Portals should get together on time restrictions

[svero]

I think the portals, even though they compete, should seriously consider using standard time restriction mechanisms. Right now if I want to play say... chuzzle by popcap I can download it from ... (maybe its not on all these sites yet but you'll get the point) bigfish, real, popcap itself, reflexive, gamehouse, iwin, gamefiesta,trygames,shockwave etc...

And each version I download has a 1hr timeout done in it's own way. So I can play for 8-9hrs without buying a thing for the price of a few extra downloads, which is pretty trivial on my dsl line for a small game. I suspect a lot of customers have already figured this out and take advantage of it. The danger is obvious of course. They get in enough extra play that they're ready for a new game and don't buy.

[ggambett]

You're absolutely right. They should agree on a method - I'm not sure whether even portals using the same wrapper (a few are using TryMedia now) share restrictions; I guess not. OR they should let the developers implement it themselves and provide a SDK to do the unlocking.

Pulling this of should be feasible technically, but are all the portals going to agree on what to do? Maybe we developers should come up with a solution in the form of a library or something.

Say you make a public/private key pair and give the private key to the portals. Whenever their buy mechanism decide the game is "purchased", they generate a license, encrypt it using your private key, and store it in a standard location in the registry. Your game uses the public key to decrypt and verify the license. Of course is crackable but this isn't what we're trying to solve here.

Or they could just provide some simple API hooks (StartPurchaseProcess(), GetMoreGames()) and let you do the time and feature limits.

[soniCron]

I think the portals, even though they compete, should seriously consider using standard time restriction mechanisms.
Frankly, I think they should lose the time restrictions alltogether. I'm not convinced they influence a user to buy a game any more than very well placed content limitations. I know they force the user to buy the game faster, but that doesn't convince me that it's better.

I'm considering the people that don't have the money right now and run out of their time. They don't play the game again, and even if they get their paychecks tomorrow, the game may have already been forgotten for another freshly downloaded game. Assuming there are noticable downloads from younger people, this is even more of a problem.

I also think you really don't get any "fans" with time restrictions. It often takes time to get interested in a game and develop the skills playing it. I know casual games tend to be a little lighter on the learning curve, but I think you prevent the player from forming any possible attatchment to the game, which can be much more beneficial in the long run. They are more loyal to the company, recommend it to their friends (which is, by far, the most valuable advertising), and even go so far as to buying additional merchandise, not just the sequel.

It could be argued that with puzzle games, you need a quick turn around and content limitations are near impossible. I disagree. I'm sick of seeing only one gameplay mode in puzzle games. If there are more, they're usually rehashed and offer little more than the original mode. I know there are plenty out there that break this mold, but there are far too many that don't.

In my mind, selling a game with time restrictions is very near selling a product on store shelves, minus such excessive costs. You're still forcing the player to buy the game based on his/her limited experience and flash-and-pizazz (which goes against my ideals as a shareware author). Of course, I recognize the difficulty in normalizing the restrictive measures that portals enforce, so content limitations via such a distrobution method will almost definately never happen.

So yes, I agree. While content limitations would overcome the problem of time restrictions, the problem still exists and a solution should be found. However, another, much more serious, flaw exists: portal cracks. Entire game libraries from portals are being cracked because of the similar protection methods being used to wrap all the games. This leaves everyone's profitability at risk, and I think it needs to be seriously addressed before we just accept the fact that portals will give us exposure, "and that's ok".

[Robert Cummings]

I think you should try selling your game before being convinced at what does and does not work. It is OK to be opinionated though, but you will be brought up pretty sharp when you try to sell your own game.

These techniques have been developed over years of trial and error by seasoned professionals - they know what works. I am not saying it cannot be improved on, but it is better to try any ideas you have out yourself.

You said:
I'm considering the people that don't have the money right now and run out of their time. We are not targetting kids, there is no point. All the games here target people with disposable incomes. There never has been a point targetting people with very little money because those people historically don't spend what little they have on shareware videogaming.

However, another, much more serious, flaw exists: portal cracks. Entire game libraries from portals are being cracked because of the similar protection methods being used to wrap all the games.
This isn't harming our sales. Again you are being highly opinionated and not doing the proper research. The vast majority of portal users actually have disposable incomes and are clueless on how to search for and apply the proper cracks.

Kids and people who would never otherwise buy our games crack them for five minutes play - the very same people who crack games usually never buy them anyway.


To sum up, you've told us everything that you think is wrong with it, and offered no solution.

On topic: I think it is possible for us to detect if our game is running in demo mode and set a registry key as an extra layer of protection, however this is something that requires a lot more work on our part. I do know that some portals allow us to detect this.

[svero]

Frankly, I think they should lose the time restrictions alltogether. I'm not convinced they influence a user to buy a game any more than very well placed content limitations.

You'd be right if you said that a 1hr time limit wasn't always the best restriction you could put on every game. Some games do indeed sell better with different sorts of restrictions. However a big company making several releases doesn't want to tailor their payment system per game for other reasons as well. For instance they probably want a consistent user interface for repeat customers.

But really the most suprising thing about your post is that it's written as if there were some kind of opinion element involved. Thankfully here's finally one thing nobody ever has to argue about again ever. The 1hr timelimit is not guesswork. It can be tested. And it has been by several people including myself and Realarcade. Real didn't just pick a number out of a hat and put the system in place.

[Emmanuel]

I have a 1 hour restriction on the golf (since I knew that's what BigFish, Real et al were going to apply anyway), it works well in terms of sales.

Best regards,
Emmanuel

[James C. Smith]

And each version I download has a 1hr timeout done in it's own way. So I can play for 8-9hrs without buying a thing for the price of a few extra downloads

But the player would have to start the game over from the beginning each time she downloads it from a different portal. For a game like chuzzle this may not be a big deal, but most games (even causal games) have some kind of level progression and the player really doesn’t want to start over again.

What about the portals like Real Networks who don’t force the game to quit after 1 hour. If you want to get 9 hours of free play you don’t need to download the game from 9 portals. You just need to get it from one portal and play for 9 hours straight without exiting the program. And yet the portal is able to sell lots of copies.

I really don’t think these small leaks are going to hurt sales much. Sure, players can get a little more trial time than they should, but they will still probably buy the game if they like it.

If someone wants to start a new topic to discus if/when/why time limits should be used at all then I would be able to share by theories on that old debate. But lets not do it in this topic.

[svero]

But the player would have to start the game over from the beginning each time she downloads it from a different portal.

Somewhat ironically, a lot of games install to the same location and saved games can just be used to continue from where you left off. It's true though that the bottom line is probably not going to be affected much relative the effort and coordination it would take to syncronize all the buy methods.. in that light it seems a bit of a silly pipe dream. Just the same I think a lot of people are probably taking advantage of multiple demo downloads from different sites to get around time limits.

[Black Hydra]

Time kills the sale. Thats probably why time-restricted demo's are so popular. I used to think they were ineffective, but that was until I actually tried some shareware games I liked. If you give people a chance to put off buying something they will probably take it.

We are never our own customers. Thats why opinions for stuff can get in the way. If only market research were as easy as forming an opinion. Unfortunately, people like myself want to participate in these discussions, but until we can get our game to market and start conducting some research, all we can offer is opinions.

[baegsi]

It's the same discussion about people using pirated software. If someone bothers installing the same game nine times, he really isn't interested in buying your game anyway. In fact, people doing that are probably "sophisticated" enough and willing to use a crack in the first place. Those are not your customers, so I wouldn't care much.

[ggambett]

But it's easier and "safer" to download a game from N known portals than to search for a crack, hoping it doesn't have a virus, and so on.

[Robert Cummings]

It's the same discussion about people using pirated software. If someone bothers installing the same game nine times, he really isn't interested in buying your game anyway. In fact, people doing that are probably "sophisticated" enough and willing to use a crack in the first place. Those are not your customers, so I wouldn't care much.

I can't disagree more. Downloading the same game twice from two of your favorite portals doesn't mean any kind of savvy or warez ability. In fact (I'll call her a she) she might just think what she's doing is a clever trick.

I certainly don't think many portallers have the warez mentality. If they're capable of warez they are usually going for the latest Half Life, and I would imagine, don't have disposable incomes.

Very different from a woman who discovers luxor can be played longer if she gets it from real and msn.

There is little to no chance anything will be done about this, and in a way, thanks to my game being progressive in nature, it won't make much difference.

[baegsi]

I can't disagree more. Downloading the same game twice from two of your favorite portals doesn't mean any kind of savvy or warez ability. In fact (I'll call her a she) she might just think what she's doing is a clever trick.The real problem is: there's a plethora of stuff available for free anyway (and nothing to do against it). If it's her main motivation to sneak another hour out of a three-match game, she will also play the other 50+ available demos of similar clones and not buy your game.

The case that someone who really wants to play your game but does not buy it only because she could install different demos a couple of times is unlikely to happen. The crucial factor is convenience. If she has the money to spent, she won't bother dealing with technical tricks.

[svero]

At any one time there are maybe 2-5 new games of any quality. There's no plethora of stuff to play really. Just a lot of so so games and a few hits. My big problem is waiting for the next decent title to hit. Not choosing which of the 100 available downloads there are.

[soniCron]

I think you should try selling your game before being convinced at what does and does not work.
Touche! ;)

[luggage]

We tend to make our games time out after an hour but when they restart they'll get a few minutes play - rather than locking them out of the game.

[soniCron]

I noticed Raptisoft's scheme was somewhat unique, and I was wondering how well it seemed to fare? (Limited number of plays, with in-play time being limited.) Top that off with $12.95 prices (for Hamsterball, though I don't know for how long that lasted), and you've got something that not everyone is doing. How has that worked out for you? I assume you're making a living from it, though the quality of your titles is no doubt a large factor.

[Robert Cummings]

The reason hamsterball isn't time limited is because you can probably complete it in 45 minutes.