Facebook Indie Games
Facebook Indie Games

Stealing Farmville's thunder one player at a time. 1 down, 80 million to go.

TwitterFacebookPage

Search

August 4th, 4:53am 0 comments

Zombie Farm iPhone Game Adds Social Features, Shoots Up Top Grossing Chart

Media_httpwwwinsidemo_pqhgh

I'll let Inside Social Games do the talking:

Zombie Farm (Social Update) —Zombie Farm is another older, and popular app that also received a significant update. Currently ranked at #12, the game, which allows users to build a farm and grow their own army of zombies, is now social. Updated July 28th, Zombie Farm lets users connect and play with their friends viaFacebook, email or username. Beyond visiting one another’s farms, players can now send gifts, receive daily rewards, and even engage in a game of “zombie tag” with their friends’ zombies. Monetizing through in-app purchases, Zombie Farm is developed by California-based studio, The Playforge, told us they have more than 20 million players for Zombie Farm.

Adding social features to an already successful game (with enough players for social to make sense) pushed this free to play hit to new heights.
Filed under iphone money social
Posted by David Barnes
April 19th, 3:34pm 7 comments

Why Would You Ever Spend More than 2 Weeks Developing an iPhone Game?

Media_httpwwwpaladins_eabau

Paladin Studios recently released their first iPhone app. They developed it in 2 weeks. It got picked up by Apple and marked "New and Noteworthy".

This was their first ever iPhone game. They were learning the platform as they went along. And yet they produced a credible, successful game in two weeks.

If you're developing an iPhone game -- or any kind of casual game, frankly -- there are many good reasons to set yourself a short time line, and commit to launching in just a few weeks.

Here are just a few of those reasons:

  1. iPhone success does not depend on complexity or length of game play. It used to be that people would read several long-form reviews and think carefully before buying a video game. They wanted to be sure the game would give them enough fun to justify a $40 or more price tag. That's not the case with the iPhone. People probably only read a couple of hundred words or watch a 2 minute video review before choosing to buy. So any feature that doesn't merit a mention in that 2 minutes or less isn't contributing to sales. There's no business benefit in building a complex game.
  2. iPhone games are hit driven. Spread your bets. Most iPhone games aren't going to make a lot of money, but a few make a bundle. Publishing a load is like rolling a handful of dice instead of just one. The more dice you roll, the more likely you are to get a 6. Working on one game for a long time is like a child rattling their dice for ages before they roll, thinking it'll improve their score.
  3. You can always release updates and extensions. What do you have to lose with an early release? Worse case scenario, nobody buys version 1. That's not actually much worse than not releasing version 1 at all.
  4. Short dev times are a great publicity stunt. When you set a tight deadline and then post your progress it makes for an exciting story. Just about every exciting story has a ticking clock -- whether it's the 20 minutes you have before the bomb goes off, or the 4 weeks you have before your sweetheart marries the other guy. Without a ticking clock, these stories would be dull. Working to a tight deadline makes for better publicity than "we'll release it as soon as we're finished".
  5. Darling-free development. When you have a super tight deadline all of your effort goes on the few features that players will really love. Everything else has to go. And that's just the way it should be -- why bother building features that aren't going to make players fall in love with your game? But when you've got plenty of time, you'll want to include ideas because you find them interesting and think they are a "good idea", no matter what's going to make the game sell. These are your darlings, and a tight deadline makes you kill them.
  6. Test your idea quickly. Limiting development time means you can focus entirely on what makes your game unique. There are some features that you know will boost sales -- shared high scores, better save game, etc etc. But the most important thing is to have a fun core game -- and you want to test that ASAP, before adding a load of trimmings. Save the "nice to haves" for version 2.
  7. Each game you release is your best work. When you work for several months on a project, you'll find that by the time you've finished you'll be embarrassed by the primitive work you did at the beginning. Keep dev times short, and the games you release will always show you at the peak of your powers.
Why would you ever spend more than two weeks on the first version of an iPhone or casual game?
Posted by David Barnes
April 14th, 4:27am 0 comments

Feature Handsets aren't Just Non-Smart. They're Stupid. KIN to the Rescue! #kin

The KIN is the first feature phone I've seen that does what a modern feature phone should do. I'm excited about it. I don't want to carry a portable computer in my pocket so smart phones are always a turn off for me. I don't want a smart phone. But I do want a feature phone that isn't completely, irredeemably stupid.

Could the KIN be that phone? Here's hoping.

Take a look at a picture of a typical feature phone:

Media_httpwwwvirginmo_ujafa

You'll notice that around 1/3 of the surface of the phone is taken up with number buttons. This is because in the old days telephones were used dialing numbers and then talking to people. Do you remember that time? It's quite a long while ago.

Dear Feature Phone, You're Dumber than a Bag of Hammers

Here's a question for you: When did you last type in a phone number on your phone? How many times have you dialed a number on your mobile phone in the past week?

I'd say that, at most I type one number a week. Usually none. Let's say 2 numbers a month.

And yet, 1/3 of the surface of the typical phone is taken up with this legacy. A device that is supposed to be portable and pocket sized, and 1/3 of its surface is consumed with supporting an edge case.

It's so incredibly thick it's hard to believe.

The Tyranny of Menus

Phones do a lot more besides making phone calls. As they've got more and more powerful, we've been treated to deeper and deeper menu with more and more choices. What's more, it seems that commonly used features are accessible from many different menus but always a whole bunch of clicks away.

Media_httpwww66mobile_ehvuy

I have a Cybershot camera. You'd think that viewing photos I've just taken would be a pretty core task here, right? And the phone gives me several ways to do it:

Media > Photo > Latest Photo
Menu > Organizer > File Manager > Camera Album
Menu > Camera > View

Three different unintuitive options requiring a minimum of 3 clicks so that I can show grandma the photo I just took of her with the baby. Worse than that, the options available to you for managing these photos is different depending on the route you took. It's ridiculous.

But hey, if I want to type in a phone number which I hardly ever do the whole device is just BEGGING to help me do it.

With web enabled phones, the problem gets even worse. Mobile web apps are nothing but menus, menus, menus. Want to get to Facebook on my phone? OK ... Menu > Organizer > Applications > Opera > Facebook ... and that just gets you to the home page. To find the status of my best friend is a whole bunch more clicks. In fact, it's never occurred to me to actually check a friend's status using my phone. I just view the home feed.

But hey, there are loads of touch screen phones out there. Aren't they the answer?

Touch screen feature phones do get rid of the number buttons, which we can be thankful for, but they're still stuck in a menu-mindset. Instead of thinking about what people use a phone for, they just try to make the menus a bit nicer to use.

Take the Samsung Tocco Lite:

Media_httpwwwmobileph_ovvxe

Here's a quote from a glowing review:

Mobile widgets let you customise your home screen and give easy access to apps such as the clock, weather forecast, etc. There are also widgets for popular web apps such as MySpace, Facebook and YouTube.

It's easy to access these apps on the phone. But it still treats them as destinations, leading you down a path of menus to get to what you want. They've not thought about why people want to get to Facebook or what a modern phone hand set is really for.

Why I want to love the KIN

Now, the KIN is not an iPhone killer. It's not going to compete head on. The KIN is a feature handset designed for this decade. If the marketing wasn't so self consciously, irritatingly trendy then people would be pretty excited about it.

Media_httpwwwmicrosof_dyitv

It's ditched the number keys! Typing numbers is an edge case on a modern phone, typing text isn't. So they've swapped it around -- now the numbers are buried behind letters, rather than burying the letters behind numbers. Smart move.

Even better, Microsoft has figured out what people really want to get from their feature phone, and they're delivering it:

  1. Good quality photos that you can share and show off easily and immediately.
  2. A quick way to communicate with all my friends using status updates -- and see what my best friends are doing at any time. (This might seem like a thing for teens -- but won't mums like it too, if they can have each of their children's latest status right there on the home screen at any time?)
  3. Focus on texting, not typing numbers.
  4. Putting people at the center. A phone is not a device about numbers, and its not a device about features at the end of menus. It's a device about people.
When you pick your phone up, it's usually a person you have on your mind -- not a phone feature. Let's say I pick the phone up because I want to ask my wife something. There's a big button that says WIFE. Then I see what she's up to (her status update), whether it's convenient to call her (implied by her status), whether she's home, whether a text would be best. Or if she's online on IM, maybe I can just chat there!

How often have you tried to call somebody, and then when there's no answer figured you'd better text them. Again, it's a really common case -- but on a feature handset its own that involves fiddling deep in menus. With the KIN, it'll all be under the WIFE button.

I applaud what Microsoft is doing with the KIN. It's an exciting development for feature phones. I'd be surprised if my next phone isn't a KIN or something like it.

Filed under iphone kin mobile
Posted by David Barnes
April 8th, 3:20pm 27 comments

Jobs' latest act of villainy has less to do with Adobe than Gruber thinks.

 
Now I'm sure Steve Jobs black heart did skip a few beats at the thought of screwing Adobe, but his latest act of villainy doesn't have as much to do with Adobe as Gruber thinks.
 
Adobe has a market cap less than 10% of Apple. It's small fry compared to Apple, and we can't expect Apple to care about them much. More important, Adobe is not an Apple competitor -- Adobe is not entering the smart phone market that is responsible for so much of Apple's recent growth.
 
Adobe is too small to deserve much attention from Apple right now. The "Apple vs. Adobe" war might have appealed to tweeters and bloggers, but in the board room it's like talking about the "US vs. Luxembourg" war.
 
So who's the target? It's Apple's real competitors in the mobile space: Microsoft, Google, Nokia.
 
Y'see, the real promise of Flash CS 5 or Unity 3D is that developers don't need to commit to the App Store. They can write their application once and deploy it anywhere they like. This is bad for Apple. If an app can be deployed anywhere, then developers can easily start porting their apps to Android or Windows Phone. Once they start doing that, one of the iPhone's strong selling points -- the huge size of the App Store -- disappears. Every platform has the same apps in the store, and they all run in the same way.
 
To hold onto its place, Apple needs developers to make a firm commitment to the App Store -- to use a native language that can't be ported easily.
 
Apple needs to keep developers closely tied to the iDevice platform. They want platform lock in.
 
Right now Apple is in a perfect position. To gain access to the many cheap apps on the App Store, you need an iDevice. To get access to the millions of iDevice holders, you need to be on the App Store. It's a Catch 22 with Apple raking in the profits.
 
But if those mobile apps can easily be deployed to any device, customers don't need to buy an iPhone to get the apps. A Windows Phone or Android will do just as well. And once customers move to other mobile platforms, the App Store becomes less important for developers, and Apple's greatest strength starts to erode.
 
The new Apple Developer Agreement forces all iPhone developers to make a commitment to the platform. If you want to be in the App Store, you have to write code especially for Apple devices. Otherwise, it ain't getting in.

Because Apple is far and away the strongest smart phone player today, any developer would be crazy to walk away from it. Apple's intention is to make sure things stay that way.
Filed under iphone
Posted by David Barnes
April 5th, 3:46pm 1 comment

How Ngmoco Rules Free to Play Games

Media_httpa1phobosapp_acfpt

This presentation from Ngmoco -- creators of recent iPhone hit We Rule -- on their strategic shift from premium to free to play "Facebook-style" games is just brilliant. Massive thanks to SF Rock for posting it.

Here are highlights, with some comments from me. And there's a link to the full slide deck at the bottom.

Media_httpfarm5static_bbnop

With a paid app, you get a burst of revenue when you reach a peak in the chart; then it dies off quickly. With a free-to-play app you continue to earn long after your chart peak. Total earning volume is much higher for the same level of downloads.

Media_httpfarm5static_uzzyj

With free-to-play games you can launch much earlier. Ngmoco creates an "MVP" (minimum viable product) in 3 to 9 months, launches, and then continuously updates the game through its lifecycle.

Note that the minimum viable product for them is "something that can get to the top of the free charts on the iPhone". If you're aiming to build a loyal, smaller audience over time then your MVP will probably be far more minimal than theirs. What's your minimum viable product? How can you make it even simpler?

Media_httpfarm5static_wfvcy

A flow chart for free-to-play game design...

Media_httpfarm3static_ndawe

And a text explanation in case its too small.

See all the slides on SF Rock, including:

  • A break down of their revenue sources
  • Information on Ngmoco's business model and growth plans
  • The benefits to them of the free to play model
Posted by David Barnes
March 11th, 3:52am 2 comments

Zits n' Giggles -- the $350 iPhone Game

Tommy ran a really interesting experiment. He put a game called Zits n’ Giggles in the App Store and didn’t make any money from it. So he jacked the price up to $15, and three people bought it. Then he jacked the price up to $50, and four people bought it. So he decided to keep jacking up the price as long as it kept selling. Fourteen people bought it on Valentine’s Day for $199 a pop. The game currently sells for $350.

Unbelievable. But he ain't lyin about the price. Take a look.

Posted by David Barnes
March 10th, 11:51am 0 comments

5 Lessons in iPhone AppStore Pricing from the Majic Jungle Blog (@majicDave)

An old (well, a year) article that still has some crucial points on AppStore pricing. The key lessons:

  1. If you’re thinking beyond the end of this month, don’t permanently drop the price of your app to 99c.
  2. If you price your app too low, you will get bad reviews.
  3. If your iPhone app is selling poorly but might be appealing to some niche market, make it free for a while….. 
  4. Most iPhone owners are freetards. A free app will do 250 times better than the same app at 99c.
  5. If the rank drops, increase price, if it sores, decrease price. Yeah, it’s backwards.
  6. Make some apps… you probably have a better chance on the iPhone than anywhere else. [This might have been true a year ago. But is it still true today?]

Read the full post at Majic Jungle.
Posted by David Barnes
March 10th, 7:32am 1 comment

$2.99 is the Best Price for Your iPhone Game -- FBIndie proves it with numbers

Dsc00467

Here's a chart showing the price points for the top 10 grossing iPhone apps this week. The breakdown is pretty similar most weeks, as far as I can tell. A few points stand out to me:

  1. Only one $0.99 iPhone game. This "game" is really a bundle of simple arcade games, not a single game at all -- you can see why it appeals to bargain hunters. 99 cent games is not the path to riches on the iPhone. (But it might be the only choice you have if your game offers nothing that stands out and makes it interesting.)
  2. $2.99 looks like a good bet for revenue maximization. Nearly one third of the top ten grossing games are priced at $2.99. Looks like a safe bet price wise for most games.
  3. No $1.99 games in the chart. Does this mean that if you are going to go above 99 cents, it's best to go well above? It looks like people paying more than 99 cents will jump all the way to $2.99 without much thought.
  4. Consider going higher again. Over half of the top ten games are $4.99 or more. The median price is $4.99, the mean is $5.29. I bet that's higher than you'd guess, right?

 

In case you're wondering, the games are:

 

1. Monopoly ($4.99)
2. Final Fantasy ($8.99)
3. Ragdoll Blaster 2 ($2.99)
4. Call of Duty: World at War Zombies ($9.99)
5. All-in-1 Gamebox ($0.99)
6. Bejeweled 2 ($2.99)
7. Plants vs. Zombies ($2.99)
8. Rock Band ($6.99)
9. Tetris ($4.99)
10. Rayman 2: The Great Escape ($6.99)


What rules do you apply to pricing iPhone games? Are the 99 cent crowd really just stupid, or do they have good reasons for keeping the price low?

If you found this useful, share IT with a link, tweet or by printing it out and sticking it up in your window.

Posted by David Barnes
March 10th, 3:54am 0 comments

Tweet Defense has a great NEW concept, top quality art and video, and gets rave reviews. Why is it 99c?

Media_httpa1phobosapp_opffz

If you ever doubted that iPhone game developers were suckers, Tweet Defense proves it. By all accounts, this is a brilliant iPhone game with a unique concept. It's unlike anything else on the AppStore.

  1. The real "value" in the game is the unique way that it integrates with Twitter. Instead of using Twitter directly for annoying viral growth, players benefit from being good Twitter users -- following lots of people, having followers, and tweeting lots all give you benefits within the game.
  2. It's wittily scripted. It raises a smile without quite crossing into satire. The set up is funny -- zombies are unleashed by "a marketing virus", and of course the game plays on the idea that viral marketing techniques turn people into zombies. Clever and funny.
  3. It looks great. It has beautiful graphics, a well done animated introduction, and a gorgeous interface. The web site also looks great. Serious investment must have gone into this.

And it's 99 cents! If all they'd done was produce a basic knock off of the other tower defense games out there, they'd have no choice but to charge a low price. But these guys have a unique concept and quality execution. Surely that's worth more than 99 cents to anybody. Or at least, it must be worth $1.99 to at least 50% of the people who are prepared to pay 99 cents for it.

If all they wanted was fast viral growth they should have made it free, focused on the concept and rushed the artwork. If they wanted to make money, they should have charged a fair price (the top grossing iPhone games do NOT cost 99 cents). Let's hope they have the smarts to whack the price up ASAP, and get out a version for other platforms with a decent revenue model.

Posted by David Barnes
March 8th, 2:56am 0 comments

7 Reasons Why @FBIndie is Missing the Impact of the iPad

A few of you might be wondering why my recent anti-iPhone rant didn't even mention the iPad. I'm sure the iPad will sell and make lots of money for Apple, which is its purpose and we shouldn't deny Apple that success. But I don't think its impact will be felt very much outside of Apple's own revenue figures, and here's why:
  1. Apple has never succeeded at creating a market. Apple is amazing at building outstanding products in established or growing markets. Everybody knew that MP3 players would be mass market before the iPod took off. There were already many on the market, other forms of portable music player (pocket radio, cassette, CD, Minidisc players) were blockbuster products, but nobody had yet figured out how to make a really good MP3 player. The iPod delivered. And the iPhone didn't create a market either. It took the technology of a smartphone, and marketed it to the mainstream phone user. A genius and innovative twist. Where Apple try to create a new market from scratch or almost scratch, you don't hear much about it after the initial launch. AppleTV anybody?
  2. The Newton. !
  3. It's a giant Swiss army knife. Have you seen that DICE presentation? A "do everything" tool like a Swiss Army Knife works great in the pocket. But nobody has a giant Swiss army knife in their kitchen or toolshed. People want a whole bunch of tools to do different jobs.
  4. Let's face it, it really IS just a giant iPod Touch. We've already seen 90% of the "impact" of the iPad in the form of the iPod Touch. What exactly do you expect the impact to be, beyond being an iPod Touch with a bigger screen?
  5. The whole "multiplayer" angle is a red herring. Grasping for some interesting angle to iPad games, people talk about 2 player games where you each hold half of the device. But the iPad just isn't big enough. We like our personal space. Crowding around a single keyboard feels bad enough. With the iPad you'll be even closer together. Yuck!
  6. Even if it shifts a lot of units, it won't change the game. I'm not saying the iPad won't sell. I'm just saying that from a developer's point of view, it won't make that much difference. The iPhone might have been a game changer for the phone and app industry -- but did it make that much difference to the iTunes music store? I'll wager that 90% of iPhone users owned an iPod before they bought an iPhone, and that their music buying habits didn't change much at all once they got the iPhone in their hands. The iPad will hook into the existing AppStore infrastructure, I bet it won't sell anything like as many units as the iPhone and iTouch, and will lead to only a subtle difference in game and app purchase behavior.
  7. You need to get it out of your bag. The iPhone is cool because it's in your pocket and you can whip it out any time you like. The iPad is going to either go in a bag, or be left on its side next to your sofa. If it's in a bag, it'll need to be in a sleeve too to stop it getting mucky. It'll be a fiddle to pick it up. If you had an iPad in your bag and an iPhone in your pocket, which are you going to reach for to check your mail in a spare 3 minutes? 2000 FBIndie dollars says you'll reach for your pocket, right? Even if you have an iPad with you and ready to use, you'll still use the iPhone more. How's that for not having a lot of impact?
What kind of impact are you expecting from the iPad?
Filed under iphone list reasons
Posted by David Barnes