Flash vs PC Downloadables

[EnigmaCEO]

I was having a conversation tonight and wanted to see what other game developers thought about the topic.

Sites like www.newgrounds.com and other flash sites are starting to get more popular and the production values are going up. There is an opinion now that flash games can faithfully reproduce the top selling PC games on the market now.

Does anyone see this as being direct competition to the casual 2d game industry? Given the choice I'm sure customers would pick free over 19.99.

[Skash]

But yet, there's an up side to the flash versions, nag screens ;) nag them after every level, reduce the levels to about 10 or so, give them an option to download the full trial version, the web based version may be your best marketing tool if set up correctly though.

[EnigmaCEO]

But why would they download and buy your full version when they could play a free flash version?

The topic I wanted to raise was that if the entire top 20 selling casual games were made by flash developers would that be damaging to the market. Let's say Diner Dash clones started popping up in Flash, who would buy the clones that sell for 20?

[mash]

Why don't you try MDM Zinc (www.multidmedia.com)? It's a very good tool for flash game developers, imho.

[Nexic]

Flash games are getting better but very few rival the commercial quality of top casual games. Most of these games (the good ones at least) are being made essentially as adverts for flash game portals and as such, their aim is to get as many eyeballs infront of the 'click here for more games' button not to sell them the game, as such quality is lacking. They usually take 1-2 months to develop so none have much length to them. Longer games don't make much sense since each new title brings a # of traffic, the longer the dev time the worse the return in a lot of cases. This is an invisible quality barrier (not worth spending a long time on it). A lot of them look very nice art wise (to attract people to play), but most handle and play very badly. There are some exceptions of course.

Flash games are aimed mainly at 12-20 year olds, ie those without much money. Casual games are almost always aimed at 20+. You can tell this because the most popular games in flash are fighting and shooting, in the casual market puzzle games rule supreme. The younger ones tend to be less worried about tons of ads and popups flooding their screens.'

Sure the markets will merge a little (they already are in the process) but it's never going to be very strong competition.

[papillon]

Someone could just as easily make non-flash freeware versions of popular games to compete if they felt like it, but most freeware authors have limited resources - it's unlikely that a huge cadre of rich flash developers will emerge and purposefully make high-quality free clones of all popular games.

[LilGames]

Enigma: You're talking in hypotheticals, and the answer is what Papillon said. It takes ALOT of skill, time (= money!) to build the equivalent quality games, so few are going to bother. (Those that do, will be trying to sell the games).

Though there will always be some exceptions... Just look at the amazing Guardians of Atlantis (http://http://www.shockwave.com/gamelanding/guardians.jsp)

[Pyabo]

I certainly take issue with the idea that the top quality, top selling casual games could be reproduced in Flash. Even if they could, what is the motivation for the developer? It's still going to take the same resources and budget that the downloadable games do -- Flash is not some magic development tool that does all the work for you. In the end, you have to make your money either way, and the market will dictate what tools and distribution method you use.

Nexic is dead on. The answer to your question is a simple "no." At least for now.

[Chris Evans]

Yeah Nexic is spot on.

Casual games nowadays have budgets of $10,000 - 250,000 and development cycles of 8-16 months. The Flash versions of Diner Dash and other top casual games are possible because much of the heavy lifting is already done. But it's unrealistic to expect a bunch of Flash bedroom coders to churn out high quality casual clones that threaten the downloadable market. Most (all?) don't have the time or resources.

Above all, as Nexic said, it really is two different markets.

[NathanR]

I notice that PopCaps new one, Peggle, has no Flash version, which was a little bit of a shock since I was accustomed to trying their games out in flash.

Perhaps they are moving away from flash, or they have come to the realization that you can just do a lot more if you are using C++ and OpenGL (or something similar)?

It was interesting anyway. I wonder if a flash version will come out eventually.

[soniCron]

Most of PopCap's games come out in web-version only after-the-fact.

[EnigmaCEO]

"The answer to your question is a simple "no." At least for now."

That's why I brought up the topic. I was more so talking about down the road when developers do spend 10k-50k on flash development using advertising and other things to make a profit.

I know for now there's not many flash developers dropping big cash into their games to compete but it's moving in that direction I think.

[Pyabo]

Well, since are talking about the future... My advice is to wait and see where the market goes. It seems obvious to me that there will be two different markets for the foreseeable future. A big increase in Flash game revenue in the coming years won't diminish downloadable games... and I suspect it's unlikely to happen anyway.

[DayDream]

I have been working on both sides - casual and flash - and I disagree with the common opinion that flash is coded by a bunch of underfunded hobbyist. It is a different market segment with a different audience and purpose in mind. Most of the professional flash games are promotional games sponsored by big corporate sites or small to medium game sites.

But the ease in which games can be prototyped and tested makes it an ideal platform for certain types of casual games. There are a few casual titles out there that are based on flash - developed as downloadables but with the added advantage of providing a scaled down web version without much hazzle.

If you check out sites like miniclip.com or arcadetown.com and some of their top titles, you will notice that the gap between flash and casual games is closing. Flash 9 will allow for even more action and speed hopefully paving the way for a new style of web games.

[Nexic]

There is zero problem with casual games being made in Flash, as long as they aren't free. The original poster seemed worried that games would no longer sell with the free competition. Though it's a simple fact, if you can make something better than the top sellers, why not sell it yourself? Almost everyone wants money...

[arcadetown]

Another couple issues are Flash games have hit a way over saturation point causing diminishing returns. Plus Flash gamers want a quick ten minute coffee break fix. So making a Flash game that competes with true high quality try/buy downloadable games makes little sense. If anything it's getting more people that wouldn't be considered a traditional gamer into games and eventually leading them to seek better content and thus try/buy titles.

[Sharpfish]

may downloads long continue... I love 'em.

[KNau]

From firsthand experience I'm not entirely convinced that the downloadable game market is forever safe. Here are my notes on the subject:

Female gamers are learning they don't have to pay to play

My girlfriend who started out at a rabid casual gamer no longer downloads games at all, sticking to free online games instead. I asked her reasoning and it basically boils down to:

She wants to multitask and too many downloadable games run only fullscreen or cause problems in windowed mode.
No download, installation or compatibility BS to go through
She only wants to play in bite-sized increments (5 - 10 minutes) before moving on
Most of her online social network spends their time browsing free sites and telling her about those games instead, whereas they used to talk about the downloadables.

To see a woman who used to download everything switch to downloading nothing was a real eye-opener. Free gamers are no longer "kids who don't have money", that is a gross and dangerous misjudgement.

You are not the customer

This goes without saying, but we always forget it on this board. People who slag free games on quality, etc. are using their own jaded developer perspective to judge the competition. It's no different than "indie" developers slagging "casual" developers - none of the opinions reflect what's going on in the consumer's head.

Quality and feature creep are only issues if you want $20 bucks

Quality and feature creep are really only issues for the paid market. If I want to compete with Mystery Case Files on Real Arcade I'm going to have to invest a commercial game budget and a year of development time to do it, and I still could fail miserably.

But I don't have to match their production value if I want to compete in the free market. Thousands upon thousands of visitors are more than willing to play a low quality clone for free and view ads in the process. I'm capturing their players on a fraction of the time and budget investment.

Even still, free and Flash games are starting to compete in quality

Part of the reason shooters and platformers tend to see mediocre sales is because the paid content is completely outclassed by the free stuff being released in these genres. It's only a matter of time before casual game styles begin to suffer the same fate.

Most developers could do better with a free site

In the portal business it's about 1% of the developers who make all the money and the other 99% get their 30 days of mild revenue and then disappear. What's going to happen when these people (who are still relied upon to provide bulk to online catalogs) discover that they could be doing better with an ad supported website and freeware?

If portals start losing the bulk of their content to free sites then you could see a serious shift in the market, if it hasn't already begun. Sites like Miniclip outrank Real Arcade, Big Fish, et al by a substantial margin - and they aren't exactly non-profits.

Any developer making less than $1,000 a month from direct sales should be investigating an ad supported free site instead.

That's my 2 cents. Of course downloadable games will always be here in some form or another but I think we're in for some big changes ahead for the industry.

[Promaginy]

If anything it's getting more people that wouldn't be considered a traditional gamer into games and eventually leading them to seek better content and thus try/buy titles.

That fascinates me! Is there any evidence or research that tells us that casual players will migrate towards more hard-core games?

I know that my wife loves to play the flash games and she is rarely interested in getting something more indepth. She plays to relax or zone-out. She is not interested in beating all of the levels. I on the other hand, see games as something to compete with and beat. Male vs Female mindsets perhaps?

[Uhfgood]

I probably don't really have any authority to say anything but I feel eventually downloadables will be a thing of the past. As far as making money, they'll always sell quality games. If it's done in flash, and they spent alot of time and money on it, they'll probably find some way of making money with it.

What's the point of letting a person download a game? You register you can copy it usually (I mean there are always different kinds of copy protection but for the most part). To make the money they'll find they want everyone on the net not owning their own thing.

Just to let you know, that assuming I get any more games done i'll still be doing downloadables, as i'm just one guy, and I don't really have the money or the time to worry about flash, besides, flash still has a bit to go in terms of speed and what not. So i'm not actually against downloads, i'm just saying from the perspective of a game company. Popcap is still doing downloadables because there is higher quality in those, but soon web-based technologies will come to the level of non-web-based eg. downloadables.

[Pyabo]

I probably don't really have any authority to say anything but I feel eventually downloadables will be a thing of the past.

Riiiight. And "Web-based Operating Systems" are going to be a real threat to Microsoft. And everyone will read books via eBooks and libraries will be outmoded. And Moller will finally finish that flying car he's been saying is "just a year or two away" for the past 25 years. And a host of other predictions that just are NOT going to happen.

The downloadable game market has EXPLODED in the last 5-6 years. To turn around and say that that is going to be obsolete or disappear in the near future is ridiculous. Of course *anything* is going to be a "thing of the past" given a long enough timeframe... but downloadable games are still on the rise and the proof is there if you open your eyes.

[soniCron]

Happy with your 640K, Pyabo? :)

Oh, and for what it's worth, nobody said "near future," except you.

[Nexic]

Female gamers are learning they don't have to pay to play....
Funnily exact opposite with my girlfriend. She used to play flash games but now only downloadables or Sims 2. Ads annoy the crap out of her.


Free gamers are no longer "kids who don't have money", that is a gross and dangerous misjudgement.

Is "casual gamers are middle-aged women" a gross and dangerous misjudgement? My girlfriend is 18 and plays casual games, does that make this demographic wrong?


I'm capturing their players on a fraction of the time and budget investment.
And also capturing only a fraction of their attention. My mum played Zuma for about 4 days solid. Any chance she'd play a free flash game that long? I doubt it. Sure some games have a lot of replay value, my brother played Line Rider for a very long time but it's certainly not the norm.

Part of the reason shooters and platformers tend to see mediocre sales is because the paid content is completely outclassed by the free stuff being released in these genres.
I love Drakojan Skies, a free flash shooter. It's got everything I'd want to see in a game and puts my stuff to shame on some levels. However there is one major flaw with Drakojan Skies, it lasts for roughly 2 minutes. If that level of quality lasted a couple of hours I'd bow down and admit I'm totally owned, but it doesn't. It's the same with all flash games, not anywhere near enough content. Essentially a flash game has about as much content as a downloadable demo (which is also free).

The real reason shooters don't sell well is because they tend appeal to younger gamers more than older ones and as I stated before, they have no money. How do I know this? Because a ton of my traffic comes from keywords like 'shooting games' and 'shooter games' and I'm pretty much the only non flash site that ranks well for those.
[EDIT: My previous remark was totally uncalled for]

Any developer making less than $1,000 a month from direct sales should be investigating an ad supported free site instead.
Starting to feel like your post was aimed squarely at insulting me. Are you seriously suggesting that after 3 years as a downloadable developer I should just throw away my hard work and give up, starting with something else? There are loads of top earning devs who spent years at less than $1,000/month before they got anywhere.

[KNau]

That your mom played Zuma for 4 days is entirely irrelevant. In the shareware model you don't get paid for the amount of times someone plays, but in the free model you do.

I'm honestly not trying to convince anyone to go one way or the other. What I'm saying is that the free game model has the potential to eat into the downloadable market and that my anecdotal evidence has supported that. Comments weren't aimed at you at all - sorry if it came out that way.

[terin]

Gee, I go away for one conference and someone makes a post I find interesting...

Well, my short answer- as an 'expert' is there's little risk of any large scale sales cannibalization.

Why that is comes down to - not WHO is playing - but why they are playing. It is clear to me, after watching the habits of downloadable gamers for the last 3 years and flash gamers for the last 6 months, that they are playing games for entirely different reasons. A download player wants an immersive experience, whether it is to relax (casual) or to challenge themselves (hardcore) is unimportant. They're looking to get involved for a fairly lengty run to let their mind focus outside the current reality.

A flash gamer, on the otherhand, isn't looking for such an experience. They are looking for a distraction. Something to keep them occupied for 10-15 minutes. If the game is good, maybe even 30 minutes. The flash format, thanks to things like screen size, adverts, ect. generally are not immersive and can not provide that kind of experience unless specifically designed for it - see Runescape or Pow Pow's Minigolf for examples of games unusually immersive ; but even those are less so than any decent downloadable game.

Also size limits the current state of flash formats. Sure, this will change in the future as the world gets its own OC-3 line, but for now the 'on demand' style makes flash games small and unable to truely compete with the robust features.

The statement that we are not our target market is true, but pointless. Those of us who take the time to understand our target market are in an even better position to predict them than those who simply "are" the target market. Why bring this up? Simple- Simply because a great experience costs $20 and an 'ok' experience is free does not mean most people will prefer saving the 20 bucks - ESPECIALLY in the current 'casual' market. 20 dollars is spent on a whim for an excellent downloadable game. This market will - for the forseeable future - always prefer spending a little cash to have something EXCELLENT over something even 'ok' for free. Until flash games are 20 megs and the sites designed to immerse the user - flash games just are apples to oranges with downloadables.

Last but not least: Gee wiz Knau; make a flash game site and see how simple it is to bring is a fortune through advertising. I'll tell you what, ad based revenue models are no simple thing. The payout per person is terrible and volume may look easy to get, but it isn't. It takes work and a great product JUST like the downloadable market. Not saying it is impossible to make a decent amount of money, but to claim that there's more money in freebie games + ads than downloadables is probably untrue based on what I have seen.

[indiemaker]

My two cents.

Flash Games can't compete with Downloadable games in quality for at least two reasons.

1> They're designed and budgeted to be quickie games. These flash sites only want to build traffic, and generate money through advertising.

2> You can't download them. To play them, you must re-visit the site.


Downloadable games on the other hand:
1> You can download them (duh) and can play without visiting a website.
2> These games have more content, and longer game play.


IT seems to me that after a while, once the initial euphoria wears off for being able to play games for FREE, the player will want something more substiantial. Why do people play games? I don't think people play games to be distracted for 5 minutes and that's it. If that's the case, then these people are not really gamers, and wouldn't be interested in downloadable Games anyway.

I had the same reaction. I'd try out a few games at miniClip but most of these games are only interesting for a few minutes. Then I get bored, and want to play another, and another. But soon, eventually, I find it's a waste of time. I want to play a game, ONE game that is fun, and has the breadth and depth to captive me for a long time, which translate into GamePlay FUN.


Would I buy a Flash Game? No way. THey're not worth it. I'd only play them for free if I have nothing better to do.

Would I buy a Downloadable Game? Yes, if the game is fun enough.

I think the adage still holds true: You get what you pay for. A free FlashGame cannot compare to a Downloadable game that you pay 20 bucks for.

Flash games technically can match Downloadable Games in graphics, and gameplay but it defeats the entire concept of Ad supported Games.

The entire purpose of FlashGames is to play for 5 minutes, and throw it away. Onto the next game. This matches their revenue model. Attract more people for Advertising revenue.

If a flash Game was budgeted and designed to be a Casual game, #1> It would take longer to develop them, #2 It would cost more. THus limiting the # of new Flash Games for the Site.

Which goes totally against the idea of Free Games / Advertising. YOu want lots of Free Games. Not a few Games that are free.


So of course sites like miniClip are going to have far greater traffic. But which companies generate more revenue? a site like BigFishGames or miniClip? The people who download games want to buy games. The people who go to miniClip do not want to purchase anything. Big difference in the people AND in the quality and nature of the games.

Will people who buy games stop buying?

Not necessarily. Because a Flash Game and a Downloadable games are like apple and oranges. Flash Games are inferior GamePlay wise. A Downloable game has way more gamePlay value.

So the market is entirely different. FlashPlayers and Casual Downloaders are different.

[KNau]

Gee wiz Knau; make a flash game site and see how simple it is to bring is a fortune through advertising.
Gee wiz, did I just get called out by the entirely self-proclaimed marketing “expert” and freelance discount press release writer? Don’t you have some homemade jewelry to sell?

I already stated that I’m not trying to convince you either way. All I said is that if you are in the position of making less than $1,000 a month then you should definitely look into an ad supported site. Just "look into it". Out of politeness I even called my research “anecdotal” so no one would get their egos bent out of shape.

I’m surprised that a so-called marketing expert would argue that. In fact if you can’t pull in a $1,000 from your website then I seriously question your abilities as a marketer and web entrepreneur. Although the rankings of your site, blog, former employer and jewelry business do seem to back that up.

I’ll make you a deal, when I do release my stats you can blog about it – maybe that’ll bring you some traffic.

So of course sites like miniClip are going to have far greater traffic. But which companies generate more revenue?
Irrelevant for the developer. You get your 1/3 share of your game revenue and that's not nearly as impressive. When you publish Rockheads and (god forbid) it doesn't get into the top 10, you'll understand.

[indiemaker]

Irrelevant for the developer. You get your 1/3 share of your game revenue and that's not nearly as impressive. When you publish Rockheads and (god forbid) it doesn't get into the top 10, you'll understand.

When I used BigFishGames as the example of a download company to compare with a Flash site like miniClip, I wasn't trying to contrast the developer vs publisher differences. That's a whole different argument.

I was comparing directly a successful downloadable website with a successful free Flash website.

I bet bigfishgames has more profit and revenue than miniClip even though miniClip has much more traffic. Am I right?


I don't think you get the main argument.

Flash Games and Flash game Players are a different market from downloadable games and downloadable players.

I don't think free Flash Games will replace Downloadable games because Flash Games are very different from Downloadable Games.

DO you agree with that statement?

Now, if Flash Games are designed to be equal to Download games (Technically it's possible), then that must also mean Flash games will have much longer Dev Times (6months +) and more cost. How can Flash Game sites then afford to give away these games just based on advertising? I don't think they can.

The only reason they can afford to give away these Flash games freely is they are cheaply and quickly made.

ANd if they take steps to increase quality, then they will no longer be profitable. Market forces come into play. And these Free Flash sites will begin selling Flash Games that took 6+ months to develop and a larger budget.

Let's take a different example.

Regular TV vs Cable TV.

Regular TV is free. The content is given away freely, supported by Ad Revenues.
Cable TV is not free. You must pay a monthly fee to get more channels, and more quality programming.

What you are arguing is, because Regular TV (which is free), Cable TV companies cannot survive. Is that true?

Of course not.

[KNau]

What you are arguing is, because Regular TV (which is free), Cable TV companies cannot survive. Is that true?

What I'm arguing is the possibility that free games will eat into the downloadable market and broadcast television is a perfect example. Both continue to exist but the newcomer (cable) has eaten significantly into the old standard's marketshare. Not that one will replace the other but that the presence of the second will significantly impact the first.

[indiemaker]

What I'm arguing is the possibility that free games will eat into the downloadable market and broadcast television is a perfect example. Both continue to exist but the newcomer (cable) has eaten significantly into the old standard's marketshare. Not that one will replace the other but that the presence of the second will significantly impact the first.

Ok then we must look at it this way. Say that in the beginning, Cable TV existed first. That is, in order to watch tv, consumers had to pay.

Then all of a sudden, some upstart company comes along, and introduces FREE tv programming. But the FREE TV programming is inferior, and different from the paid CableTV programming.

No doubt, FREE tv will grow, but do you think it will eat into CableTV?

Depends on the consumer.

If a consumer rarely watches TV at all, and only wants to watch it for 5 minutes, then FREE tv is attractive, and will drop the Cable TV.

But if the consumer enjoys the quality Cable TV shows, despite the existence of the FreeTV, they will not give up Cable TV because this consumer is different from the FreeTV consumer. This consumer is willing to pay for quality TV.

I don't think Downloadable Games are threatened by Free Flash Games because Free Flash Games have zero quality to it. It is empty, shallow, and mostly arcade games that are quickly boring. Whereas Download Games have much more depth, and have many different genres. It is in every way, superior to Flash Games.

Flash Games are limited in size, windowed in a browser surrounded by annoying Ad links, AND you must visit that website to play. Very annoying.

Download Games suffer none of those restrictions.

But I do see a different change coming. That is the method of delivery of games.

Retail vs Internet. I think more and more people will want to buy games over the net than going into a store. I think this Downloadable Market will grow because it is convenient to simply download a game, Try, and then Buy. Rather than walk into a store, and buy a game you cannot try, or play.

So I am quite optimistic about Downloadable Gaming.

[soniCron]

If it doesn't exist, that must mean it can't exist. Right? Right?

This is like saying web-based media is limited to the ADD-stricken simply because there aren't any "feature-length" games. So let's be honest with ourselves: It's a chicken and egg scenario; nothing more, nothing less. (There is absolutely no substantial reason why one could not make a browser-based for-pay game, for example.)

It is obtuse to assume advertising supported games will continue to exist as only mindless and temporary distractions. There is already substantial technological support for creating immersive, web-based multimedia. In fact, you can already watch entire films full-screen, and expand a Flash game to occupy the majority of the browser window. The major barrier for widespread adoption of such technologies is inaccessible in-program video advertising.

Also, the comparison between broadcast and cable television is inaccurate, to say the least. (For one, the $60/month cable fee you pay certainly does not pay for cable programming.) A more appropriate comparison would be watching your favorite program on Wednesday night versus buying (or renting) the DVD season set. And in such a scenario, in both cases does the viewer have the opportunity to become immersed in the program, although it is likely the viewer would be more inclined to do so if he has purchased said program on DVD.

Web-based multimedia and applications are in their infancy, and to assume they'll continue forever status-quo is just silly. I will suggest this, however: The true boom for immersive web-based media will arrive when widespread living room web access takes off. Until then, we're all still playing games at the computer...and we all know how popular that is! ;)

(On a side-note: I think the major killer of retail PC games are system requirements. During PC gaming's heyday, nobody needed $300 video cards... :rolleyes: )

[indiemaker]

If it doesn't exist, that must mean it can't exist. Right? Right?

This is like saying web-based media is limited to the ADD-stricken simply because there aren't any "feature-length" games. So let's be honest with ourselves: It's a chicken and egg scenario; nothing more, nothing less. (There is absolutely no substantial reason why one could not make a browser-based for-pay game, for example.)

It is obtuse to assume advertising supported games will continue to exist as only mindless and temporary distractions. There is already substantial technological support for creating immersive, web-based multimedia. In fact, you can already watch entire films full-screen, and expand a Flash game to occupy the majority of the browser window. The major barrier for widespread adoption of such technologies is inaccessible in-program video advertising.

Also, the comparison between broadcast and cable television is inaccurate, to say the least. (For one, the $60/month cable fee you pay certainly does not pay for cable programming.) A more appropriate comparison would be watching your favorite program on Wednesday night versus buying (or renting) the DVD season set. And in such a scenario, in both cases does the viewer have the opportunity to become immersed in the program, although it is likely the viewer would be more inclined to do so if he has purchased said program on DVD.

Web-based multimedia and applications are in their infancy, and to assume they'll continue forever status-quo is just silly. I will suggest this, however: The true boom for immersive web-based media will arrive when widespread living room web access takes off. Until then, we're all still playing games at the computer...and we all know how popular that is! ;)

(On a side-note: I think the major killer of retail PC games are system requirements. During PC gaming's heyday, nobody needed $300 video cards... :rolleyes: )


I never said technically flash games can't match downloadable games. They can. But the issue isn't whether it can. A game can be made in Flash, or C++, and they both can be equal. And this can be done TODAY. But they aren't. Why is that?

As I've stated, the primary reason is, game development still require time and resources. THe more features, the more time it will take.

Flash based games are free and revenue based, and therefore, it does not make economic sense to put in equal amount of time and capital to Downloadable games, which are sold for profit.

The day when advertising alone can generate enough revenue to cover development cost equal to downloadable games, then you can say that downloadable games are at risk. But today, and most likely forever, free games that rely on Advertising will not compare to games sold for profit. Not because webgames can't, but because of the economics. Just my .02 cents.

[indiemaker]

(On a side-note: I think the major killer of retail PC games are system requirements. During PC gaming's heyday, nobody needed $300 video cards... )

I don't think it's the VideoCard. I think the XBox shifted what was traditionally PC Game developers away from PC games to the XBox development and this is the reason today, PC Gaming is not as big. All the major PC Developers moved onto the XBox.

Back then, the best games required the best cards too, and at high prices. THat was always the case. If anything, probably today, hardware is cheaper on average than 5 years ago.

[soniCron]

Flash based games are free and revenue based, and therefore, it does not make economic sense to put in equal amount of time and capital to Downloadable games, which are sold for profit. Does it not stand to reason that a person playing an immersive, web-based game would spend that-much-more-time playing the game, thus inflating the advertising revenue?

[indiemaker]

Does it not stand to reason that a person playing an immersive, web-based game would spend that-much-more-time playing the game, thus inflating the advertising revenue?

You'd need to have a big budget to create an immersive Game that matches Casual games, which are created in 6-12 months. Furthermore, there are inherent restrictions: 1> YOu can't save games 2> You can't download games can can only play them in a browser. These are limitations that preclude an immerseive game expereince in the first place. 3> The bigger the game, the longer it takes to download. Flash games require small sizes. Players will not tolerate waiting 5-10 minutes for it to download that are typical of Download games. It would be a pain to wait 5 minutes for it to download every time. If the game is so immersive that people are returning repeatedly, how annoying will it be to wait 5 minutes each time? Very. Most likely, people would rather pay 20 bucks for a downloadable version.

Can you generate enough revenue from just Ads and cover the increased development costs that are 3x, 6x?

If a flash game can create Downloadable quality and sites can offer it freely based only on Advertising revenue, then obviously, Downloadable sites would be in trouble. But I still think the market is very different. One relies on high traffic for Advertising and Quantity. The other relies less on high traffic, and focuses more on Quality for a moderate price.

[EnigmaCEO]

"1> YOu can't save games"

This line isn't true. There are a few online RPGs using flash that are saving the user's data.

What do you think about Match-3 download games? I see those types of games being hit the hardest by quality flash games. I'm not trying to predict doom or gloom just wanted to get some opinions on where game that are developed for 10k or less will stand in the future.

Games that are made for 50k+ are probably safe as are the huge 5 million dollar games. I've just been noticing a lot of small Match-3 and other simple style PC games lately that are becoming very similar to flash games in terms of length and quality. As a developer of games with budgets under 10k, it has been a very interesting topic.

[indiemaker]

"1> YOu can't save games"

This line isn't true. There are a few online RPGs using flash that are saving the user's data.

What do you think about Match-3 download games? I see those types of games being hit the hardest by quality flash games. I'm not trying to predict doom or gloom just wanted to get some opinions on where game that are developed for 10k or less will stand in the future.

Games that are made for 50k+ are probably safe as are the huge 5 million dollar games. I've just been noticing a lot of small Match-3 and other simple style PC games lately that are becoming very similar to flash games in terms of length and quality. As a developer of games with budgets under 10k, it has been a very interesting topic.


But most Flash games, you can't save anything. When you die, it's game over. Which is very annoying.


Downloadable Match-3 games are very polished these days. Jewel Quest II is amazing. It's still a match 3 game, but it looks like it's worth every bit of the 20 bucks. And I'm sure it will be a huge seller. Even though it is still a match 3 game.

If you're going to put out a match-3 game that can't compete graphically with Jewel Quest II, might as well not bother. These days, Casual Games are extremely polished graphically. Because they have a pretty large budget.

So in this case, it doesn't matter if it's downloadable or flash. Match-3 games are still popular but they need to stand out graphically. Free Flash games obviously will never seek to match a game like Jewel Quest II graphically.

If you don't have the budget, then the solution is easy: Find a talented Artist and split shares.

[EnigmaCEO]

"Downloadable Match-3 games are very polished these days. Jewel Quest II is amazing. It's still a match 3 game, but it looks like it's worth every bit of the 20 bucks. And I'm sure it will be a huge seller. Even though it is still a match 3 game."

Earlier you said that the separation between flash and downloadables was the development time. So is it the polish that make PC downloadables more in-depth to play or the amount of content in them?

How many months does it require to make Jewel Quest II quality artwork and what's keeping flash developers from purchasing top quality artwork for their game code?

[Nexic]

In the shareware model you don't get paid for the amount of times someone plays, but in the free model you do.


Does it not stand to reason that a person playing an immersive, web-based game would spend that-much-more-time playing the game, thus inflating the advertising revenue?


With the current advertising model probably not. If the user goes on to a page and starts playing by that time they have probably already decided that none of the ads on the page are of interest to them. Hence why flash games are small and quick to play, they create more banner impressions that way.

I'm sure this can be gotten around with future technology.

But even so I'm still not sure downloadables will be seriously hurt, people like the feeling of owning something. Perhaps another trend may be ad intergrated game that can have the ads removed for $9.95? Seen this in shareware apps market a long time ago and doesn't seem to be especially great. These days any decent app given away for free is advertising the 'pro' version rather than random crap since it's proven to be far more effective in most cases. So basically it's just like downloadables.

If any part of the downloadable market gets hurt it will most likely be the match-3s and other games that are easy to make cheap clones of. (not saying making a match-3 is necessarily cheap, just that its CAN be done pretty quickly in flash).

[Chris Evans]

I don't think Downloadable Games are threatened by Free Flash Games because Free Flash Games have zero quality to it. It is empty, shallow, and mostly arcade games that are quickly boring. Whereas Download Games have much more depth, and have many different genres. It is in every way, superior to Flash Games.



Nothing against you personally, but what a short-sighted and ignorant statement. In the near future, I don't see web games making downloadables obsolete, but they will experience great growth and advancement in their own right.

Your "inherent restrictions" are bogus. I'll go over them:

1> YOu can't save games

Absolutely false. Flash and Shockwave can store small/medium amounts of data on your hard drive in a predefined area that's setup when you install Flash/Shockwave. Or better yet, you can store the user's game data in a database on the server (which is what I'm doing with my upcoming games). You're only limited by your server space and you don't have to worry about file structures and user privileges like you do with downloadables.

2> You can't download games can can only play them in a browser. These are limitations that preclude an immerseive game expereince in the first place.

This is true to an extent, but Shockwave can actually be extended to go full-screen in a browser right now. It's not 100% reliable, which is why you probably don't see it utilized often. However, if Adobe decided to make this a native function for Flash or Shockwave, it would certainly get a lot more traction. But the capability is already there so this limitation is something that could be nullified at any time not a decade from now.

3> The bigger the game, the longer it takes to download. Flash games require small sizes. Players will not tolerate waiting 5-10 minutes for it to download that are typical of Download games. It would be a pain to wait 5 minutes for it to download every time. If the game is so immersive that people are returning repeatedly, how annoying will it be to wait 5 minutes each time?

Are you unfamiliar with the concepts of streaming and caching? I'm not sure about Flash, but Shockwave can stream files in the background while the user is engaged in another part of the game. If you design your web game smartly, you can extend the size of your content or game world.

Also both Flash and Shockwave utilize the browser's cache to store files. This is why web games tend to load much faster after the first play. Flash and Shockwave check the browser's cache for the file initially, if it's not there or the user cleared the cache then it will download it from the game server.


Here's here's a few advantages web games offer over downloadables that you've ignored.
1). Users don't have to worry about Spyware or other malicious programs when they play web games. I think this is the single biggest advantage web games have over downloadables. Users can play with confidence that their computer won't have any adverse affects when they're done playing.

2). No software to install. In addition to the above concern, not everyone likes to go through the installation process and have more desktop clutter just to play a new game. Since there's no software to install for web games, the barrier is much lower to get users to try out your game. This is great for developers because it means we can reach more players.

3). Play anywhere. Believe it or not, a lot of people like the freedom to easily play at home, at their 9-5 job, library, school, or friend's house. If you store their game/save data in a database, then they can literally access their game/character from anywhere. You can't easily do this with downloadables because many work & public places have restrictions on what can be downloaded to their computers and storing game/save data on an external DB for a downloadable is not always practical.

4). Mostly platform independent. While not all features of Flash and Shockwave are 100% cross-platform compatible, for the most part the majority of Flash/Shockwave content is playable whether you're running Windows, Mac OSX, or Linux. Much of this with the same code-base. Added with the other factors, this gives you a tremendous reach with your games. Downloadables can obviously be cross-platform as well, but it will depend on your framework (or RAD tool) for how easily this is achieved.

Another bad assumption you keep making is that you assume ad revenue is the *only* way to monetize web games. You should take a look at places like Habbo Hotel and other similar places, which allow users to purchase in-game credits for game items. Habbo Hotel just hit $77 million in sales last year alone, which pretty much dwarfs even the most successful casual games. Web games can also utilize one-time fees or subscription models. Adventure Quest utilizes a one-time fee plus the ability to purchase some items. Exact numbers aren't available, but they're doing very well. They have several dozen employees and they're advertising everywhere. The Java web game Runescape utilizes a subscription model and they're one of the biggest MMORPGs outside of WoW and Lineage.

I know some people get kind of snooty when it comes to web games, but all you're doing is sticking your head in the sand. Personally I don't mind if a lot of developers think Flash games have "zero quality" or can't be anything more than coffee break distractions. Leaves more money on the table for me.

[Andy]

I know some people get kind of snooty when it comes to web games, but all you're doing is sticking your head in the sand. Personally I don't mind if a lot of developers think Flash games have "zero quality" or can't be anything more than coffee break distractions. Leaves more money on the table for me.

Me again... :)
So why to discuss this with them Chris? Keep our money safe. :D

[papillon]

How many months does it require to make Jewel Quest II quality artwork and what's keeping flash developers from purchasing top quality artwork for their game code?


Exactly what we've already SAID is keeping them - people making these free games generally do NOT have big budgets behind them.

There's nothing technically stopping anyone from releasing an amazingly great flash game that can compete with a downloadable, there are probably some out there already. But the general flash game designer has no budget and makes a small game in his/her spare time.

Once someone starts spending an enormous budget on the game, they tend to want more than a little ad-based revenue in return, unless they're an independently rich hobbyist doing it for love.

Which is why some of the most complicated Flash works you see are sponsored by large companies and paid for out of their advertising budget. Then the creator DOES get more than just a share of ads shown while people play the game, so he/she is happy.

[EnigmaCEO]

"But the general flash game designer has no budget and makes a small game in his/her spare time."

Understood. This line stood out to me the most. This is exactly what was being said about Indie developers when I first started researching game development. Is another tier of developers starting to evolve now? Retail -> Indie -> Flash?

As the retail guys jump up to 50+ million budgets and Indies are jumping up to 50k+ budgets will that create a new market that Flash is filling or am I off base?

[DarkShadow]

Both flash and casual games have good and bad sides, but all in all, it's what you're aiming for. If you're aiming to get money, you'll want an executable. If you're aiming for a quick game you want flash. However, to stay casual on both sides you need to understand to pros and cons of flash and casual games;

Flash
Pros: It's free for people, you can advertise, requires no hard drive space for people, and can easily be bookmarked for further play. Games can be played on the Wii/(PS3?) if all interaction is with the mouse. Flash brings users back to your site.

Cons: You won't make much money other then ads (which aren't usually pretty) The bigger the game, the longer the loading time. Small 'mini' games are usually more logical. Music takes a long time to load (only wav/mp3)

Casual Executables
Pros: You can make money. The game can be as long as you disire. You can have many songs as you want and choose from many formats including wav, mp3, midi and ogg vorbis. Games can be updated with addons (which you can also sell, but isn't usually recommended). More interaction including use of gamepad.

Cons: Games usually need to be bigger then flash, which can be time consuming.. and a 50/50 chance that the game was worth it. If the game was to be downloaded, the size CAN be an issue (but not as much as an issue with loading the game through flash.. loading is more annoying then downloading, but people don't relise that it's the same thing with flash).

There's obviously other pros and cons.. but I wanted to point out a few.

[indiemaker]

Nothing against you personally, but what a short-sighted and ignorant statement. In the near future, I don't see web games making downloadables obsolete, but they will experience great growth and advancement in their own right.


The question wasn't whether Flash games will experience growth. They will. The question was, will that growth cut into Downloadable games.




Your "inherent restrictions" are bogus. I'll go over them:



Absolutely false. Flash and Shockwave can store small/medium amounts of data on your hard drive in a predefined area that's setup when you install Flash/Shockwave. Or better yet, you can store the user's game data in a database on the server (which is what I'm doing with my upcoming games). You're only limited by your server space and you don't have to worry about file structures and user privileges like you do with downloadables.


Technically, yeah, they can. But most Flash games don't.



This is true to an extent, but Shockwave can actually be extended to go full-screen in a browser right now. It's not 100% reliable, which is why you probably don't see it utilized often. However, if Adobe decided to make this a native function for Flash or Shockwave, it would certainly get a lot more traction. But the capability is already there so this limitation is something that could be nullified at any time not a decade from now.


oK in other words I was correct about this. Technically, Shockwave can, might, maybe. It just isn't reliable. Or Adobe hasn't implemented it.



Are you unfamiliar with the concepts of streaming and caching? I'm not sure about Flash, but Shockwave can stream files in the background while the user is engaged in another part of the game. If you design your web game smartly, you can extend the size of your content or game world.


Most Flash games today are designed to begin after a few seconds. I am familar with streaming yes. But again, most flash games do not stream today. Because they were created with a limited budget.


Also both Flash and Shockwave utilize the browser's cache to store files. This is why web games tend to load much faster after the first play. Flash and Shockwave check the browser's cache for the file initially, if it's not there or the user cleared the cache then it will download it from the game server.


Well, eveyrtime I play a flash game, it downloads. Maybe most flash games don't utilize this feature. So your point is a moot one.


Here's here's a few advantages web games offer over downloadables that you've ignored.
1). Users don't have to worry about Spyware or other malicious programs when they play web games. I think this is the single biggest advantage web games have over downloadables. Users can play with confidence that their computer won't have any adverse affects when they're done playing.

Yet despite this risk, millions are buying and downloading downloadable games.

Why are you sure that Flash games won't also suffer the same spyware problems?





2). No software to install. In addition to the above concern, not everyone likes to go through the installation process and have more desktop clutter just to play a new game. Since there's no software to install for web games, the barrier is much lower to get users to try out your game. This is great for developers because it means we can reach more players.


But the problem is, you have to visit that website to play it. Which is quicker? To open up a browser, and go to the website? Or to click the ICON of the game to play?

What if you are offline? You can't play. So you see, both have their pros/cons.



3). Play anywhere. Believe it or not, a lot of people like the freedom to easily play at home, at their 9-5 job, library, school, or friend's house. If you store their game/save data in a database, then they can literally access their game/character from anywhere. You can't easily do this with downloadables because many work & public places have restrictions on what can be downloaded to their computers and storing game/save data on an external DB for a downloadable is not always practical.


Give me a break. Who's going to go to a library, or friends house to play free Flash Games? I seriously think you are overestimating people who play Flash games. They do not take these games seriously. They are like, Lightweight-Casual gamers.


4). Mostly platform independent. While not all features of Flash and Shockwave are 100% cross-platform compatible, for the most part the majority of Flash/Shockwave content is playable whether you're running Windows, Mac OSX, or Linux. Much of this with the same code-base. Added with the other factors, this gives you a tremendous reach with your games. Downloadables can obviously be cross-platform as well, but it will depend on your framework (or RAD tool) for how easily this is achieved.


So? There are cross platform tools for game development too. Duh.




Another bad assumption you keep making is that you assume ad revenue is the *only* way to monetize web games. You should take a look at places like Habbo Hotel and other similar places, which allow users to purchase in-game credits for game items. Habbo Hotel just hit $77 million in sales last year alone, which pretty much dwarfs even the most successful casual games. Web games can also utilize one-time fees or subscription models. Adventure Quest utilizes a one-time fee plus the ability to purchase some items. Exact numbers aren't available, but they're doing very well. They have several dozen employees and they're advertising everywhere. The Java web game Runescape utilizes a subscription model and they're one of the biggest MMORPGs outside of WoW and Lineage.


You obviously do not read well. The ENTIRE discussion was about FREE webgames vs Downloadable PAID games. Notice the capitalized words FREE / PAID!!

If Flash games now require PAYMENT, then they are no longer Free, are they? NObody was arguing that Webgames can't technically provide an immersive great game play experience. The argument was, they can't if they are giving it away freely, and only relying on Advertisement. If anything, your Habbo Hotel example argues FOR downloadable games because these customers WILL PAY to play games.



I know some people get kind of snooty when it comes to web games, but all you're doing is sticking your head in the sand. Personally I don't mind if a lot of developers think Flash games have "zero quality" or can't be anything more than coffee break distractions. Leaves more money on the table for me.

Nobody is getting snooty about webgames. I've stated that technically, Flash can make equally great games as games written in C/C++. The problem is the economic model of giving away free Games to generate Ad revenue isn't enough to make deep, compelling games that paid Downloadable games can.

[indiemaker]

"Downloadable Match-3 games are very polished these days. Jewel Quest II is amazing. It's still a match 3 game, but it looks like it's worth every bit of the 20 bucks. And I'm sure it will be a huge seller. Even though it is still a match 3 game."

Earlier you said that the separation between flash and downloadables was the development time. So is it the polish that make PC downloadables more in-depth to play or the amount of content in them?

How many months does it require to make Jewel Quest II quality artwork and what's keeping flash developers from purchasing top quality artwork for their game code?

I'd say it's both. The polish, and deep game play. Now, some webgame fanatic will rail on me for getting snooty but it takes time, and money to create a polished game with a deep compelling gameplay.

Which is totally against the model of quick and cheap Free Flash games.

[UnknownGuy]

Well, eveyrtime I play a flash game, it downloads. Maybe most flash games don't utilize this feature. So your point is a moot one.

That doesn't have anything to do with the actual game programming, but browser settings. As a flash programmer, I don't have to look in memory to see if it already exists. You can disable the caching(or the programmer can go out of his way and disable it). Nothing to do with no optimizing the game.

If you talk about being able to save or not and the game is meant to compete with casual games, I would be surprised if it didn't have saves. (Though of course it is up to the programmer). Likewise if it is meant to compete, streaming would be a must.

An example of fullscreen in Flash:
(Click in the bottom-right corner)
http://www.papervision3d.org/demos/panorama/


Give me a break. Who's going to go to a library, or friends house to play free Flash Games? I seriously think you are overestimating people who play Flash games. They do not take these games seriously. They are like, Lightweight-Casual gamers.

The whole point of this conversation(as I understand it) is if free Flash games will cut into the download game market. That said, is it not reasonable to believe casual gamers will also being playing? You can't just assume it is the "quick flash games" crowd.

On the topic of cross-platform, Flash is also instantly cross platform unlike other languages which require some reworking(I mainly use Flash, correct me if I'm wrong).

Finally, a new program allows Flash games to advertise not only through the impressions of the initial ads, but throughout the game (Which again would be applicable to longer games, as casual games are).

http://www.mochiads.com/

Interesting discussion.

[Greg Miller]

Last but not least: Gee wiz Knau; make a flash game site and see how simple it is to bring is a fortune through advertising. I'll tell you what, ad based revenue models are no simple thing. The payout per person is terrible and volume may look easy to get, but it isn't. It takes work and a great product JUST like the downloadable market. Not saying it is impossible to make a decent amount of money, but to claim that there's more money in freebie games + ads than downloadables is probably untrue based on what I have seen.

I haven't been involved in freeware games, but I've run sites that were ad-supported. I'm fond of the tigers and cows analogy:

Cattle are one step above grass in the food chain. You can't put as many cows as plants in a given area, but you can still put quite a few in your pasture.

Tigers are at the top of their branch of the food chain. They get a percentage of a percentage of a percentage of the calories in the plants, so they have to spread out a lot more than cattle to survive.

Downloadable game developers are cows, and advertising supported developers are tigers. The web publisher only gets a tiny percentage of what the consumer spends. Not many developers can live off of free games, whether those games are written in Flash or C++. The gaming market isn't infinitely big and you can't feed the same number of people with a smaller piece of the pie.

[terin]

Well Chris, you're right - more or less. What I am saying isn't a matter of absolutes, it's a matter of generalizations. How many habbo hotels (or Runescapes) can or will there be? How many out there are Chris Evans and willing to put a lot of work and effort into this medium?

The simple fact is I don't think it is the easier path to take. I believe the majority simply lack the number of disciplines it takes to be successful in flash or shockwave.

The point wasn't that this is all a farce and downloadables will reign supreme - it is that there is no immediate threat to the downloadable market. How long will that last? The online game market is changing far too quickly to predict at any length of time, but still this isn't something that is going to affect us tomorrow, or next year, or even the year after.

As for what model to make revenue from, there are only two ways when the shit hits the fan. You either make money directly from the consumer or you make money indirectly by giving their attention to someone else - who makes money from the consumer. Flash and Shockwave based games trend towards the latter due to simplicity.

Eh, so go on, make your magnum opus in shockwave, make it in flash. I deal with a lot of people developing on both platforms as well as downloadables... the fact remains that I don't see any greater level of success in shockwave or flash. There are still plenty of people making titles in those two platforms that just aren't good enough to bring in the big bucks. Runescape and Habbo as examples is like saying "Look at the downloadble market with Mystery Case Files and Virtual Villagers - we could make a fortune doing that!" - sure you COULD make a fortune... but the odds aren't in your favor.

I still say create in the medium that suits your skills AND the design of your game best.

The question was only if there was sufficient evidence to believe that flash and shockwave games will eat into the profits of downloadable games in the near future - You honestly think they will Chris? I know you'll defend Shockwave till the end, and of anyone who's posted so far you've got the best chance of using shockwave for large scale profit... but I just think its apples and oranges again. I'd still rather see more games use flash or shockwave to help promote their downloadable sale than try to paint it as a picture of one eating the other.

Beyond that, Knau- your insults belong elsewhere. Heated debate is ok, and I admit I challenged you specifically, but be a man and prove me wrong rather than attempting to attack my character. My admittedly crappy website has made far more than 1,000/month for over 3 years now :)

[terin]

DU DU DUPLICATES :) Woops :)

[Chris Evans]

The question was only if there was sufficient evidence to believe that flash and shockwave games will eat into the profits of downloadable games in the near future - You honestly think they will Chris?



I actually wasn't trying to answer that question. Maybe I went off on a tangent from the main topic, but I was just disputing some of the supposed limitations of web games while bringing up some of their strong points. I wasn't trying to prove that web games will diminish the marketshare of casual downloadables (in fact, I think I said just the opposite earlier in this thread). It's just when I saw comments like "zero quality", "can't save games", "I'll stick to real programming", I thought things were getting too skewed and felt I should say something to balance things out.

As for bringing up Habbo and others, again I wasn't trying to prove that web games would crush downloadables or eat into their marketshare. Instead, just that the top tier web games can make exponentially more money than downloadables and that the web game platform itself is certainly capable. That in itself doesn't mean the average web game will be more profitable for a developer than a downloadable. I agree with what you said about creating a game in the medium that suits your skills and the design of your game.

The problem with long heated threads with multi-paragraph posts is that it's real easy to inadvertently debate issues that were never an issue to begin with. I'm gulity of it as well. :)

[terin]

Nah you should stick with Andy's approach. Stay quiet and make lots of money before anyone figures it out :)

You're right though, no saves and the size limitation thing (I was referring to flash, which you can do multi-files of, but I dont think it has streaming yet) are factual errors. Don't hate the web based game devs, I'd say they're even more hardcore than the casual game developers... the successful ones anyway.

-Joe