to sell or not

The post from Grey and other threads cited, are very inspiring! But, what is good enough to sell?

I'm getting close to releasing my first game since a few I had on the Amiga. this one and my next one are basic arcade games so they are not worth $10 let alone more. so I'm wondering what I should do with them...

some things that have come to mind are:
* charge $1.99 or $2.99 like some iPhone games. I know if something looks at all interesting to in the iPhone marketplace but only between 1-3 bucks, I'll buy it just to check it out. sometimes I feel taken but more often I'm glad to pay the couple of bucks to the dev.

* release it free but use the website to generate ad clicks? I don't know anything about this... is this a good idea at all? it kind of looks like what ChaosCoder is doing with ChaosSpace2
http://www.blitzbasic.com/Community/posts.php?topic=82541

* just release it free?


I'm not trying to live off any revenue from this but it does feel good when someone likes you stuff enough to give you a few bucks.

I'm really leaning towards the $1-3 idea as long as the effort to buy is very very simple and easy.

Any other ideas?...

The best way to publish games in my opinion is to make a playable freeware version, and a commercial full version.
That's how Doom, Quake, and FarCry did it, and many other successful games.
It's the best way to get players hooked and buy it.

A time limited trial version is not as good, as they can only play for a limited time, and if they wanted to try it again to decide if they buy it, they can't.

Knowing that you have a fully working freeware version which you can play forever, makes players feel much more convinced than having a demo version which has limited features, or a trial version which makes them get stressed about time.

There's also another way, which can bring you even more money: Release the game completely free, but add some micropayments in the gameplay. You can buy some powerful runes or epix items, or you can craft them, but it takes lots of time to craft them and find the components, much longer than it takes you to earn 5€ and buy the item.

I've always wondered the same thing myself... especially if releasing a freeware game with a good site can generate advertising revenue.

And I've heard the "purchasing game items" idea works well, but how do you implement that in a download game... keycode, a different version, or what?

I'm working on a little something now and if the portals won't take it (which is extremely likely) I want to at least try to make SOMETHING off of it because I plan on investing money on it.

Thanks dmaz, Lumooja, good question and answer :)

Hi Dmaz, Not sure what Lumooja was reading but if you have plans for future charegable games then stick them on a website for free (if they're a good example of what you can do).
If you're going to do that I would suggest waiting until you can show a bit of your current project.
On the other hand, if it's just these games then release them for free and take pride in any downloads.
Good luck.

As someone with about a decade of experience in internet marketing, I can tell you that ad revenue is unlikely to amount to much. If you want to charge, I like the idea of charging $2-$3 for what you describe as "simple" games. Otherwise, release them for free, or release them in packs of several games for a single price.

SpaceAce

I always heard that releasing for that little scares people away.

Thus you have the "Shareware Price" of $20.00

Free games are usually free for a reason, such as a remake, compo entry, made for fun, etc and the makers just want to share them and maybe get a rep. If your game has no real reason to be free, and you feel it's worth the extra work, then sell it.

Back in the Amiga's day there used to be full priced commercial games and then there was this whole genre called `budget` games, usually not more than about 10 uk pounds - given that full games were more in the 20-30 pounds range. These days, with so many platforms and so many games, I don't think people have as much of a sense of there being any kind of middle ground. I think they trend more towards either:

a) It's a high quality full product and you should charge more for it cus it's so great, or
b) It's a reasonable amount of quality for dirt cheap

I'm not sure how I feel about charging only a few dollars - sometimes it can seem like a hassle to get out a credit card and fill in all my details on some website when it's only going to be a very small charge on the card - makes you think you'd rather pay with cash or loose change. So you have to think about how people with credit cards think about their cards and how they use them and how comfortable they are using them to buy something that common cash is more likely used for.

As to the micropayments idea, I was thinking maybe you could do like some phone companies do - have something the equivalent to a prepaid calling card - ie you pay x lump sum up front, say a $5 $10 or $20 recharge, this is processed as one financial transaction, and for this sum you get x virtual tokens on some web server, and then when you want to `buy` game objects you use your virtual money/currency which just depletes virtual numbers in your virtual account. At least then you won't have to deal with trying to fill in credit card data every time you want to buy something. But then you have to back it up by having lots of reasons why someone would want to dedicate themselves in the `long term` to `investing` in their future experiences with the product - ie lots of stuff to buy, ways to trade stuff, virtual economies, etc.

I definitely think there is something very strong to be said for `that which is free`. Just about everyone on the planet would like to `get something` without having to give something, or would like to get more back than they gave out. We're a pretty selfish bunch. And what better way to convince someone of whether they like your product or not than to let them start using it, let them start integrating it into their lives, let them experience what it's really like without hype and advertising, use the opportunity to really persuade them to love the product (ie it should be self evidently good) and then have some way to have them hand over some money. That could either be a shareware fee, or buying the full commercial product, or buying assets/add-ons/expansion packs/permission/access/virtual real-estate etc.

I do agree that there are some issues with shareware approaches. I don't like the idea of a fixed time limit. You should avoid shutting someone out of a potential future purchase at all costs. You can't just say okay, so our store is selling this hot product for the next two weeks, but if you show up 3 weeks from now we will refuse to sell it to you. Lost sale! I also don't think you should just put time limits on your use of the software. Obviously ideally you don't want the player to be able to play `the whole game` for free, but then it comes down to game design and expandability. If you just have a fixed closed game with a start middle and end, it is this design that creates the need to limit the play time, because the game itself has an `end`. You would do better to create a game which is open-ended, expandable, extendable, which has a future and a long indefinite lifespan. That means it should be creative, should encourage sharing and relationships, and the `building` of future experiences. If you just make some closed-concept shootemup, lets say, which is a pretty nice game, but only has 6 levels, and would be over in 5 hours of gameplay, then not only is the game limited but so is its lifetime, and having already limited its lifetime you end up with no choice but to limit the player's free play-time. And then the player suffers, but not just from the time limit, they suffer in the long run also because the game's lifetime is limited. So you have a choice, do you create games with closed stories and finite longevity, or do you create the kind of games that symbolize extension, expansion and growth? The shorter the lifetime of the product, the more you're going to have to narrow down the freedom of its use. I think the most financially viable types of games are those which are very open, creative, encouraging user contributions, customizable, extendable, encourage sharing with other people, can create communities, and just generally `have a lot of life in them`. THEN you can let people have the game for free, knowing that there will be other aspects of their game-time that you can charge for, like expansion packs, upgrades, virtual objects, service and support, bonus features, etc

I know there are various approaches to shareware, trying to get that person to commit to buying. Like some people will give a stripped down demo version with limited features, some will disable certain features but dangle them in your face, some will limit the number of levels, some will give you a time limit, some will limit to the number of times you play, etc. All of these are closed doors. And then you hope that when someone meets your closed door, they are going to want to open in order to keep playing. But it would be much easier for them to go through the door if it wasn't closed in the first place, and if there weren't conditions attached to them doing so. I can see how anyone is going to play a demo for 30 minutes, be sort of impressed but not really excited, and then be 100% kicked out of the game, and then delete it when the game asks for you to give something. It's an ultimatum. I think you have to be much softer, gentler, gradual and subtle in your `persuasion` of the play to pay the money. Help faciliatate their enjoyment of the product, help them get into it, help them learn it, remove all the obstacles and awkwardness and difficulties, make it a smooth learning curve, etc, and they should `come around` eventually to wanting to keep playing, then they're pretty much already sold. Trying to get someone to buy something, when they don't want to buy it, is wasted effort. Helping to give them opportunities to see it differently and become interested in it, is better.

Anyway, for my 5 cents worth, I think you should spend a little more time on your game, polish it up a bit more, add some more features/enemies/levels whatever, and then shoot for the $5-10 range.

If you want to make a little bit of pocket money/beer money making relatively simple games, you might consider making Flash games and integrating something like MochiAds. Flash games are a good way to dabble with new gameplay ideas, while making the game extremely portable, extremely accessible, and if one particular game is particularly successful, you can then go back and turn it into a downloadable game, market it as the deluxe version of your original, and you've already done most of the marketing by letting everyone play your first version.

You probably won't make a fortune with Mochiads, but decent Flash games make money through sponsorship, exclusive versions, and the publishers are generally pretty lenient about logos and linking back to your own site, which is usually not the case with casual downloadables.

My 5 cents. Keep it simple, let people play a part of the full game for free and as long as they like and be discrete about selling ie. don't force ads on them, let them click a button.

I guess the main question is, how do you get someone to be so happy with your product and so sure of its value and so aware of the work that you put into it that they're practically falling over themselves to give you money. ie - can see no reason not to. If they can see reasons not to give, they will hold back.

So your entire game is an advertisment for itself. Your entire game is one big ad for the game, selling itself, persuading the customer to `buy` it. What does `buy it` mean? It means someone believes the message that your game is giving, they believe in th product, they think it has real value, real merit, real worth and meaning. If they get to the point where they're thinking of your product in a positive and agreeable manner, then it isn't going to be too hard for them to give you money to symbolise that.

I also think that the purchasing steps should be presented in a way that is in-keeping with the game. I don't like games that have all this wonderful gameplay and graphics and audio and atmosphere and then they take you to some dumb website with a boring form made of gray boxes with nothing moving on the screen and no sound to back it up. If the `experience` of the game drops, and the bubble of atmosphere is burst as soon as you go to the `buying experience`, I think this changes their impression of what they are buying. Instead of buying that cool game that you were just playing, now you're on some website with boring boxes and no fun at all. Until that transaction is totally completed, nothing has been set in stone and you should still be entertaining and persuading the customer about your product. I think I would even go so far as to try to make the purchasing integrated with the game as much as possible, make it fun, make a sub-game out of it, do whatever you can to distract them from the usual kinds of thoughts they have about `having to spend money`. The `checkout process` is a delicate time when the customer needs to continue to be nurtured, entertained, soothed, and kept on-track. What I am going to explore is having a checkout process so integrated into the game that you would barely even think it's a purchasing system - you would just think it's another part of the game, and you stay immersed in the game itself.

I also thought of having some object in the game start to appear, either giving the opportunity of beginning the purchasing process or reminding the user towards that route - like a spaceship in a shootemup comes long with a `shoot me to buy this game`, and then you make it a challenge to shoot the ship, so that they get involved and they want to take that ship down like the rest of the enemies in the game, you trick them into `wanting it`. Maybe the ship promises to give you a bountiful eruption of amazing power-ups and extra lives that you really need right now. You've got to think about how to use the game to make the purchasing of it easier and more enjoyable. Some little logo that says `buy now` or `get now` is not going to cut it. It is not interactive, it can just sit there looking at you and you can just pass it right by. Same thing for nag boxes, nag screens, you have x amount of time left to play, it's all designed to induce guilt which ultimately works against the game. Who reads these things, who cares, who skips every time? Who even reads the license terms and skips right to the `i agree`? These techniques are all passive, you have to get the player involved in the process of purchasing as an extension of the game itself.

I also think that you have to work on making certain aspects of the game desirable. Take for example something like gold or diamonds. They are rare, they aren't easily obtained, they are worth a lot, they look beautiful, the sparke and shine and make you feel special. People want them. They want them because they are rare, because they are special. In this world, rare special stuff is highly saught after. So like, in a shootemup, what is it that's rare and special? An extra life? A special powerup? Access to a new level? Energy? More bullets? These are all rare things, they show up occasionally under difficult-to-achieve conditions, and you go through those conditions just to get to these things. It's cyclic - go through the process of searching for the rare stuff, so that the rare stuff can help you go through the process of finding more rare stuff. So the rare stuff is valuable, it's special. So the rare stuff should be integrated into the payment process - it's the stuff that people are seeking, what they want, what you've told them is valuable and important. You should try to associate that rarity and specialness with the purchasing of the game.

Like I said earlier, by buying the game you get access to a bunch of rare objects, or some big score bonus, or access to a bunch of new levels, or you get awarded some really sought-after status. Whatever is important to seek after in the game needs to connect you to the buying of the game itself - ie, I need to buy this game in order to get more of these rare cool things that I am enjoying hunting down. You can even tease the player, flaunting a bunch of really cool rare stuff in their face, avoiding their shots, evading them, making them even more saught after, so that the player gets into a `I want to get that pesky little alien` mindset. They won't mind so much that it entails giving up some money when they believe they are getting something really valuable in return.

So the whole game should be geared towards making rare stuff valuable, making the player want to get more of the rare stuff, making them want to get away from the crap stuff, and seeing the purchasing of the game as the `way out` of their hell. People see hell as impossible situations with no solutions. You have to have a way out and buying the game or some aspect of the game should be a way to solve problems. And as such you need to think about what problems the player has, what problems to invent, how to amplify their need to solve the problems, and then be really amazing about how well you solve them - with a pricetag attached.

But think about this - what if you need to create problems for the player, which they really want to solve, in order for you to create a *need* to solve them through a purchase? What if you have to make their life worse (by adding lots more aliens?), before you can dangle another carrot saying `look over here, I am the antithesis to those aliens, buy me and i'll solve all your problems - or give you the weapons to do so, etc`. If the player doesn't see enough of a need, due to enough of an absence of what it is you're offering as special, then they won't see that there is a call for a purchase. How do you get the player to think `i really need this, I must get this`? You only have a need where you have an absence of a solution, or where you have a problem. What if there aren't enough problems that need fixing, do you create some?

Something looks like a problem when it looks like something is wrong, undesirable, or not `how you prefer it to be`. It's when you have a desire to change it, to not accept it, to want it to be some other way, that you see it as a problem that has to be `fixed`. And what's going to happen when the problem is fixed? You've run out of problems, and you stop having a need to purchase. So instead, you create problems whose solutions are specific only to the problem, and you make sure each problem has a different form, which distinguishes them apart, and then you make sure that the solution to that problem does not solve all the problems. Because without problems to solve there is no need and no desire to be motivated to create change, or to buy a solution. What if you buy a solution that solves all your problems? You don't need to buy anything else. Maybe that's good for you if you're the one whose product is purchased, but then you've dug your own grave - they aren't going to buy again because you just met their need.

So isn't what we're trying to do, isn't it basically to invent problems that don't exist, to make you believe that the problem is real, to make you not want the experiences that the problem creates, and to then invent an answer to the problem, but only so much that it solves one problem but not another, so that you'll keep coming back, still addicted, still stuck in the same cycle of believing you have a problem and needing to solve it? Doesn't this mean that only by keeping people in a state of believing in fake problems can you keep the money coming in?

I see this as being how the ego operates: ie, false promises, fake problems that don't really need to be fixed, false idols to be worshipped that aren't really special, isolation of problems with specific inflexible solutions, increasing the desire to seek for an answer in order to keep you away from the answer and keep you in the system, special status, removing all value to begin with so that you then seek for rare scraps of value, creating an emptiness so that you think you have to fill the emptiness, convincing you that you don't have the satisfaction that you already have so that you'll seek for it, persuading you that you have a need which you don't really have, convincing you that something is true which is actually false, convincing you that what is true is actually false, painting a picture that something is more than what it really is, disguising everything, manipulating everything, lying, faking, making you believe that you have to sacrifice something in order to gain something, making you believe you have to give something in order to get something, limiting your freedom so that you have to give something to get your freedom back, making something out to be something it isn't, covering over something crap and undesirable with a glossy facade of shallow values, deluding you, getting you to buy into a fantasy, getting you to believe that an illusion is real, withholding something from you which you should have free access to in order to make you want it more, making stuff desirable but not obtainable, giving you a scrap of satisfaction then slapping you in the face, etc. These are all the ways that the ego operates. Isn't this how business operates?

So the bigger question is, is there another way? Is there a way in this world to not do any of the above activities and still make money? Is there a way to give freely and unconditionally and still make a living? Is there a way to fairly and 100% undemandingly provide an opportunity for purchase with no coercion to do so? Is there a business model which relies on the freely chosen desire to recognize and to give in recognition? Is it even possible to avoid these ego avenues and still be profitable? What if we just `make our case` for our product, openly and honestly, with no strings attached, painting an accurate and honest picture of what it took to create it and everything about it, and then give them the free will choice to choose whether to `donate` or not? Would such a business be a `charity` that keeps its profits? Will people only give to charities when there is a `good cause`, like being a hero and saving the planet? Are the trials of a game developer enough of a `plight` to warrant giving? Should we even give a dam about not being egotistical and just do all of the above, which most people do anyway?

Your posts were very enlightening. I especially like the idea of the game 'selling itself' by means of creating problems/creating interest.

I also think your idea of how the 'boring' sales screen is inhibitive in nature to actually purchasing the game. Perhaps a game where you purchase the game within the game itself (like an advanced Shareware) would be ideal. It makes sense too... draw them in, hit the consumer when they're already under the spell.

And in regards to the creating problems for the user to solve by purchase, I assume you are in favor of the purchase of game items with real money?

Or am I way off?

I've been learning a lot lately...

If you're looking at free or microtransactions, you might also want to consider pay-per-lead services such as http://www.cpalead.com/ .

There are some libraries that let you embed credit-card transaction code into a game, I forget where I saw that. Still a boring implementation, but it's doable.

I don't see that there's anything wrong with buying game items with real money. If doubts about that are based on the idea that virtual objects are not `real`, then I would contend that the physical world is not real and yet we are quite set on buying chunks of it on a regular basis. If the objects are given meaning (and we give meaning to everything in life), then I don't see why you wouldn't want to purchase such things. It's not much different to buying an animation or art asset for use in scrapbook software, for example.

As to the checkout process, I generally feel that if I was running a store and people had spent time choosing items and now they're in-line to pay for them, you especially don't want to make the checkout process time consuming or problematic or uncomfortable. I've seen people walk away from purchasing something just because the checkout lines are too long. Until the purchase is made you have to still consider the customer in need of persuasion - or to at least steer things back on track if they get distracted.

I think I'm leaning towards free for the first one. The second one plays better and keeps more of my testers wanting another level but it doesn't look quite as good.

me too, so I think I will shoot for that with the second game but I agree with ImaginaryHuman...


I don't think that the player will want to enter any of their info from the game itself though. I would want a very quick purchase where the game
-opens a connection to my database.
-opens a webpage for purchase info (paypal,google, whatever)
-the db is updated and the game just continues now as registered

I don't think this is a small feat though.

I heard this too but I've seen no real data... my iPhone experience makes me think otherwise. also, they should have a good 'taste' of the game before asking for the couple of bucks, then they know what they are getting.

I don't really want to get into flash but that MochiAds looks interesting. do you know of any data of real revenue?

hmmm, I think one could offer this as an alternative to actual payment? I personally though would rather pay the couple of bucks.

It's a hassle setting up a whole payment thing. My advice would be keep it free and use it as a portfolio item whilst making a second better commercial game. If it proves really popular, consider making and selling a sequel or Gold version of it.

Personally, I'd make the overall game free, but look at monetizing it through upsells as may have been discussed previously.

Upsells could be in the form of additional downloadable content, or keycodes to unlock content or features that are incorporated in the game.

For the first games I create with a FPS game engine that I'm developing, I've considered adding a grill across a corridor section which the player would have to obtain a keycode to remove. The game engine supports thrusters, so I'm also considering having map sections which are inaccessable without the thruster unit. The player would need a keycode to unlock the thruster unit and gain access to those sections, as well as having the thruster unit to play around with. The advantage of both of these methods is that, while the player could complete the game without visiting those areas, the player can see that there are additional parts of the map which are off limits to them, and their curiosity is likely to make them want that access, even if they have to pay for it.

i skipped to post after this part



yes, no, maybe

arcade shootemups were coin ops remember, ok with enough coins and or skill you could complete the game in the arcades
home conversions tended to criple this with limited continues or unlimited with forfits of some kind (eg loss of score*)

perhaps you could make a generic bi directional engine and give out one level pack as a side scroller and allow the player to
buy other worlds wich may be vertical or 8 way
buy other ships
buy powerups to be default weapons (probably not a good idea on the early levels but its pants starting level boss hard on a continue with a pea shooter)
or buy weapons that are deposited instead of the default/lower level equivelant

none of these should be made to make the game too easy for the player (esp the more hardcore), but a naff player like myself could get further if i had a bigger gun or more bullets for it

*i had forgotten worlds on the mega drive and always used up continues and never amassed a score of note as it always reset to zero

edit:
x-out had thsi option to prebuy powerups for each of your 3 ships (if you could afford 3 ships that is after kitting out the first with everything)
so taking the top up scheme meantioned above
£20 or whatever currency used gets you 2,000,000 credits, sounds alot but have you seen the price of rocket fule these days
player starts off with 3 basic ships (lives) that he is given at the start of each game by the planets defence budget, these are 'free' but s/he can trade them in for better ships taking out dosh from that 2 mill
some ships can have more weapon upgrade slots starting at empty and level 1

free gamers cannot prebuy as they have nothing untill they get a score (more credits) and are unable to prebuy inbetween levels level 2 (or 3) and above weapons, but can upgrade if they happen to collect the relevent booster (pick up lv4 and dont have lv3 to upgrade from still use current level but its in the inventory of that ship (life) so you can sell it if you want to at the space depot

What Grey Allien said.

What Grey Alien said, plus:

Your freebies will generate traffic on your website (and targeted traffic!) and will generate more sales. Traffic is always something difficult to get when you are starting.

imho, price tags below $5 are not a good idea (except on very specific cases (for instance apple iphone portal): you will have two categories of users: the first category will pay absolutely nothing for your game (by principle or maybe they are kids, or whatever), and the second, who are willing to pay for your game will be happy to pay more than $5.

About Adsense, to get good revenues from AdSense, you need huge traffic, something you, obviously, won't have at the beginning.. so, again, in my humble opinion, Adsense is not an option.

For instance I have adsense enabled on a website with some freewares on it since more than 4 years and I earned less than $70 in these 4 years...(I am not actively promoting it, so you can hope for better results, but it gives you an idea)

I've got about $700 adsense in 3 years from my site and another one but I don't promote my site. It's not much money so unless you have big traffic, concentrate on other revenue streams.

alain,Grey; thanks for the adsense numbers, that helps.