Categories
Game Development Games Linux Game Development Marketing/Business

What Game Platforms Do You Support?

While I beat the drum about supporting GNU/Linux gamers, more than a few people have noticed that the world doesn’t revolve around Windows vs Mac vs GNU/Linux anymore. Jeff Tunnell wrote in February that putting your game on OS X and GNU/Linux is not enough.

Instead of debating OSX, Linux, and Windows vs. just Windows, you should be considering all OS’s, Flash, the browser, Facebook, MySpace, Hi5, Steam, Instant Action, Greenhouse, your own site, iPhone, Android, other smart phones, Nintendo DS, Xbox via XNA, XBLA, Playstation Network, Wii Ware, box distribution, Casual Portals like Big Fish Games and Yahoo Games, Flash Portals like Kongregate and New Grounds, international portals.

When I worked to convert a game to Flash and bring it to Facebook, Sea Friends was the result. And until I made this effort, I didn’t realize how much Flash, Facebook, and the web in general were individual platforms.

When Netscape and Java were new, the promise was that applications would no longer be locked into the operating system you were using. All work and play would be in the web browser. The push got stopped long ago, but look around you today. Facebook is huge, and more people spend time logging in there than many other sites. The iPhone had a gold rush, and Android phones may have their own.

And the platforms impact how you play. Games available through Facebook and other social networking sites tend to be social games. It’s only natural. If you can’t interact with friends in some meaningful way, your game won’t get played. iPhone games tend to be quick and easy to play, which are perfect for people who are sitting on a bus or waiting in line somewhere.

If anything, supporting Windows exclusively, as many indies do, is a sure-fire way to marginalize your game in the world. Supporting Windows exclusively is easier, yes, but why should you expect that doing the easy thing will be profitable?

But the bigger point is that supporting Windows, OS X, and GNU/Linux aren’t enough. Does this mean that Joe Indie has his work cut out for him? Perhaps, but it also means your game has many ways to meet potential players. You have many options for testing your game designs long before you invest years of your life into the implementation.

Always see, and really see, what is possible.

Categories
Games Linux Game Development Marketing/Business

Linux Gamers Demonstrate Demand & Support Suppliers

I like calling attention to the reasons why you should support Mac OS X and GNU/Linux as a game developer, especially since so many people still ignore these markets at their peril.

Recently, Koen Witters of Koonsolo Games wrote about how surprised he was to find that Linux users show their love for the company’s indie game. He posted Mystic Mine‘s downloads and conversions stats, and the results demonstrate that GNU/Linux users are a gaming market that is relatively easy to target and is willing to purchase quality games.

Mystic Mine is an action-puzzle game with simple controls. You basically switch tracks for mine carts to use as they collect coins, diamonds, and other items. As more and more carts run around, you’ll find yourself switching tracks just to keep them from running into each other, and the action can get frantic.

This game is available for GNU/Linux as a native client, and the customers are buying. I downloaded the demo, and the game runs right out of the box. It’s a fantastic user experience.

Contrast that experience with EVE Online. Back in February, EVE Online‘s official GNU/Linux support ended. The reasoning? Not enough GNU/Linux users to make it worth the complexity of supporting three operating systems.

If you read the comments of that news item, you’ll see that everyone agreed the native client was horrible. One person said that using Wine to emulate the Windows version worked better than the native client. People even left the game because the native client was so painful to use.

No wonder there weren’t many GNU/Linux users. Based on the feedback I’ve seen, they were treated as if they were second-class customers, given an inferior experience and expected to act like it was good enough.

Again, contrast that experience with 2D Boy’s World of Goo. GNU/Linux users had to wait for that game to be released long after the Windows version was. When the port was finally released, more games were sold on that day than any other day.

This day beat the previous record by 40%. There is a market for Linux games after all 🙂

If you’ve played World of Goo on GNU/Linux, you know that the native client is great. It’s not buggy. It’s not frustrating to use. It just works.

So Mystic Mine and World of Good are both games that treat GNU/Linux users as first-class customer, and the creators are rewarded with good conversion rates and sales. EVE Online produces an inferior experience for GNU/Linux users, and then the creators cite the low number of customers as the reason to drop the poor support they were providing.

If you want to argue that EVE Online is an MMO and has different support costs, keep in mind that A Tale in the Desert is also an MMO, and when it first came out, 38% of GNU/Linux users converted to paying customers while only 20% of Windows users did.

In terms of absolute numbers, there are more Windows users than GNU/Linux users, but there are other benefits besides sales and subscribers. Publicity is a huge one. With websites dedicated to Mac and Linux games, you’ll easily make a name for yourself if your game is well-made. Of course, if you half-ass it, you’ll make a different name for yourself.

I’ve asked before: why aren’t there more Linux-using gamers? But the market exists. It has a significant user base. And they pay money.

As an indie, you can afford to provide a quality experience for these people and reap the benefits, especially since, by and large, the mainstream game industry ignores them.

Categories
Games Geek / Technical Marketing/Business

The American Gamer

People like to analyze NPD statistics on console ownership, so feel free to pop on over to The Great American Gaming Landscape if you want to see what this past year can tell you about the American gamer.

Or I can spoil it for you. B-)

Over half of the population plays video games, yet only a quarter of households own a next-gen console. Unless you count my Nintendo DS, I fit into these stats. My gaming takes place mostly on my computer, and I still have GameCube games I haven’t finished. Heck, I still have N64 games I haven’t finished. And SNES. And NES. And I have a few Atari 2600 games to go through. I should add that if you follow me on Twitter, you would know that I also play next-gen games at my day job’s employee lounge at lunch. My coworkers and I would play Metal Gear Solid games together, then N+ (yay, indie!), and now we’re on a Boom Blox kick. It seems lots of people who play next-gen games do so somewhere other than home.

Those people who insist that they needed to get every next-gen console so they don’t miss out on any great games? There are almost 3.4 million of them. Sounds like a lot, but that’s only a little over 1% of the population. Those people are elite.

Almost half of all households with a next-gen console have a Wii, which dominates. Most likely if you have a Wii, though, you won’t have a PS3 or a 360.

And with the Wii price drop coming, even though there is a dearth of quality games, it’s likely that the Wii will only get more popular, even in the face of new offerings from Sony and Microsoft.

Again, if you want more details, visit the link above. It’s fun to pore over the numbers. Just think: 75% of households who play games don’t own a modern-day console. If you make browser-based games or downloadable games for PCs, my interpretation of the data suggests you are a force to be reckoned with.

Categories
Game Design Game Development Geek / Technical Marketing/Business Personal Development

LD#15 Oh, Cats

It’s hard to type when a cat decides that NOW is the time to curl up in your lap, rubbing against your arm or face.

Diego is hamming it up

Usually Gizmo is the one who does this, but this time Diego decided to make an appearance. He really hammed it up when I got the camera out. Caption contest?

I’ve decided not to pursue Test Driven Development with this project. I can imagine that I will spend time on infrastructure more than anything, and Rule #1 of many Rule #1s for Ludum Dare is “Focus on making a game, not an engine for games.” I am still going to try to keep things focused and small, which is what TDD usually helps me with. What I won’t do is spend too much time on wrapping up hardware or libraries in testable code. I can spend hours on that alone, and I just don’t have the hours.

I just fear that the end of the contest will find me wishing I had unit tests in place because “I don’t have the hours” to not have them. B-)

Categories
Game Design Game Development Games Geek / Technical Marketing/Business

Plants vs Zombies Developer Interview

In my post on Plants vs Zombies, I was lucky enough to have one of the people deeply involved in the production of the game answer some of the questions I had about the design process and behind-the-scenes work. I have been waiting for an in-depth interview with George Fan, the designer and creator of the game.

GeneralGames.ca’s interview with George Fan is a short one, and it isn’t as in-depth as I would like, but Fan does answer some questions about how the game came about.

In other interviews, he has said that he was innovating on the tower defense genre, mainly by improving the accessibility.

My goal was to take the tower defense standards and simplify them down to the point that almost anyone could pick up and play. With that in mind, I kept the playfield small and removed some of the things found in traditional tower defense that might not be as intuitive.

He mentions the humor aspect being a big focus as well.

There’s no word on whether or not a sequel to the game is in the works, but Plants vs Zombies is being ported to other platforms, including XBLA.

Categories
Geek / Technical Marketing/Business Politics/Government

Do Patents Stifle Innovation?

The Copyright Clause of the United States Constitution states that Congress shall have the authority to “promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts”, and it specifies how Congress shall do so: “by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.” See my article on what an indie needs to know about copyright for a primer on the topic.

Copyright, trademark, and patent laws were created to provide the latter in the hopes that it encourages the former. While anecdotal claims have been around for some time which insist that patents are stifling innovation, especially in the realm of software development, the prevailing view is that patents are good for innovation. Of course, that claim is also anecdotal.

Dr. Andrew W. Torrance and Dr. Bill Tomlinson simulated different types of patent systems, using PatentSim, which sounds like an MMO based around owning and utilizing patents. Based on their simulations, using different patent models, they found that the data “suggest that a system combining patent and open source protection for inventions (that is, similar to modern patent systems) generates significantly lower rates of innovation (p<0.05), productivity (p<0.001), and societal utility (p<0.002) than does a commons system.”

Read about the study at Patents and the Regress of Useful Arts.

Changing the US Patent system is tough, especially since so many businesses exist with an interest in keeping the status quo, but if promoting the useful arts and sciences can be more effective by NOT continuing with current practices, it sounds like “securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries” was an erroneous assumption on the part of the Founding Fathers.

Categories
Game Design Game Development Games Geek / Technical Marketing/Business

Defining Indie

Wolfire Games has a new blog post that attempts to define what indie games are. Defining what “indie” means has been about as tough as defining what a “game” is. I’ve covered a few attempts here and here.

What people in general think “indie” means can affect how a new game is welcomed into the market. I know that a number of game developers worry that labeling their games as “indie” might negatively affect sales since people might associate “indie” with “low-budget” and “amateur”. On the other hand, other developers want people to associate their “indie” game with “innovation” and “creativity”.

Wolfire Games mentions Microsoft’s handling of their Live Arcade and Community Games sections. When the name of “Community Games”, which has generally been considered the home of poorer quality games, was changed to “Indie Games”, many developers balked at the idea of associating “indie” with “worse”.

After talking a bit about how various organizations have defined “indie”, Wolfire gives its definition: an indie game is one motivated by passion and designed by the people actively working on it.

And right away, I’m sure some of you are uncomfortable with that definition, too.

So if you make a game that seems to appeal to people willing to spend their money, and you work on it to improve the revenue, you fail the first part? Or what if you are just absurdly bad at the marketing and business aspects? Do you pass the first part?
And if you have a small company that actually separates the game designer from the programmer, it fails the second part?

I think that most people can agree that being indie means having full creative freedom over your work. I think if you look at Wolfire’s definition, it attempts to solve the problem of answering “Who is indie?” with “EA” or “Nintendo”. While EA technically has freedom in that no one tells EA what to do, EA is far removed from the actual development of a game, and any game they publish is presumably not being made without their influence somehow affecting it. On the other hand, Introversion, creators of Defcon and Darwinia, are able to exercise creative freedom without worrying about a publisher making feature requests or design changes. They sink or swim based on their own efforts.

What about a company like Valve? Most people try to claim that “indie” means you don’t have a publisher, but what if you ARE the publisher AND develop games? Well, how many levels of hierarchy are there? Does it impact the creative freedom of the developers of any individual game? Valve would also be considered too big by Wolfire’s definition. Portal was made by a group within Valve, which implies to me that full creative freedom by the hands-on developers was hampered.

Basically, if you’re big enough to have studios within your company, you’re not indie because each studio is beholden to some other part of the organization.

Perhaps a better way to define indie is to restate Wolfire’s attempt as: an indie game is one that involves full creative freedom for the people working directly on it.

Now it’s your turn to be uncomfortable with my attempt at a definition. Feel free to comment and poke holes in my definition. B-)

Categories
Game Development Marketing/Business

Indie Game Challenge

I received an email recently informing me about the Indie Game Challenge. Here’s Lord British in a somewhat humorous video to simultaneously poke fun at wannabe game developers and introduce the contest:

The Challenge is designed to be the preeminent competition for video game developers by offering winners almost $300,000 in prize money and scholarships, including $100,000 grand prize awards for both the winning professional and non-professional games. In addition, finalists will receive national exposure and be eligible for additional prize money by having their pitch videos posted on GameStop.com and GameStop TV for People’s Choice Award voting. Complete entry and contest details are available at www.indiegamechallenge.com.

If I understand the rules correctly, you have until October 1st to submit a game and a pitch video explaining why you and your team should win. Prizes include a scholarship to The Guildhall, opportunities to pitch your game to a major game publisher, and cash.

Whether this contest is life-changing remains to be seen. It bothers me a bit that one of the prizes for this “indie” contest is getting the ear of Capcom, Nintendo, Microsoft, EA, and others, effectively making it less indie to me, but it could be a big opportunity if you aren’t as concerned.

If anyone is planning on joining this contest, feel free to post a comment here! I’d love to hear about your decision, your team, and your game!

Categories
Game Design Game Development Marketing/Business Personal Development

An iPhone App in 8 Days

Stephen over at Unobserved Musings wrote about an ambitious plan he tackled with a colleague: creating an iPhone app in 8 days. It’s not 8 days of straight development for this project, either. He and his colleague have other obligations, too.

Is what we are attempting even possible? Can two individuals really give up all of their free time, and perhaps much of their sleeping time, for 8 days, just to make a single product on the side of their other commitments? Success or not, it’s going to be a wild ride – but Josiah and I are determined to push ourselves and prove to ourselves we are capable of anything.

Over the course of the next few days, screen shots were uploaded, and details of the development process were hinted at. By the end of 8 days, a finished game was indeed ready, and it was soon available for purchase for iPhone users everywhere. After a week, Stephen posted about the first week of sales.

Bottom line: sales were disappointing, mostly due to the fact that of the people playing the game, only a small percentage were doing so legally.

On the other hand, in a little over a week, Stephen has created a game that he can sell, and his marketing efforts are still kicking into gear. And he does have legitimate sales, which still seem to be coming in. I’m more encouraged by the fact that he was able to start selling a game that didn’t exist as of a couple of weeks ago! When I created Sea Friends, it took me a month, and I felt that was fast!

After only 8 days, Stephen now has something that can be nurtured or abandoned. If sales start to pick up, great, but if not, he only lost a little over a week of development time and has learned so much from doing so. Sounds win-win to me.

Categories
Game Design Games Marketing/Business

Plants vs Zombies: How Did PopCap Do it?

It’s almost 9:30 PM as I write this post. The significance of the time is that it is hours after I expected it to be. The reason: I’ve been playing the demo of PopCap’s Plants vs Zombies and didn’t notice the passing of the hours.

If you’re a game developer, the first question on your mind is probably “What did PopCap do so right?” It’s bizarre. Tower Defense games were last year’s Big Thing. They’re old hat now. Everyone made their own Tower Defense game variation to the point that it was becoming its own genre. So how did PopCap take what is essentially a played-out game mechanic, theme it with zombies and plants, and create it’s fastest selling game that is being talked about all over the Internet?

Well, it’s PopCap. I’m sure they prototyped a lot of really bad implementations before hitting on the finished version.

But the game has zombies and cutesy plants. How didn’t this game simply fail at trying to appeal to everyone?

The game was conceived by George Fan, who is also the creator of the IGF award-winning Insaniquarium. So that’s where he went off to! There’s a few interviews with him, although they aren’t terribly in-depth. GameArena and Hobbit Hollow Games managed to discuss the game design and development with Fan, but I would have liked a bit more info. Gamasutra managed to report that the first prototype of the game was completed three years ago in an analysis of Plants vs Zombies.

Three years! No wonder there are so many modes to the game! I bet there were a number of winning prototypes, and the decision was made to include them all. And again, I ask, how did this not fall on its face as trying too hard to be all things to all players?

I have a feeling that the game was being tweaked and changed all the way up until it was finally released. While most players might not notice it, I think the game looks slightly unfinished, as if a few more weeks (!!) of polish would have made it perfect. Sometimes it seems like an animation is missing or a color is off. One complaint I’ve seen online is that the later plants can sometimes be pretty pointless.

On the other hand, what IS in is fantastic. The variety of zombies and plants is amazing. The first time I saw a Dancing Zombie, I was cracking up long enough to distract me from collecting sunshine. It almost cost me the level. The entire game is rich in detail. The plants dance and move, the zombies fall apart as they get destroyed, and the game mechanics even change every so many levels! Suddenly, instead of planting seeds, you’re bowling for zombies or hitting them with mallets as they pop out of graves!

There’s humor, interesting character designs, and a regular reward schedule. The game is pretty active. While most Tower Defense games only let you purchase and place towers, Plants vs Zombies lets you collect sunshine as a resource. Regularly. You’re constantly clicking somewhere on the screen. At the end of most levels, you’re given a new plant, and the next level might introduce a new zombie type. So each level, there is something new to see. And again, the game changes significantly every so many levels. Instead of being able to pick and choose your plants based on resources, you might have a conveyor belt of pre-chosen plants with which to fight off the zombie horde. Instead of planting seeds, you might bowl the Wall-Nut into them.

So even if you are a regular Tower Defense veteran, somehow you won’t get bored by how easy the game is. There’s just too much to do and see! Is the insane variety of everything the secret to the game’s success? Do you want to keep playing just to see what’s next?

Apparently Plants vs Zombies appeals to both casual and non-casual players equally. It’s very easy to get into, and it is very easy to stay in. Like all Tower Defense games, it’s a resource management game. Before a level starts, you can choose which seeds to carry into battle with you. You only have so many slots, so you’ll find yourself choosing between the option of slowing zombies with snow peas or destroying many of the undead with the cherry bomb. When you plant a seed, there is a reload time before you can plant another of the same type (one of those things which intuitively doesn’t make sense outside of the fact that it is a game), so while you might not want to plant a peashooter until you know where the next zombie is coming, guessing correctly means you had enough time to plant a second one before it shows up. Some zombies use props to try to protect themselves or circumvent your defenses. The pole vaulter will jump over the first plant it sees, so the Wall-nut that should be protecting your weaker plants isn’t as effective. The snorkeling zombie can’t be hit by normal shots unless he is out of the water. I know I’ve planted lily pads specifically for this guy to chew on just so my peashooters can take him out as he rises to chow down. Failing that, squashing him with squash was another cheap and effective way to deal with him.

If anything demonstrates my claim that a game can be made more casual by making it more accessible, Plants vs Zombies is it. It does so many things right while providing so much of it to the player in a manageable way. The entire experience is fun and enjoyable.

As an indie, I take heart knowing that a fantastic game like this can be made by a small team, can use what would otherwise be considered an old game mechanic, and set a new standard that appeals to a wide cross-section of players. I hope I can learn more about the day-to-day development of this project. Was it three years of focused development, or was Fan’s team working simultaneously on other games at the same time? Was PopCap getting nervous that this game was taking too long, or were they fully backing the project, giving it as much time as it needed to be good? What can an indie game developer learn from the development of this game? When will we see the Plants vs Zombies post-mortem?