I could understand all of the other 9 reasons when rejecting games but the tenth one I find rather ambigous.

When Dexterity gives this as a reason, why could they not sell the game? Because it's not orginal? Because it doesn't have a hook? These are understandable reasons. Are there others?

Examples would be really appreciated :)

Brian Azzopardi

I'm guessing it would be something like, they can't sell the game because it is not for the target market. For example, if you submitted a 3d hardware accelerated game that required the latest hardware, that would be the wrong target market. It may be fun, but if Dexterity's customers are people with lower end machines, then they would probably have a hard time selling it. Another reason, if the same 3d game was Duke style, where you have to go around shooting monsters or people with machine guns and bazookas and there would be blood and guts everywhere, then that's not for Dexterity's target market. People who buy games from here are not 14 year old teenagers, they are grown up people that don't enjoy killing everything that moves:).

Just my $0.02

There are dozens of reasons we might conclude we couldn't sell a game effectively. Here's just a small sampling:
- it isn't competitive with similar games on the market or with other games in its genre
- it doesn't have a good marketing hook that we can see (i.e. nothing too exciting that would make people want to download/buy it if they read a press release about the game)
- its longevity is limited (i.e. it's doubtful the game would still sell well 5 years from now)
- it isn't likely to be worth $20 in value to the average player
- based on similar games we or others have released, the likelihood of success appears low
- reaching the intended audience for the game would be impractical or very difficult for us
- the game's appeal to our customer base is likely to be weak or nonexistent
- we envision what our sales page for the game would look like and conclude, "this isn't going to be compelling enough, no matter how we position it."
- and so on...

The reason I left this criterion open-ended is that the details behind it change constantly... every week we're learning more about what works and what doesn't. What we don't feel we could do effectively today, we might be able to do tomorrow.

One example I like to think of is bejeweled. A very nice game played by 1000's of people online. Now think about what you would add to bejeweled that would make people want to register and pay for the full version. There's very little you can add to that game and make it more fun then it is now. Its gameplay is so refined that adding features to it would only clutter it up and impede the gameplay. Basically it's a game that's impossible to sell under the demo, full version model.

You can time limit the demo, but cracks emerge very quickly for that type of security. I'm not trying to speak for Steve here, these are my own opinions. But as I develop my own shareware game I’m very cognizant of what will be placed in the demo and what will be left out and included in the full version to entice people to buy.

Originally posted by Dan MacDonald
Basically it's a game that's impossible to sell under the demo, full version model.

But that is exactly what they are doing. I think Popcap and Gamehouse must have some kind of super-secret that allows them to sell these kinds of games for $20 :)

Some of it is just the release from nag-ware. I know that's not as advantageous as giving people more of what they want in a full version, but it does work -- especially for impulse buys like Bejeweled (which OTOH has to be regarded as a bizarre fluke rather than the end-all of shareware games).

Another thing to consider is other platforms: I'm looking carefully at games for PDAs, because the "take it with you" factor can't be matched by PC or web games. That alone is reason enough for many people to buy the full version of the game.

The only compelling reason I see to buy Bejeweled is that it allows you to play offline. For people with a single phone line and a dialup modem, I’m sure this is a compelling way for them to feed their addiction without sacrificing important phone calls. However I don’t think this is a sustainable model for distributing games..

I think the idea is that they get you addicted to the game with free online play. After that, the littlest of improvements seem large, because it feeds your need. Also, a clear advantage to the downloadable games is you can play it on your laptop on an airplane or on a trip away from dial-up access. And on top of that, even if nobody buys the game, they still make money from B2B licensing.

Another factor that can effect our decision is what kind of deal the developer wants, and what kind of game it is. Let me give you an example. A developer submits a game that we dont feel will appeal to our current customer base, and they want a Silver deal (which means we only promote it on our own site). This is almost certain to be turned down by us. The same game, with a Gold or Platinum deal (where we promote off site, and can bring in more customers who hopefully WILL like the game) will be more likely to be accepted for publication. Its still only 1 of many factors, but it is something we consider.

Of course, if the game is something we do think will appeal to our current customers, the type of deal becomes much less important.


Todd