|
|
Post by hardly on Aug 21, 2014 1:08:19 GMT
Tbh I have no idea why people would play flappy bird or candy crush. Isn't candy crush just bejewelled with micro transactions? Sorry I'm not cut out for this market so don't really understand it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Danjal on Aug 21, 2014 1:24:23 GMT
As I understand it, Candy Crush has some form of level generation that sets puzzle challenges for you in a Bejeweled style indeed.
And its designed in such a way that you basicly have to play *perfectly* or you will not have enough time.
From a design perspective its an amazing feat to create a game so well balanced that you can get the majority of players right on that final stretch and then close the gates on them.
Its that feeling of "almost there" and "if only I had a few more seconds/moves" that causes people to buy their extensions.
Much the same as an arcade machine will taunt you with "Continue 10~0 Yes/No" and "coins 0" prompting you to throw in another coin and try again.
Cookie Clicker on the other hand is very much like achievements and similar such tasks. You constantly progress further, making it seem like you accomplish something. Seeing a visible progression.
Starting off with manual tasks, then offering you progressively better methods of automation. (Its very compareable to modded minecraft and its tech progression in many ways, start off manually mining and getting better tools as you play.)
But ultimately, if you see through the veil - there's nothing there.
Both of these games rely heavily on an inherent competative drive to want to achieve something and be better at it than others.
Flappy Bird does similar.
The trick is that its games you don't think about. And that is EXACTLY what 90% of the market wants. A game they can play without having to think about it.
Its the very reason why so many PC players do not like them, or only like them within their designated confines.
Because they ultimately want to be challenged (be it intellectually with strategy/tactics or through pure twitch reflexes) aswell as just pass the time.
|
|
|
|
Post by banned on Aug 21, 2014 2:01:14 GMT
yes, Danjal, Candy Crush is a well designed pure cash grab excuse of a game and Crapus is more in the farmville poorly designed crap dept.
But Candy Crush is still offensive non-game garbage exploiting morons for all it can. So yup, what MBAs think "90% of the market wants".
See, click addicted 8 year olds on Mommy's phone skew the results in crap excuses for games, thus invalid assumptions about results. Which is why Zynga is in a death spiral.
After all, marketing exec. are trained to wrongly believe upon seeing someone suck down stagnate water after emerging from a day with no resources in the desert, "people love stagnant water!"
|
|
|
|
Post by Danjal on Aug 21, 2014 2:09:14 GMT
yes, Danjal, Candy Crush is a well designed pure cash grab excuse of a game and Crapus is more in the farmville poorly designed crap dept. But Candy Crush is still offensive non-game garbage exploiting morons for all it can. So yup, what MBAs think "90% of the market wants". See, click addicted 8 year olds on Mommy's phone skew the results in crap excuses for games, thus invalid assumptions about results. Which is why Zynga is in a death spiral. After all, marketing exec. are trained to wrongly believe upon seeing someone suck down stagnate water after emerging from a day with no resources in the desert, "people love stagnant water!" You can sprew venom about it all you want. But at the end of the day they don't care about creating *games*, they care about creating *money*. We think in 'good games' and in 'morality' - they have discarded these things in favor of getting more revenue. You can hate candy crush all you want (hell, I don't see the point in it myself), but the fact is that from a business perspective it does its job and it does it well. Morality does NOT take part in that calculation. Solving this problem isn't done by spewing venom and standing on a pedestal, its done by being objective and finding a piece of the puzzle that allows good games to generate the revenue that these games do. Or finding a piece that makes these moneyprinting programs more morally acceptable. These aren't people making games. These are people making money. |
|
|
|
Post by Qetesh on Aug 21, 2014 13:43:45 GMT
yes, Danjal, Candy Crush is a well designed pure cash grab excuse of a game and Crapus is more in the farmville poorly designed crap dept. But Candy Crush is still offensive non-game garbage exploiting morons for all it can. So yup, what MBAs think "90% of the market wants". See, click addicted 8 year olds on Mommy's phone skew the results in crap excuses for games, thus invalid assumptions about results. Which is why Zynga is in a death spiral. After all, marketing exec. are trained to wrongly believe upon seeing someone suck down stagnate water after emerging from a day with no resources in the desert, "people love stagnant water!" Did you just call Godus, Crapus? Heheheheheheheheheehhehe........................sorry that is just funny. |
|
|
|
Post by banned on Aug 22, 2014 2:43:14 GMT
yes, Danjal, Candy Crush is a well designed pure cash grab excuse of a game and Crapus is more in the farmville poorly designed crap dept. But Candy Crush is still offensive non-game garbage exploiting morons for all it can. So yup, what MBAs think "90% of the market wants". See, click addicted 8 year olds on Mommy's phone skew the results in crap excuses for games, thus invalid assumptions about results. Which is why Zynga is in a death spiral. After all, marketing exec. are trained to wrongly believe upon seeing someone suck down stagnate water after emerging from a day with no resources in the desert, "people love stagnant water!" You can sprew venom about it all you want. But at the end of the day they don't care about creating *games*, they care about creating *money*. We think in 'good games' and in 'morality' - they have discarded these things in favor of getting more revenue. You can hate candy crush all you want (hell, I don't see the point in it myself), but the fact is that from a business perspective it does its job and it does it well. Morality does NOT take part in that calculation. Solving this problem isn't done by spewing venom and standing on a pedestal, its done by being objective and finding a piece of the puzzle that allows good games to generate the revenue that these games do. Or finding a piece that makes these moneyprinting programs more morally acceptable. These aren't people making games. These are people making money. crack is very profitable. I refuse to accept that abuse of stupid people is an acceptable business model. Doubly so when I'd shower them with cash if what they offered was worthy. What capitalism works and ripping people off is only profitable in the short term??? I am shocked. |
|
|
|
Post by banned on Aug 22, 2014 2:44:29 GMT
yes, Danjal, Candy Crush is a well designed pure cash grab excuse of a game and Crapus is more in the farmville poorly designed crap dept. But Candy Crush is still offensive non-game garbage exploiting morons for all it can. So yup, what MBAs think "90% of the market wants". See, click addicted 8 year olds on Mommy's phone skew the results in crap excuses for games, thus invalid assumptions about results. Which is why Zynga is in a death spiral. After all, marketing exec. are trained to wrongly believe upon seeing someone suck down stagnate water after emerging from a day with no resources in the desert, "people love stagnant water!" Did you just call Godus, Crapus? Heheheheheheheheheehhehe........................sorry that is just funny. yes, yes I did.  |
|
|
|
Post by banned on Aug 22, 2014 2:57:03 GMT
The thing there is, are you trying to make money or are you trying to make a game.... Saddest of all is, "if you make a game, you'll make money." But that didn't suit them. Hell I threw them close to 250.00 US juat on the hope they'd make a game. Shame the morons thought using my cash to make a farmville clone was a great idea. |
|
|
|
Post by Danjal on Aug 22, 2014 3:01:42 GMT
Its sad, but its true. They'd rather squeeze money out of a larger target audience by making something that is morally suspect than to create something worthwhile for a group that is willing to pay up for it.
Yet thats the world we seem to be living in. And there's very little we can do about it (unless you intend to go and set up your own company and prove a point, in which case you'd be a droplet of water on a hot plate.)
|
|
|
|
Post by Crumpy Six on Aug 24, 2014 13:54:25 GMT
Update on these: Godus has dropped significantly in ranking.. It's highest rank as of this writing is #24 in iPad simulation games, placing it behind (for example) "Covet Fashion - the Game for Fashion and Dress-up" and "Hay Day" (some kind of chicken farm sim?). In iPhone Sim games it's dropped to #29 and in top iPhone games (briefly #1) it is now #179. The revenue estimate on August 13th was averaging $20k a day. It's now down to $15.5k, which has been reasonably consistently for the last few days. These may only be US figures, but it represents a 25% drop in income in the week following release. It's still pretty good though (if accurate). For comparison, Dungeon Keeper mobile is estimated at $4.6k/day. |
|
|
|
Post by hardly on Aug 24, 2014 19:32:12 GMT
They need hubworld....
|
|
|
|
Post by Gmr Leon on Aug 24, 2014 20:19:20 GMT
...and content in general. |
|
Lord Ba'al
Supreme Deity
Posts: 6,260
Pledge level: Half a Partner
I like: Cats; single malt Scotch; Stargate; Amiga; fried potatoes; retro gaming; cheese; snickers; sticky tape.
I don't like: Dimples in the bottom of scotch bottles; Facebook games masquerading as godgames.
Steam: stonelesscutter
GOG: stonelesscutter
|
Post by Lord Ba'al on Aug 24, 2014 21:26:34 GMT
...and content in general. And a game. |
|
|
|
Post by muumipeikko on Aug 25, 2014 10:30:42 GMT
You can sprew venom about it all you want. But at the end of the day they don't care about creating *games*, they care about creating *money*. We think in 'good games' and in 'morality' - they have discarded these things in favor of getting more revenue. You can hate candy crush all you want (hell, I don't see the point in it myself), but the fact is that from a business perspective it does its job and it does it well. Morality does NOT take part in that calculation. Solving this problem isn't done by spewing venom and standing on a pedestal, its done by being objective and finding a piece of the puzzle that allows good games to generate the revenue that these games do. Or finding a piece that makes these moneyprinting programs more morally acceptable. These aren't people making games. These are people making money. crack is very profitable. I refuse to accept that abuse of stupid people is an acceptable business model. Doubly so when I'd shower them with cash if what they offered was worthy. What capitalism works and ripping people off is only profitable in the short term??? I am shocked. You need to understand basic economics, no one starts a business to make a game, they start a business to make money and the game is a side product of that. Capitalism is all about short term profiteering and accumulation of wealth from the masses to the select few. Ever wondered why every week the news if filled with such and such is sheading x% of their workforce? It's because a CEO has decided in the short term doing something is unprofitable so kill it to make a pound now even if it costs the company dearly in the future (by which times his options will have vested and been cashed of so not his problem).
Once you accept people start business's to make money you can quickly join the dots and understand that if you do something for money, why wouldn't you shoot for the stars? If you compare the 2 most successful games in each camp you will quickly understand. So StarCitizen, possibly the most successful crowdfunded game in history, It's going to take what 2 years (plus) to make but has already netted them $30-40 million. Very impressive, but.... Candy crush, I refuse to believe this took more than a month to develop and is netting them ~$1,000,000 a day! Or, in the time it has taken Peter to write Godless and the SC guys to write a hanger and a ship, Candy crush has made over half a billion for King alone...
And for the record, I play candy crush, it's an interesting mathematical puzzle, I don't get why anyone in their right mind would pay £0.69 to get extra moves though. That said a lot of people are.
|
|
|
|
Post by Danjal on Aug 25, 2014 16:36:05 GMT
crack is very profitable. I refuse to accept that abuse of stupid people is an acceptable business model. Doubly so when I'd shower them with cash if what they offered was worthy. What capitalism works and ripping people off is only profitable in the short term??? I am shocked. You need to understand basic economics, no one starts a business to make a game, they start a business to make money and the game is a side product of that. Capitalism is all about short term profiteering and accumulation of wealth from the masses to the select few. Ever wondered why every week the news if filled with such and such is sheading x% of their workforce? It's because a CEO has decided in the short term doing something is unprofitable so kill it to make a pound now even if it costs the company dearly in the future (by which times his options will have vested and been cashed of so not his problem).
Once you accept people start business's to make money you can quickly join the dots and understand that if you do something for money, why wouldn't you shoot for the stars? If you compare the 2 most successful games in each camp you will quickly understand. So StarCitizen, possibly the most successful crowdfunded game in history, It's going to take what 2 years (plus) to make but has already netted them $30-40 million. Very impressive, but.... Candy crush, I refuse to believe this took more than a month to develop and is netting them ~$1,000,000 a day! Or, in the time it has taken Peter to write Godless and the SC guys to write a hanger and a ship, Candy crush has made over half a billion for King alone...
And for the record, I play candy crush, it's an interesting mathematical puzzle, I don't get why anyone in their right mind would pay £0.69 to get extra moves though. That said a lot of people are.
The problem with capitalism is that its not sustainable. Did you know that the game "Monopoly" was originally designed by someone to point out the flaws in capitalism? However it wasn't taken seriously and it was 'kept off the market' by corporations. Subsequently after that all died down one of those corporations picked it up and hyped it. Now notice a few patterns within the game: 1 - Players always get knocked out of the game before the end & 2 - Most games end up in quarreling. Capitalism is all about the short-term gain. The idea that once you have the money you can cash out and with that money start over somewhere else. So yes, a company needs to make money to sustain itself - but a big FLAW in that logic is that you can only make money by sacrificing all else. You CAN infact make a good game aswell as a ton of money. (Though its hard...) You can also make a decent or mediocre game and still make quite a bit of money. (Which is a lot less difficult) Both of these methods will guarantee profits in the long run. Instead these people decide to go with a quick cash grab, burning all their bridges in the process. Candy Crush is an admirable example - but Candy Crush is like the above mentioned "perfect game". Its a one in a million chance that you get this perfect combination of components that turns into such a massive hit. For every Candy Crush there are tons of games that technically are just as good and have had the same amount of money invested, but don't even come close to the profits that Candy Crush makes. There is a reason why few companies try to make top-of-the-line games that are perfect in every regard. Its because of the risks and the cost involved. The only reason they DO bother to try with mobile is because the relative cost and time involved is negligable. Its the same reason why "normal people" like you and I enter the lottery or some other chance-based game. For the 'chance' to win. Only instead of a $5~25 ticket, they invest $50.000~$500.000 into a mobile game for the chance to make that mythical $1.000.000/day. They know the chances of winning are next to none, but to them this money is so meaningless compared to the billions that go into 'proper' games, that they simply do not care. |
|
|
|
Post by 13thGeneral on Aug 28, 2014 15:16:56 GMT
|
|
stuhacking
Master
Posts: 170 
Pledge level: Partner
|
Post by stuhacking on Aug 28, 2014 15:44:57 GMT
Maybe the entire point of iOS Godus is to throw back the curtain on shallow free-to-play games with an utterly shameless example. Wouldn't it surely be a good thing to have more people realise the futility of games that have no real substance other than to constantly tug at your purse strings? Peter M is a hero! With his barely disguised F2P mechanics he's stoking the flames of the revolution!
And once the towering leviathan of F2P groans to a permanent halt we'll have a regenesis; not only of the god game, but of the entire Mobile Games Industry.
Muhahahahaha....
|
|
|
|
Post by Qetesh on Aug 28, 2014 15:52:13 GMT
This quote from the reviewer sums it up for me.... I was curious about the PC version and found a Metacritic score of 1.9. It seems many players had the expectation of a god game along the lines of Molyneux's greats, but instead found something that has far too much in common with Farmville. The Kickstarter campaign and Peter Molyneux's involvement created huge expectations and unfortunately Godus just doesn't quite deliver.We have been telling you guys all along, it is NOT just us that can see from a mile away what this game is, and as the bad reviews roll in, the spin continues. |
|
|
|
Post by 13thGeneral on Aug 28, 2014 16:20:04 GMT
Maybe the entire point of iOS Godus is to throw back the curtain on shallow free-to-play games with an utterly shameless example. Wouldn't it surely be a good thing to have more people realise the futility of games that have no real substance other than to constantly tug at your purse strings? Peter M is a hero! With his barely disguised F2P mechanics he's stoking the flames of the revolution! And once the towering leviathan of F2P groans to a permanent halt we'll have a regenesis; not only of the god game, but of the entire Mobile Games Industry. Muhahahahaha....
Heh. It has been postulated before that this whole project is some kind of "meta-game" experiment. Since enough people have questioned and pondered this, it does lend a minute amount of credence to the notion - especially given what they did with Curiosity. And with other companies coming out and admitting social experiments along similar lines, one does wonder how many other companies might be doing such thing; and a game developer doing something lkke that would only make sense - games have broken 4th wall before with viral campaigns and game aspects usjng real world meta-involvement. So who knows, it could be true. Unfortunately it may not be having the affect they were hoping for. |
|
|
|
Post by hardly on Sept 3, 2014 6:39:32 GMT
|
|
Aug 21, 2024 19:32:37 GMT
Aug 21, 2024 19:32:37 GMT
