I was thinking along the lines of something like that, but discussion on this thread suggests a roadmap like that doesn't provide quite enough detail.
-- Yodapollo
i think something like that would be an excellent start, instead of giving dates of when it will be complete, maybe you could give the stage it's in for the most requested items like GameCenter or In App Purchase? like
I was thinking along the lines of something like that, but discussion on this thread suggests a roadmap like that doesn't provide quite enough detail.
-- Yodapollo
Thanks for the reply. It's nice to see more of you on here. Your holding your more communication promise successfully.
Come to think of it, I agree that Corona's Roadmap format doesn't provide enough information on how far along something is.
jonmulcahy said: i think something like that would be an excellent start, instead of giving dates of when it will be complete, maybe you could give the stage it's in for the most requested items like GameCenter or In App Purchase? like
GameCenter - in first round of QA
InApp Purchase - still in development
I would agree with that format. That format actually looks nice, and would give a very basic time frame. (in QA = near release ; in development = not near release)
RolfBertramDotCom said: This might have been mentioned before, so my post might be redundant: App memory limitations for image intense apps is limiting developers right now, if they want to create apps with plenty of high quality images. Every image loaded adds up to the memory, and after so many images loaded, for example by switching the scenery backdrop image so many times, or a puzzle game image (like in my "3x3 Puzzle" App, which is limited to 52 pictures due to memory overload), it gets to the app crash point, for example at 130 MB or so for an iPodTouchRetina. One way of being better than the competition as an app developer is excellent graphics, and plenty of them, and that right now gets easily beyond the memory limits, even though, images should be treated like the call to play music, it should not stay permanently in temporary, and limited memory. An App can be up to 2GB, but if embedded images when called are clogging up memory, only a tiny fraction of the possible app size can actually be used, apparently about 60MB, so, about 3%. Meaning, theoretically an app should be able to use about 30 times as many pictures as is possible with GS right now due to a missing memory release. I wish this issue would get top priority, so I can program without these limitations.
That is absolutely 100% correct. That is something that should be absolute #1 priority. If we are to make good apps as QS demands, part of that is being able to utilize good graphics and plenty of them. Good game play only goes so far when you are limited to so few backgrounds and images. Pong was great in its day but won't cut it anymore and people that produce that in GS make GS look like a joke.
As to the in-app purchases, they won't do you any good if the game sucks because people will only make an in-app purchase is they like the game. Thus, QS' analysis that people who want in-app purchases must only be concerned about monitizing and not about good games is way way off base. In fact, if you are going to do in-app purchases and actually want to make money your game better be superior to most other games. FYI, on plenty of games/apps (not mine) I have seen a ton of reviews stating in-app purchases should be present (e.g., puzzle games for more levels, games with multiple versions each with different prices depending on features in the game, interactive book/learning apps (i.e., instead of buying 10 different app books, can get one app in which all 10 books can be purchased in one app taking up less screen space on your IPAD) A great example are legal apps where you can download for free and then purchase the specific legal areas you need (e.g., Texas Rule, California Statutes, ect...). My point is that it is incorrect that users don't want in-app purchases. Do they want gamecenter more, possibly. But if you look at the actual studies, the vast majority of those purchasing apps say they do not use or care about gamecenter.
Anyways, i think we should get both asap. In-app purchases should not take any time away from the other items since it should be extremely easy to implement since all the work has been done by apple. Anyways, apple looks like they are starting to deny free apps that have paid versions stating that you should just have free apps with in-app purchases. If this trend continues, in-app purchases will have to be a priority. Until then, I understand there are other priorities but do want to make clear that users do want it (at least for certain types of apps) and wanting in-app purchases does not somehow make your games crap as QS implies.
tenrdrmerMember, Sous Chef, Senior Sous-ChefPosts: 9,934
Guys we are getting off subject. For the first time I have seen on the forum today offer a solution to many user complaints that is a great start of amazingly better communication. And then almost instantly users start saying well you don't have to go with to much. Let's just at least get a list made. HELLO!!!!! The list is already made. They Add it when they made the survey. Quit back pedaling we made huge breakthrough is communication go home have a beer and give yoda a chance to come through with this one because its a good thing and a big step.
And for the performance issues they've been identified and they are working on it. But guess what a road map with a plan show their goal for fixing performance issues then you would know and have the project you think needs better performance being worked on I'm the background so you can focus on projects now that don't need performance increases.
Today was good day for the community. Let's enjoy today while being cautiously optimistic because the ball os in yodapollo/gamesalads court to keep this moving in a positive direction.
tenrdrmer said: Guys we are getting off subject. For the first time I have seen on the forum today offer a solution to many user complaints that is a great start of amazingly better communication. And then almost instantly users start saying well you don't have to go with to much. Let's just at least get a list made. HELLO!!!!! The list is already made. They Add it when they made the survey. Quit back pedaling we made huge breakthrough is communication go home have a beer and give yoda a chance to come through with this one because its a good thing and a big step.
And for the performance issues they've been identified and they are working on it. But guess what a road map with a plan show their goal for fixing performance issues then you would know and have the project you think needs better performance being worked on I'm the background so you can focus on projects now that don't need performance increases.
Today was good day for the community. Let's enjoy today while being cautiously optimistic because the ball os in yodapollo/gamesalads court to keep this moving in a positive direction.
I agree, but you've got people stating that certain things are not important and if no one states they think its important then it looks like everyone agrees with them. GS should hear input from all. So I will continue to give my opinion. They say they want to know what we want, so I say tell them. Just because you are satisfied with what they are doing does not mean I should not make suggestions or comments. It is a forum after all.
tenrdrmerMember, Sous Chef, Senior Sous-ChefPosts: 9,934
dotsonj23 said: I agree, but you've got people stating that certain things are not important and if no one states they think its important then it looks like everyone agrees with them. GS should hear input from all. So I will continue to give my opinion. They say they want to know what we want, so I say tell them. Just because you are satisfied with what they are doing does not mean I should not make suggestions or comments. It is a forum after all.
I'm not saying you shouldn't tell them but everyones opinions of what is and isn't important needs to have been put in the survey they did two weeks ago now by bring in every feature we way in this thread is clouding what's happening. At this point We need to see re road map from GS which is being made partially based o the survey reslults so we actually got a legitimate solution offered today by a head cheif no less. so let's not keep boggig this topic with each feature request, i mean there is a whole section of the forum for that , and let see if they follow though with this solution. Once we see their position on all the features you may find that your thoughts and theirs match so no need to post about it. Or you will know what you need to push for because they are not headed in the direction you had hoped for.
Even in all of my bitching the underlying problem has always been we don't know where GS stands on any of it. Their honest communication could solve so many problems the community has with features, performance, perks etc...
In response to some earlier posts, in app purchasing is an important feature and should be added into GS, AFTER we get Game Center,Twitter and FB. We need those features in order to up the ante and become competitive, both as devs, and for GS as a tool. Don't underestimate the value of in app purchasing... I've spoken with high earning devs who swear by it, and if you look at some of them top grossing apps, many of them are free with iAP. BUT, we need Game Center, Twitter, and FB and we needed it yesterday!
butterbean said: In response to some earlier posts, in app purchasing is an important feature and should be added into GS, AFTER we get Game Center,Twitter and FB. We need those features in order to up the ante and become competitive, both as devs, and for GS as a tool. Don't underestimate the value of in app purchasing... I've spoken with high earning devs who swear by it, and if you look at some of them top grossing apps, many of them are free with iAP. BUT, we need Game Center, Twitter, and FB and we needed it yesterday!
yep, besides the fact apple started rejecting lite version and is saying to have one free app with in app purchasing.
butterbean said: In response to some earlier posts, in app purchasing is an important feature and should be added into GS, AFTER we get Game Center,Twitter and FB. We need those features in order to up the ante and become competitive, both as devs, and for GS as a tool. Don't underestimate the value of in app purchasing... I've spoken with high earning devs who swear by it, and if you look at some of them top grossing apps, many of them are free with iAP. BUT, we need Game Center, Twitter, and FB and we needed it yesterday!
I agree Gamecenter is needed. But facebook and twitter need to come at the end of the list (just my opinion). They simply are not needed. As to in-app purchases, the point is why not have it since apple has done all the work. It should be a simple addition at no cost to adding other features. I don't understand why people think it has to be one or the other first, when one (in-app purchases) would not get in the way of the other.
Everyone makes good points, and depending on what kind of game you're aiming to make will dictate what features are important to you as a developer. Game Center has been around for awhile now and is needed, and the other features mentioned are important too. Fingers crossed we get them soon, we need to be more competitive as a tool. That's the bottom line here.
butterbean said: Everyone makes good points, and depending on what kind of game you're aiming to make will dictate what features are important to you as a developer. Game Center has been around for awhile now and is needed, and the other features mentioned are important too. Fingers crossed we get them soon, we need to be more competitive as a tool. That's the bottom line here.
I would vote for gamecenter and/or facebook highscore. I have had many many comments saying my games would really benefit from a global leader board. I even had someone post a comment on touch arcade saying they are not buying my game because it doesnt have gamecenter.
I hear what you're saying, and you are of course entitled to your opinion, and to voice it. The more the merrier! However, my experience here has gone something like this:
*iAds announced as a 'Pro only' feature. *Because Pro was $2k, most people were excluded. A lot of forum posts were made begging to give iAds to everyone as another way to make money. *Those who already had Pro, myself included, were making no money with iAds. Even those with plenty of downloads. The figures just didn't make sense unless you were pulling in thousands of downloads a day. *We passed on this info, but people still wanted iAds. *The price of pro comes down. *Everyone starts putting iAds in their games that didn't sell and expected a miracle. *The miracle didn't happen. *Now largely the same people here are asking for in-App Purchases.
I did say that *IF* Apple made it a requirement of free Apps to have in-App purchases then it should be a priority (to conform to Apple standards).
If done right, then in-App purchases can certainly be useful for adding to a game that is already popular. But I've read too many reviews that say 'Dishonest - the app is free, but I have to pay to even get one level' - or, you know, something *like* that.
And legal apps are not games
If not required by Apple, then GameCentre (we've been asking for online leaderboards since *before* in-App purchases/iAds even existed!) and Facebook/Twitter, as well as arrays, have to be a priority. Lots of people here already make great games, but these games will always be knocked down a point or two for lacking standard online capability.
They add additional functionality and value to our games at no extra charge to the consumer. GameCentre adds to the sense of competition, as does Twitter and Facebook integration. And arrays would help broaden the types of games we can make.
My responsibility is to the people that play my games. I want to provide entertainment and fun for them. In exchange, if people like/notice the game and buy it, I get paid.
With in-App purchases, I can add further value to my game, it's true. But the base game has to be good (somethingI think we're both in agreement on). Hell, I'll probably use in-App purchases too if we have them. But I'd like my games to be fully featured first.
I get the sense that some people are still thinking this is a 'get rich quick' system. Some even take templates and put them onto the app store *unchanged*.
Making money by trying to con people, or 'Money for nothing' (making a game with the least amount of effort a la templates uploaded unchanged) is not the way forward for this software or the community.
That a lot of people are screaming out for in-App purchases (a way to monetise) as opposed to features that put us on equal footing with other App store games and gives value to our customers sends a signal to me, personally, that people are more interested in making money than making good games.
The thing is, making good games will help make you money far quicker than iAds ever will. And I suspect the same will be said of in-App purchases when we get them.
Again, I respect your opinion. Of course not everyone here should be labelled as money grabbing just because they want in-App purchases. But from what I've seen of the community lately...
Anyway - back on topic - I am *very* interested to see a roadmap of what's coming up. I'm sure people (and I might be one of them!) will disagree with what has been prioritised.
But hopefully we'll all get what we want eventually!
tenrdrmerMember, Sous Chef, Senior Sous-ChefPosts: 9,934
quantumsheep said: Anyway - back on topic - I am *very* interested to see a roadmap of what's coming up. I'm sure people (and I might be one of them!) will disagree with what has been prioritised.
But hopefully we'll all get what we want eventually!
Cheers,
QS
+1 QS
Also guys if we turn this topic into the latest feature request post we will have yet one less sticky to talk about the main subject of this topic, because it will get closed just like the Community FeedBack Features Request Sticky was.
I hear what you're saying, and you are of course entitled to your opinion, and to voice it. The more the merrier! However, my experience here has gone something like this:
*iAds announced as a 'Pro only' feature. *Because Pro was $2k, most people were excluded. A lot of forum posts were made begging to give iAds to everyone as another way to make money. *Those who already had Pro, myself included, were making no money with iAds. Even those with plenty of downloads. The figures just didn't make sense unless you were pulling in thousands of downloads a day. *We passed on this info, but people still wanted iAds. *The price of pro comes down. *Everyone starts putting iAds in their games that didn't sell and expected a miracle. *The miracle didn't happen. *Now largely the same people here are asking for in-App Purchases.
I did say that *IF* Apple made it a requirement of free Apps to have in-App purchases then it should be a priority (to conform to Apple standards).
If done right, then in-App purchases can certainly be useful for adding to a game that is already popular. But I've read too many reviews that say 'Dishonest - the app is free, but I have to pay to even get one level' - or, you know, something *like* that.
And legal apps are not games
If not required by Apple, then GameCentre (we've been asking for online leaderboards since *before* in-App purchases/iAds even existed!) and Facebook/Twitter, as well as arrays, have to be a priority. Lots of people here already make great games, but these games will always be knocked down a point or two for lacking standard online capability.
They add additional functionality and value to our games at no extra charge to the consumer. GameCentre adds to the sense of competition, as does Twitter and Facebook integration. And arrays would help broaden the types of games we can make.
My responsibility is to the people that play my games. I want to provide entertainment and fun for them. In exchange, if people like/notice the game and buy it, I get paid.
With in-App purchases, I can add further value to my game, it's true. But the base game has to be good (somethingI think we're both in agreement on). Hell, I'll probably use in-App purchases too if we have them. But I'd like my games to be fully featured first.
I get the sense that some people are still thinking this is a 'get rich quick' system. Some even take templates and put them onto the app store *unchanged*.
Making money by trying to con people, or 'Money for nothing' (making a game with the least amount of effort a la templates uploaded unchanged) is not the way forward for this software or the community.
That a lot of people are screaming out for in-App purchases (a way to monetise) as opposed to features that put us on equal footing with other App store games and gives value to our customers sends a signal to me, personally, that people are more interested in making money than making good games.
The thing is, making good games will help make you money far quicker than iAds ever will. And I suspect the same will be said of in-App purchases when we get them.
Again, I respect your opinion. Of course not everyone here should be labelled as money grabbing just because they want in-App purchases. But from what I've seen of the community lately...
Anyway - back on topic - I am *very* interested to see a roadmap of what's coming up. I'm sure people (and I might be one of them!) will disagree with what has been prioritised.
But hopefully we'll all get what we want eventually!
QS, I agree to much crap gets out there and the one level bs games with in-app purchases are weak. Again, my point is (from what I understand) is that they could implement in-app in very little time not taking away from implementing gamecenter etc... But enough said.
I do like that they appear to be communicating better. I do want a posting on their priorities. Heck, if in app-purchases is the lowest priority then I need to know so I can stop working on my game based on it and work on something else. I guess that is real point. We need the info for our upcoming projects.
As gave/app devs, we should be focused on making the best experience for the customer. 90% of making it on the app store, is good word of mouth. If a game is good to play, and has features that keep people playing, friends will tell friends will tell friends etc etc.
When I first got my iPhone, most of the games I bought were recommended by my friends.
Leaderboards etc has been top of my list since I started with GS 13 months ago.
The way I look at Gamecentre is as an equivalent to XBox live (whilst it's still in it's early days, I believe it adds the same sort of experience, but on a mobile platform)...it just gives games that extra play value of competing with everyone else who has the game.
Also, now that the windows phone is out, and has live on it, I can see Apple chucking some decent resources at GC in the near future.
Of course, it shouldn't be ignored that a lot of us here also are trying to build business out of this. (Some have already made good inroads into that), so there also needs to be features that help us to do that.
With iAds it IS possible to make money...but you need to get a decent amount of downloads in a day. More than 30K sustained I would think, should bring in some decent revenue. There was a thread on the unity forum about that snowboarding game that did like $17K in ads one day in the summer. There is no way you are going to make anything from a game that gets downloaded a couple of hundred times a day using iAds (i speak from experience there) In a nutshell....the snowboarding game looked good, and looking at the reviews, played pretty well too....a good game will always find a market (paid or free), so if you can monetize a free game thats getting downloaded, I'm all for that....anwyays, I'm drifting off track (note to self, 4 hours sleep is not enough).
I think my point was.....good games will always rise to the top (in some way or other *), and anything that makes GS made games "better" in the eyes of the punters should be top of everyones list, but things that help the business side of things should also not be dismissed out of hand.
*Running Wild and Quake Builder finally found an audience...it's a shame that it was not a paying audience, but they found one it seems....both good games....Imagine RW with timed levels, and a global leaderboard though...how much fun would that be!
As photics says, for me in app purchase and gamecenter are the most important features. I really need gamecenter. I know you cant give exact dates in progrmmation. But please tell me an estimate. For example: gamecenter will be ready from 3 more weeks to 7 more weeks.
Something like that, please i need to know for my curennt game.
I hear what you're saying, and you are of course entitled to your opinion, and to voice it. The more the merrier! However, my experience here has gone something like this:
*iAds announced as a 'Pro only' feature. *Because Pro was $2k, most people were excluded. A lot of forum posts were made begging to give iAds to everyone as another way to make money. *Those who already had Pro, myself included, were making no money with iAds. Even those with plenty of downloads. The figures just didn't make sense unless you were pulling in thousands of downloads a day. *We passed on this info, but people still wanted iAds. *The price of pro comes down. *Everyone starts putting iAds in their games that didn't sell and expected a miracle. *The miracle didn't happen. *Now largely the same people here are asking for in-App Purchases. --------------------------------
I agree with QS on what people have cried out for and the reality of whats happend.
For me, just score board and networking 2 games together would be the best thing which could happen.
I agree with you, and we absolutely, positively need Game Center to improve our apps.
FB and Twitter will also improve our games, not only competition wise, but marketing wise as well.
ie: If people post their score on FB via our app, or twitter, that's free marketing right there. If they have 200 plus friends, that's 200 plus people that have seen that post, and a small percentage may look at the app, and buy the game to compete with their friends.
It's very savvy marketing wise, so I think above in app purchasing, that these features are crucial to take our apps to the next level.
Sure, in app purchasing would be nice, but if you don't have a top ranking free app, then don't expect a whole lot. From what I hear from devs, a small percentage of people actually click to pay for the in app purchasing, unless you have an app like "Smurfs" that has a multitude of in app purchases available.
And people also need to get away from the "get rich quick scheme", or "lose weight quick scheme" which seems to be the folly of Americans, and people in general nowadays.
People coming out with books like the 4 hour work week, or the 4 hour diet, or "The Secret", and those damn MLM schemes that you don't even want to get me started on, is very synonymous to the mentality some developers have about the app store.
You're not going to get rich quick, and you're not going to lose 30 lbs in 30 days. Spend time making a great game, whether it's a twist on an old favorite, or something completely new, and groundbreaking.
(sorry for rambling, but you get what I mean... everyone thinks there is a quick fix for everything, and it's just not that simple)
Just wanted to give everyone a heads up in case my responses are few and far between during the daytime hours today. I'm attending MacWorld (so, if you're in the SF bay area and want say hi or chat, let me know!) and access to reliable web signal will be spotty at best. Don't fret, though. I'll be responding and posting to as much as possible in the evenings. Shouldn't be any fewer posts than I've been making on a daily basis, just coming at a different time.
Again, if you're in Sam Francisco (and especially at MacWorld) let me know or via PM and we'll work out some time to chat.
MagoNicolas said: As photics says, for me in app purchase and gamecenter are the most important features. I really need gamecenter.
I actually think Game Center is more important than in-app purchases. Yet, Game Center — COMPLETE GAME CENTER SUPPORT — with multiplayer and voice chat is a complicated task.
That's why I look at in-app purchases first. Sure, it can make money for developers, but that's not why I think it rates high up on the list.
• Easier to implement - I think things like arrays, multiplayer, vector graphics, better web plugin support and so many other features are important to Game Salad. Yet, I also consider things that are easy to add. For example, I think a "System Time" behavior or attribute should be high priority... even higher than Game Center or iAds... simply because it's so easy to add. I think it's a bit strange that a Game Salad game can't know what time it is. Something so trivial can create a lot of options for GameSalad developers... virtual pets, better random numbers, Farmville clone, creating in-game effects like sunsets (World of Warcraft does this.)
Apple has already done most of the work for in-app purchases. GameSalad only needs to connect the pieces.
• Competition - It's almost suicidal to leave out in-app purchases. Corona is gaining on GameSalad. The 1/25/2011 update added in-app purchases and universal builds. If GameSalad falls further behind - IT MAY NEVER RECOVER! The only real advantage has over the competitors is ease of use. Considering that Corona is gaining in that area too, I'd starting to become pessimistic about the future of GameSalad.
GameSalad Direct® really screwed things up. The damage from that decision really hurt the community. If GameSalad was straight-up with us, we could have told them the likely outcome. Those on the inside DID WARN THEM! Yet, the fiasco happened anyway.
• MAKE MONEY - This is not just about GameSalad developers making money... it's about the creators of GameSalad. If iAds are so bad - and I think they are - is the OpenURL behavior worth $499 a year? Without a custom loading screen, there's little incentive to upgrade to Pro. At least with in-app purchases, GameSalad developers have a better chance to recoup that investment.
IF GAMESALAD DOES NOT MAKE MONEY IT LIKELY DIES!
I think it's interesting to debate what should be the intention of GameSalad developers... should making money be the primary motivation for this endeavor? I don't think so. Even the top Game Salad developers aren't that well off. In the last year, I probably would have made more money delivering pizzas. Which is more fun... delivering pizzas or making games? It depends what your interests are. I like figuring out technical challenges of good game design. GameSalad is fun and profitable.
...but what's not debatable is that GameSalad is a business. If that business doesn't make money, that business goes away. So, for GameSalad to increase the sales of professional licenses, Game Center and in-app purchases are tied. Both would be attractive reasons for upgrading GameSalad to professional.
• Standards! - GameSalad has all of their eggs in one basket. The web support is lousy. PC / Windows support is non-existent. Android?! There's no Android action here. GameSalad is primarily for making iOS and Mac games. So, it's odd how GameSalad is so slow to support those standards. Again, Game Center and iAds are tied. It looks pretty bad to have software for making iOS games, when basic iOS features are not supported.
• Streamline iTunes Connect - Even if Apple doesn't reject lite/free versions of my app, I don't feel like making so many copies of my game. GameSalad is creating a lot of clutter...
--- One version for iPhone --- One free version for iPhone --- One version for iPad --- One free version for iPad
A universal binary — with in-app purchases — would replace those four apps with a single app.
If I was in-charge, I'd basically schedule things like this...
Next update... -- Game Center (Achievements and Rankings) -- in-app purchases -- System Time
Following update... -- Game Center (network support) -- Improved App Performance
Update after that... -- Game Center (voice chat)
The Mac App Store is nice. It seems that the GameSalad team thinks that's the way to give them an edge over their competitors. It's certainly a nice way to hype-up the software, but they're about two weeks too late. The Mac App Store doesn't look like a big moneymaker yet. Heh... unless you're Apple or the makers of Pixelmator...
I think it makes sense to focus on iOS game development. Things like improved performance (Both for apps and the GameSalad Creator), Game Center and in-app purchases should have taken precedence.
I actually think better web plug-in support is just as important than in-app purchases, Game Center or the Mac App Store. My most successful games were on my website. By building games for Apple and their network, I'm sending customers away from my website.
The point is we can debate what's more important. What's not as debatable is difficulty. While in-app purchases may not be as desirable as Game Center, is it as difficult to implement? The GameSalad team knows the challenges better than I do, but I'm thinking in-app purchases are easier than full Game Center support. Corona already has in-app purchases.
Perhaps that's why Game Center should be implemented immediately. Don't duplicate the competitors. Perhaps Game Center support would attract developers back to GameSalad.
I support IAP as the major feature that needs to be integrated. Not because of In-App sales, but because it's easier to integrate than GameCenter, especially integrating it into a no-coding environment.
@Photics: I like your unofficial roadmap, it's the best professional roadmap I have seen.
@GS: I would also suggest integrating OpenFient too. Having GameCenter and OpenFient would add competition, as "C" has OpenFient.
Thanks for that post. You make some very interesting points and especially strong points on GameCenter and In-App Purchasing. Certainly, we're moving fast on improving our web support. In fact, we will have tripled the size of our web dev team by mid-February, barring any significant roadblocks.
butterbean said: Thanks Yoda for all your updates!
It certainly is a change from recent months! I think the GameSalad team is starting to move in the right direction.
I didn't know the recent web hires were related to web plug-in development.
I think the web team should make GameSalad web based. That way, a GameSalad to Corona converter couldn't rip off the user interface. It would also be a huge boon for GameSalad in general...
• GameSalad Creator on iPad • GameSalad Creator on PC
That would likely attract more customers. Considering the GameSalad software is basically drag-and-drop with XML code, HTML 5 should be able to handle it. That means the software could be run on other platforms besides the Mac.
butterbean said: @iDeveloper: Thanks! I never actually knew that
Thanks Yoda for all your updates!
Your Welcome. It's call viral because it spreads so fast. (like in your example)
Wikipedia:
"Viral marketing and viral advertising are buzzwords referring to marketing techniques that use pre-existing social networks to produce increases in brand awareness or to achieve other marketing objectives (such as product sales) through self-replicating viral processes, analogous to the spread of virus or computer viruses."
Comments
I would prefer GameSalad out do corona in every aspect since I have chosen to use gamesalad over all other engines.
GameCenter - in first round of QA
InApp Purchase - still in development
Send and Receive Data using your own Server Tutorial! | Vote for A Long Way Home on Steam Greenlight! | Ten Years Left
Come to think of it, I agree that Corona's Roadmap format doesn't provide enough information on how far along something is. I would agree with that format. That format actually looks nice, and would give a very basic time frame. (in QA = near release ; in development = not near release)
Thanks.
As to the in-app purchases, they won't do you any good if the game sucks because people will only make an in-app purchase is they like the game. Thus, QS' analysis that people who want in-app purchases must only be concerned about monitizing and not about good games is way way off base. In fact, if you are going to do in-app purchases and actually want to make money your game better be superior to most other games. FYI, on plenty of games/apps (not mine) I have seen a ton of reviews stating in-app purchases should be present (e.g., puzzle games for more levels, games with multiple versions each with different prices depending on features in the game, interactive book/learning apps (i.e., instead of buying 10 different app books, can get one app in which all 10 books can be purchased in one app taking up less screen space on your IPAD) A great example are legal apps where you can download for free and then purchase the specific legal areas you need (e.g., Texas Rule, California Statutes, ect...). My point is that it is incorrect that users don't want in-app purchases. Do they want gamecenter more, possibly. But if you look at the actual studies, the vast majority of those purchasing apps say they do not use or care about gamecenter.
Anyways, i think we should get both asap. In-app purchases should not take any time away from the other items since it should be extremely easy to implement since all the work has been done by apple. Anyways, apple looks like they are starting to deny free apps that have paid versions stating that you should just have free apps with in-app purchases. If this trend continues, in-app purchases will have to be a priority. Until then, I understand there are other priorities but do want to make clear that users do want it (at least for certain types of apps) and wanting in-app purchases does not somehow make your games crap as QS implies.
Add it when they made the survey. Quit back pedaling we made huge breakthrough is communication go home have a beer and give yoda a chance to come through with this one because its a good thing and a big step.
And for the performance issues they've been identified and they are working on it. But guess what a road map with a plan show their goal for fixing performance issues then you would know and have the project you think needs better performance being worked on I'm the background so you can focus on projects now that don't need performance increases.
Today was good day for the community. Let's enjoy today while being cautiously optimistic because the ball os in yodapollo/gamesalads court to keep this moving in a positive direction.
Even in all of my bitching the underlying problem has always been we don't know where GS stands on any of it. Their honest communication could solve so many problems the community has with features, performance, perks etc...
Don't underestimate the value of in app purchasing... I've spoken with high earning devs who swear by it, and if you look at some of them top grossing apps, many of them are free with iAP.
BUT, we need Game Center, Twitter, and FB and we needed it yesterday!
Game Center has been around for awhile now and is needed, and the other features mentioned are important too.
Fingers crossed we get them soon, we need to be more competitive as a tool. That's the bottom line here.
I hear what you're saying, and you are of course entitled to your opinion, and to voice it. The more the merrier! However, my experience here has gone something like this:
*iAds announced as a 'Pro only' feature.
*Because Pro was $2k, most people were excluded. A lot of forum posts were made begging to give iAds to everyone as another way to make money.
*Those who already had Pro, myself included, were making no money with iAds. Even those with plenty of downloads. The figures just didn't make sense unless you were pulling in thousands of downloads a day.
*We passed on this info, but people still wanted iAds.
*The price of pro comes down.
*Everyone starts putting iAds in their games that didn't sell and expected a miracle.
*The miracle didn't happen.
*Now largely the same people here are asking for in-App Purchases.
I did say that *IF* Apple made it a requirement of free Apps to have in-App purchases then it should be a priority (to conform to Apple standards).
If done right, then in-App purchases can certainly be useful for adding to a game that is already popular. But I've read too many reviews that say 'Dishonest - the app is free, but I have to pay to even get one level' - or, you know, something *like* that.
And legal apps are not games
If not required by Apple, then GameCentre (we've been asking for online leaderboards since *before* in-App purchases/iAds even existed!) and Facebook/Twitter, as well as arrays, have to be a priority. Lots of people here already make great games, but these games will always be knocked down a point or two for lacking standard online capability.
They add additional functionality and value to our games at no extra charge to the consumer. GameCentre adds to the sense of competition, as does Twitter and Facebook integration. And arrays would help broaden the types of games we can make.
My responsibility is to the people that play my games. I want to provide entertainment and fun for them. In exchange, if people like/notice the game and buy it, I get paid.
With in-App purchases, I can add further value to my game, it's true. But the base game has to be good (somethingI think we're both in agreement on). Hell, I'll probably use in-App purchases too if we have them. But I'd like my games to be fully featured first.
I get the sense that some people are still thinking this is a 'get rich quick' system. Some even take templates and put them onto the app store *unchanged*.
Making money by trying to con people, or 'Money for nothing' (making a game with the least amount of effort a la templates uploaded unchanged) is not the way forward for this software or the community.
That a lot of people are screaming out for in-App purchases (a way to monetise) as opposed to features that put us on equal footing with other App store games and gives value to our customers sends a signal to me, personally, that people are more interested in making money than making good games.
The thing is, making good games will help make you money far quicker than iAds ever will. And I suspect the same will be said of in-App purchases when we get them.
Again, I respect your opinion. Of course not everyone here should be labelled as money grabbing just because they want in-App purchases. But from what I've seen of the community lately...
Anyway - back on topic - I am *very* interested to see a roadmap of what's coming up. I'm sure people (and I might be one of them!) will disagree with what has been prioritised.
But hopefully we'll all get what we want eventually!
Cheers,
QS
Dr. Sam Beckett never returned home...
Twitter: https://twitter.com/Quantum_Sheep
Web: https://quantumsheep.itch.io
Also guys if we turn this topic into the latest feature request post we will have yet one less sticky to talk about the main subject of this topic, because it will get closed just like the Community FeedBack Features Request Sticky was.
I do like that they appear to be communicating better. I do want a posting on their priorities. Heck, if in app-purchases is the lowest priority then I need to know so I can stop working on my game based on it and work on something else. I guess that is real point. We need the info for our upcoming projects.
As gave/app devs, we should be focused on making the best experience for the customer. 90% of making it on the app store, is good word of mouth. If a game is good to play, and has features that keep people playing, friends will tell friends will tell friends etc etc.
When I first got my iPhone, most of the games I bought were recommended by my friends.
Leaderboards etc has been top of my list since I started with GS 13 months ago.
The way I look at Gamecentre is as an equivalent to XBox live (whilst it's still in it's early days, I believe it adds the same sort of experience, but on a mobile platform)...it just gives games that extra play value of competing with everyone else who has the game.
Also, now that the windows phone is out, and has live on it, I can see Apple chucking some decent resources at GC in the near future.
Of course, it shouldn't be ignored that a lot of us here also are trying to build business out of this. (Some have already made good inroads into that), so there also needs to be features that help us to do that.
With iAds it IS possible to make money...but you need to get a decent amount of downloads in a day. More than 30K sustained I would think, should bring in some decent revenue. There was a thread on the unity forum about that snowboarding game that did like $17K in ads one day in the summer.
There is no way you are going to make anything from a game that gets downloaded a couple of hundred times a day using iAds (i speak from experience there)
In a nutshell....the snowboarding game looked good, and looking at the reviews, played pretty well too....a good game will always find a market (paid or free), so if you can monetize a free game thats getting downloaded, I'm all for that....anwyays, I'm drifting off track (note to self, 4 hours sleep is not enough).
I think my point was.....good games will always rise to the top (in some way or other *), and anything that makes GS made games "better" in the eyes of the punters should be top of everyones list, but things that help the business side of things should also not be dismissed out of hand.
*Running Wild and Quake Builder finally found an audience...it's a shame that it was not a paying audience, but they found one it seems....both good games....Imagine RW with timed levels, and a global leaderboard though...how much fun would that be!
I know you cant give exact dates in progrmmation. But please tell me an estimate. For example: gamecenter will be ready from 3 more weeks to 7 more weeks.
Something like that, please i need to know for my curennt game.
For me, just score board and networking 2 games together would be the best thing which could happen.
I agree with you, and we absolutely, positively need Game Center to improve our apps.
FB and Twitter will also improve our games, not only competition wise, but marketing wise as well.
ie: If people post their score on FB via our app, or twitter, that's free marketing right there. If they have 200 plus friends, that's 200 plus people that have seen that post, and a small percentage may look at the app, and buy the game to compete with their friends.
It's very savvy marketing wise, so I think above in app purchasing, that these features are crucial to take our apps to the next level.
Sure, in app purchasing would be nice, but if you don't have a top ranking free app, then don't expect a whole lot. From what I hear from devs, a small percentage of people actually click to pay for the in app purchasing, unless you have an app like "Smurfs" that has a multitude of in app purchases available.
And people also need to get away from the "get rich quick scheme", or "lose weight quick scheme" which seems to be the folly of Americans, and people in general nowadays.
People coming out with books like the 4 hour work week, or the 4 hour diet, or "The Secret", and those damn MLM schemes that you don't even want to get me started on, is very synonymous to the mentality some developers have about the app store.
You're not going to get rich quick, and you're not going to lose 30 lbs in 30 days.
Spend time making a great game, whether it's a twist on an old favorite, or something completely new, and groundbreaking.
(sorry for rambling, but you get what I mean... everyone thinks there is a quick fix for everything, and it's just not that simple)
Just wanted to give everyone a heads up in case my responses are few and far between during the daytime hours today. I'm attending MacWorld (so, if you're in the SF bay area and want say hi or chat, let me know!) and access to reliable web signal will be spotty at best. Don't fret, though. I'll be responding and posting to as much as possible in the evenings. Shouldn't be any fewer posts than I've been making on a daily basis, just coming at a different time.
Again, if you're in Sam Francisco (and especially at MacWorld) let me know or via PM and we'll work out some time to chat.
- Yodapollo
That's why I look at in-app purchases first. Sure, it can make money for developers, but that's not why I think it rates high up on the list.
• Easier to implement - I think things like arrays, multiplayer, vector graphics, better web plugin support and so many other features are important to Game Salad. Yet, I also consider things that are easy to add. For example, I think a "System Time" behavior or attribute should be high priority... even higher than Game Center or iAds... simply because it's so easy to add. I think it's a bit strange that a Game Salad game can't know what time it is. Something so trivial can create a lot of options for GameSalad developers... virtual pets, better random numbers, Farmville clone, creating in-game effects like sunsets (World of Warcraft does this.)
Apple has already done most of the work for in-app purchases. GameSalad only needs to connect the pieces.
• Competition - It's almost suicidal to leave out in-app purchases. Corona is gaining on GameSalad. The 1/25/2011 update added in-app purchases and universal builds. If GameSalad falls further behind - IT MAY NEVER RECOVER! The only real advantage has over the competitors is ease of use. Considering that Corona is gaining in that area too, I'd starting to become pessimistic about the future of GameSalad.
GameSalad Direct® really screwed things up. The damage from that decision really hurt the community. If GameSalad was straight-up with us, we could have told them the likely outcome. Those on the inside DID WARN THEM! Yet, the fiasco happened anyway.
• MAKE MONEY - This is not just about GameSalad developers making money... it's about the creators of GameSalad. If iAds are so bad - and I think they are - is the OpenURL behavior worth $499 a year? Without a custom loading screen, there's little incentive to upgrade to Pro. At least with in-app purchases, GameSalad developers have a better chance to recoup that investment.
IF GAMESALAD DOES NOT MAKE MONEY IT LIKELY DIES!
I think it's interesting to debate what should be the intention of GameSalad developers... should making money be the primary motivation for this endeavor? I don't think so. Even the top Game Salad developers aren't that well off. In the last year, I probably would have made more money delivering pizzas. Which is more fun... delivering pizzas or making games? It depends what your interests are. I like figuring out technical challenges of good game design. GameSalad is fun and profitable.
...but what's not debatable is that GameSalad is a business. If that business doesn't make money, that business goes away. So, for GameSalad to increase the sales of professional licenses, Game Center and in-app purchases are tied. Both would be attractive reasons for upgrading GameSalad to professional.
• Standards! - GameSalad has all of their eggs in one basket. The web support is lousy. PC / Windows support is non-existent. Android?! There's no Android action here. GameSalad is primarily for making iOS and Mac games. So, it's odd how GameSalad is so slow to support those standards. Again, Game Center and iAds are tied. It looks pretty bad to have software for making iOS games, when basic iOS features are not supported.
• Streamline iTunes Connect - Even if Apple doesn't reject lite/free versions of my app, I don't feel like making so many copies of my game. GameSalad is creating a lot of clutter...
--- One version for iPhone
--- One free version for iPhone
--- One version for iPad
--- One free version for iPad
A universal binary — with in-app purchases — would replace those four apps with a single app.
If I was in-charge, I'd basically schedule things like this...
Next update...
-- Game Center (Achievements and Rankings)
-- in-app purchases
-- System Time
Following update...
-- Game Center (network support)
-- Improved App Performance
Update after that...
-- Game Center (voice chat)
The Mac App Store is nice. It seems that the GameSalad team thinks that's the way to give them an edge over their competitors. It's certainly a nice way to hype-up the software, but they're about two weeks too late. The Mac App Store doesn't look like a big moneymaker yet. Heh... unless you're Apple or the makers of Pixelmator...
http://photics.com/pixelmator-a-successful-alternative-to-adobephotoshop
I think it makes sense to focus on iOS game development. Things like improved performance (Both for apps and the GameSalad Creator), Game Center and in-app purchases should have taken precedence.
I actually think better web plug-in support is just as important than in-app purchases, Game Center or the Mac App Store. My most successful games were on my website. By building games for Apple and their network, I'm sending customers away from my website.
The point is we can debate what's more important. What's not as debatable is difficulty. While in-app purchases may not be as desirable as Game Center, is it as difficult to implement? The GameSalad team knows the challenges better than I do, but I'm thinking in-app purchases are easier than full Game Center support. Corona already has in-app purchases.
Perhaps that's why Game Center should be implemented immediately. Don't duplicate the competitors. Perhaps Game Center support would attract developers back to GameSalad.
Actually it's called "Viral Marketing."
@Photics:
I support IAP as the major feature that needs to be integrated. Not because of In-App sales, but because it's easier to integrate than GameCenter, especially integrating it into a no-coding environment.
@Photics:
I like your unofficial roadmap, it's the best professional roadmap I have seen.
@GS:
I would also suggest integrating OpenFient too. Having GameCenter and OpenFient would add competition, as "C" has OpenFient.
Thanks for that post. You make some very interesting points and especially strong points on GameCenter and In-App Purchasing. Certainly, we're moving fast on improving our web support. In fact, we will have tripled the size of our web dev team by mid-February, barring any significant roadblocks.
@Everyone
Again, sorry if my posts during the daytime are short today. I'll try to make up for the infrequent posting with much more dedicated time tonight.
-- Yodapollo
Thanks Yoda for all your updates!
I didn't know the recent web hires were related to web plug-in development.
I think the web team should make GameSalad web based. That way, a GameSalad to Corona converter couldn't rip off the user interface. It would also be a huge boon for GameSalad in general...
• GameSalad Creator on iPad
• GameSalad Creator on PC
That would likely attract more customers. Considering the GameSalad software is basically drag-and-drop with XML code, HTML 5 should be able to handle it. That means the software could be run on other platforms besides the Mac.
Wikipedia:
"Viral marketing and viral advertising are buzzwords referring to marketing techniques that use pre-existing social networks to produce increases in brand awareness or to achieve other marketing objectives (such as product sales) through self-replicating viral processes, analogous to the spread of virus or computer viruses."