Quality Without Compromise

EyezWidee, In my humble opinion, Advertisments & the [quote:1ur6oxe4]Paid Apps

are the most annoying thing. I suggest Game Developer should make [quote:1ur6oxe4]In-app purchases

if they are seeking for money, there next option would be [quote:1ur6oxe4]play then upgrade

so the player can test the first couple levels then buy the full version, (also annoying to me)

For me now, I like to submit all my games for free! I'm not seeking for money right now, I'm seeking to reach my goal of making a success game! But if all games were free, Game developers will starve

EyezWidee

Having a free game becoming partially paid, or adding ads, can be seen as a betrayal from the user's point of view (which would be fair, they have chosen a free games without ads, they would have gotten something else at the end, not good).

[quote:19yvsw33]Performance & -Value Are you saying if a game performs well & has replay value you are willing to spend money on it ? If you choose to charge upfront for your games then the only way for people to really measure Performance & Value before purchasing is to watch gameplay video and read reviews & hear about it from word of mouth . People take for granted the reviews that are posted within the appstore so I think having reviews & ratings from other outside sources (Indie Game Mag, Gamespot, Ign, Youtube) would be more effective in determining the value (& even performance) of your game pre-purchase .

Not only I am willing to, but I did spent money upfront in apps that I found worthy of my time (not a lot though, since I am uncomfortable with spending money on other things than food , but that is just me being weird), As I stated, having a free demo actually is a good way to let people play the game, and external reviews can also help the indecise people, some people actually says "everybody can make a good demo just to sell the game, it is not a good indicator", which should be covered by some reviews and gameplay videos, the performances is the really point that is hard to awnser: you cannot expect every game to run on every device, nor you can test all of them, the web demo by itself can sort of awnser that, but it is not accurate enough, which could lead to have also an executable demo just to test.

Naji I understand where you're coming from. Once your game becomes successful its time to make money.

Aphrodite I understand the feeling of "betrayal" you mentioned but if a completely free game later gets an update with non intrusive ads (i.e Flappy birds has ads banners at the top of the game over layout not getting in the way of any significant content and not interupting gameplay) and an IAP system that when an item is bought automatically shuts off the non intrusive ads then the core gameplay experienced isn't compromised (In my opinion) therefore I don't see why people would stop play &/or uninstall the game because the main menu now has "$" IAP button and the game over screen has ads.

-True can't expect all games to work well on any device but sticking with key mobile phones iPhone 4 (&up), Samsung Galaxy S4 & S5, any Nokia Lumia & a 1280x720 or 720x1280 aspect ratio are at the core of making sure the game works universally .

I think if you are gonna charge up front at least give youtubers/reviewers free promo codes .

• "Having a free game becoming partially paid, or adding ads, can be seen as a betrayal from the user's point of view (which would be fair, they have chosen a free games without ads, they would have gotten something else at the end, not good).

"

• If you publish a game free to play, with no ads or iap system, I don't think that would be the reason why people downloaded it in the first play usually its because they heard about it, looks appealing, and no cost to try it out . Theres no collateral for their loyalty other than maybe a positive review & if theyre willing to give a positive review its because they like the GAME so if they feel betrayed by non-intrusive ads and an IAP in a later update that really have no effect on the core GAMEPLAY then they must have never really liked the game to begin with . They still have what they have which is a free game with no interference to that regard .

Turning off the internet just to avoid the ads will just result in developers having to add ways to deal with that.

Browser object, is online: set variable"canplaygame" to "yep"

else: set variable "canplaygame" to "nope"

newt thats thing , dont you feel as though you don't really own it if it requires you to be connected online. But I agree that is a solid way to counter who try to avoid ads.

I can't think of any games that I have purchased that have ads.

I can think of a lot of games that are free to play that do.

Any game where the ads become intrusive get the ax, where games that don't get to stay on my device.

As longs as they meet the other criteria of not boring, etc.

The idea of owning content seems a bit outdated since pretty much all media is digital these days, and when you think about it even the old games are useless with out their hardware.

I have some nice memories however.

I can't agree with you more newt a game with intrusive ads arent even playable, and seeing those intrusive ads would make me not want to spend money on the full version. I say that because theres not certainty that in general if someone plays a "Lite" version and then buys the full version that the dev/company isnt gonna try to sell something else intrusively or not within the full version .

To make my point, if a game is valued as "not boring" then there is , somewhere out there, a target audience for it. How do you deliver your product to your target audience in a way that allows you to make enough money to survive as an indie dev while still maintaining the core satifaction "Gameplay" to your audience . As a dev I think all you owe people is satisfying gameplay as well as respecting their privacy . Anything that doesnt compromise those key points is fair in my book .

In regards to requiring online access as a way to counter those who shut off ads via airplane mode. I feel like there are a significant amount of people who believe games like that are a way devs, companies & the government spy on people. Not that they have solid evidence to support that belief, but requiring online access can trigger that sense of belief. #JustBeingHonest

EyezWidee newt

Also mobile phones are meant to be used everywhere, some of them being places without internet.

As with any monetization system, there are ways to do it which respect your players, and there are ways to do it that don't.

There's also a certain percent of people who turn off wifi or mobile data to avoid ads, that's fine and you shouldn't have to worry bout it. Lots of other users don't do that though. Just from my experience with a small Banner Ad in a Flappy Clone, there were lots of impressions and clicks, you just need to get the numbers of people playing it high and they keep on playing it for awhile (a good game with lots of replay-ability is a must) to generate decent income. Not ONE single gamer on my Flappy Clone complaint about the Banner Ad. It's expected of free games and there's a general understanding on mobiles.

What people hate are fullscreen ads and 100% hate video ads (don't do it, even if you're a huge AAA developer with the best game ever, note: Cut the Rope 2).

Also, do not go down the route of making it Ad free, then when you get lots of download, roll an update with Ads in it. This is a betrayal of gamers who gave you your lots of downloads (& drive up your game ranking on the store). Be upfront. Most gamers do not mind banner ad put in the right location that doesn't interfere with their gameplay.

As to comments that it makes your game look unprofessional, please... visit most major gaming site, do they look professional? Yes. Do they have ads? Heck yes, a lot of ads. It comes down to perception, some people just hate ads and often run AdBlockers, those people, you don't care about because they give you nothing in return so their opinions...

sqiddster Said it perfect.

—

You know what i think the difference is? Major gaming sites like newgrounds just have good looking ads, highly polished and fitted in the surrounding. The ads admob and friends include, look like someone just vomit in your game

—

You know what i think the difference is? Major gaming sites like newgrounds just have good looking ads, highly polished and fitted in the surrounding. The ads admob and friends include, look like someone just vomit in your game

I don't think they are good looking ads, its just as annoying as any other ads. In fact i recently was spammed on IGM with "this is not a joke, you're our 100,000th visitor and you win!!" flashing red/white banner like a crazy epileptic inducing episode.

Ads are annoying by default. We hate it in our mail, on TV, on the web, on mobiles.

If you the gamer hate it, then considering spending $0.99 to remove it or like some, just turn off internet or install adblock.

If its a big game and it doesn't have ads, you can be sure the IAPs are forced upon the gamer (Clash of Clans, Dungeon Keeper etc) due to the entire game designed around milking IAPs. Because devs need money to make games and it has to come from somewhere, if not advertisers paying for it, then gamers will pay for it.

I noticed Butterscotch Shenanigans in their early videos complaint how much they hate Ads as gamers so as devs, they won't implement it.. but then I checked their recent game updates, and they have Ads in it now. As they said, "we need to eat". Really, watch their presentation videos, you can see their progression from starting out as new indie devs to gradually realize that monetization is not separate from game design, that game devs are partially a salesman, but it does not mean you lose all respect of gamers. No, it can be done right.

The problem being that it can also be done pretty wrong(seriously, click an ad to have a bonus? IS THAT EVEN AUTORIZED IN THE CONDITIONS OF USE OF ADVERTISEMENT?), and that I can be wrong but except for the mobile market, this technique does not seem to be used that much, which can lead to the question "why not elsewhere".

As for the devs you used as an exemple, this is more an exemple of not knowing what they got into beforehand.

The problem being that it can also be done pretty wrong(seriously, click an ad to have a bonus? IS THAT EVEN AUTORIZED IN THE CONDITIONS OF USE OF ADVERTISEMENT?), and that I can be wrong but except for the mobile market, this technique does not seem to be used that much, which can lead to the question "why not elsewhere".

As for the devs you used as an exemple, this is more an exemple of not knowing what they got into beforehand.

Monetization is just a tool, it can be used wrong or right. Ultimately there needs to be a balance, gamers need to be respected, and devs need to be supported. For me, this means if I charge upfront for a game, there's NO ADs and NO IAPs out of respect. But if its a free game, then gamers can expect an non-intrusive banner ad & IAPs, because I have bills that need to be paid.

I brought up those guys & their videos because they are like many new starting game devs but the difference is they've found their success finally and with a very bright future. So indeed, they didn't know what they were getting into (who of us really know before we got into it knee deep?), but now they know and its good to learn from their trial & errors, gaining wisdom of experience without actually suffering through the process.