Hacker News Reader

Comment by phil | Hacker News Reader

This is disturbingly cynical advice. If you stand by it, why not attach your real name to it? If not, why put it in public?

And by the way, you're recommending buying fake reviews. Here's a better tactic (and one that's guaranteed not to get you kicked out of the app store): get your launch announcement to the top slot on a popular discussion site, and get the real people there to leave real reviews instead. Which, if you're reading this and want to help these guys, is probably the best thing you can do.

View on HN

Hey, look at the top ten apps on both app stores, then come back here and try not to be cynical about anyone's chanced of succeeding there. I've seen numbers on sales in the app stores. If yer not in the top 25, you might as well not even be in the app store, from a meaningful revenue perspective. There are very few exceptions, as far as I know. One possible one would be any app that's $20. Those probably make money, despite low sales numbers.

It's entirely possible to succeed using only honest, community focused methods. But yer competing with a huge pack of other guys who don't use those methods, and have a significant advantage because of it. This isn't hugs and puppies. This is business.

I have for years. Believe me, the idea that the app store is a positive feedback loop and you have to clear the inital hurdle to get anywhere is not news to me.

But the advice you're giving here is roughly equivalent to telling a young cyclist in their first pro race, "hey, listen buddy. If you want to succeed, you've got to dope. Everybody's doing it. There's no other way."

Fair enough.

And yet, if he wanted to ride in the Tour De France, I think we all know he'd lose unless he did a blood transfusion every single night....

Actually, wait. No I take that back, I do not agree. A starting cyclist will compete in local, small time races. There's only one App Store, and it's Pro's take all. These guys may be just beginning, but they're already swimming with sharks.

And if that's not enough mixed metaphors, I'll edit again!

Except, that analogy is true: purportedly, doping is really pervasive in pro-cycling and is basically necessitated to be anywhere near competitive. The same is true of the app store.

It's not optimal, but it's the status quo that tens of thousands of developers face: you can't win if you don't employ dubious means.

By the way, pro cycling had pretty much managed to kick its doping habit. You've seen all of the scandals over the past few years because they got more serious about cracking down on it, and once a few of the top pros were caught, they pointed the finger at the others. I think that most people believe that the last few Tours have been clean.

By the way, pro cycling had pretty much managed to kick its doping habit.

Okay, that made me laugh. Thanks for adding some humor into this otherwise rather downer discussion!

>> I think that most people believe that the last few Tours have been clean.

I used to race (although not on very high level), I know the environment and I would bet my balls that last few Tours have NOT been clean.

Hey I'm interested in this. How are they not clean now? Times are down by about 6% from Armstrong's heyday. I do want to understand your thinking as there may be something I' missing. I'm sure there are dopers, but AFAIK the leading teams are largely much much better now (look at Team SKY)

Where did you get that 6% and was that reliable source? And even if that number is somehow "correct" (each Tour is different and it is not possible to just numerically compare them) it does not mean the cycling is now clean, it does not even mean it's cleaner... there are too many factors that can influence this.

My opinion is this: cycling may be a bit cleaner in a sense that maybe doping is not as widespread as it used to be and maybe the effect of doping is more limited because they need to be more careful. But I don't believe cycling is clean now. There are new drugs that are undetectable and mentality has not changed. I believe this is more realistic: http://www.cyclingnews.com/news/italian-judge-says-doping-is...

And about SKY team - I have no proof and it's nothing more than just my guess but I don't believe they are clean either. Remember last TdF? They totally ruled, they controlled the whole race. My cycling intuition tells me this is not natural. They certainly compete against some (I would say many) riders who are not clean (some of them even got caught, like Frank Schleck) and they were not even competing on the same level - they were superior. I don't believe it is possible without doping. The fact that they claim otherwise on every occasion means nothing to me - I have seen this too many times.

My guess - and I realize it's nothing more than guess - is that if in 2030 they use their new methods to test today's samples they will find out that there is some substance that is undetectable today.

I would love to be proven wrong on this - I love cycling.

I was wrong... it's 10% down according the source I was remembering: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18921784 and the 6 was from the power ratio of the top riders now down to around 6W/Kg.

Read more of the in-depth articles about Sky. Their training methods are hugely different, and came from the GB track cycling programme which has taken the world championships and Olympics by storm over the past decade. They're open about what it is, and unlike with others, it's only the performance which makes anyone wonder. Look at the figures, and remember, they're still 10% slower than Armstrong! What they are using is demonstrable physiological science and feedback: a manifestation of the benefits of the Quantified Self approach!

That article is interesting - it made me reconsider my opinion a bit. I certainly can be wrong about SKY team. I would have respect for them even if they were not clean because I have enough experience with cycling to be able to imagine how hard you have to work to get through any grand tour even if you are not clean. But if they are... good for them.

Regarding the top 25 meaningful revenue... this all depends on your team size, does it not? If you are solo or a team of 2-3, you need a lot less revenue than a big company.

We're almost done with our slot machine game for iOS (lame, I know), but we only have 2 people, and we definitely don't need to be in the top 25 to make some real money (that can fund new, "real game" projects).

Do some reading to figure out what kinds of returns you can expect. I've seen 1 and 2 person teams basically able to replicate a medium income job. That's great if you can make it sustainable, but I don't think anyone's getting rich outside of the glamorous world of a few big indie titles.

http://thegamebakers.com/money-and-the-app-store-a-few-figur...

http://www.gamesbrief.com/2011/08/selling-an-iphone-game-the...

Or really, just use this link:

http://www.pixelprospector.com/the-big-list-of-game-revenue-...

You can be far from top, and stil earn $100k/year...

Games are top-heavy, but there is an overlooked middle ground of devs who have a decent passive income...

I agree completely.

90% of the games that are currently on my iPhone were a) made by dev teams with 1-3 people, b) provide a unique and polished experience, and c) became known mainly based on community outreach. None of them are currently in the top rankings, but as far as I can tell they make enough money for the teams to get by. People keep talking about "hidden gems" on the App Store that failed to succeed despite having an excellent product, but so far, the only ones I've seen were either outright clones, failed to do any outreach at all, or had a poor business model. (Freemium with very little incentive to upgrade, for instance.)

Sure, if you're a hundred-person company, you might need to resort to shady means to be profitable. But I don't think that's at all necessary to make money on the App Store.

Unfortunately, that doesn't make up for the 400k indie games out there that are not making the top 100 and are competing between them to have a little piece of cake.

Asymmetry is a real problem in the App store.

There aren't 400k polished and unique indie games. There are 399.9k shit quality clones and a few gems. The question to ask is "if I make a quality game that is at least somewhat novel does it have a chance to do ok" where ok = enough to fund a 2-4 person team for their next project.

The answer is Yes, where "OK" is directly proportional to "uniqueness/novelty" factor. When judging, a novel gameplay idea will win me over before anything else. Good gameplay trumps all, but it's the toughest thing to get right, especially with the terribly limited interface you have on mobile devices.

This equation also works, sadly, when you replace "uniqueness/novelty factor" with "boobs." Look at the top apps and see that this is true.

Which ones, please, and how? I'd love some good recommendations, and to examine how those companies did it!

One very notable example is Sword & Sworcery EP. The guys behind the game did a talk at GDC '12 about making games for niche audiences instead of stooping to the lowest common denominator, but I can't seem to find it.

Simogo has made a couple of very unique and artful games, including last year's Mobile Game IGF winner Beat Sneak Bandit. It's notable that their games are premium priced ($3), but still have hundreds of reviews.

Mika Mobile is a husband & wife team with a number of fantastic brawlers under their belts, including Battleheart and Zombieville USA 2.

Tiger Style is (in their own words) a "distributed collective of independent game developers" that have most recently developed the award-winning exploration/space-gardening game Waking Mars.

Jeff Minter releases a new iOS game what seems like every other week. (Though he once characterized it as "run[ning] frantically on the iOS treadmill".)

Zach Gage has made a number of small, fairly popular games, including SpellTower and Bit Pilot. ("Net Gross for me is probably around ~110k for 3 years of work. but the profits would probably be quite a bit lower than that")

-----

Notable recent failures include Punch Quest (F2P model didn't yield any income, so they switched to paid) and Gasketball (again, the F2P model they were using was too permissive).

-----

So, not a perfect ecosystem, but not an abysmal wasteland either. Enough for the kooky hobbyists to get by as long as their products are top-notch and their business model makes sense. (At least that's how I see it.)

Big thanks! Wish there were a favourites list on here

Which games? Please be specific.

I replied to the poster above you with examples, in case you're interested.

>This is disturbingly cynical advice. If you stand by it, why not attach your real name to it? If not, why put it in public?

Could you explain this logic?

This is toxic advice and putting it out there makes the ecosystem worse. Giving it anonymously but backing it by appealing to your authority as an IGF judge, etc is bullshit.

(And that's true regardless of whether it's effective -- it clearly is, though I think mostly in the short term).

Edit: Since I'm being fairly negative here, I want to add that VonGuard's comments on gameplay and adding unique elements seem well-informed and well-intentioned.

OK, fair enough. I am not giving the cheating advice as an IGF judge. The advice for improving gameplay, and my compliments on the quality were as an IGF judge.

My comments on the app store are strictly from the cynical perspective of seeing what works. It has to be said. If you go in not knowing the table stakes, yer at a disadvantage. This is just like search engine optimization: fluid, ever changing, highly competitive, extremely scummy, but EVERYONE does it.

The alternative from the perspective of say, EA or a GluMobile, is to play completely by the rules, but produce 500 games per year. As a smalltime developer, cheating is immeasurably helpful when competing with the giants that can launch 2 new games every week.

I can't help but feel your desire for me not to talk about it this loud amounts to you plugging your ears and saying "LALALALALALA NOT LISTENING!" This stuff happens every day. Ignoring it means losing to it.

I can't help but disagree with your approach in principle. I acknowledge that your advice may be sound, and you may well have done the research necessary to arrive at your opinions - but the fact remains that you are giving people incredibly cynical advice without risking using your own credibility to back it up.

Your advice sounds cynical because it is. People don't want to cheat to win - and you're telling them that they have to. Well, who are you to say that? Why should people listen to you? You may be an IGF judge, but that doesn't mean you've ever sold a game (well scratch that, I actually don't know the qualifications required to become an IGF judge, but you catch my drift).

I say this not to be critical of you personally - but if you're saying 'you need to cheat', and then brandishing your status as a judge in a relevant body, then people are going to listen to you. If you're wrong, you've given people bad advice - and this means that you should lose credibility. If you're right, then you'll gain credibility. Simply 'opting out' of the credibility problem makes it very easy for supposedly credible people to give bad advice - which doesn't help anyone in the long run - and in fact can damage a lot of people's businesses and livelihoods.

>"People don't want to cheat to win - and you're telling them that they have to. Well, who are you to say that? Why should people listen to you?"

It's advice, you can take it or leave it.

You're more than welcome to be the guy/team who says, "we're going to do this the right way!". But so do a lot of other indie gaming teams, and they go under. I lived in the social gaming space for a while (Facebook). The biggest discouragement is that the quality of games made little difference to getting noticed and making money. I am no longer in the space.

You can do it the "honorable" way, and that's great, and may work. If you want to make a business of the business, you have to get your hands dirty. Don't hate the player, hate the game.

But this is the point - it's fine to say these things if you're not going to put your own credibility on the line and say 'this is me, these are my credentials, this is the reality'. I'm not denying that the game is skewed, that you can only compete if you cheat. All I'm saying is that if you're claiming some kind of expertise in this area, then you should attach your name to your words. Otherwise you're just a cynic and you're making the world a worse place by propagating the idea that you can only succeed if you cheat. It's not healthy, and it stops people even looking at ways of making it easier for the little guy to compete.

> If you stand by it, why not attach your real name to it?

Seriously? You don't understand why not?

Since it is obvious he does not – and you give the impression of possessing some kind of explanation – why not directly explain your view of it to him instead of asking snarky questions that you already know the answer to? It is a much more meaningful way to advance the discussion.

If he gives his real name then he is basically publically admitting to astroturfing via fake reviews.

I'm assuming this is against the TOS of pretty much any app store and could get whatever apps he is associated with pulled.

Excellent comment, a very meaningful way to advance the discussion. Please post more of the same, more often.

Also you may want to look up "rhetorical question" when you have a spare moment.

I fail to see how you not expecting your question to be answered makes it somehow more relevant. It is still simply belligerent criticism without any reasonable justification or explanation. If you were planning to follow up with something later on you could easily have cut out the middleman.

But you are right when you say that this discussion is way off topic, so I'll probably leave it at this. Nice seeing ya.

>"why not directly explain your view"

It's very simple, which I suppose is way the parent asked the question: I don't want to attach my name to anything I do on the internet, really.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com