In this post I want to share some more of our (mostly subjective) findings as a publisher, in the hopes that it will be helpful to you.

With each new game we've released (12 new games in the last 7 months now), we've learned something new about our audience. As I've said before, our core audience is "hardcore players of casual games." But why do I say this? The reason is that the most casual games with the simplest gameplay tend not to sell nearly as well for us as the logic games that have much more complex gameplay. Also, if someone buys a logic puzzle game from us, they're far more likely to become a repeat customer than if they buy an arcade game or a more casual puzzle game from us. This is probably our own doing to a large extent -- since Dweep is a fairly hardcore logic game and our best long-term seller, it keeps attracting people who love logic puzzle games. In fact, someone who buys Dweep as their first purchase from us is more likely to become a repeat customer than if they buy any other game from us first.

This is interesting, since it means we're tapping into a market that's very different than one might expect. It means that we're attracting a different kind of player than the kind who might be interested in Bejeweled / Diamond Mine. Sure we attract some of those more casual players, but they're turning out to be in the minority.

One of our goals is to expand into other genres, and of course we have the option of expanding into more casual genres (card games, board games) or more hardcore genres (strategy games, RPGs). I'm seeing some fairly strong evidence that the latter choice is the better way for us to go. I'm sure some of you have been finding that competition in the casual game sector has increased a great deal. There are tons of games with gameplay similar to Tetris, and it's getting harder and harder to compete. In the long run, I think this kind of competition is only going to increase. It's fairly easy to create such a game (too easy in fact), so more and more of these very basic puzzle games are being released every month. I think the long-term potential of these games is still very good, but I also think that it's going to get harder and harder to stand out from the crowd, especially for new indie developers.

In looking at the casual genres of card games and board games, there's a great deal of entrenched competition. You'll have to go a long way to make a competitive chess or solitaire game today, given the head start others have. While I still see some decent potential there in the long run, I also see a lot of competition that's already doing an excellent job of serving this market. I don't really think we could offer much of real value there.

But in turning towards the more hardcore genres, I see a bit of a gap. On the retail side you have monstrously complex games with high system requirements and lots of cool technology. And on the shareware side, you have some monstrously complicated offerings that will scare away many novices are first site of the interface, plus some that are just really poor in their production values and gameplay.

I definitely think there's the potential to do something more innovative than retail strategy games and more polished than the current shareware offerings.

Along these lines, we have two internal products in development designed to attack the strategy genre at potential market gaps. The first is Arizona Smith (http://www.arizonasmith.com/). This is a simple player vs. computer strategy game, originally begun as a remake of our older game Fortune Raiders. It's going to be a fairly casual strategy game that you can play in about 10 minutes. I expect to have this one released later this quarter, depending on how our publishing schedule plays out. The second is Olympus (http://www.dexterity.com/olympus/), which I expect to release much later in the year. This is a mythology-based RTS game with an integrated level editor. The engine is similar to that for Warcraft II, but the design/gameplay goes in a completely different direction, so the experience is unlike any other strategy game on the market. The Olympus engine is complete, and presently the game runs nicely on a Pentium 90. Both Arizona and Olympus were started quite a while ago, but I put them on hold in order to build up our publishing operations. Now that the publishing work is going smoothly, we have the time and resources to complete these internal projects as well.

Consequently, we're likely to expand the kinds of games we look to publish to aim a bit more hardcore. Strategy is probably the best genre for us to tackle next because the QA is much less work than for an RPG. As a result, we'll probably gradually relax the restrictions on the file sizes we accept in order to publish some larger games. We'll be modifying the developer section of our site to reflect this once we've clarified the direction we want to go in. We'll continue to release puzzle and arcade games of course, but I think broadening our offerings will reduce the chance of too much internal competition (i.e. cannibalization) between games in the same genre.

The interesting thing about making strategy games is that it seems to have a higher barrier to entry. It's probably a lot harder to make a decent strategy game than it is to make a decent Tetris-like puzzle game. And a higher barrier to entry may keep out a lot of the "me-too" competition. The trick is making a strategy game that isn't so complicated it takes you an hour just to learn the controls -- it has to have some genuine casual appeal as well.

I think this might actually be a natural fit for certian indie developers as well. Once you've written a logic puzzle game, developing a strategy game probably has more appeal than a card game.

I'm curious to know what the rest of you think about the opportunities in the market today. Have you been seeing more competition on the ultra-casual side as well? Do you also think there are some potential online opportunities in targeting genres like strategy and role-playing?

Tember, his arms wide.

Well, once again you've read my mind, Steve. :) The "casual strategy" market is exactly what I'm aiming for with my game, Davy Jones's Local. I had given up hope of publishing it through Dexterity, but I guess I gave up hope too soon. My own research seems to indicate that there's ample opportunity for a strategy game that appeals to those who like strategic thinking but can do without the combat, and that's the market I'm targeting.

I'm going to go ahead and coin "casual action". :)

Just remember to playtest the dumb strategies. :)

--Ratboy
I'm in ur base, killin ur d00dz

Tember, his arms wide.

Bonus for the geek reference, Steve. ;)

Here's my take, FWIW.

Cards are a fortified market: between Yahoo games and Pretty Good Solitaire, it would be difficult to do get a significant foothold.

Casual arcade games are both inundated with crap and clones and very difficult to predict. Could you have foreseen that Bejeweled would be as big as it is on a first viewing? I'm not sure I could have. Many games are difficult to predict, but this category seems to me to have a wider variance than other sectors.

Puzzle games... well you know better than me. I think these are likely to continue to be a main line for shareware games for some time. But I also think the edges of this category are fuzzy, and there are still new pockets to explore.

RPGs can attract fanatical followings, but the 'men in tights' feel puts off a lot of people. I suspect the overlap between "casual hardcore" and RPG gamers is going to be smaller than it is for retail. OTOH, I also think that more and more formerly retail-only gamers are going to be coming to see shareware as more than an old anomaly, so there may be golden opportunities here too in the next year or three.

Strategy games are in a sense like puzzle games on steroids. I think that there's a broad spectrum between abstract logic games and huge RTS games that is mostly unexplored. If the game is accessible enough in theme, gameplay, and UI, I think it's likely you'll see the same hooks in strategy games that you do in puzzle games. Whether the audience will be a superset of the "casual hardcore" player, I don't know. Very, very interesting question.

Re: The Steep lurning Curve of stategy games.
(I think i said this last week but...)
Play Civ. It's a perfect model of having a game with micromanagement details that you don't need to know a thing about to play the game. They have settings, actions and visual cues that make a player better (and indeed essential on harder levels) but you don't actually need to know any of them. The stuff you do need to know is told to you in popups on the easiest level.

Re: Men in Tights.
Are you refering to fantasy settings?

If I were to do a RPG I would go post nuclear holicaust. Guys on steroids weaing lots of leather and metal. The stuff from a million and one straight to video movies.

Steve, I see this too, although I think there is a big space for "casual RPGs" that don't have a huge file size, or be a QA nightmare.

I have always considered Rocknor's Bad Day a puzzle game, but in beta tests and after it was released I got a lot of feedback comparing the game favorably to Indiana Jone's Desktop Adventures, and the Legend of Zelda. My game is a little like those, but players of Rocknor seem to really draw similarities between them. Some of the player's feedback on what they'd like to see more of was "I want more stuff i can pick up and use" and "I like exploring a new level to discover the layout".

I think there is a big market for RPGs that aren’t hardcore. Ones that don't rely on Stats and experience points as much, but focus more on a story, exploring a world, character interaction, and of course, solving some puzzles. And they don’t have to be Fantasy RPGs.

This also happens to be my favorite gene ;) . That's kind of the direction I'd like to take my future games in.


~Hanford

I'm not sure "hardcore" and "casual" are adjectives that apply in such broad terms.

The "hardcore gamers" are a very definite group. Well-defined, well-tracked, and well-the-hell-serviced.

"Casual gamers" is a more recent term, which has been used with a broad brush and a real lack of regard for staying within the lines.

To me, "casual gamers" are the Yahoo Games crowd. Quick in, quick out, one or two games, a chat with some familiar names, and back to what they were doing. These type of gamers are only interested in games they already know how to play, or have heard of before. They've found a place they can play their familiar card games or board games and they're finished.

Casual gamers might download and check out a solitaire game. They know solitaire. It's on Windows. They might grab Bejeweled since everyone seems to talk about it. But they don't type in "puzzle games" at Download.com or TUCOWS and are only somewhat likely to type in "card games".

What you want are computer literate, Web-savvy individuals with spare time who like to try out new games.

What do we call those???

-David

I'm sure there are many definitions of casual and hardcore gamers. One way I've seen these defined is in terms of sales and time spent playing games. I.e. casual gamers purchase 1-2 games per year and play less than 5 hours per week. Hardcore gamers purchase 20+ games per year and play more than 15 hours per week. Another definition is that if you ask someone, "Are you a gamer?", a hardcore gamer will say, "yes," and a casual gamer will give you a blank stare or say, "no, not really."

Using these terms is sometimes helpful in simplifying and understanding the market, but we shouldn't let them trip us up. They're just a tool.

Another way to reframe this possible trend is to say that there's a potential market for games with good depth of gameplay but an easier learning curve and a simpler interface. I.e. create a game with the depth and gameplay of a good strategy game but the accessibility of a puzzle game. I agree that Civilization is a good example. A game like that would probably have a good shot at succeeding online today. I think the previously mentioned idea of creating a strategy game that isn't based on combat has some serious potential. What about a strategy game that would appeal to women?

Exploring the search space of possible games is something I find very exciting. I agree that there's some vast unexplored territory between puzzle games, strategy games, and RPGs. Somewhere in there are probably several new genres waiting to be born. And I don't think it requires a $10 million budget and a team of 50 programmers to root them out.

Originally posted by DavidRM
What you want are computer literate, Web-savvy individuals with spare time who like to try out new games.

What do we call those???

Customers? :)

I think we have to look at it from a player's perspetive.

Casual gamer - surfs the web at 9pm, lives far from a game store, looking for something to doo. These people aren't looking to invest time in the game. therefore cards and puzzle games are it. However, thats not to say other games won't work. Scrollers, shooters, arcade are all good. Basically anything just a little more complicated than something you find in an arcade would be a good choice.

Hardcore gamers - Tends to spend several days learning the ins and outs of a game. Is disappointed when the game's depth run's out before their interest does. Has a notion that downloadable games aren't deep so only buys games at the store.

An RTS could fit either of these people. On the hardcore end is Warcraft 3 that takes weeks to master. The other end hasn't been explored much. There could be a market for simplified RTSs that are easy to learn. Pikmin for gamecube comes to mind as an easy to learn RTS. Advance wars for GBA is not RT but is also meant to be simple. I think these would do very well as shareware and would attract bejewelled type players if the simplicity was well advertised.

Some things that could make an RTS more casual.

-Simple colors. Pikmin uses lots of solid primary colors.

-Low visual complexity. Army men RTS went this route. Would have been a good SW game.

-Don't do the "build a depot and a lab to get a tank" thing. Instead just add a vehicle each level. This is what Advance Wars does.

The reason that there isn't a middle market is because there are most shareware authors don't have the resources to aim for it. The big companies don't want to work on a medium title because no one wants to put up money to make less than a million dollars. They want millions and millions, so they go haywire.

Shareware games must be fun. Boxed games must be hyped. Technology builds hype. So for a middle ground SW game i would use

$ = Fun * Casual * Game Age + Technology * Hardcore * (1 / Game Age).

or something

I think there is a big market for RPGs that aren’t hardcore. Ones that don't rely on Stats and experience points as much, but focus more on a story, exploring a world, character interaction, and of course, solving some puzzles. And they don’t have to be Fantasy RPGs

So Hanford, what you're really saying is there's room for adventure games? ;-)

I'm starting to work on one, I better get crackin' :-D

I keep hearing alot of this feeling the market out, and finding what markets are open etc. Except there's one problem, and that is if you don't like doing those types of games. What do you do if you don't like doing the types of games that are making money right now?

I'm curious about your market strategy if you plan to expand the types of genres Dexterity represents. If your bread and butter has been the logic puzzle genre and if Dexterity has a well established audience for such products then don't you risk diluting your brand with this new focus?

I would almost recommend developing a secondary brand / identity to support your strategy focus and maintain a strong logic-puzzle focus under the Dexterity name. Just a thought.

Originally posted by hanford_lemoore
I think there is a big market for RPGs that aren’t hardcore. Ones that don't rely on Stats and experience points as much, but focus more on a story, exploring a world, character interaction, and of course, solving some puzzles. And they don’t have to be Fantasy RPGs.

~Hanford I think I disagree on the stats and XPs being unimportant. The major addiction in Diablo is the way they keep dribbling out little prizes as you keep playing, and watching your XP bar crawl slowly up to the next level. It keeps the player engaged, even while slogging through crowds of identical enemies.
In Tactics Ogre/GBA, I get this tiny thrill when one of my soldiers gets enough XP to do his or her level-up dance.

Originally posted by Ratboy
I think I disagree on the stats and XPs being unimportant. The major addiction in Diablo is the way they keep dribbling out little prizes as you keep playing, and watching your XP bar crawl slowly up to the next level. It keeps the player engaged, even while slogging through crowds of identical enemies.
In Tactics Ogre/GBA, I get this tiny thrill when one of my soldiers gets enough XP to do his or her level-up dance.
I noticed the same and think having XP bar plays an important role to keep people enjoying their play. This is a kind of additional accomplishments on their way. The sense of completing something important cannot be unnoticed when you gain one more level. Making progress is pleasant and helps you enjoy the game.

That being said, I don't see how that disagrees with removing great complexity of character stats. Let XP bar or some alternative be, but skip/hide ACs, ADs and so on. When I played Never Winter Nights I was eager to tweak my character skills/feats, every of them. But quickly realized how much time I would spent just reading tons of their descriptions. So I felt back to default recommendations and deviated from them rather rare. I'm sure that less hard-core RPG gamers appreciated the "Recommended Skill/Feat" feature introduced in the game. But won't even guess at how fast the casual gamer will run if he sees that ocean of parameters and numbers.

Originally posted by KNau
I'm curious about your market strategy if you plan to expand the types of genres Dexterity represents. If your bread and butter has been the logic puzzle genre and if Dexterity has a well established audience for such products then don't you risk diluting your brand with this new focus?


We're still small enough that our brand hasn't gained worldwide acceptance, so it's still in its formative stages. Instead of associating our brand to any particular type of game (which I think is dangerous if we're going to be around for decades), I'm working to tie our brand to treating customers better than anyone else in the industry, to producing honest and fun games, to guaranteeing the player's experience with a money-back guarantee, etc. For instance, the Sierra brand meant adventure games to me. But when I lost interest in that genre, I lost interest in Sierra. However, if their brand had been associated to things like outstanding technology or amazing service, I think they would be in better shape today. If puzzle games go out of style, we need a brand that can adapt.

I think the biggest difference between a hardcore and casual gamer has to do with the amount of time they're willing to spend to accomplish something while playing a game, not how much they spend.

A hardcore gamer, to me, is one that's willing to spend hours and hours to learn and master a game, and is also willing to play for hours on end. I define a casual gamer as someone who doesn't have a lot of time to play a game, so looks for games they can play in less than a half hour and feel like they accomplished something.

I've noticed the difference in myself. I used to be a hardcore gamer, and I would sit for hours at a time playing a single game. Now, I only have time for fifteen minutes to a half hour at a time to play a game. It's just not possible to get good at most retail games with that amount of playing time, and it seems it's nearly impossible to complete levels in any of the newer retail strategy games in less than hour.

I, for one, would love to see strategy games with minimal playtime requirements, and if it's the direction Dexterity is going, I might have to rethink what my next game will be.

I think there are so many differences between "casual" and "hardcore" gamers that it's like describing the color spectrum in terms of Red and Blue.

Yes...there is infrared holding down one end of the spectrum, and ultraviolet on the other. But if that's all you see color as, you miss out on some great fashions and coordinating outfits...

There are a lot of potentially marketable differences between casual and hardcore gamers. But I think mfasset has it right: one key dimension is time. Can we provide a fun experience that takes place in five minutes or less (and is fully learnable in that time) but which also provides sufficient long-term value that people will pay for it? Small online java applets do the first pretty well, and the core gamer market is all about number of hours of engaging play. Doing both together is quite a challenge. But I think a doable one.

Roughly 10 months ago when we began work on what is now Katsu’s Journey, we wanted to differentiate our product from all the others on Dexterity. At that time the only two puzzle games were Dweep and Fitznik. We looked carefully at the core elements that defined the game play in Dweep and Fitznik. We had a nice concise statement that described their gameplay, but I seem to have misplaced it.

In essence the challenge behind both Dweep and Fitznik was to…

“Clear a path between two points by manipulating a set static objects impeding your progress.”

This is sort of a gross generalization and doesn’t take into account that there are potentially multiple paths that can be found between the two points, and the objects aren’t exactly static. The main gist of the analysis was that the problems being solved are very discreet in nature. There’s a fixed set of objects with a fixed set of rules, once you’ve found a path to the destination it will work every time 100% of the time, the puzzles aren’t very dynamic in nature.

There are some good reasons to have puzzles like this, because they aren’t dynamic they let allow people to solve them at their own pace the problem isn’t changing as they try to solve it. Also solving the problems has nothing to do with quick thinking or reflexes it’s a very methodical logical process.

We saw that this approach had been quite successful for Dexterity so we wanted to model ourselves after it, however there wasn’t much value in making a 3rd game in the genera so we thought about what we could do differently. I spent a full evening 4-5hrs straight thinking through different ideas, trying to come up with a game play statement that was similar to the one describing Dweep and Fitznik but also expanded upon it.

My statement (also misplaced) was something like the following…

“Navigate a dynamic path between two points using a set of objects to manipulate/influence dynamic puzzles impeding your progress.”

The basic idea I arrived at was having detectors, things like guards with a field of view patrolling or placed on your path. As they moved, or changed their field of view the path you would take to avoid detection and get by the guard changed. The idea grew and we added an object system (inspired by Dweep’s) with a small number (5) of objects that interact in a variety of ways to affect both Katsu’s movement and the guards he is trying to evade on his path to victory.

We also wanted to add a context for Katsu to be solving these problems and sneaking around so we came up with a basic story to reveal to the user between levels. We also decided to have 6 distinct chapters with unique settings and a cohesive story through out. The shareware demo will end in a cathartic moment in the story, the user will be able to see the 5 unique settings they will get to explore in the full version as well as potentially some of the objects we may leave out of the demo. We hope this will be a compelling upgrade for those who download the demo.

Why am I telling you all this? I’m not really sure, it’s something I’m passionate about and an experience I enjoy relating.

In retrospect adding this level of sophistication to a puzzle game was indeed more difficult then we had expected, and probably more difficult then an untested team should try to attempt on their first project. Scrolling maps, per-pixel movement, unique environments, guards with movement patterns and fields of view that need to be occluded by obstructions, A* path finding for a simple mouse interface, there are a lot of challenging technical hurdles to overcome in a game like this. I just remind myself that the more difficult it is for me the more difficult it will be for others to enter my market.

The other problem when approaching game design in this fashion is that you don’t know what to call your game. We’ve tried Adventure puzzle game, action adventure game, action based puzzle game, and the list goes on. After reading this thread it occurred to me that what we have is basically a strategy game not a puzzle game.

By my definition puzzle games have discrete and for the most part static problems that need to be solved in a logical manner. In essence there’s already a predefined solution that you need to follow from beginning to end. There may be a number of these solutions in a single level but typically the user must discover one of them, they aren’t really open to interpretation.

Strategy games however employ a different style of problem solving. The steps you’ve taken in the past don’t really preclude what path you need to take to succeed in the future. For instance in Katsu’s journey, you can sneak by the first guard, use an object to distract the second two and solve the problem. Or if you’re sneaky enough you can use your object on the first and sneak by the second two.

Another example would be in a game like Risk, there are too many variables to predict the outcome of the next 2-3 turns, It’s often hard to predict what the board will look like on the very next round of play. Thus the player must resort to a strategy and apply that general approach to his game play decisions, he tries to maintain growth, limiting his losses while making most effective use of his resources.

This is a very different approach to playing puzzle games; often when playing Dweep, I would just sit down and look at the board and solve the problem mentally, when I started getting too many steps from the origin and the path seems to be working. I’d walk Dweep through the next few steps mentally before moving him again.

In a strategy game you always move forward with what ever resources you’ve been able to preserve, there’s no one way that’s going to work, it’s up to you to manage your resources and try to overcome challenges as they arise.

Anyway, I think there’s a great opportunity to convert a lot of Steve’s classic Logic Lovers to a more strategic type game. I’ve also notice that a lot of people who wouldn’t touch a logic based puzzle game are very interested in a strategy game with a plot. I’m quite excited about the potential of our game, I’ve always believed if we could implement all our ideas the way we wanted to it would be fun and it would sell. So it feels good to have some validation from Steve that this indeed does look like a good direction to be heading in. Sheesh I only took you 10 months Steve, what took you so long? ;)

O.K. sorry about that, that was kind of a big off topic post... let me try to give the thread some more direction...

Do/did you follow a similar process when designing your game?

What's your definition of the difference between puzzle and strategy?

What things are you thinking about to increase the registration incentives on your game? (ok that's another tangent, but it could be interesting) :)

Originally posted by Ratboy
I think I disagree on the stats and XPs being unimportant.

Originally posted by bstone
I noticed the same and think having XP bar plays an important role to keep people enjoying their play.

I'm not saying those things aren't fun, or that no-one cares about them. I'm just saying there's room for RPGs that don't focus on them. To me "Role-playing" doesn't mean Stats. Take The Legend of Zelda for example. It had virtually no stats (unless you count the number of hearts you have) but it is for sure a very popular RPG that have spawned many sequels. It was about exploring and object collection. The combat wasn't complex. There were'nt a lot of weapons. But it was a great RPG.

True, take stats and XP away from Diablo and you wouldn't have much. But Diablo had no puzzles. No hidden areas. Almost not NPCs. It was all about Stats and object collection.

I kind of think The (original) Legend of Zelda style of RPG is underrepresented in the marketplace. I think a Zelda-style RPG with Fitznik and Rocknor's Bad Day style puzzles would appeal to a wide audience, including Dexterity's cusomter base.

~Hanford

Well, if we are at diablo. I have reached level 99 with my sorceress last week. :) Of course I am a childish, infant man who loves playing and creating games.

I am also a fan of crpgs since the rogue and nethack time. So, Steve's post made me feel good. :) And as a side note I have a crpg project currently on hold. :( This game's concept originated from a telecom broadcasting planner application. Hmm... I have managed to make some of my friends who are professional cartoonists, crank out art for an early preview.

According to my calculation it would take a full 3-4 months for every project members to crank out the insane amount of content for this game. Which is of course enormous amount of money that I currently cannot spend. :(

Fortunately the telecom application was finished but the game concept suffered. You could take a look at The Dungeon 3D (http://www.bkgames.com/dungeon) if you like.

I think retail strategy games have been evolving in the wrong direction -- they've become bigger and more complex, but this hasn't really increased the fun.

A couple of my favorite strategy games were Warcraft II and Command & Conquer. I thought Warcraft II was a big improvement over the original Warcraft and increased the fun factor a great deal. However, I thought StarCraft was less fun than Warcraft II, and I thought Warcraft III was a further step in the wrong direction. Personally I found Warcraft II to be the most fun of all those games (and still do today).

So while the retail trend is towards bigger and more complicated games, I think that we indies have a serious opportunity here. It is just too risky for a major retail developer with a line of hits under their belt to try a new direction. When you have a $10 million budget or greater, it's hard to try something too different. So you play it safe. You don't innovate much in the gameplay area -- your budget goes towards better art, better music, better cinematics, and more of everything. There will be some refinements along the way, but you're essentially re-releasing the same gameplay experience in a different wrapper.

But this weakness of larger publishers becomes our strength. Smaller, more flexible indie teams can afford to take a risk in the area of gameplay. Because you don't have millions of dollars at risk, you can try a new idea just to see if it works. With try-before-you-buy marketing, you'll find out rather quickly if you've hit on something with potential, and if so, you can continue to refine and polish the game.

I definitely concur with the simplistic approach to gameplay. I always appreciated the games of yester-year that just had a few simpel elements and refined them and built a whole game around them. Not a lot of depth to these games but they were fun and easy to get into. They were great entertainment.

When playing dweep I am constantly reminded of what a slick object system it has and how well the object interactions work togther to create some rather sophisticated gameplay with such simple elements. It really is a stroke of genious. (that or a lot of hard work).

If someone is having fun playing your game from the moment they pick it up until the moment they walk away then you know you've created a successful game. The trick is making sure the user has this expirence the very first time they play your game. Retail games typically do a bad job of this.. there are lengthly introductions, long loading times, and then a rather boreing in game tutorial explaining the rather complex interfaces. Trying to pull something like this in a shareware demo would be pure suiscide IMO. Thus we turn to simplistic and intuative controlls and look for creative and innovative way to make combine simple controlls and a simple interface to make a rich gameplay experience.

>I think retail strategy games have been evolving in the wrong >direction -- they've become bigger and more complex, but this >hasn't really increased the fun.

I agree with you there. I see the same thing in big production Hollywood movies. The stories aren't interesting and all they talk about when they promote them is who's starring in it and how much money they spent on it.

This is why I don't go to the movies very often (say once per year). There are no surprises in the scripts and I am usually bored.

I have similar views about video games.

Perhaps they are only catering for teenagers? If so does that mean we should be targeting a more mature market?

Have you got any figures on the age of your players Steve?

I just want to add my two cents and back pedal to RPG stats. Hanford made some good points about not having to have them because there are other things that make an RPG fun without them, but don't forget what "stats" means. It means statistics and/or status. I think one of the main hooks of RPG's is that they give the player a building sense of status and power. They like the feeling that they are getting more powerful and that they are gaining an advantage in the game. It is a rewarding feeling.

All games are inadvertently designed to invoke emotions or feelings, such as power, excitement, intelligence, fear, surprise, reward, exploration, etc. etc. In the end it is all called "fun". We all say this word when describing a good game. No one ever says, "I feel powerful when I play that." or "I feel surprised and rewarded!" Rather, the player instantly sums up all the feelings and says that the game is fun or not fun.

A good idea when designing a game is to isolate the possible emotions the player may feel when they play. Basically, you need to decide whether you can remove part of a traditional expectation and still have a fun game, but even a puzzle game has stats. It just doesn't have anywhere near the complexity that it does in an RPG. A puzzle game's main emphasis is excercising the player's logic skills and making him feel smart. A level select screen is a clear example of stats in a puzzle game. They are like experience points.

If the only status the player felt in an RPG was that he was now able to access the next level, it may not be enough. There are many other ways to do it. In Zelda 64 you acquired many new items as you went along. To me, these were like player stats. It helped you gain some advantages and made you feel like Link was more powerful. Of course, most RPG's have loads of items and stats, but there are always examples of games that can still be called fun that seem to have less complexity than other games.

In the end I think one of the main things that needs to be trimmed is the attitude that RPG's have to be 100 hours not counting the times you die and reload.

Originally posted by Hydroaxe
I just want to add my two cents and back pedal to RPG stats. Hanford made some good points about not having to have them because there are other things that make an RPG fun without them, but don't forget what "stats" means. It means statistics and/or status. I think one of the main hooks of RPG's is that they give the player a building sense of status and power. They like the feeling that they are getting more powerful and that they are gaining an advantage in the game. It is a rewarding feeling.


I've always felt that RPG's handle the whole feeling more powerful thing very poorly. It's entirely too limited to stats. As you progress you fight bigger and badder enemies, and you are doing huge amounts of damage, but correspondingly the enemies you face now have huge amounts of hit points. Sure you can go back and kill animas that once gave you lots of trouble in a single blow. But the gameplay never changes, just my statistical ability to fight larger and larger enemies.

For me, this feeling of getting more powerful is best expressed in terms of gameplay. One of my favorite console racing games of all time is "Rock'n'roll racing" by silicone and synapse (who grew up to become blizzard). What made the game great was when you purchased new shocks, new engine, new tires... each upgrade you could actually feel a specific change in your vehicle when you raced it. Some how getting new shocks made the car ride smoother, new tires made you slip less, and new engines gave you acceleration and top speed.

Once you had maxed out your current car you could upgrade to a better one with better base stats and start the process over again. It was so addictive to power up and actually feel that power in terms of gameplay.

The same could be said of metroid, when you get the metaball, or the varja suit, or gravity suit, each of these suits had an immediate effect on how you played the game, you felt it as you moved your character through the game.

Asherons Call did this decently with a run skill and having your quickness actually affect how fast you swung your blade. But for the most part it was all about getting more strength and more hit points so you could take on stronger monsters who had more health.

If i was to design an RPG for the casual gamer, I would make all the powerups they received be noticeable in the controls of the game, so the gamer actually feels the difference, as opposed to watching the numbers on some ever increasing stat bar.

Originally posted by Dan MacDonald
I've always felt that RPG's handle the whole feeling more powerful thing very poorly. It's entirely too limited to stats. As you progress you fight bigger and badder enemies, and you are doing huge amounts of damage, but correspondingly the enemies you face now have huge amounts of hit points.


This is related to game balance too. If you only grew powerful, and not the monsters, very soon you will be killing them with a single blow. Then you (the player) would start getting bored. For a advance to be of any use, you need to encounter some opposition to use it on. That's an element of game balance too. No single strategy/weapon should have so much power that is makes other strategies/weapons/monsters useless.

In racing games too, as you upgrade and get better, newer, faster cars, your opponents have better cars too. Otherwise the game becomes too easy.

By and large, I do not see any better way of handling better (player) stats.

Regards,
Pallav

Originally posted by pallavnawani
This is related to game balance too. If you only grew powerful, and not the monsters, very soon you will be killing them with a single blow. Then you (the player) would start getting bored. For a advance to be of any use, you need to encounter some opposition to use it on. That's an element of game balance too. No single strategy/weapon should have so much power that is makes other strategies/weapons/monsters useless.

This makes sense to me. I think that in order for a player to enjoy his own growth during the process of the game he should feel manifestation of his progress every minute he plays.

But I don't think that good RPGs have a lack of this. They usually are carefully balanced and players are faced with both harder&badder enemies and ones that were hard to beat once but now are not due to the player's growth. When the player meets them in a single battle he enjoys his increased power defeating easier enemies and still experiences difficulties struggling with tougher villains.

This way the process isn't too boring and still provides the player with rewarding excitement about his victories, thus complementing to the overall level of "fun".

Yes, it's true that in the racing game the other cars got more powerful as well. When i talk about feeling more powerful, I’m not talking about feeling more powerful relative to the characters I’m fighting, I’m talking about a change in the feel of the controls.

To use the racing game example, after upgrades i could feel that my car was slipping less on the corners, that there wasn't as big a recovery time after a jump and my car could go faster on the straight always. Because my car handled better then before it changed the way I drove it. I would take turns tighter because my car felt like it could handle it.. i didn't have to worry about my rear wheels slipping out. On the straight away where i once would fall behind, I could now keep up... maybe even pass some of the slower cars that didn't have the same upgrades as me.

In an rpg this would translate into things like, as my power grew my character would walk faster. As I grew stronger my attacks would have more impact on the monsters i was fighting. It would knock them back farther, or split them in two, my character would look more confident on the screen. Where once he had to use two hands to hold a battle axe, he now holds a battle axe in each hand and wields them effortlessly. As my dexterity improved my character would swing faster, and move more athletically.

This is a best case scenario and likely out of the scope of your typical indie game. But it serves to show how the effects of your power ups are felt in the controls of the game, the gameplay actually modifies as you get more powerful. In Diablo characters swing the same speed regardless of what level they are.. a level 1 char walks just as fast as a level 50 character. In a lot of ways the gameplay for a level 50 character and a level 1 character are identical.. they just click on monsters and attack them at exactly the same rate.

If i really wanted the player to experience a feeling of power. his level 50 character should swing his weapons with blinding speed compared to the level 1. Enemy’s should be obliterated by his attacks with body parts flying everywhere.. but the level 1 should barely be able to nock a monster over. The level 50 should walk faster then the level 1 because he is stronger and faster. These are REAL differences that a player can instantly feel when they switch between their level 1 character and their level 50. The games controls should feel instantly more powerful.. not just have higher numbers on all the stats.

Lots of great stuff on this board!

Originally posted by Dan MacDonald
What's your definition of the difference between puzzle and strategy?


I think you said it pretty well (I enjoyed your post about figuring out how to create your game, btw). To me, the difference is in short-term, specific thinking, and long-term general thinking. In military terms, puzzle games are tactical: you have one immediate goal. It may be followed by another equally immediate goal (e.g., another level), but the two rarely if ever impinge on each other. Likewise, strategy games are, well, strategic: you have one or more large, general, long-term goals, each of which is supported by one or more specific short-term goals. And these short-term goals affect each other and are affected by the other player(s) or the game world -- you have to shift your tactics to maintain your strategy.

There are tons of examples of both of these. The classic Pirates, Civilization, and Diablo all follow the pattern of shifting near-term specific goals that occur in the context of longer-term general goals (to say nothing of the well-worn methods used by games like Warcraft and Age of Empires). In Diablo the tactical goals don't shift as much (you have to get all the way through the pretty much linear levels) as they do in a more open-ended game like Civilization. Contrast this on one hand with Doom or Quake, which are, from this POV, really fast-moving puzzle games. You substitute adrenalin for logic in most cases (the most 'puzzle' oriented parts being find-the-key or find-the-path situations). On the other end, a game like SimCity or The Sims is so open-ended that there are no real overt goals other than the ones you set for yourself -- so the strategies and tactics are completely open-ended; the game acts as a palette or sandbox rather than an environment that impels you toward an end.

Whew. Long-winded answer, sorry. I guess the short of it is that I think puzzle and strategy games differ in the time-horizon of the thinking needed, and whether immediate goals affect each other in meaningful ways. The nifty thing about this is that I suspect that, if the game is easy to learn, many who like puzzle games may well find that they like "lighter" strategy games as well.


What things are you thinking about to increase the registration incentives on your game? (ok that's another tangent, but it could be interesting) :)

Overall, I think Steve has it right: you wan to make the customer feel that there's value in the free version and even MORE value in the paid version. One way to do this is negative, with nag screens and such. Or you can go positive (a better idea, IMO) by showing the player the new items, settings, abilities, etc., they'd be able to add to the experience by paying for the game. I think your idea of ending the demo version at a cathartic moment is very strong -- I hope that works out.

Originally posted by Dan MacDonald
Yes, it's true that in the racing game the other cars got more powerful as well. When i talk about feeling more powerful, I’m not talking about feeling more powerful relative to the characters I’m fighting, I’m talking about a change in the feel of the controls.

I really like this idea! But why only go one direction? What about slowing down the controls once your character becomes wounded, tired, enchanted...or, in long term games, becomes older. The character would have to change their attacking style from the youthful berserker to an older, more careful opponent.

I've often wanted to make a game where the power curve goes the opposite direction...you start out ultra-powerful, but then deteriorate. Your opponents would probably stay the same strength the whole time, but you would have to work harder and harder to beat them as you weakened.

The board really rocks!

Thanks for the excellent posts guys. There's so much to learn here and still even more to share.

Getting back. I wonder if converting puzzle lovers to fans of lighter strategies will somehow steal gamers from puzzle market and reduce it to a great degree. What do you think? Will the influence be unnoticeable or it will throttle simple puzzles completely (sure, requiring some time to pass)?

We seem to have gotten into the heart of games here .. ;)

I will just add my opinions. I am a firm believer in light to medium strategy games being a hit for internet direct sales during the next ten years. There are many trends indicating this, maybe one of the most significant the role of the woman player. Strategy games, sometimes combined with a social component like Sims Online, are probably the holy grail of "Women games" everyone seems to be looking for. This strongly points to the fact that women are not a focus group but a market. Ie. There is no "Woman game", maybe just a larger preference for some kind of games over other.

My own project is a open ended game targeted at a casual gamer with interest in a specic topic. After the game hits release I will know more about this specific market, and maybe a bit about the more general market as well.

While we're talking about RPG's, it might be a good idea to avoid some of the cliche's in this humerous list (http://project-apollo.net/text/rpg.html) ;)

LOL...I think someone forgot that games were supposed to be for fun. I can't help but be reminded of the people that pay to see Spiderman in the theater 10 times, yet all they can talk about is how the sound that a particular gun made when fired was inaccurate.

Re: RPGs and XP
Just to clarify though, I don’t think you need to get rid of XP and stats, just to not make that the focus. The Ultima series was great at this. There was tons of XP and stats in that game, but because of the way the world was designed, the details it had, and the way the quests were laid out, I never felt like XP was the goal. Gaining XP was just a by-product of going on quests, adventuring to new cities, and seeking out NPCs. Diablo, to me, was the opposite of that (although still 2 great games).

Re: Casual vs. Hardcore games
I think most non-gamers are non-gamers simply because they didn’t get into games at the right age, and now find themselves turned off my complex controls, difficult gameplay and learning curve, non-existent instructions, etc. In other words, most commercial games for PC or Playstation. But Dexterity’s customers have found that games can be fun without being too hard, and without having a ton of complex controls. With those “casual” sensibilities in mind, I’m sure that while playing, every Dexterity customer has, in the back of their mind, the thought of “I wish this Dexterity game had more” something.

So I think these players will accept a transition into more detailed, in-depth games if Dexterity introduces them, as long as they stay “casual”. No long winded paragraphs of text to read for an intro. No complex controls (right away, at least) and a proactive help system that tells you how to play even without you asking. The gameplay should be forgiving, the difficulty, somewhat easy at first. So I don’t think it’s an issue of puzzle games going hardcore, but rather traditionally “hardcore” genres going casual. I think my customers will embrace that with open arms.

~Hanford

Originally posted by hanford_lemoore
So I don’t think it’s an issue of puzzle games going hardcore, but rather traditionally “hardcore” genres going casual. I think my customers will embrace that with open arms.
That's a good way of putting it.

I'll admit, Im completely new to this. But one of the things that I have always realized is that it is the very simple games that seem to have high download counts on download.com. Not only that, but none of these simple games tend to be very intellectually stimulating. I have realized that the majority of the top popular downloads are either big-budget retail demos, or small simple games that are played solely for the purpose of killing time, not for solving puzzles. The games that seem to have high download counts tend to include pinball games, office darts etc...

I may not have coined this or not, but I define these types of very simple games that have high popularity as "relaxware." It is these types of games that I am focusing on for my first projects as a programmer.

My first game that I am making is a mini-golf game. I have tried to incorporate many unique puzzle like elemts into it. I have also designed it so it spans many themes. For instance, players will be able to put on the moon, in deep space, at the north pole, and even in middle earth...

Some may say that a game like this will never sell, but I truley think that the average joe surfing the net looking for games is just looking for something to kill time with. It is desktop pinball, darts, minesweeper, and bejeweled that seem to fit this position. When I worked my summer job, all of the employees were playing simple "relaxware" such as this.

Any comments or errors in my logic?

I like the term "relaxware" and the concept.

Embarassing statistic + some justification for that statistic:

My main working machine shows that I have played over 8000 games of Freecell.

Timewise - even if I finished a game in 2 minutes (it actually takes longer since I keep replaying a game board until I win and those games don't seem to be counted in stats) that would be 16,000 minutes of play. (Over 6 1/2 40-hour work weeks of full-time play! Realistically, probably more like 32,000 minutes. Don't even want to contemplate it.)

Justification:
Um...
This machine is REALLY old. It runs that new OS called Win 95 and came with a gigantic 1 Gig HD.
I'm self employed with a home based business and the machine is on whenever I'm awake.
I sit in front of it most of the day, and play Freecell while on hold during phone calls, between switching tasks, while thinking about artwork/layouts (I publish a magazine), while waiting for my wife, after work while watching TV shows I don't really pay attention to, etc.

So it's not like I just put in all that time in the course of a month or even a year -- it's been over a long time.

Still a lot of time spent.

Similarly, I know my mom got my wife hooked on playing Bejeweled.

Perhaps it can be thought of as a lazy person's form of quickie meditation?

In any case, I think that if I felt a game would provide me with even 50 or 100 hours of mid-day mental field trips, it would be well worth $10 or $20.

The game would have to co-exist nicely with all my other open windows (not be full screen) and would have to not make me automatically lose if I get caught up in something else for an hour or three.

An interesting mini golf game that could run in a window sounds like a good possibility.

Sometimes a game of Freecell between aggravating phone calls is the only thing that keeps me from shouting at people.

Then again, there is no way to determine the amount of productivity Microsoft has sucked out of the world by putting Freecell on every desktop.

- Eric Shefferman

Originally posted by Dan MacDonald
Yes, it's true that in the racing game the other cars got more powerful as well. When i talk about feeling more powerful, I’m not talking about feeling more powerful relative to the characters I’m fighting, I’m talking about a change in the feel of the controls.


An often overlooked item in the player "gaining experience" and improving is the player actually gaining experience. To use the racing example, I recently got a PS2 with Gran Turismo 3. While it is possible to purchase better items to make your car more powerful, it is also possible for the player to actually learn how to drive the game better.

I have found that there are many times that with practice driving a particular track I can use the same car to beat the same computer AI cars. Instead of improving my car's stats, I've actually learned how to drive -- at least as far as this game is concerned.

I think that's pretty powerful concept that goes way beyond stats improving. I actually feel like I've learned how to race the car. I can look at lap times and see that I am getting faster by gaining personal skill -- as opposed to merely noting that my game character has better ability with using a sword.

While not every game lends itself to this kind of learning, I think it is a great way to keep a player coming back. The controls are the same, but I've learned how to work them better.


- Eric Shefferman

Originally posted by thisisme
. The games that seem to have high download counts tend to include pinball games, office darts etc

Snip

but I truley think that the average joe surfing the net looking for games is just looking for something to kill time with. It is desktop pinball, darts, minesweeper, and bejeweled that seem to fit this position.

Well, the question I have is whether the people content with these games are willing to pay for a full version or not. For all those downloads on download.com, there's a percentage of people who downloaded it *specifically* looking for fun for free.

Part of that is whether or not you can build in convincing upgrade incentives. That is, as a designer what are you going to build into the full version that will make it worth upgrading from the free one? With games like Minesweeper and Bejeweled, that can be tough. I'm not saying it is impossible, but it's not just about how much better the full version is over the free one, but convincing the player that it is indeed worth the price.

Logic games do fairly well becuase the fun is in solving the level *the first time*, and replaying that level isn't nearly as fun(possibly why Dexterity has better results with them) . Once players have played through the free levels, the other unsolved levels look pretty attractive.

That being said, I think Mini-golf could do really well as a level-based game with plenty of incentives to upgrade to the full version. I look forward to playing yours!

~Hanford

Originally posted by ferret
My main working machine shows that I have played over 8000 games of Freecell.
...
Sometimes a game of Freecell between aggravating phone calls is the only thing that keeps me from shouting at people.

- Eric Shefferman

Hi Eric,

You sound like you are just waiting to become one of my customers! <g>

What's been described in the last few posts are precisely the type of people who are my primary customers. There are a lot of people who play games this way. They are not hard core gamers. They generally don't know the first thing about all the game genres that get talked about a lot on this board. In fact, *I* don't know the first thing about many of the game genres that get talked about on this board. I've never played an RPG, all the talk about levels, XP (apparently this isn't Windows XP?), the whole thread about "bosses" completely had me perplexed.

My customers are casual gamers, but that doesn't mean they don't play games a lot. On the contrary, some of them play games all day long! 8000 games of FreeCell sounds like a lot, but go to <http://www.goodsol.com/stats/addicts.html> and you'll see that it wouldn't even get you on the first page of the list. I did a recent survey of my customers and asked how often they played games, and many of the replies were for hours every day.

The games these people play tend to be simple but addicting. Bejeweled is a wonderful example. Tetris was the big addiction for this group 10 years ago. Solitaire is of course a perennial.

The game needs to be simple enough that it can be learned in one minute or less by looking at the rules. Then it needs to generate enough complex play to be interesting forever. This is one of the rules for a game article I'm currently writing: "The game should be as fun to play the 1001st time as it was the first time". If you can do that, you've likely got a winner.

I was just wondering the same thing myself. If the game you are selling is simple relaxware, how exactly do you get people to buy it.

I think that if you are marketing a pinball game (these have HUGE download counts because new computer users really don't know of any games BUT pinball) the best ways to provide buying incentives are nag screens and time limits. These make playing the game incredibly annoying. An even better way would be to make the full version multi-machine, lbut only allow one machine in the demo and just screenshots of the rest on a splash screen.

In my case however, a golf game, I plan on allowing the user to play one hole of each world (gothic, space, desert, stone age, etc..) in the demo version. Only in the bought version would they be able to play all 90 other holes. I don't know really if this is enough incentive however.

Anybody think this would work?

sounds like a good plan to me.

And I love the concept and term 'relaxware.' Very good.

For those of you who want to dig into this a little more, you might want to check out the book "Flow" by Csikszentmihalyi. What happens when you play Tetris or Bejeweled is a shallow but pleasing form of flow. The fact that people can get into this quickly and repeatedly (the game doesn't tax them mentally) is responsible for a lot of the games' appeal, I'm sure.

Originally posted by goodsol
I've never played an RPG, all the talk about levels, XP (apparently this isn't Windows XP?)

In RPG terms: XP = experience points. Basically points you get for killing a monster or completing a task. The more points you have, the more experienced you are.

~Hanford

I am already in the strategy game development area and it was the area I choose when I did my market research. Plus I love strategy games. Currently alpha testing my game at the moment pretty close to our first in house beta.

I "know" the strategy market is huge. I love a good strategy game. My favorite RTS games are Warcraft 2 and Command & conquer. Red alert wasn't that great and Red alert 2 was so boring. I just played through the whole of warcarft 2 and dark portal missions to find out what made the game so great. When I got to the end of the final dark portal missions (human side) I wanted "more". Warcraft 3 I did not like at all and it runs like a wet dog of my computer. Probably never play it again. I heard they made Warcrafts 3's storyline so as it would lead into the new " warcarft world" story. Blizzard don't build games anymore they build brand names (but hey they are making a lot of money so who cares). I map edit for wardcraft 2 as well and my brothers love my maps. Warcraft 2's map editor is so simple as well.
Warcraft 2 was probably made back when blizzard had a stable team and some team spirit (you can feel it).

I am a huge turn based strategy fan too. Masters of Orion and Masters of magic which are two great classic games and they have a permanent spot on the hard disk. Civ1 and Civ2 as well. Civ 3 lost it for me. I find I can always go back and have another game now and then. Like a fine wine they get better with age.

Fallout fan as well. People who play fallout have been wanting another fallout for years but the big game companies ignore us in the quest for cinema graphics.

It’s a huge market out there to tap into for the RPG's and strategy games. With my first strategy game it is my goal to get a slice of the action and provide some great experiences for strategy gamers. I am a strategy gamer and I am hardcore. If a game came out like Warcraft 2 or masters of Orion I would snap it up. I know strategy games follow a simple pattern too (they look complex). To make the game a good strategy game is to strike a balance in all it's area's. The key difference between masters of orion 1 and Masters of orion 2 is that Masters of orion 1 is simple. Masters of orion executes like a well oiled machine and hits the balance point by not overdoing it in all area's of the game. In Masters of orion 2 they over did it when they should of just tuned the fine game they already had.

As I head into the beta testing phase of my game I just hope that I have brought the mighty balance aspect to my game. Its got to be simple yet engaging plus 10 meg :).
Anyway I will soon be testing the metal, which makes me a happy game developer :). If I miss the mark this time there's always the second version ;).

It’s not how big the game is, it’s how you play it.

Strategy comes in many different forms.

I dont think strategy games need imply point and click micro (or macro) management of units.

Ive got a couple of games coming forward to test out thier suitability, one is a cellular automata based game, driven by AI interactions.

I'm going to concentrate on a mixture of AI driven games relying on emergent behaviours (strategy type games) and action style games, (generally multiplayer action games).

I dont think the market is so limited that if a good example of a fresh original idea comes out, it wont accept it whatever the genre.

.Z.

In relation to some other posts,

The term "relaxware" has already been coined under a different name in the past called "shovelware" or what I would call "crapware". Most people who look for these types of downloads are just looking for a free game. They use them only to tend to their boredom. They would rarely ever decide to pay money for that except in the case of a few outstanding developer efforts, or in the case of some offline gambling, (not as different as you might think) because these people certainly know that there are even easier ways to get relaxed for free.

If you take a look around at dexterity.com, (and other similar places) you'll see that the number one thing Steve is trying to sell is the ever elusive, yet ubiquitous expectation of "fun". People are much more willing to pay for this opportunity. Sure, you may see that relaxation is one of many possible side benefits of a game, but I don't think it's a smart choice to put at the top of the list for motivating yourself, or your potential customers.

Thank you for your opinion hydroaxe. You may be right about relaxware being the number one expected "free" game genre in the market, but who knows, I guess the only way to find out for sure is for me to actually market a relaxware game.

Anybody else have any opinions regarding games' sole purpose to relax and kill boredom. Anyone agree with or disagree with Hydroaxe on this issue. I am trying to get opinions from both sides of the camp. Does anyone have any success or faliure marketing "relaxware" games?

Another very good report that I read recently describes games as being popular because they help facilitate learning. Some people have attributed mankinds earliest games to being hunting play, such as the play observed in other animals. I agree with this definition, but it is important to know that it doesn't mean that puzzle games don't fit this definition perfectly. Puzzle games help us learn, but they only strengthen logic skills. Other games, such as RPG's are the equivalent in some cases as science fiction novels. War strategy games can help reinforce knowledge of world military history.

Anyone agree or disagree with this generalization of why people play?

Originally posted by thisisme
Anybody else have any opinions regarding games' sole purpose to relax and kill boredom. Anyone agree with or disagree with Hydroaxe on this issue. I am trying to get opinions from both sides of the camp. Does anyone have any success or faliure marketing "relaxware" games?

Visit www.popcap.com. I think what they do is perfect "relaxware". Just take a look at their marketing activities. As far as I can see (by their frequent releases) they are successful. I don't have any backing data though.

Personally I feel relaxware is more of a hit-driven business.

A friend of mine visited E3 and said that there was a panel of speakers that included the "business guy" from Pop Cap, who said that they were barely making ends meet as a company until one of their games (Bejeweled? Alchemy?) just took off ...

So, I think it's harder to do well with "relaxware" games that have weak incentives to upgrade. That is not to say you can't take a Relaxware title and come up with unique ways to make the incentive pay off.

Just my take on it...

~Hanford

A friend of mine just completed a game that Popcap is hosting (Wordstalk). The numbers they quote (or imply) are pretty strong, even for their weaker games. OTOH, the cost of entry is a fair amount higher than it would be for a standard shareware game or I suspect for Dexterity. They have exacting UI, QA, and gameplay standards, and of course you have to produce both a Java and PC version of the game -- and there's no certainty that those that do well in the Java version will cross over to do well on the PC too. The Popcap guys are also supposed to be good to work with, which IMO is great to hear.

I don't know that their business is any more hit-driven than any other try-and-buy business. And, while the carrot approach (unlock new features) clearly works well, these guys are also doing great with the single carrot of "play whenever you want without being online."

Hmm... But I don't see a PC version of Wordstalk at their site. Furthermore, Tip Top Deluxe doesn't have complementary Java version. Do they really require both Java and PC implementations?

Considering registration incentives, I see they don't restrict themselves with a single "play whenever you want without being online." Delux (off-line) versions are still try-before-you-buy and have limited number of plays and don't allow saving results on score boards until registered. The former seems quite nice and original.

They don't require both Java and PC versions to get your game on their site -- but OTOH you only get paid for the sales of the PC version, so it's definitely in the developer's interest to get that version finished asap.

Anyone know if pinball games do well in shareware. Many people play and download them, but do anybody actually buy them?

Definitely pinball is a game that needs a very clever buy incentive, what do you guys think is the best incentive for this genre?

Well for the die hard pinball players, there's Visual Pinball (http://www.randydavis.com/vp/). Honestly, I don't see how much could compete with this free (thus far) app! Check out the plethora of free tables at http://www.irpinball.com.

From the looks of the community sites for VP, I'd say the majority of the die-hards that are willing to pay (or die) for Visual Pinball seem to be middle-aged pinball buffs who own a table or two themselves, and have fond memories of playing Pinball Wizard at Martha's Diner as a rebellious 70's teenager. ;)

The big draw seems to be a buttload of authentically reproduced and styled tables, not to mention many original designs, which anyone can create. VP is an ideal example of a game-maker application done right.

Not sure if that answers your question, but you could surely draw some ideas from the success of VP.

Originally posted by RatZiggurat
Honestly, I don't see how much could compete with this free (thus far) app!

Marketing.