Fishing for players

[Spoke]

Lately I've found myself fishing for players. So if your game is the hook that keeps players on your site or paying their subscription or just plain interested in what your doing what is a good bait? What are some of the techniques that you guys have used to get people to find your games? Which types of games get more users?

[namrog84]

If the game is good enough, players will keep playing and tell their friends.

There are players for every type of game.

enter the IGF and other indie game development public competitions or such things. You can try and get on the Humble Bundle
If its full fledged enough, you can always try getting Steam to pick it up. Though unless you know someone or it meets a certain "appearance" of their standards, its very hard to get in.

If its a smaller applet, there are numerous sites out there that host java games, similiar to kongregate or newgrounds and try to make sure your apps have somewhere your main page/website information.

edit, since your in a java forum, assuming your game(s) are you in java.  There tend to be less available "games" on mac or linux, so checking into those avenues for marketing is a lot easier then marketing to the massive windows crowd, IMHO



Just keep making and producing games that are fun to play and that you enjoy making.  Don't try to make a game that will draw in the crowds, for the sole purpose of drawing in the crowds.  

[tberthel]

Online Android stores are the best on the lower end.

Unless your Steam or Humble Bundle quality then your probably screwed outside of mobile and that time is running short quick.

Android was really the last major growth platform until hardware gets cheap enough for the other 3 billion people that are poor.

So capturing new players is getting beyond quality and moving back to having money for marketing outside of Android.

Android will hit a market share peek at about 1.3 billion.  So it still has a little more left.

Good luck capturing the 100 million plays per year needed to start getting rich.

I have about 97 million more to go myself and probably 92 million to go next year.

Games published by our own members! Check 'em out!

[KevinWorkman]

Just keep making and producing games that are fun to play and that you enjoy making.  Don't try to make a game that will draw in the crowds, for the sole purpose of drawing in the crowds.

These are wise words that I think many newbies (and non-newbies) should learn. Write programs that you enjoy. Write programs that a couple of your friends might enjoy, but never force the issue. Don't worry about getting rich and famous, because you won't. Don't try to invent the next minecraft/wow/facebook, because you won't (and even then, the best case scenario is you wrote a clone of something else). Have fun. Learn. Be creative. Don't worry about anything else.

[Mads]

To my understandning GameJolt is hosting anything playable 
You could try getting it online there

Cheers.

[ddyer]

Lately I've found myself fishing for players. So if your game is the hook that keeps players on your site or paying their subscription or just plain interested in what your doing what is a good bait? What are some of the techniques that you guys have used to get people to find your games? Which types of games get more users?

Ask yourself: is "Angry Birds" really different from 1000's of other games?  My answer would be no. It's well done,
but there are many games in the same same equivalence class.   Maybe the authors could cite reasons why they're
better, but it would all be post-hoc and not useful to predict the next success.  For all practical purposes, all you
can say is that they got lucky.

You can never depend on getting lucky, and it's not a good business plan or life plan.  So I agree 100% with the
comments that you should do what you like above all.  If having actual players is what's important to you, then definitely
attach yourself to some existing site and borrow the eyeballs there.

[tberthel]

Luck has nothing to do with it.  It is all market size and marketing.  Many companies have made some really bad games very popular and profitable.

[pitbuller]

Luck has nothing to do with it.  It is all market size and marketing.  Many companies have made some really bad games very popular and profitable.

How small studio like Rovio could out do every other mobile app companies at marketing? They was almost bankrupt before Angry Birds started to sell lot's of copies. They have luck at start and then they used their 15minutes at fame better than others and stayed on top. Their success was luck and skills not  money.

[tberthel]

http://www.crunchbase.com/company/rovio-mobile

They had 42 million vs my 0.  Ha..  I am killing them vs investment yet I can't get a dime.

42 million is not a small studio to me.  In fact that is about what Zynga got in their first round.

over 40 people.  Small?

[pitbuller]

http://www.crunchbase.com/company/rovio-mobile

They had 42 million vs my 0.  Ha..  I am killing them vs investment yet I can't get a dime.

42 million is not a small studio to me.  In fact that is about what Zynga got in their first round.

over 40 people.  Small?

You are referring wrong numbers. Those are after success. Rovio released Angry birds at february 2010. They didn't have any money at then. They have done over 50 games before so this isn't like their first title.  After Angry Birds success they received lot of funding and started agressive recruiting. We maybe get more inside stories here at Finland but search even at wikipedia before doing that kind of empty claims.

edit: Before angry birds release they have only 12 people at work.

Games published by our own members! Check 'em out!

[tberthel]

Most of the downloads were after the funding, and 12 is still large compared to many.

[pitbuller]

Most of the downloads were after the funding, and 12 is still large compared to many.

Of course but they did get funding because of their game was good and lucky and that was main point.

[tberthel]

42 million is not lucky or a good game, and most of the popularity was after the funding.  So, I don't agree.

[pitbuller]

42 million is not lucky or a good game, and most of the popularity was after the funding.  So, I don't agree.

You just blindly see what you want see.

[tberthel]

No it is you. 

Most of the downloads were after the funding.  So how could it be luck and not the funding?

Most of the downloads == Most of the popularity

Most of downloads == Most of the profit

Did they have 200 million downloads for AB before the funding? Answer: No

Does < 200k of profit get you 42 million?  Well apparently it can.  So, if any luck occurred it was in their funding process and not the game.

They make more now because they obtained 42 million to pump up the marketing.  It was not luck or the game.

[pitbuller]

But why they did get funding at first place? Because of good game and luck.

[tberthel]

They didn't have big money until they got the 42 million.  So, it has nothing to do with any game anywhere or any luck associated with any game anywhere.

[pitbuller]

They didn't have big money until they got the 42 million.  So, it has nothing to do with any game anywhere or any luck associated with any game anywhere.

Nailed. Now ask yourself why they did get that 42million?

[ra4king]

Now how about we rename "luck" to "chance"?

[tberthel]

They got the 42 million because they knew how to find funding.  It was not luck or game related.

[Eli Delventhal]

F**k Angry Birds. That game is the antithesis to Minecraft. A massively, stupidly successful game that has absolutely no innovative or redeemable values. It's just a decent game. It's well made. And that's it. Nothing special. Exactly the same as 3,000 different free Flash physics puzzlers that came before it.

URG I hate that game.

[namrog84]

They got the 42 million because they knew how to find funding.  It was not luck or game related.

It could also be that they happened to know the right person to talk to the right person with the money. 

Though I usually like to believe its a little bit of at least a half decent game, good connection, provable and solid profits, reputation, and a little chance and luck

Many things happen behind the closed doors and curtains.

[JL235]

Just keep making and producing games that are fun to play and that you enjoy making.  Don't try to make a game that will draw in the crowds, for the sole purpose of drawing in the crowds.

I disagree; if your aim is to get lots of users then you should build it with the aim to get lots of users. If you don't get users, then you've failed your aim and did it wrong. That is not to imply there is a formula, and most (but not all) popular games also tend to be good games (even if they are not that ground breaking), but there are things you can do to help make it more desirable to play.

Angry Birds is a good example. I've played lots of those catapult style games, even before Angry Birds was out. Angry Birds graphics are not that ground breaking, but they are polished, where as most of the clones I have played have always had 'programmers' graphics. The idea of shooting birds is also much more novel then just boring rocks. I'd bet if Angry Birds was just 'Generic Catapult Slinger' with worse graphics then it wouldn't have sold anywhere near as many copies, and it's that sort of thing that I am referring to when I say there are things you can do to make a game more popular.

[namrog84]

JL235
I didn't mean you should make a fun game with crappy graphics.

You should still make a well rounded polished game in all aspects.

I had meant it more of,  don't choose to make a angry birds game because you think it will draw in a ton of people, if you personally hate catapult games.

If you like shoot em ups or platformers for example. make a platformer, but by all means. Make it the best damn polished, fancy, marketed platformer you possibly can.