Devin Wilson asks on Slide to Play: what’s a game really worth? He initially, rightly, argues that people will bitch about spending a few bucks on an iOS game, yet will happily pay the same for a sandwich. And he complains about developers “bellyaching” about the race to the bottom, fighting for 99-cent scraps along with myriad other developers, before idly wondering if microtransactions/freemium or “any other pricing model” might be better.

The article dramatically smacks into a wall when Wilson mentions an essay by Jason Rohrer about the

absurdity of selling digital copies, which is—of course—exactly what game publishers have done for as long as most of us can remember

Well, not quite as long as most of us can remember, whipper-snapper. I remember when videogames came on cassette tapes, but anyway:

Rohrer’s writing thankfully isn’t a call for piracy, but it’s definitely enough to make you question the nature of the games business. What is it that we’re really paying for?

There’s a clear problem for some people in understanding that things that don’t have a tactile product that you can hold and, when necessary, hurl at next door’s cat when it’s taking a shit in your garden, have value. The value—what you’re paying for—is in the consumption and the experience. A game is still a game, regardless of whether it comes inside a piece of plastic or as a collection of ones and zeroes fired at your electronic device over the magic of the internet.

There’s already been some debate about this in light of the used game market, but we can almost certainly agree that a digital copy (which itself can be copied at no detriment to the original and practically zero cost) has—if nothing else—a slippery value.

From my statement above, you’ll note that I disagree with this. If anything, I’d argue a digital copy’s value is—when DRM is non-existent or applied in a non-hateful manner—far from slippery. That I can play my copy of Exciting iOS Game on my iPad, iPod and iPhone without paying any extra money to do so is fantastic. With iCloud, progress can seamlessly shift between devices, too. This is beneficial; this is added value. It’s not ‘slippery’ value. Still, it’s clear that quite a few people these days really don’t see any value in non-tangible products, and that’s a pity. The assumption that everything online is—or at least should be—’free’ is a big problem.

If I buy an app for $2.99 on my MacBook Pro, then put it on both my iPod Touch and iPad, these individual instances of the app don’t seem like they’re now worth just one dollar each just because it’s 3 dollars spread across 3 devices. At the same time, I don’t now have $9 worth of content, because then I’d just be printing money in a sense.

The value is in the ability to freely duplicate. Likewise, when I buy a downloadable album, the fact I can play that on any musical device I own increases its value. It’s impossible to put a set figure on this value (and to do so misses the point), but it’s an odd argument to suggest digital copies somehow make anyone question value, or that you need to somehow divide up the cost of a fixed-value purchase between the items you install it on.

It seems, then, that the entire business of games is quite possibly a sham! Even Apple’s overhead doesn’t make sense in terms of valuation: they can afford to distribute free apps for no cost to the developer.

If games have no inherent monetary value, then it must be the case that it is only by the generosity of those who don’t want to circumvent the normal channels of distribution that any developers make any money at all!

There are some serious leaps of logic here. “If games have no inherent monetary value”? From whose claims? Wilson’s, by making the argument without anything much to back it up? And to suggest that it’s “generosity” to not bootleg content is reprehensible. It might be easy to break the law these days when it comes to copying games, music and movies, but you’re not being “generous” in paying for these things—you’re simply acting within the law and, to some extent, supporting the people who made them. Kill the revenue stream and you wave goodbye to all these things.

Recently, Adam Saltsman wrote a blog in which he described microtransactions as “contrived” and “unethical”. This coming from the man who refuses to drop the $2.99 price of Canabalt for iOS, a repetitive, two-year-old game that’s absolutely free to play as long as you’re on a device that runs Flash.

Wow, what an absolute git Saltsman is. Imagine: he made a game and set a price for it, and he’s refused to drop that price! Man, I want to kick his face off, because— No, actually, it’s his game, right? It’s his decision what to price it at? And is the insinuation in the quote that Saltsman is being a hypocrite for calling microtransactions “unethical”, because he refuses to drop the price of his “repetitive, two-year-old game”? Because it sure sounds like it.

The source code is free to download as well! I don’t think Canabalt is bad (quite the opposite), nor do I mean to merely attack Saltsman (whom I respect), but his pricing model is no more logical than the practices he describes as “extortion”.

The problem is that a whole ton of freemium games are dodgy as hell when it comes to pricing. That’s not to say standard pricing doesn’t lead to questionable value propositions at times, but freemium is very often bait-and-switch. For every game that’s a demo (a few levels for free, and then a price to unlock the rest of the game), there are dozens of games that effectively force you to buy in-game currency to get anywhere in the lifetime of this universe. Sure, you can technically churn your way through without dipping into your bank balance, but only if you’re some kind of masochist.

It’s also worth noting that this is the kind of game Saltsman was rallying against in his post. He said:

Games that […] abuse [achievement] checklists and include In-App Purchases, are deliberately contriving their designs in the worst way in order to extort money from players, which is unethical and unacceptable design practice.

Wilson sums up his article as follows:

I like good games, and I think game developers would probably tend to make better games if they didn’t have to worry about their empty stomachs and overdue rent. Game makers undoubtedly need to get paid, but putting an absolute monetary value on a digital game doesn’t seem possible.

I really don’t see why not. Why is gaming so fundamentally different from everything else you buy? It’s extraordinarily rare beyond a PR stunt to have record artists let people pay whatever they want for an album. And I don’t pay my supermarket what I want to for my shopping. The enjoyment of a game might well often be subjective, but a single up-front price (or a free game with a single IAP) at least provides no scope for confusion nor is there any contrivance to get you to buy your way through the game instead of grinding. You’re paying a fixed fee for a certain amount of entertainment—and that’s it.

I recently wrote an article on press releases, with my tips on increasing the likelihood of coverage for your apps and games. This was, naturally, biased somewhat towards my own requirements as a writer, but I know a number of journos agreed with what I wrote, and so I wasn’t smashing my keyboard while wearing my crazy hat. Or if I was, the end result of said smashage still made sense and went down well with writers and devs alike.

Anyway.

When compiling the list of games to be featured in Tap! every month, I use various sources, including a new-games feed from AppShopper. I drag browser shortcuts of interesting titles to a folder and work my way through them, deciding which are ‘definites’ and which might be interesting.

Time is short. There are many hundreds of releases every week, and so anything that can make things easier for me is a massive bonus. Of late, videos are becoming increasingly useful in enabling me to confirm a game for probable coverage. But, as with press releases, websites and App Store pages, a lot of devs really do themselves no favours when it comes to iOS trailers and videos, so here are some tips.

1. Make a video. OK, so this one’s pretty obvious, and yet many games devs don’t bother. But here’s the thing: video shows off your graphics. Video enables you to display how a game works and plays. A short video is so much better than any description you can offer, so spend a short while making one and bung it on YouTube, then link to it from your website/App Store page, as appropriate.
2. Do not use Flash. Far too many iOS game videos require Flash to watch the video. Given that iOS doesn’t support Flash, this is idiotic. If you upload a video, make sure it works on the iPhone and iPad, and in browsers that don’t have the Flash plug-in installed.
3. Show some gameplay. Seriously. You wouldn’t believe how many iOS gameplay videos barely show any gameplay, instead choosing to show title screens, options screens, Game Center screens, or cute videos featuring the developer dressed as an octopus with a hat. What I care about: your gameplay. That’s it. (Note: I’m not suggesting you launch right into gameplay—feel free to fling up a logo and provide some context via title cards; but don’t create the iOS gameplay video equivalent of a DVD/Blu-ray menu system.)
4. Get to the bloody point. Related to the previous entry: if you do show some gameplay, don’t spend five minutes messing about before you get to it. Your gameplay is the meat of your video. All the other stuff is gloss. Add some sprinkles, if you must, but don’t force-feed me tinsel until my stomach explodes.
5. Don’t use fast cuts. Got something to hide? No? Think you’re Michael Bay? No? Then stop with the fast cuts. 15 shots of your game, each of which lasts about half a second, doesn’t tell me anything. I don’t want long, lingering fifteen-hour documentaries either, but I at least want to see what’s going on in your game, rather than getting repeatedly punched in the eyeballs with your attempt to turn a trailer into a new entry in the Transformers series.
6. Don’t be afraid of making a more in-depth video. If your game concept is complex, or there’s more you want to show, don’t stop at a single video. Use one as your trailer—your hook—but then create another. With, say, a strategy game, you might consider a full-game walkthrough. This probably won’t be much use for me, but it will assist the general public in getting acquainted with your game.

Previously on this blog, I’ve provided some handy hints for iOS developers regarding boosting your chances of getting a review in Tap! magazine, and for creating press pages for your app or game. In the first of those articles, I offer the following tip:

Let me know about your game. Email me or get in touch on Twitter. If I know about your game, there’s obviously more chance of it getting coverage.

These days, I get a lot of press releases, and about half of them are doing it wrong. So, here’s what you should be doing when you send out a press release:

1. Use the email’s text body. If your press release is mostly text-oriented, use the email itself to provide the text. This text remains searchable, and so when I later remember your product and want to check it out, I can easily search for your press release in my email client.
2. Get to the point. I’m fine with friendly, amusing language and a sense of fun in your text. I’m not fine with you waffling on for ages and not making it obvious what you’re talking about. You’ve made a game, so now imagine selling it to me in one minute. That’s pretty easy. Now do it in ten seconds. Tougher, but possible. Once you’ve done that, you should have the basis for your press release’s text. Note that this should include, right at the start, why I should play your game and what your game is about.
3. Don’t try to hide. You’d be surprised how many press releases I read where I’m none the wiser afterwards about how the game actually works or what it does. The text tries to disguise a derivative mechanic, but here’s a secret: a derivative game is not necessarily a bad thing, if what you’ve created is great. Some games I’ve rated very highly in Tap! include: Space Junk (Asteroids), Monsters Ate My Condo (deranged Jenga), All-Stars Racing (kart-racing), Contre Jour (more or less Cut the Rope). Don’t get me wrong: innovation is a good thing. But a derivative game isn’t necessarily bad, and it can even be a hook used to gain interest.
4. Don’t lie. There’s a fine line between positive copywriting and outright bullshit. You need to ensure you do not cross that line. I’ve had several press releases lately that have outright fictions in them, designed to make the game in question look better or be reviewed more favourably. In all cases, brief research via a search engine enabled me to find the facts behind the claims, which contradicted what I was initially told. And even positive copywriting needs to take care. Send me a press release claiming you’ve made the “best match-three game ever” and you’d better be bloody sure your game is amazing—as in ‘Zookeeper amazing’—because if it isn’t, why am I going to believe anything else you say? But while ‘best’ is almost impossible to prove, there’s nothing wrong with positive descriptive terms instead: addictive; engaging; exciting; great; terrific.
5. Do not use text attachments. If you send me a Word document which is just text, you’re wasting my time. I get dozens of press releases every day. Wasting my time does not go down well. If you send me a link to a Word document, you’re wasting even more of my time. I was today also asked on Twitter if sending a link to a Google doc is OK. No. If you want me to read something, put it in front of me now, or I will just move on to the next of the dozens of emails I need to get through.
6. Minimise other attachments. It’s increasingly common for emails about iOS games to be extraordinarily weighty. I’m happy to receive some attachments, such as a couple of screen grabs, but keep it light. Don’t provide me, as one PR recently did, with over 10 MB of grabs and an attached video. A couple of grabs that show off your app in its best light (i.e. not Game Center shots, the title screen, or options) is what you want to be sending.
7. Don’t make me jump through hoops. An email from ‘no-reply@’ with no other way to contact you means you’re making my life harder. An email where (and this happened recently) you say I can get promo codes, but only after I spend ten minutes signing up to your PR website that then takes 24 hours to acknowledge I even exist… well, that means you probably won’t get coverage at all. If you want your game covered, contact me, but also make it extremely easy to contact you.
8. Where possible, provide a video link. This is a new one, and something I’ll talk about in a later post, but gameplay videos can be an effective way to convince me to check out a game for possible (and even probable) coverage after your initial email has grabbed my attention. Sadly, a large proportion of iOS gameplay videos are utterly dreadful, and so my next ‘helpful hints’ post will provide ways to address this.

Flurry has written up a report, Is it Game Over for Nintendo DS and Sony PSP? It shows market percentages for major handheld platforms and notes that over the past three years the PSP’s share has all but dried up and Nintendo’s has declined from 70 to 57 to 36 per cent. What’s filled the gap? iOS and Android!

The problem is the manner in which the data’s presented. In the pie-charts provided—the hook that’s being reported everywhere—Flurry combines iOS and Android. Last time I looked, iOS and Android were not the same thing. In fact, I’m pretty sure you could consider them rival platforms, so why the hell combine them in the charts? “Because we’re trying to make the point that smartphone-oriented systems are beating the traditional ones, you idiot,” Flurry might say. So why then not combine Sony and Nintendo’s share in the same charts?

Data’s only really useful if the same methodology for presentation is used throughout. When even one set of pie-charts screws that up, the rest of the report is akin to stabbing myself in the eye with a fork, no matter how happy I am that iOS revenue is now outpacing even Nintendo’s handheld revenue.

In my role as games editor for Tap! magazine, I see and download more iOS games than most people, and so when trends occur, they tend to be very apparent to me. One that’s very much in full flow is the lardy iOS game. In some cases, it’s perhaps excusable for an iOS game to have a very large file-size, if it has a ton of art and other assets, but some recent downloads strike me as utterly crazy. Puzzle Quest 2—essentially a match-three game—weighs in at 576 MB. Worms Crazy Golf HD clocks in at 436 MB—for a side-on artillery game! (By contrast, the similar Super Stickman Golf is an eighth of that size.) And there are many other examples.

The problem is, things get worse on the device, because the app download is only half the story—the buggers then decompress on your device, since app bundles are essentially ZIP files. And then this happens:

• Modern Combat 3: 1.75 GB
• The Oregon Trail for iPad: 1.22 GB
• Puzzle Quest 2: 1.22 GB
• Worms Crazy Golf HD: 995 MB
• Infinity Blade (previously impressively svelte, but no longer): 923 MB
• Street Fighter IV Volt: 876 MB

And then there are countless fairly simple games racking up space into the hundreds of megabytes, often due to poor compression and a lack of interest in efficiency. A good point of comparison are the iOS ZX Spectrum emulators. Elite’s ZX Spectrum collection for iPad is well over 100 MB but the universal Spectaculator is just 19 MB when decompressed. Both apps are essentially the same, enabling you to play ancient Spectrum games on your device. Cracking open the app bundles reveals major differences in approach, though: Elite’s app is packed with hefty PNG files (each up to 2 MB in size—two thirds of the executable file, which is only 2.9 MB), used as full-screen backgrounds for every game’s selection screen. They make the app a little prettier, but also hugely increase its weight. Similar fairly pointless additions affect other iOS games, too, such as Namco’s Galaga collection, which weighs in at 144 MB, in part due to a pointless ‘you’ll only watch this once’ 36 MB movie being included in the app bundle. For good measure, all the jingles are WAV files, so you get 20-second clips of music weighing in at 1.5 MB or so each, rather than relatively tiny MP3s.

Most platforms tend towards bloat as developers learn new tricks and push them in terms of presentation, but iOS has two massive problems in this regard: devices have fixed storage, and updates must be downloaded in full. On the first of those points, if you have an iPod, an iPad or an iPhone, you cannot add extra storage. If your device is fairly full, are you going to delete a ton of games, music and apps to make way for the latest bloated ‘epic’, or are you going to think “sod that” and just download a smaller, sleeker game instead? (This, of course, makes the assumption people actually bother to look at such details; it’s more likely that many download games and only then get annoyed when they realise it wants to grab a fifteenth of their device’s storage, and that there’s no easy way of making room. And I’ll bet only a fraction of iOS device owners who do check app sizes in App Store listings realise apps decompress when on the device—Apple really should be listing expanded app sizes as well as download sizes.) On the second point, once you have a bunch of games, what then when updates appear? It’s all very well downloading a few updates for small apps, but those listed earlier in this article total several GB. If you’re on capped broadband, that’s a huge chunk of your monthly allowance; even if you’re not, you can tie up your bandwidth downloading such colossal games, thereby annoying other people in your household.

I can’t really see things changing. As iOS matures as a gaming platform, a large number of developers are getting sucked in by ‘realism’, ‘gloss’ and ‘3D’. Over time, we’re going to see more—not fewer—games that are in excess of 1 GB to download, and even larger on devices. But sooner or later, people are going to get sick of not being able to load new games, and of massive updates, and they’re just not going to bother. At that point, it’s the devs that care that should win out; and it’s not quite like the old days of squeezing every byte out of a VIC-20—all you’re really having to do is think a bit about your assets and the formats you use, which is a very slight compromise to your vision, in order to improve the practical side of user experience.