I'm not saying the author is wrong, but I think generalizing from a single data point is a bad idea.
Flappy Bird is proof that no one knows what the audience wants
71–80 of 149 posts
Re: Flappy Bird is proof that no one knows what the audience wants
#72"The big players in the AAA sector believe the people want military shooters and open-world games full of the old ultra violence." A lot of people do want those things, which is why "Call of Duty" and "Grand Theft Auto" make billions of dollars every sequel. "The indie community believes that what people really want is experimental games with heart and a unique visual sensibility. And puzzle platformers. And roguelik…
I don't disagree with most of your post, but I still think the basic message of the blog post is valid. Obviously, if developers in AAA or indie sector knew that this kind of huge success could be had with a game like this, they would have made it. But it's humbling to consider that no matter how long people make games, nobody knows the formula for the making next big hit. I don't think he's trying to say that AAA or…
It's a fair point, and I don't mean to come across as overly dismissive of the article in general.
Re: Flappy Bird is proof that no one knows what the audience wants
#73I think it's pretty much impossible to predict what little games like this will go viral. Flappy Bird definitely has all the ingredients, but so do so many other games that never exploded this big. I wonder if anybody has made a business out of "investing" in the development of a large number of such games (a single developer could probably make a game a week), in the hope that just one of them goes viral. Regardless…
I don't think brainless game spamming is a viable tactic any more than buying lots of tickets is a smart lottery strategy. Each day there are tens of new "very small" games released on mobile, so you are still competing with a fraction of % chance to win.
That doesn't mean making many games is a bad idea. Rovio had made several dozen games before Angry Birds went viral. Halfbrick spent years barely scraping by before Fruit Ninja became a huge hit. Zynga of course had published many games before Farmville. NimbleBit were doing a game every two months for 3 years before Tiny Tower.
The difference is that each (or at least most) of the games in these companies was developed with the belief that is was a game worthy of being made. To paraphrase Picasso, luck must catch you hard at work.
As for the untapped market, I don't know. There's lots of excellent non-predatory games of any type imaginable in the $1-$4 bracket for anyone who doesn't mind paying for quality. The mass F2P market seems more tailored towards people who don't want to pay, therefore predatory tactics are the only thing that can 'coerce' money out of them.
Re: Flappy Bird is proof that no one knows what the audience wants
#74I haven't played Flappy Bird, but it seems really similar to a helicopter game that was inordinately popular in my middle school 10-12 years ago. It looks like it's still up. http://www.addictinggames.com/action-games/helicoptergame.js...
Jetpack Joyride is a better example of the original helicopter game. Flappy bird is pretty much the Profit Bird in jetpack joyride but much more derpy, kind of like balloon fighter or joust.
"derpy" is a good way to put it. I think it meets the sensibilities of many young teens who find the game stupidly fun and it doesn't take itself very seriously.
There's probably an uncanny game design valley here. Abstract ideas that look stupid can be fun, as you iterate and add "polish" there comes a point when your polished game is just dumb and no-one will play it, so you need to add more game mechanics to it to give it more depth.
Re: Flappy Bird is proof that no one knows what the audience wants
#75I feel like we're reliving the late 80s and early 90s in gaming. I keep seeing new game ideas and getting a lot of nostalgia, like, "yeah, that's something that might have even been in an arcade, or on a PC back when SVGA was a thing."
I love that "the people" can immediately jump back through several generations of graphics or locked in gameplay tropes and still have fun. Jonnathanson's right, there's not a single audience out there, but it's good to see lots of people, whatever portion of the gaming population they are, getting some enjoyment from a lo fi experience and making a successful dev along the way.
Why is that exciting to me?
Because I lived through shooters killing adventure games.
And while I love a lot of shooters, and there's been an adventure game renaissance, it took a long time, and that was kind of a tragedy.
But this isn't just about adventure games, there just needs to be space for lots of genres to thrive. And tech limitations (currently on phones/tablets, then on everything) sometimes seem to help this along in a weird way, people pursuing lots of different ideas to package the most fun in a really constrained environment, without just jumping into a 3d environment because an engine is available for licensing.
Re: Flappy Bird is proof that no one knows what the audience wants
#76If I remember correctly, the last time single-action games were hot topic was about three years ago. Back then it was the black-and-white iOS game, with character running through the city roofs, and your only control was a tap to jump. No idea what it was called. The success spawned hundreds of imitations, and in about a year the craze had died. The only surprising things here are, in my mind: A) that the full cycle…
Didn't the name have quite a few capitalized As and Hs in it?
Are you thinking of Aaaa!: A Reckless Disregard for Gravity?
Re: Flappy Bird is proof that no one knows what the audience wants
#77Badland, a very successful title [1], has the same game mechanics, along with beautiful graphics, a great physics system and well-designed puzzles. It's been around for a while, so why is 'Flappy Bird', with borrowed Super Mario graphics, overshadowing it?
Free vs $3.99.
Re: Flappy Bird is proof that no one knows what the audience wants
#78Yes exactly: the game doesn't try to sell you shit, just lets you play. That is refreshing and eerily quiet. Other than that, it has some winning elements: it's difficult but not impossible. You can play it for 30 seconds or 30 minutes. It is simple. It has a goal you can endlessly pursue. It tickles the nostalgia of all those who grew up on games that this game "borrows" the visuals from.
It has interstitial ads and banner ads that refresh during the middle of gameplay. For most game developers this is an absolute non-starter and considered a terrible game experience. I absolutely would not call that a "refreshing" take on freemium game design.
Not to mention that it probably has horrific monetization and despite its high download titles it likely has poor revenues. Fine for a small development team, but terrible compared to industry norms.
Re: Flappy Bird is proof that no one knows what the audience wants
#79What I am hearing is: - You can be successful, just make sure you don't get it by dumb luck. - You can be successful, just make sure you spent more than 2 days coding your app. Otherwise, you suck and we hate you.
If you're trying to be successful from dumb luck, don't spend more than 2 days coding your app.
The payoff's the same, but you're wasting resources you could have used to make more attempts.
Plus, you suck, and we hate you, so you'll have to deal with it.
Re: Flappy Bird is proof that no one knows what the audience wants
#80And apparently Windows Phone will get this game weeks after it's everywhere else. You laugh (not wrongly), but mind you that if MSFT pulls that off it would be a remarkable improvement from their track record from a year ago when they got Draw Something and Words with Friends months after they had ceased to matter (which in turn was still an improvement over a year before that when they just didn't get the games at a…
[deleted]