91–100 of 100 posts
The graphics are dreary and the screenshots don't make it look fun (or even give me a sense of the gameplay)...
Here's what DID work for you -- summing up all those failures into a well written, entertaining and light-hearted article that is genuinely helpful to anyone else in the iOS game. Oh yea, and the front page of HN this time around. It sounded like you got your hands wet in a lot of different things. That doesn't necessarily mean you are going to retire on this game, but think how many people are aware of you now and w…
Unfortunately, you aren't EA or Activision, you are relatively unknown and people have a hard time giving something a chance when there are so many options around. Ad-supported may not be optimal but atleast you get it into people's hands (and earning a few pennies is still better than nothing). Use that to leverage people into buying your future games.
You can know from very early user feedback whether the game is going to interest anyone as a product, but you have to stop believing in your game for a moment, or you'll ignore the warning signs. The in-person pitch or demo lets you pick up some details, but product releases give you broader feedback. Do lots of both.
If, after pressing people in-person for thoughts, the feedback is "hmm...well...i don't know...that sounds interesting..." the concept is wrong and you need to start over. You should have something that gives people a foothold to really discuss it and take ownership, or the subsequent marketing efforts won't have much impact on anyone. Online, this is reflected in dead silence. People look and then go away, or if there's interest, it's in something not really related to the product's selling points, like the technology stack it uses.
If there is a product there the volume of commentary will be much higher and drastically more opinionated. From there it's a matter of managing the conversation and picking the path that is likely to open the doors further for the product - pivoting it if necessary. The feedback here is from other developers, which means a heavy bias towards polish. Try to find deeper user concerns instead.
BTW the "Stoic Jester Studios Web Site" link on http://itunes.apple.com/app/bullseye-factory/id408231799?mt=... leads to http://stoicjesterstudios.com/2010/12/bullseye-factory/ which is 404.
I thought I was the only one that behaves like that!
As you're not looking for any sugar coating, after watching the video showing the gameplay you would need to pay me to want to play it. The reason is that there is no "why" to it. Shooting low-resolution textured balls wasn't fun in the late 80's, and I'm not seeing anything in the video that tells me it won't just be a chore to play. Is there some back-story to this game that is interesting? Are these spheres of mut…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Aw, please don't do that. I hate it when developers put flashy ad images in the screenshots section; I look at that section to see screenshots, and those types of images are distracting and annoying. There is plenty of room for features in the description. Maybe it's just me...
I sympathise with you, but it's the only place a developer has to really get a potential buyer's attention beyond the icon, so the real estate is too valuable to give up! I think there needs to be a couple "raw" screenshots, but many successful devs recommend using that space to it's fullest potential. There's a really good article out there about this that I can't track down at the moment, but here are a couple more…
> Let’s take a look at an app that has done this well. Here we have Read it Later:
Look at Read it Later's page on a real phone and it's fairly terrible: the text is way too small and you can't zoom in, and again, it makes it more difficult to see what the app actually looks like, which is an important part of my buying decision. (There are screenshots within the "screenshots", but they are also rather small.)
For an easy comparison, Read It Later Free's page has only real screenshots, and I find it nicer.
Not to be rude, but I think the best way to sell your iOS app is to make a really good one.
If your great game gets lost down the charts before it's seen, then your success relies on people finding it using App Store search and your keywords. From my experience nobody does this, except for Utilities.
Having a really good app helps it stay on the top, but not necessarily get to the top at all. We've seen pretty poor games get to the top (and usually falling down quickly) and great apps never making the top (due to ie. poor shots or description).
It's not that simple.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here's a quick (15 minute) mockup of what I'm talking about: http://imgur.com/o5sp1 The iPhone graphic is swiped from a Kotaku article about iPhone motion controls, and the arrows are kind of terrible, but this is the basic idea. Frankly, the "Gryroscope Controls" is probably too techy for a screenshot ad like this, the text "Motion Controls" would probably sell better with mention of the gyroscope in the app descrip…
Aw, please don't do that. I hate it when developers put flashy ad images in the screenshots section; I look at that section to see screenshots, and those types of images are distracting and annoying. There is plenty of room for features in the description. Maybe it's just me...