:“我不认为这么做有什么不好。游戏或应用的市场营销是我们的软肋。如果有人能够帮助我们推销应用,我不介意需付钱给他。”

Moore也说道:“有些人可能会认为,付费使用这样的服务就像是毫无准备而请别人帮助进行宣传,但是不管怎么说我都不觉得这是一种错误的方法,但同时也不觉得这是一种必要的手段。在过去,我所接触过的大多游戏评价网站不管是在评价过程还是在宣传协商中都非常公正且客观。我之所以认为这不是一种错误的方式,因为我过去所接触到的许多发行商和PR公司在宣传的同时也会提供其它服务,并获取更多重要的反馈资源并帮助我们更加有效地完善游戏。”

来自Brain Blast Games的Rube Rubenstein说道:“虽然我们从未这么做过,但是我们也需要理智地面对这一问题。我认为这些网站之所以扮演着博客或评价网站的身份主要是为了能够在这个产业中立足,就跟我们扮演着开发者身份一样。如果他们想要帮你的游戏作评价或写文章,那就给他们这个机会。而如果你实在不喜欢采用这种方法,也请礼貌地告诉他们你并不感兴趣。就像在Brain Blast,我们并未请别人帮我们进行游戏宣传,我们只是在专心地做好自己的游戏。”

当然了,并不是所有人都认可付费宣传的方法。

O’Connor表示:“没有经验的开发者总是很容易受到这种快捷评价方式的诱惑,但是说实在的,这却不是一种有效的方法。这种交易既耗费时间,也没有多大成效。如果你想要采取这种方法,那么就需要做好理亏的心理准备。”

Castelnuovo跟我们分享了他的经验:“在游戏开发者大会期间的一次会议上我们便真真切切感受到这种方法的‘昂贵性’,即为了见到各大网站的评论员,我们还必须支付一定金额的钱。但是他们却不能保证宣传效果,并且组织者也只是一个独立的实体,除此之外我也仍然觉得这是一种虚伪的方法。”

The Redner Group的Jim Redner表示,这种方法终将会耗尽开发者的所有金钱,并且不会带来真正有价值的帮助。

“我最害怕的是,如果这种服务变得越来越普遍,将不利于独立开发者或小型开发者的发展。如果创造出一种深层次的口袋环境(游戏邦注:钱多的人才能够生存下来),这就等于形成财政达尔文主义(适者生存)。如果在其它平台上也出现了更多这种交易行为,那么小型或独立开发者终将成为市场的牺牲者。那些针对于宣传游戏的网站虽然为小型开发者和大型开发者各留出一块同等大小的社论领域,但是如果付费评价模式越来越普遍,拥有更多资金的大型发行商终究占据有利的位置。”

Villain的首席执行官Dane Baker也插话道:

“如果你需要花钱让别人帮你宣传游戏或应用,为何一开始要自己费心制作游戏?你应该将更多资金用于凸显自己的游戏。”

Woo Games的首席执行官Ernest Woo也表示这些网站所带来的比远远大于弊。

“我之前也曾与这些网站进行合作,并且也付钱让他们帮助创造一些‘快速评论’。但是后来我们公司有了自己的PR,所以我们不必再与这些网站打交道了。而我希望这些网站和博客能够更多地关注于独立游戏开发者,从而慢慢取消收费宣传模式。”

不管现实如何,开发者仍然需要不断地向App Store提交游戏。并且他们也需要面临各种各样的挑战,包括管理公司以及吸引更多玩家关注游戏等。当然了,只要开发者是出于热爱而制作游戏而不是为了快速赚钱,那么他们便有资格给予自己的游戏冠以任何头衔或做出主观评价。

Woo最后说道:“我希望开发者能够更多地关注于自己的游戏机制或者游戏理念,并由此创造出一款独立的小型游戏。因为优化小型游戏本身就需要你花费很多时间了。”

本文为游戏邦/gamerboom.com编译,拒绝任何不保留版权的转载,如需转载请联系:游戏邦

The Hardships Of iOS Development

By Chris Buffa

February 2012 will forever be known as the month that kick-started Linsanity.

In danger of being cut by the NBA’s New York Knicks, point guard Jeremy Lin had what sports fans call a breakout game on February 4 against the New Jersey Nets. He then led the team on a winning streak that captivated the world. Now, Lin’s one of the most popular basketball players on the planet.

It’s no surprise that his rapid ascension caused other teams to look towards the end of their respective benches, wondering if the young, mostly forgotten players keeping the seats warm are capable of scoring 38 points against the Los Angeles Lakers, while outside the arena, millions of amateurs have renewed faith in reaching the pros. If Jeremy can literally come out of nowhere without attending a big time basketball school, so can they.

The reality, of course, is much different. Lin benefited from a string of circumstances that led to February 4. Had even one of them not occurred, his NBA career may have ended.

His unique story reminds us of Steve Demeter, who in 2008 grabbed headlines for making a $250,000 profit in two months off an iPhone puzzle game called Trism, despite the fact no one had really heard of him before, and he didn’t associate with a big time publisher like Capcom, Sega or Electronic Arts. At least in Jeremy Lin’s case, he bounced from the Golden State Warriors to the Houston Rockets before reaching the Big Apple.

Demeter, meanwhile, served as the iOS poster boy just two months after Apple released its now insanely popular App Store. You didn’t need marketing people, a public relations firm and hundreds of developers. Instead, just a basic understanding of the iPhone operating system and a great idea. Put in a little hard work and voila, instant phenomenon.

“If the gameplay is fantastic and the graphics are just random colored boxes, it’s still a great game. Do the math. The simpler the game, the fewer options you’ll have for hiding your game design flaws.”

On the positive side, it’s easier to launch a successful iOS video game than making the NBA, but the rags to riches tales are few and far between. Hundreds, if not thousands, of aspiring developers, boosted by stories similar to Demeter’s, learn the hard way that pulling off the next surprise hit takes not only a herculean effort, but also natural talent and some lucky breaks along the way.

The Sounds of Failure

“There are no easy paydays here, and the streets are not paved with gold,” said Paul O’Connor, Brand Director of Appy Entertainment. “So much reporting concentrates on the gold rush aspect of iOS development. This fart app made a million dollars. Did you know a Chihuahua programed a best-selling app? It’s like when you walk into a casino, all you hear are success sounds, slot machine payouts and sirens. If you heard all the failure sounds, you would be deafened. If the press reported the reality of our market, the same would happen.”

With this in mind, aspiring developers shouldn’t expect the cash to roll in anytime soon. If anything, it’s the exact opposite.

“Money does not grow on trees when it comes to smartphone game development,” said Ben Moore from Mighty Rabbit Studios. “Too often, people hear the success stories and imagine that any somewhat visible game on market is generating great amounts of cash flow. This simply is not the case. Roughly one out of eight games make it into any kind of a feature spot long enough to generate the coverage needed to sell enough copies to make money. That’s why publishers have been stepping into the arena to formalize a process to getting into that coveted feature spot. If you have a publisher, they typically take between 20-50 percent of revenue after Apple takes 30 percent. So even with a big, successful title, a lot of developers only see 35-50 percent of what the game actually earns.”

More important are the steps the designer must take to remain financially stable.

“Bankroll is the biggest problem a young and inexperienced studio will encounter,” said The Game Bakers’ Emeric Thoa. “For most games, there is a long time between launch and profitability, during which you still have to pay the team. If you have $50k budget for a game, you break even at around 70k sales. If you manage to reach this milestone in three months, you need three months of bankroll ahead of you, plus a bonus month because Apple pays every two months. If you bet on being profitable during your launch month, that’s risky.”

To that end, Thoa advises developers to beware of assumptions.
“The biggest mistake a developer can make when starting iOS development is to expect he or she will reach a hundred thousand users just because there are millions of iPhone users. Reaching the 100k milestone is hard as hell.”

Company structure is also of key importance.

“Until you create a break-out hit, I believe the blockbuster app game is about being in the right place at the right time for companies of all sizes,” said Bolt Creative co-founder Dave Castelnuovo. “Sometimes, you produce a game that doesn’t do so hot, and sometimes it makes a lot of waves. I believe a lot of companies are too quick to blame the crowded nature of the app store and instead should manage this luck component better. Design your team so it can last long term on moderate success and continue to get better at your craft and produce new games until one of them hits. Don’t take it personally if you create a great game and the audience doesn’t react for some reason. Look at all the great movies that aren’t necessarily blockbusters, it’s very hard to predict what people will react to.”

Keys to Development

One of the biggest things that often torpedo a developer/studio, though, is the idea itself.

“[Developers] choose a game design that is too ambitious compared to their capabilities,” said Castelnuovo. “I believe in starting small and building up as you develop your technology and skill set. Most of the best-selling games are fairly simple anyway, so start with something you know you can complete in a couple months. Get some real experience with the app market. If you bite off more than you can chew, you and the game ends up not selling very well. Even worse, you run out of money before finishing your first game.”

This being the case, a developer must know when a game’s finished.

“Inexperienced developers keep adding stuff in their games in the hope of turning it into a fun experience at some point,” said Housemarque’s Sami Koistinen. “They should do the exact opposite: remove all the fat from the game design. The best core gameplay designs are always simple. The fewer buttons and core mechanics the player needs to learn, the better. If the gameplay sucks but the game has fantastic graphics, the game still sucks. If the gameplay is fantastic and the graphics are just random colored boxes, it’s still a great game. Do the math. The simpler the game, the fewer options you’ll have for hiding your game design flaws.”

Moore echoed a similar thought.

“Anyone can throw crap at a wall and see if it sticks. From our own experience, time and effort has to go into making a title that stands out in the saturated market.”

Developers must also take into account quality control. All too often, games receive horrible customer reviews simply because they don’t work.

“About 80 percent of a game is made of invisible components that are only noticed when they break down,” said Igor Raffaele, general manager of InterWave Studios. “Players never appreciate the majestic iceberg of software engineering they’re on, unless you fail at making all those building blocks functional and unobtrusive. When they do notice, it’s always because something wasn’t good enough.”

Shady Self-Promotion?

Visibility, or general lack thereof, is one of the biggest hurdles. Not every game receives a spotlight on the App Store, and developers must do whatever it takes to market the product, even if it means reviewing their own games.

“We have reviewed our own games on the App Store,” said Raffaele. “It’s not as big a deal as I’ve seen it made on many websites. Both stores’ user rating systems are an open medium that everyone can contrast, and after the hard work of creating a game, that simple act of parental pride really won’t skew an avalanche of bad reviews.”

“There are much more insidious ways of promoting your games on the App Store,” he continued, “and they come wrapped in nice market speak that makes them sound legit enough that no one complains. People should turn their attention to those, instead of a couple of developers giving their own games a five star rating.”

“This is like not voting for yourself in an election,” said Castelnuovo. “Also, any app developer would be irresponsible if they didn’t try their best to get their friends to buy their game and leave reviews. At the end of the day though, I don’t know if it’s that big of a deal. I think ratings have the ability to guide someone’s decision, but at the end of the day, a user typically looks at the screen shots and tends to find a review that supports the idea they already have in their head about the game. If the game is really bad, you will still see a ton of one star reviews despite a dev going out of their way to fraudulently create five star reviews.”

“A team reviewing a game is not a problem,” said Thoa. “It’s a max of 30 people, including friends. It’s meaningless compared to the 1000 plus a successful game will receive. Bots posting reviews is a bigger problem. Very frustrating for a small developer.”

“Taking on too much investment to cover your ass through production is a sensitive subject, since taking on too much can lead to loss of creative control, or leaves you little to no rev share of your own game once it becomes profitable.”

“I always send email to friends and family when one of our games or updates comes out, and I encourage everyone to download and rate the game,” said O’Connor. “The only sure way to manipulate reviews is by providing a quality experience. Our games have thousands of ratings and friends and family don’t move the needle.”

That being the case, and without publisher support, developers wind up creating grass roots campaigns to get the word out.

“For my personal role with Mighty Rabbit,” said Moore, “the toughest part of my job has been to do traditional PR and marketing activities with essentially no budget . This is a task. That means all campaigns we’ve had, all coverage we’ve had, and all web presence we have created had to be initially generated from the ground up. This includes grass roots campaigning, trade shows, game conventions, social media generation and constant persistence in convincing large game sites that we’re a worthwhile company to spend their time reviewing or writing about. You have to get creative in how you get your game set apart in a saturated market that features games with bigger budgets, and visible since paid advertisements and handing out mass amounts of swag is a virtual impossibility.”

“Essentially,” Moore continued, “working on a bare-bones budget for any small studio has got to be the biggest issue if you’re working full time on a project. Taking on too much investment to cover your ass through production is a sensitive subject, since taking on too much can lead to loss of creative control, or leaves you little to no rev share of your own game once it becomes profitable.”

Ernest Woo shares this view.

“Marketing is an oft-overlooked task for indies. I’m not particularly PR savvy and I honestly prefer to spend my time coding rather than anything else.”

A much bigger topic of discussion, or so we thought, involved a handful of websites providing expedited coverage for a fee, which appeared to go against the nature of journalism. For years, opponents have accused critics of taking money from publishers to inflate review scores, but had little to no actual proof this takes place. Yet here, under the radar, the mobile industry was falling victim to people who seek to profit off their “client’s” invisibility in the marketplace. As it turns out, some developers see this as more of an asset.

“I don’t think it’s evil,” said Carlos Sessa, from NASA Trained Monkeys. “Marketing your game/app is one of the hardest steps. If someone can promote my app, I don’t mind paying.”

“In a sense,” said Moore, “I suppose one could argue that paying for this service is similar to paying for coverage to begin with (in an off hand way), though I don’t find it particularly necessary or evil. For the most part, most of the game review sites I’ve contacted in the past stay pretty fair and objective on their review process or coverage protocol. I say it’s not evil, because publishers and PR firms I’ve spoken with in the past offer many more services than coverage alone, and serve as a vital feedback source on where to improve/make changes to your game.”

“This has not happened to us, but let’s be realistic here,” said Rube Rubenstein from Brain Blast Games. “These sites are trying to survive as small bloggers and review sites as much as we’re trying to survive as developers. If they want to solicit for reviews or articles, let them. If you don’t like it, politely tell them you’re not interested. We don’t stock soapboxes at Brain Blast, we make games.”

Of course, not everyone likes the idea of paying for coverage.

“I can see where a new developer might be tempted to pay for a review burst, but these are empty calories,” said O’Connor. “The fact is, this business takes time, and quality counts. If you’re scheming to jump the line, then you’re in the wrong trade.”

Castelnuovo shared his experience.

“The closest we had to this was a meet and greet during GDC (Game Developers Conference) where we were asked to pay a sum of money in order to meet reviewers from various sites. There was no guarantee of coverage and the organizer was an independent entity, but it still felt slimy to me.”

Jim Redner, of The Redner Group, feels such a practice would eventually price out the people it is designed to help.

“My biggest fear is that if this type of offering becomes a more common practice, it would be detrimental to indie and small developers. It would have a financial Darwinistic effect by creating a survival of the deepest pockets environment. More so than on any other platform, smaller and indie developers help drive this particular market. Sites dedicated to apps related coverage tend to provide an equal editorial playing field for small and big developers alike, but if the pay for an expedited review model became common place, it would significantly tilt the editorial playing field in favor of big time publishers with deep pockets.”

Dane Baker, CEO of Villain, also chimed in.

“If you need to pay someone to cover your game or app, why are you bothering in the first place? Spend that money on making something unique instead.”

Ernest Woo, CEO of Woo Games, thinks these sites hurt more than help.

“I have dealt with such sites and occasionally paid for an ‘expedited review’ in the past. However, having a PR pro on board means I don’t have to deal with ethically challenged sites. Hopefully, more established sites and blogs pay more attention to indies so sites that charge for coverage will go the way of the dodo.”

As intimidating as all of this may sound, developers should still submit games to the App Store. There are numerous challenges to overcome, from managing a company to being noticed, like a certain aforementioned hoops player, or a guy with an idea for a great puzzle game. One can still make a name for him or herself, so long as (and this will sound cliche) a developer makes games out of a love for games and not for making a quick buck.

“My advice,” said Woo, “is to focus on a single mechanic or idea and build a small, self-contained game around that. Polishing the smallest of games will keep you busy for a long time.” (source:gamesindustry)


上一篇:

下一篇: