Shareware Business Model - the One Game Focus

[SteveZ]

Hello,

Many fellow developers here run a multi-game business model: pushing a new game from time to time. Such examples include Jack Norton with a new title every few months :) and the collection of Wildsnake games under Andy's belt.

The advantage of having new titles are, as most of you already know: older titles sell less as times goes on (In most cases), holding the audience by providing new games periodically, and something which makes us indies: the joy of making games.

But, what if an indie runs a "One Game Focus" shareware business model? I'm talking about creating that one game, update it from time to time with fresh content (feels the same but new enough to merit playing again), and reusing any money, which was allocated for making another game, to market that One Game. It may be over a year before a another game is created (Given you could have created a new game every 4 months).

What are the advantages? What are the disadvantages?

Here is my case:

Back in October 2004, when Cactus Bruce was launched, I adhered to the One Game Focus principle. I can create a new game from scratch to a finished product within a time span of 1-2 months working 10+ hrs/day (Cactus Bruce was done in about two months), but I did not follow that route (There is another reason too, but I won't get into that).

Since version 1.0, the game has 40 new levels, a level editor, a mini-game, and soon it will have a comic strip for a storyline (Sample) (http://www.blueteagames.com/ComicSample.jpg) .

Advantage: It's been four month now and close to 500 people have purchased the game. Instead of using the money allocated to create a new game, it was used to market Cactus Bruce further - giving it much more exposure. Also, the time needed to make a new game can be invested in learning more about marketing and finding new medium to market the game in.

Disadvantage: I have sacrificed the opportunity to create another 1 or 2 complete games. Cactus Bruce is selling less and less as time goes by. My guess is, people might be seeing the game again and wouldn't want to download it. I have a few requests from customer to make another game :)

Bottom line: I'll continue to stick with the "One Game Focus" model and see how it turns out.

Feel free to comment on this!

Regards,
Steve Z.

[Andy]

Well. At least because our name sounds in the starting post... :)

I can't talk for somebody else but this is all pretty easy for our specific case. We should consider anything - our customers consider everything for us. They are emailing, they write on the webside - they dictate. We ask for new games from us. And because your current customers is obviously most appreciating audience - most of them have bought either whole pinball series or puzzle series - we just can't say them "No". And I don't see any reason for that really.

I've learned my lessons some time ago from Patrox and another elders here - you get your current game - check how it goes - polish it up to appropriate conversion rate and go for another one. That's all really.
Even latest pre-christmas (free of course!) update for INVASION WAVES with additional 20 levels, another mode and new boss was published ONLY to deliver "kind of gift" to our current customers.

My question about another way you propose SteveZ really goes in the same direction: what would you say to your current customers? Well. I can imagine easy that some RTS could deliver additional units and change the gameplay dramatically - add new feeling and fun for existing customers. But I doubt that this is a case for your fun Cactus.

Err... And thanks to God you are wrong about sales lowering down. At least not till now. INVASION pinball oversell itself by year ago. Games sell each other - especially games in series. And I see pretty good potential for development of your main character in another titles - but as we can see you know about that without my comments. ;)

That's it. My two cents.

[Ratboy]

This approach seems to have worked well for Aaron Hall's Space Empires series of games, which leads me to think that it's an idea approach to take for larger, more ambitious games in the strategy and RPG genres.

[Andy]

...it's an idea approach to take for larger, more ambitious games...

:) ....terrible!.... :)

Our games are pretty ambitious Ratboy even not being RTS. They are simply the best in niche. As well as we are. :)

[Mark Currie]

I've always preferred quality over quantity. I'm trying the "One Game" approach too. I'll let you know how it works out after we release our one game.

[tentons]

I have way too many game ideas I want to try. It would be really hard to only focus on a single game for more than a year or two. Plus, multiple revenue streams is one key to wealth. :)

[Kai Backman]

I have been working full time on a single game since 2002. The ShortHike space settlement simulation traces it's ancestry back to Space Station Manager, released in 2003. With the new ShortHike name and the guild membership system (yearly membership is currently $50USD) I'm firmly encamped on the single product side.

During the years I did several experiments by publishing other products. But in the end my most reliable source of revenue has always been ShortHike. So in late 2004 I decided to drop everything else and fully commit myself to developing that single product. This singleminded focus makes a lot of things much easier. When new business proposals or ideas float by my desk I know immediately if they fit within my current goals. It also helps to direct my very limited resources, producing multiple high quality games takes a lot of effort.

I know a lot of people that run successfull multi game operations. I think the common denominator for all of them is focus. My focus is on a single a space settlement simulation. Other people have a different focus. But we all have focus.

[Jack Norton]

I just wanted to make a clarification... even if I make a game every 3-4 months, they're not really "quick" games, as you may have noticed playing them for at least 10 minutes :)
I think the one game philosophy can work, but you can't expect immediate results, you need to build up a loyal fan base. For example I announced USM 2 and I have some people waiting for it, even if the 1st USM game wasn't a success at all :D
So I bet that games like Space Station Manager, Betty or similar can be great for us small developers. Surely is easy to develop and debug on one game at time, than 7 or more :)

[ManuelFLara]

@Kai Backman: concerning the viability of the 'one game focus', how are the ShortHike subscriptions going? I'd be very helpful since I'm planning something 'similar'. (something subscription-based)

[Kai Backman]

@ManualFLara

Since the name change there has been a slight drop in revenues that's now picking up again. I credit this to the fact that the ShortHike.com site started from ground zero and isn't as polished as Mistaril.com was. Based on the initial data I fully expect the long term impact to be very positive. I'm not taking in as much as Reflexive or Popcap, but since I'm selling direct I don't really need to.. But as I said before. This is my day job .. :)

[Black Hydra]

I'm new to this so I'm not going to make comments from an experts perspective.

I like the idea of the 'one-game' focus. However, I see it with a different twist.

Here's my take:

Players rarely recognize updates for the amount of work they are. Especially with regards to new buyers. From my perspective someone saying there are 200 levels as opposed to 300 rarely registers in my brain as both sound like a lot.

So instead of making updates to your first game. Perhaps releasing ad-ons or expansion packs are the way to go? Of course, you have to be careful when doing this as there is a limit to how many ad-ons you can place before it becomes excessive. But I think having a small but separate fee the person could order more levels and really see what they want.

This isn't a new idea, but I think it would work a whole lot better than simply updating the same game.

From my point of view in making a highly content oriented game, a sequel is probably a similar substitute.

Frankly, once you reach a certain threshold numbers are more or less meaningless. Saying that there are 100 more levels does nothing for someone who has never played the game before. However, buying an additional 100 levels from someone who has either played the demo and they buy it on impulse in the order form, or from someone who has beat the game and wants to play more.

For a game like yours I think themed expansions would really benefit. All you would have to add is some easy storyline changes and a new backdrop and you've got a whole new expansion. Then market it as being different than, just more levels, and you should get more people in.

That's my two cents...

[svero]

I think there's a lot to be said for focusing on a single product. I've been impressed with Kai Backman since he started with Space Station Manager and I was interested to see how it evolved into a focused product. Clearly one of Twilight's greatest weaknesses is that we didn't focus on a single product, or even a single audience. Our games are pretty eclectic and all appeal to different sorts of customers. It makes it much harder to leverage your past customers effectively when you do that. On the other side of the coin making whatever I want lets me persue different interests and kinds of games. I like strategy, rpg, action etc... I like working on new projects and exploring new things. So there are some personal advantages. I don't know how long I could focus on a single project without growing bored.

[OgreMaster]

Is not always good to place all your bets in a single product, but.. how knows? ;) :rolleyes: good luck!

[Kai Backman]

I think OgreMaster touches on an important point. If you are going to bet on a single horse it must be the winner. One important point to remember is the fact that focus doesn't need to be a single product. Sometimes, like in my case, the resulting business model is a single product. But in other cases it isn't. I would argue that an early PopCap or GameHouse were very focused operations. They produced a lot of games but their audience stayed pretty much the same.

I want to point this out again. I only have experience with the extremely small niche I'm focused on myself. I have learned during the years that many experiences don't translate even inside the downloadable indie scene. As an example I'll take Google Adwords. While most Indie developers report that Adwords doesn't pull its own weight I have a positive return on investment from my campaigns. And that is only the direct returns I can prove conclusively through tracking. The residual effects are probably even bigger. If I had listened to other peoples advice I would have missed this great way of advertising.

You need to find your own focus and explore what works in that context. Measure and trust your own judgement. :)

[adamw]

I can add a few words to this. We've stuck with the One Game Focus strategy for along time. Not out of some secret knowledge, but out of necessity (it takes a long time to make our type of game) and interest (I *like* to make this one type of game). The obvious benefit nearly equals the cost here: you can focus, you can improve, and you can truly listen and cater to your fans. Tunnel vision.

I have no idea if this is better or worse than a multi-game strategy. But I have a feeling that a large content game like an RPG or RTS or TBS just simply takes longer to build than the puzzle/casual games. How can an Indie (here meaning a 1-3 person operation) in these areas do anything else than have a one game focus?

So how has it worked for us? Just grand really. We've not had our breakout yet, but I'm hopeful that our next attempt will be it.

But anyhow, you certainly can be successful.

[Jack Norton]

But I have a feeling that a large content game like an RPG or RTS or TBS just simply takes longer to build than the puzzle/casual games. How can an Indie (here meaning a 1-3 person operation) in these areas do anything else than have a one game focus?

Infact that's what I said some time ago but suddenly got bashed by people :) like I had said that puzzle games are crap...! I only said that they are easier to make, that's all, I think is so clear!

BTW I am looking forward to your next game :)

[Andy]

Infact that's what I said some time ago but suddenly got bashed by people :) like I had said that puzzle games are crap...! I only said that they are easier to make, that's all, I think is so clear!

No way Jack! You will not run through me with such statement! :)

Look. Really you are right in fact of "to make". But you should add and measure here also "to market" and "to sell". Now weight everything and say me what is easier in common? I'm pretty not sure that it is so easy journey to get the success with casual titles. Ask Terin, ask James C. and another guys.

So, that's just the question of bets for me. One bets on a single game another trying to go for series. Everything is hard and easy from the different points of view. No?

[Jack Norton]

In this case, by "make" I intend only the process of creating the game from zero to a final version (including gfx, sounds, playtesting, etc).
Not selling it or other stuff :)

[Andy]

OK. Accepted. ;)

[Sillysoft]

I've had a 'one-game focus' for the past 2 years and it has worked very well for me. It's allowed me to build my game from a very simple beginning to a really full featured game with a bunch of bells and whistles added. My game is multiplayer, so it's also been a process of building up a community around the game. I've been able to streamline my tech-support (sometimes tweaking the game) to cut-down on the common problems people have and make it easier for users to get into the game.

I started with a big vision of what I wanted, and there was no way that a one-man operation could make it quickly. So I released the very bare bones version first and then continued to add the things that I wanted. I think this is an excellent route to take for an indie operation to build up a deep game.