Why does the marketing take years? Most of the games sold by Dexterity sell the first month nice, but after the first month the sales become lower. This can be caused because the first month customers who subscribed to the newsletter / who already bought an earlier game of Dexterity, buy the new released game.

So the new customers are coming from downloadsites, search engines to track the website, cd rom retail compilation (this one I doubt much, because the most target like mentioned are people who don't go to retail but online especially, also not for a pc magazine), game sites (reviews, demo)(this one I also doubt, most sites and magazines are for the retail games (hardcore), a few are also for casual, like avault). So download sites are important. The demo quality of dexterity games are very good, also the website and ordering is very well organized. Also I am sure the support is very good. Tracking the website using the importants search engines is also very good. So it's more a matter of choice perhaps. The customer can spend one time $19.99, and he/she likes Dweeps (Stockboy got also many levels)more then the similar games for whatever reason. So again what will Time matters. I agree that when you update the demo often, it will be again refreshed whe submitting on the downloadsites. But the competition against a game that is downloaded more then (like Dweeps) >10.000... times is difficult. I think you agree with that. So I don't agree that time is the key in relation with updating. There is more... Value for money of the customer. And I think that that is something that will always be difficult. That is also why you see that many retail games fail. The same is also for games sold as shareware. Fun is something that is diffult to calculate. There is no formula for it. There are games published online of good & fun quality and marketing, but low results. So this problem will always be there. The only possibilty is to try and find out, solve every problem and see it as a challange. But one advice I can gave is "don't do it for the money". Most full time shareware game developers aren't rich, like developers of applications :) And developing a game is hard work, marketing is hard work. And perhaps on long term, 2 or 3 years you see perhaps a result or not. In most cases it isn't but. Then you need to find another way to do the job :) That is called the challange. And that is for most people difficult. So many time frustrations cannot be mixed with challange for most people. But business is hard, especially this kind of business. $19.99 a copy is not much. Calculate how much you need to sell every month to eat/drink etc.
:)

The simple answer is that with unlimited resources, marketing doesn't have to take years. But in the real world, resources are limited, so we have to apply time to the equation. There are a vast number of opportunities online and offline for promotion, and even with a team of people working around the clock, it can still take years to hit even a fraction of them.

With all the millions Microsoft spent promoting Windows XP, why hasn't everyone who's ever going to buy it already bought it? Why are people still buying it today? The price isn't going to come down that much, so what are people waiting for? Why wasn't MS able to get each of those people who are ultimately going to buy to make that decision within the first month of release?

Originally posted by johnson
Why does the marketing take years? Most of the games sold by Dexterity sell the first month nice, but after the first month the sales become lower.
:)

Where did you get this from? Correct me if I'm wrong but I do believe Steve said before that games tend to sell better in thier 2nd and 3rd years as opposed to the first month. This is how I see it. There is a big incline in sales the first month then the sales go down for a while and slowly start climbing and reach their peak at about 2 or 3 years later. Once again I could be wrong so don't trust what I said 100% ;)

Assuming he didn't just make that up, and those were actually figures he received from someone who has published, there would be 2 likely reasons for it to be true. The first, as you said, is just because there hasn't been enough time for the marketing to pay off. I think the only games that have been marketed long for sales to really begin to pick up would be Dweep and Fitznik. The other reason is that, as Steve mentioned elsewhere, several of the games released recently are Silver package only, meaning Steve does nothing more than put it on the web page and send out an email announcement. In this case, sales likely never will pick up beyond their initial levels. You should have a big spike early on when the email goes out, and from then on sales just trickle in as more people learn about Dexterity and visit the web site for the first time. Of course, that's assuming all else stays constant. If one of the games builds up a community, sales could take off (even with the Silver package) as the game becomes a phenomenon on its own.

This is a pretty common pattern. There's a spike at the launch of a new game as it's announced and promoted heavily, and after the initial burst, it enters a slow build-up period. How the sales change over the course of the game's lifetime depends on many factors, such as the release of future updates (does the developer continue to improve the game or has it been abandoned?), the timelessness of the game (does it look outdated after 2 years, or is it still attractive?), the marketing, the registration rate of the game, the word of mouth factor (is this a game that people will get their friends hooked on?), etc.

Every game we've launched has seen a different pattern. The initial launch could be outstanding or just a fizzle. There could be a big dropoff after the launch, or it may be only a slight decline. If the game is a level-based puzzle game, it's more likely to have a strong launch period. After that the question is whether or not the game is competitive enough to bring in customers from off-site sources.

Also, many developers whose games we've published have opted for Silver deals, so in their cases, there is no off-site marketing whatsoever. Those developers aren't going to see their sales increase much over time because we aren't doing any additional off-site promotion for them.

Hi,

For your information in relation to the mentioned cases. The developers of the high quality character based puzzle games (Fitznik, Stockboy and Pharao Curse) got the Platinum deal. I really enjoyed playing these games. But we will see how the sales will behave after 6 to 12 months of Stockboy and Pharao Curse. Still there are people who are doing everything to attract customers to buy there game of nice quality without any luck. They use the well known methods. So I think that it isn't just time. It's also circumstances. The sales of Fitznik for instance would be higher if the other character puzzle games weren't published. So developing a next update of Fitznik is in that case a solution. But it will difficult when another developer is doing the same. Do you got the clue. It's also the luck of circumstances. By the way for the retail games the big boys develops of the succesfull titles a sequel or an expansion pack. But that will only take place when they got high sales volumes. So when the sales volume isn't incredible I doubt they will do a sequel or an expansion pack. For the online shareware puiblishing model, submitting an update is of course refreshing on download.com your title. So the old and new surfing people will see it. But again there isn't still any pattern of customer behaviour to increase the sales to a high volume. The only clue I am very sure is what I already mentioned. That subscribers of the newsletters and Dexterity customers buy in the first month a new release. The sales volume is then high. But after the first month there is unfortunately a low volume. Another point is that Fitznik is selling better then Stockboy. The sales of Fitznik is normally every month higher then the sales of Stockboy. Stockboy sales is for a platinum deal extreme low. Still Stockboy is a very high quality game , I enjoyed very much. So it's a pitty for the developer. I hope he will get a high sales volume soon. For the sales of Fitznik it's a strange patern, because Stockboy got more levels, an editor, even a music composer, character selkecting and it's 3D rendered. Fitznik is a very nice game I enjoyed very much. It is difficult to find out why the sales of Fitznik is every month from the start of publishing better then Stockboy. The game Stockboy is really fun. Steve and his producer agree with this, otherwise it wasn't publised. I hope you can see that I am trying to figure out the possibility why the sales are lower and why the sales are higher of Fitznik. The only thing I found out playing Fitznik is that the game is using another fashion of art style. Also the main character is a fox, which looks nice. The title Fitnik isn't I think the choice. The gameplay of both games are good. But if I could spend only one time $19.99 I choosed Stockboy because of the 150 levels. Fitznik got 65 levels. So I am sorry that I can't give a clear solution after some research. If I got as customer "much" money I bought all three games, Fitznik, Stockboy and Pharao Curse. All games are well known on download stites etc. So I think Fitnik got positive circumstances from the start why it sells far better then his competitors. And in the start the volume every month of Fitznik is far better then when you compare with the mentioned other games. So it isn't the time. This game Fitznik got something why customers want it to spend there $19.99 and not the other ones. I think if you develop a character puzzle game you need to find out if you can do it better then Fitznik, Stockboy and Pharao Curse. Problem is how? Those games are all three of high quality. It's so difficult :(

Originally posted by Dexterity
The simple answer is that with unlimited resources, marketing doesn't have to take years. But in the real world, resources are limited, so we have to apply time to the equation. There are a vast number of opportunities online and offline for promotion, and even with a team of people working around the clock, it can still take years to hit even a fraction of them.

With all the millions Microsoft spent promoting Windows XP, why hasn't everyone who's ever going to buy it already bought it? Why are people still buying it today? The price isn't going to come down that much, so what are people waiting for? Why wasn't MS able to get each of those people who are ultimately going to buy to make that decision within the first month of release?

I see your point. But for the O/S market the situation is not the same as for casual games, or every other type of software. As customer you can get already XP installed on the ordered (Dell)computer. Another point is that not all "home computing" people need XP to get there application software working better. The same is for at the office. There enough companies who use still W98. But most companies buy every year new computers (maintain) and Dell is one of the most bought computers. I know this very good, I am working in this IT as dayjob.

Originally posted by johnson
Hi,
Another point is that Fitznik is selling better then Stockboy. The sales of Fitznik is normally every month higher then the sales of Stockboy. It is difficult to find out why the sales of Fitznik is every month from the start of publishing better then Stockboy.

How do you gather this information? Do you contact the developers every month and ask them how thier games are doing? :) If this information is correct, then you have point. I would like to know as well why this is happening.

One of the nice things about publishing multiple games is that we can find out what sells and what doesn't. So after each game has been out for a number of months and we've gathered enough feedback, we go back to the developer with what we've learned and offer lots of suggestions for an update. We've tend to do this in batches of 2-3 games at a time.

I don't want to get into the specific details of why any particular game sells at a certain level, but suffice it to say that we're finding there are usually good reasons if a game doesn't sell as well as expected. In a general sense, the problem isn't usually one of omission (i.e. too few levels, not enough objects in the game), but one of commission (i.e. features, design decisions, or problems that with the game that players dislike).

Some obvious details in comparing Stockboy and Fitznik:
- Fitznik includes built-in solutions to all levels; Stockboy doesn't
- Both games have different art styles (Fitznik's is arguably more immersive/themed)
- Fitznik uses very few game elements in different combinations to create its levels; Stockboy has more objects than Dweep Gold and Fitznik combined (i.e. Fitznik's scope of gameplay is more limited and focused; Stockboy's scope is more broad)
- Fitznik is generally more cerebral and doesn't require much in the way of reflexes, except for a few timing moves here and there; Stockboy has a range of puzzle-solving plus arcade-like levels requiring good reflexes (i.e. part puzzle game, part arcade game)

This is about as much as I can say because I don't think it's appropriate for me to publicly discuss the detailed reasons as to why each individual developer's game sells at its particular level w/o the developer's permission. If for some reason particular developers want to discuss these details in public for everyone's benefit, I'd be happy to oblige if they email me requesting it. Otherwise, I think it's more appropriate to discuss game updates and suggestions with them privately, just as we handle the initial QA for each game.

One thing that is working nicely is that we're getting better at predicting how new releases will sell. I think this is because we're becoming better tuned in to learning what players want. So while I don't think it's fair to developers to discuss their individual games publicly, what I can do is write a new article down the road with some of the general lessons we've learned.

I contacted the developers, like you said. You are free to do this. All the contacted developers are very positive by the way about Dexterity Software. They like there way of coorporation. So I also got a very positive image of Dexterity Software. I am 100% that this is a really good company, that is doing everything to get high sales results. So there is no doubt about that. Also I contacted some developers of the silver deal (like Peguin puzzle, Ploing) they are also very positive. It's a very professional good company.

[/B][/QUOTE] One thing that is working nicely is that we're getting better at predicting how new releases will sell. I think this is because we're becoming better tuned in to learning what players want. So while I don't think it's fair to developers to discuss their individual games publicly, what I can do is write a new article down the road with some of the general lessons we've learned. [/B][/QUOTE]

Hi,

I think that is a good idea! I am looking forward to your article.

Originally posted by Dexterity


Some obvious details in comparing Stockboy and Fitznik:
- Fitznik includes built-in solutions to all levels; Stockboy doesn't
- Both games have different art styles (Fitznik's is arguably more immersive/themed)
- Fitznik uses very few game elements in different combinations to create its levels; Stockboy has more objects than Dweep Gold and Fitznik combined (i.e. Fitznik's scope of gameplay is more limited and focused; Stockboy's scope is more broad)
- Fitznik is generally more cerebral and doesn't require much in the way of reflexes, except for a few timing moves here and there; Stockboy has a range of puzzle-solving plus arcade-like levels requiring good reflexes (i.e. part puzzle game, part arcade game)



Hi Dexterity,

I got some questions. I hope you are able to answer them.

- Fitznik uses very few game elements in different combinations to create its levels; Stockboy has more objects than Dweep Gold and Fitznik combined (i.e. Fitznik's scope of gameplay is more limited and focused; Stockboy's scope is more broad)
>I don't understand this to be honest very clear. You mean in Stockboy levels there is more game activity for the player then in Fitznik levels. In that case this can be positive for a player. So it's difficult to see why this is perhaps negative.


- Both games have different art styles (Fitznik's is arguably more immersive/themed)
>I agree that is a big difference between both games. Does this mean you need to go for a more art style like Fitnik and not the art style of Stockboy?

- Fitznik includes built-in solutions to all levels; Stockboy doesn't
>Does this mean, that for every puzzle game you need to have build in solutions? And how? Recordered solutions, which the player can play/pause/replay when pressing on the related buttons. Or a simple written solution in steps using a few pictures. Or a drawed solution (little text desciptions) using pictures, where the solution is marked in steps?

- Fitznik is generally more cerebral and doesn't require much in the way of reflexes, except for a few timing moves here and there; Stockboy has a range of puzzle-solving plus arcade-like levels requiring good reflexes (i.e. part puzzle game, part arcade game)
>Hmmm... to my opinion this can be a real challange for the player. So I don't understand this.

I liked by the way the levels of both games very much.

Is the solution extreme important? Because Pharao Curse also uses a solution system. And they aren't selling (Platinum) better then Fitznik. There art is also very nice and different. So I am affraid it's still difficult to find logic paterns.

I'm not interpreting the meaning of the differences right now. Some patterns are beginning to emerge, but we need more experimentation to test such assumptions. For instance, if free solutions are added to all Stockboy levels and its sales instantly double, that's a pretty good indicator. But for now we can only say that level-based puzzle games with free solutions tend to outsell those w/o. Whether that's a causal factor or not remains to be seen. There are too many differences between individual games to say that game A sells better than game B because of factors X, Y, and Z. What we can do, however, is test what difference factors X, Y, and Z make when introduced to game B, in comparison to how well game B sold w/o those factors.

If we think a game is underselling because of factor X, we'll tell the developer and encourage the release of an update. Then we do our best to measure the results, such as changes in the registration rate. But until these changes are made and we can see the results, we can't really know for certain which factors are important and to what degree. To decide which changes to make requires a combination of logic, experience, and intuition. But even random guessing is better than no changes at all. Even if most experiments fail to produce substantial results, you eventually hit a few jackpots that increase sales significantly.

The nice thing is that by making multiple changes across multiple products over the next several years, we'll be able to identify many common strategies that can more consistently produce a hit. So what we learn from any one game, we can use to benefit all games. And this doesn't just apply to product development -- the same thing goes for all other areas of our business... neverending iterative refinement.

So what we learn from any one game, we can use to benefit all games. And this doesn't just apply to product development -- the same thing goes for all other areas of our business... neverending iterative refinement.

As Tony would say.. constant never-ending improvement ;)