Onslaught! Arena featured today with the Google Chrome Webstore release

[richtaur]

SUNNYVALE, CA -- Lost Decade Games is proud to announce its first release: Onslaught! Arena, a medieval fantasy arcade shoot 'em up. Built using HTML5 technologies, Onslaught! Arena is now available for sale in the Chrome Webstore via Google Checkout.

About Onslaught! Arena

Originally created for the Games Inspired by Music contest from Boing Boing, Onslaught! Arena began as a quick two-week project with programming by Geoff Blair, art by Matt Hackett and music/sound effects by Joshua Morse. Over the next few months, Geoff and Matt continued to tweak and improve the game and stuff it full of content, including:

* 50 waves of combat
* Over a dozen ferocious monsters
* More than 6 types of weapons
* Ability to continue from a saved game
* Online high score table

About Lost Decade Games

Lost Decade Games was founded by Geoff Blair and Matt Hackett in September of 2010. Combined, Geoff and Matt have over 20 years of programming and design experience. Our goal is to create engaging, fun HTML5 games with a focus on gameplay and strategy.

About the Chrome Webstore

The Chrome Webstore is "an open market for apps." Released by Google in December of 2010, the webstore enables users to easily discover and install applications built for the web, with the option to pay for premium software via Google Checkout.

Related links

* Onslaught! Arena's official home page: http://www.lostdecadegames.com/onslaught_arena
* Onslaught! Arena in the Chrome Webstore: https://chrome.google.com/extensions...lcofbghjdgfaih
* Onslaught! Arena Free Trial / Demo: http://play.lostdecadegames.com/onslaught_arena/demo
* Onslaught! Arena Press Kit: http://www.lostdecadegames.com/asset..._press_kit.zip
* Contact: hello@lostdecadegames.com

[Jack Norton]

Congrats on the release!
I didn't know that Chrome was live. BTW on your page says 700 weekly installs... seems your game is doing well!

[princec]

Hm hung chrome here after a couple of seconds of lagging sound on the menu.
Latest everything, Vista64.

<edit> But worked the second time.

Cas

[richtaur]

Congrats on the release!
I didn't know that Chrome was live. BTW on your page says 700 weekly installs... seems your game is doing well!

Thanks a lot! Unfortunately the vast majority of those are demo plays and not purchases

Hm hung chrome here after a couple of seconds of lagging sound on the menu.
Latest everything, Vista64.

<edit> But worked the second time.

Cas

Good info, thanks. Admittedly we haven't done much testing on Windows. I'll check that out

[Bad Sector]

Do i download anything if i buy the game?

[richtaur]

Do i download anything if i buy the game

Nope, other than the files the app requires from our server Stuff like the graphics and mp3 files …

What you'd be buying is access to the game with the full 50 waves and 5 bosses as opposed to the demo with 10 waves and 1 boss.

[Bad Sector]

So how is this different from a Flash game, beyond that you have to pay for it?

Can't you make it downloadable?

Right now it really feels like paying for something and getting nothing. It shouldn't be hard to make it downloadable.

[electronicStar]

any fashions of statistics would be appreciated

[lennard]

So how is this different from a Flash game, beyond that you have to pay for it?

Can't you make it downloadable?

Right now it really feels like paying for something and getting nothing. It shouldn't be hard to make it downloadable.

How would he make more money that way?

[Jack Norton]

How would he make more money that way?

Lol indeed, is like asking Blizzard to have WoW downloadable to play it offline

[Bad Sector]

How would he make more money that way?

That is his problem to solve. Customers rarely care about the developer's problems, especially when it comes to how take their money more effectively :-).

Honestly, it feels like a rip off. You're basically buying access to some web address - ie. nothing. You don't get anything in return for your money - not even a download. You will not be able to play the game without connection. If his server goes down, your game goes down with it and your money will be lost. If the server is unreachable, your game is unreachable. You're basically handing over money for a promise (for the server to be there). The game is basically a Flash game like those available in Newgrounds, Kongregate, etc for free (to the players), with a similar quality but with a price usually found in downloadables (games you buy and get a download link for and you can keep in your backup CDs, external hard disk and - if you're getting it from a digital distributor like Steam - your account).

I don't support or even like this model and i will voice my concerns about it because i don't ever want to see it coming nearly to any level of success. I value my game purchases a lot and i don't want and i'm not going to support such models which are against me and provide nothing for me.

Making "more" money doesn't justify all actions you know, there are limits to what people will accept.

@Jack Norton:
Last time i checked being online is a core part of WoW's gameplay.

[Jack Norton]

Sorry about the OT - yours is an issue that was recently raised also in renpy forums when all of a suddenly a bunch of devs came to offer their "online only VNs" claiming that downloadables VN were dead and the only way to make money was with online VN (theory which has proven completely wrong but that's another topic). Lots of people started to complain because they don't like to pay for something like that, something that doesn't give you anything tangible in return.

I agree with you then, I thought it was a sort of MMO (I hadn't time to check it). If is indeed a single player without any need to be online, is hard to justify it for some players (not everyone will complain, but many yes).

[lennard]

From the research I've done and #'s I've seen - Flash games aren't making enough money to keep the lights on unless they are being sponsored or selling items after the fact. It's not a viable long term business. But selling games through the browser is.

BS, I don't see the point in telling Richtaur to spend a bunch of engineering effort to start giving away his game. Same goes for telling Cliffski to get on the stick to go to further lengths for his review site.

If you were to present an argument for a better business model for Richtaur that would lead to him having a better business... then great. But demanding he do a bunch of work to give his product away because you don't like it and/or the fact that he is trying to make money from a game you play through the browser? I don't get it.

[richtaur]

any fashions of statistics would be appreciated

Been compiling data, will post all my numbers after the first week of info

You will not be able to play the game without connection. If his server goes down, your game goes down with it and your money will be lost. If the server is unreachable, your game is unreachable.

Not true.

1. The only reason we're providing a hosted app is because the webstore doesn't (yet) support free trials with their packaged apps. Once they do, we will. But in the meantime:
2. The application can be permanently available via HTML5 app cache, which Chrome fully supports.

If you were to present an argument for a better business model for Richtaur that would lead to him having a better business...

On other business models:

We've been hearing that many players are accustomed (for better or for worse) to playing games for free and putting up with ads. But here's the thing: that's a crappy user experience. Nobody wants ads, and some players are clearly happy to pay a few dollars to avoid them altogether. We may very well end up providing an ad-supported full version just to reach a larger audience, but Google has made it easy to sell our game, so why wouldn't we?

[Bad Sector]

From the research I've done and #'s I've seen - Flash games aren't making enough money to keep the lights on unless they are being sponsored or selling items after the fact. It's not a viable long term business. But selling games through the browser is.

Success depends on the game and it is true that most games, by a huge margin, are crap. Even most of the highly successful Flash games wouldn't make a dime as downloadables - this isn't strange since a lot of them have much lower production values.

BS, I don't see the point in telling Richtaur to spend a bunch of engineering effort to start giving away his game.

I never said to give it away. I just mentioned some other options, but mostly i mentioned my issues with it, not solutions. I don't know about solutions, but i do know about the problems i see.

Same goes for telling Cliffski to get on the stick to go to further lengths for his review site.

This is totally unrelated. My comments here are because i saw something i disliked while my comments about Cliffski's site were because i saw something i liked but i thought that it should be improved. Especially the part about using a database instead of hardcoding article names because from personal experience i know that unless he stops updating it after 3-4 articles, it will be much harder to do it. And there isn't really a reason to not do it since he already uses PHP.

If you were to present an argument for a better business model for Richtaur that would lead to him having a better business... then great.

I don't know of a better business model - in fact i don't know if this is a good business model. I'm not judging it as a business model nor from the perspective of a developer but from the perspective of a player (from the developer's perspective i can say that a pay-per-play might be a better model, but good luck doing this - also from a player's perspective this is much worse :-).

But demanding he do a bunch of work to give his product away because you don't like it and/or the fact that he is trying to make money from a game you play through the browser? I don't get it.

I never said that. I am trying myself to make money from games you play through the browser, but i'm not asking (and i will never ask) the players money for giving nothing back to them (and yes i don't consider just playing the game as giving something - it is like saying that if i go to a friend's house and play one of the games he bought, he gave something to me).

Also keep in mind that i also proposed for a downloadable version in addition to the online. Being able to keep the item i bought makes a HUGE difference.

@richtaur:
Both options you mentioned are volatile. The web, either we like it or not, is not a place that once you put something in it stays there forever.

[lennard]

I can say that a pay-per-play might be a better model, but good luck doing this - also from a player's perspective this is much worse :-).

I'm not sure why pay for play is OK but charging a one time $4.99 isn't. Would you be happier if you were paying $4.99 for the chance to continue playing after the first levels completed?


and yes i don't consider just playing the game as giving something - it is like saying that if i go to a friend's house and play one of the games he bought, he gave something to me

I flat out disagree, of course you got something just as surely as if you had gone to the theatre, forked out $10 and watched a movie for 2 hours. You paid for an experience, hopefully you had a good time. Are you saying that the only OK way to make money with games is to give and guarantee permanent ownership of something? If I buy a game from you for $2.99 are you saying that you would make sure it always ran for me forevermore?

Games are being sold at snack prices. Actually, I live in Canada where most convenience store snacks are more than 99 cents... The business model has to evolve if new games with decent production values are going to continue to be made. IMHO it is perfectly OK to sell somebody an experience for a certain amount of money.

[richtaur]

@richtaur:
Both options you mentioned are volatile. The web, either we like it or not, is not a place that once you put something in it stays there forever.

If you read the packaged linked I posted, the app is installed on your machine. No Internet required; Google could disappear the next day and you could still play my game forever.

Lennard mentioned watching a movie, and yeah it's the same experience. Arcade machines work the same way. I put tons of quarters into, say, Street Fighter II as a kid, and I did it happily. I left with nothing, just a fun experience. People are obviously willing to pay for goods and services.

[electronicStar]

Honestly, it feels like a rip off. You're basically buying access to some web address - ie. nothing.

That's exactly the impression I got after studying the whole chrome webstore stuff for several hours yesterday, trying to make sense of it .
The whole system is rather esoteric and dissimulated behind a lot of fancy terms but basically it looks like Google has invented "proprietary internet". It's like they took standard internet content and formatted it to work only in their proprietary browser and pasted a fancy name on it. The only slight advantage being gaining access to their monetization mechanism.

As for the discussin about flash games, IMHO this business model isn't really working for devellopers. I agree that there is A LOT of crap games being released but if you look closely you'll see that there is also of proportion of good or very good games, which despite being a minority in the flash population are still existing in great numbers. The problem is that there is only a minority of these good devellopers who get sufficient money returns in relation to the time they put in this thing, and as a matter of fact, the more crappy and quickly made games are sometimes those that make the more money, as the flash market is a twitch-market.
So IMHO there should be an evolution toward sthg else than the current model of "free portal". At least for devellopers.

[lennard]

I believe that evolution is in progress with the pay for items model.

I like making small arcade games like my old Battle Castles title - it's a kind of game I really enjoy developing. I've been thinking a lot about how to get a couple of cents per player so the developer would essentially be operating an arcade. I think the virtual coins model can enable this - every game in the arcade is free but restarts cost a little bit. Lots of folks won't be into paying to continue but that's OK, they can start over for free and you still make a midgeon of ad. revenue from them.

[Bad Sector]

I can say that a pay-per-play might be a better model, but good luck doing this - also from a player's perspective this is much worse :-).

I'm not sure why pay for play is OK but charging a one time $4.99 isn't.

Please read again the whole sentence, not just the part you quoted, especially the part that says that i'm not judging the model from the developer's point of view but from the player's. And even in the part you quoted i clearly said that pay-per-play is much worse than the Google's model.

you got something just as surely as if you had gone to the theatre, forked out $10 and watched a movie for 2 hours. You paid for an experience, hopefully you had a good time.

...and...

Lennard mentioned watching a movie, and yeah it's the same experience.

No it is not. In fact it is far from it. When i'm going to the cinema i'm going for the whole package the cinema provides, not just for watching the movie. The "cinema experience" includes having Big Huge GIGASCREEN, an excellent surround sound system, the best seats money can buy (or somewhere close to that), the social aspect of it (going with friends and family or even just the other people there, making comments in the break), etc. Oh, and also watching the movie. In a setting you can get nowhere else.

Arcades are similar, although much more limited since the only aspect they have from all the above that you can't find elsewhere is the social part.

Are you saying that the only OK way to make money with games is to give and guarantee permanent ownership of something? If I buy a game from you for $2.99 are you saying that you would make sure it always ran for me forevermore?

No i don't say that. I'm saying, if you ask the player for money you should give him something in return he can keep and access independently from you or anyone else. If he can play it forever or not should depend on himself alone (like having the proper system, etc).

The business model has to evolve if new games with decent production values are going to continue to be made.

Yes. It is called "downloadable games". Or "digital distribution". Or whatever you want to call the model where you put a non-snack price on a decent game people will like and let them pay to download it.

IMHO it is perfectly OK to sell somebody an experience for a certain amount of money.

Depends on the experience and the implications.

[lennard]

No it is not. In fact it is far from it. When i'm going to the cinema i'm going for the whole package the cinema provides, not just for watching the movie.


Yeah, but if you go to your friends house to watch a movie he rented then the movie company still got paid. Same is true in the model being described, in neither case did ownership change hands.


No i don't say that. I'm saying, if you ask the player for money you should give him something in return he can keep and access independently from you or anyone else. If he can play it forever or not should depend on himself alone (like having the proper system, etc).


Loads of happy players would disagree with you. I'm voting with them since they are where the money comes from. My kids all have WOW accounts and happily fork over $15 a month for another chance to live in that universe for another month. They are paying for the experience not ownership.


Yes. It is called "downloadable games". Or "digital distribution". Or whatever you want to call the model where you put a non-snack price on a decent game people will like and let them pay to download it.


Can you point me to a downloadable game that you currently have for sale that is successfully paying you and your team for the effort you put into it? I've been in that market for years and, except for Dungeon Demon, I'm not developing another line of code for it until something changes (an event I'm not holding my breath for).

[Jack Norton]

They're just two business models (old vs new). As indie you can make good money with both. I hear most are shifting into online/microtransaction though, and that's the future. Since I make story-based games I'm somewhat "immune", but if I was making arcade/strategy/simulations I would be rather stupid not to look into this new business model.
Still what matters is a good game, not the payment system

[richtaur]

Either way it's an interesting perspective. Sounds like some people are just inherently distrustful of the cloud.

[Bad Sector]

Yeah, but if you go to your friends house to watch a movie he rented then the movie company still got paid. Same is true in the model being described, in neither case did ownership change hands.

I'm not going to my friend's house for watching the movie alone but also to visit my friend. Again there are more to it than simply watching the movie.

Also movie rentals are MUCH cheaper than going to the cinema. I can rent a movie for one euro here while i need about 15 euros to go to the cinema.

My kids all have WOW accounts and happily fork over $15 a month for another chance to live in that universe for another month. They are paying for the experience not ownership.

As i mentioned above, online games are a different case and an online game cannot function without the servers. I'm talking about single player games here.

Can you point me to a downloadable game that you currently have for sale that is successfully paying you and your team for the effort you put into it? I've been in that market for years and, except for Dungeon Demon, I'm not developing another line of code for it until something changes (an event I'm not holding my breath for).

I don't understand this part, do you need proof that downloadable games work? If this is the case, there are others in this forum which can inform you much better about that than me since sadly my last downloadable game was made five years ago and it wasn't much of a success. I'm not blaming the market, or the model, or trying to find any scapegoat here of course - the game itself had serious flaws.

[lennard]

Also movie rentals are MUCH cheaper than going to the cinema. I can rent a movie for one euro here while i need about 15 euros to go to the cinema.


Cost is besides the point but since we are pricing downloadable games between 99 cents and $4.99 this doesn't really support your argument...


I'm talking about single player games here.

Just to be clear... your point is that it's not OK for a player to pay money for a single player game unless they get some kind of transferal of ownership? That if they want an experience and somebody went to the time and expense of making such an experience, that it's not OK by you for that player to hand over some money to get that experience? Did you spend most of 80's and 90's really, really cranky? Ever heard of the arcades?


I don't understand this part, do you need proof that downloadable games work? If this is the case, there are others in this forum which can inform you much better ...

Yeah, I'm one of the guys who develops, funds and sells those games every day... Back when you could get $19.99 for a niche indie. game then it was a workable model. Players no longer expect to pay that for a title and dev. costs to make those kinds of titles haven't gone down...

[ecruz]

I don't support or even like this model and i will voice my concerns about it because i don't ever want to see it coming nearly to any level of success. I value my game purchases a lot and i don't want and i'm not going to support such models which are against me and provide nothing for me.

Chill out, this guys is just trying to make some money, why are you not so happy about ?
If this new model works, isn't that great for the overall indie developer, because they can earn money this way too ?

If you as a customer not happy, then don't buy it, maybe it's just not for you, no need to make a big fuss all over it.

Making "more" money doesn't justify all actions you know, there are limits to what people will accept.

LOL.... you make him sounds like a bad guy, this is just ridiculous
he is not trying to steal your money or anything

[Bad Sector]

Cost is besides the point but since we are pricing downloadable games between 99 cents and $4.99 this doesn't really support your argument...

It was an argument about the cost of an "experience". Pricing downloadable games between 0.99 and 4.99 actually does support my argument: with the same money one can get a downloadable and keep.

Just to be clear... your point is that it's not OK for a player to pay money for a single player game unless they get some kind of transferal of ownership? That if they want an experience and somebody went to the time and expense of making such an experience, that it's not OK by you for that player to hand over some money to get that experience? Did you spend most of 80's and 90's really, really cranky? Ever heard of the arcades?

I don't know how you come up with all those things i never said. What i said is plain and simple, i don't see how it is hard to understand it.

Yeah, I'm one of the guys who develops, funds and sells those games every day... Back when you could get $19.99 for a niche indie. game then it was a workable model. Players no longer expect to pay that for a title and dev. costs to make those kinds of titles haven't gone down...

Increasing development costs is a reality that exists with the industry since the first time two gamers had to choose between two games and the developers had to prove their game was better. This is nothing new. But as i said, it isn't a case that justifies all actions.

@ecruz:
That what i'm not happy about is the model, not richtaur trying to make money. And no, it is not great and i've explained why in my previous posts.

In any case, this discussion probably went too long. Richtaur got the message that there are people who dislike the model he used, which was my intention.

[JGOware]

I have no problem with the google web app store. I'm also going to be considering pay per play options in 2011. Single game experiences similar to arcades back in the day, etc.

[Jack Norton]

Yeah, I'm one of the guys who develops, funds and sells those games every day... Back when you could get $19.99 for a niche indie. game then it was a workable model. Players no longer expect to pay that for a title and dev. costs to make those kinds of titles haven't gone down...

Well. I'm happy to inform you that you're wrong
Surely, it's much harder now but can still be done. I sell all my games at $19.99 and my new upcoming RPG will be $24.95. Aldorlea sells some RPG even at $29.99. Cliff sells *a lot* at $19-25. Sillysoft does. Basilisk games. Spiderweb. Soldak. (yes most of them are RPG/strategy/simulations)
One thing is sure, the quality bar has raised a lot. I couldn't think to sell a game for $19.99 using Poser art anymore, for example!

[Colm]

Glad to see you are charging & look forward to some feedback stats later on.

edit: can't try demo without approving email address handover?