Are PnC adventure games on iOS and mobile platforms the future?

I missed Yesterday, Randal’s monday and Kathy Rain

I think that is the only acceptable -from a consumer POV - way to sell it. As soon as a developer starts offering skins or power-ups or any other optional in-app purchases, it very quickly smells like a rip-off. Just because it reminds of millions of freemium with infinite “box of gems” purchases out there that try to get you addicted and lure you into micro-transactioning over 100$ for what is basically a crappy game. That’s not something you want in a PnC adventure game. Paying once to unlock the complete game beyond a free-to-play demo: yes. Paying for each additional verb/room/character? That’s like buying a book with extra paragraphs. (apart from all the technical objections). Paying per episode only works if the game was designed like that, and let’s face it: most recent episodically released adventure games do suffer from this story-wise. In ThimbleWeed Park, it’s great to finally be able to go and do as I please again., rather than being constrained by an episodic structure. In puzzle-dependency chart terms: episodic games have convergence points more often (as you can usually even play the episodes out of order, technically, not story-wise).
Anyway: I prefer to know what I am paying for and what I will get in return. A box of gems is only as useful as my skill in this or that game, which may very well be spent in a couple of minutes. That aversion to being ripped-off might be another reason for a lot of mobile consumers not wanting to pay for anything I guess.[quote=“LowLevel, post:56, topic:695”]
Also, I think it’s important to specify that the “in-app purchase” model applied to a PnC adventure game wouldn’t necessarily imply that you can’t finish the game and get a satisfactory experience without paying.
[/quote]
That’s like being able to finish a book or a movie and get a satisfactory experience without paying. It’s all about story in a (good) adventure game. As soon as you offer a cheaper/shorter route through the same story, you are bound to trigger a bunch of angry reviews stating the story is weak/too short/heavily cut/not enough puzzles/…

1 Like

First of all: I agree with you. But there is a “but”. :slight_smile: Terry Pratched sold maps of the Discworld - separate to the books. I have bought the books - so why haven’t I got the maps?

The same applies for adventure games. If we use TWP as an example, Ron could sell the in-jokes as a DLC(*). They are completely optional like the Discworld maps. You are able to finish the whole game. Why is this different?

(*) Please note, that I don’t suggest this, it’s just one possibility.

Exactly. That means that in-app purchases in an adventure game should not be used to unlock rooms/characters. Everybody gets the full story and the game designers find a different way to use in-app purchases to enrich the game experience.

That’s a not a good analogy since everyone knows maps cost real money unless your parents dance them! :slight_smile:

There will be games in the arcade, right? What about in-app purchases in them e.g. to get a +1 sword to beat the super-hard bosses! :smiley:

3 Likes

“classic” idea!

I see what you are getting at, but the game experience should be at is maximally “richest” point because an adventure game’s richness is mainly defined by the story. Honestly, the only thing they could do is to sell it as B&W and offer color as a purchase. Or voice acting. Or Translations. Or … basically anything that was a KS stretch goal. Touching the core of the game is touching the artistic integrity which I strongly believe Ron, Gary and David have! As long as we all buy our 10 copies :delores:[quote=“Someone, post:63, topic:695”]
I have bought the books - so why haven’t I got the maps?
[/quote]
Because it was deemed ok to publish the books without them. They do not change the story. I made the analogy to books as they are a story telling medium, just like adventure games to a great extent. If you remove the story element from a real good PnC adventure game you end up with a puzzle game like < insert pixel hunting/mystery game here - I never played one >, in which case you indeed could charge more for 10 or 50 additional “rooms”/“puzzles”, as they contribute as much to the story as the basic set: nothing…

The reason why I like your idea so much is that putting a lot of coins in those damned machines was exactly what we actually did in the eighties. Doing the same thing in the game would be extremely coherent with the '80s culture. :stuck_out_tongue:

The games in the Arcade are very simple, they are more like a WarioWare game, not a full arcade game. Even if they were, I think the conversation would be very small for something like that, not enough to support a free app.

If we do anything, it will be playing to a spot for free, then paying to unlock the rest of the game. It’s the only thing that seems fair to me. Everything else feels bolted on.

Or you will just buy it out right. Haven’t decided yet.

1 Like

Well, these ideas are not a bad start. But what I’m trying to say is that I find it highly unlikely that a team of experienced game designers who want to find a way to use in-app purchases without negatively affecting the story and the game experience wouldn’t be able to come up with something.

I myself have some ideas and I know very little of game design, so I assume that they would find even more and better ideas.

I´d be curious if it would be legally possible to use Polybius (in name only, just for a joke). I would be really surprised if anyone actually owned rights to that! With government agents in an arcade in the 80s that reference seems very obvious.

I agree about TWP (I liked the idea of putting real money in the arcade games mainly for comedy purposes) but I still think that it’s possible to find a good way to organically integrate in-app purchases in an (future) adventure game.

Finish the demo part with Ransome speaking about those who don’t read the description of the games that warn that the rest of the game is paid and promising rude language to those who leave rage reviews about this topic.

:smiling_imp:

It would be nice to be able to configure running external processes when starting different arcade machines (PC versions only).

Will this gonna be an in-app purchase or wouldn’t it be easier to have a separate free demo version and the full game?

Also the included demo mode wasn’t too bad, you had the body, some of the town and one flashback. You even have audio mentioning it’s a demo.
And I liked how the streets were closed.

It seems you are suggesting that the game should be free to complete for everybody to begin with, and that In-App-Purchases (IAP) are only optional and tangential. How does this lead to revenue?

As I see it, this model has only three ways of succeeding:

  1. You beg people to buy some of the IAP so that you can make money.
  2. You force people to buy IAP in order to proceed with the game.
  3. You make your optional IAP so compelling, that even if they are optional, people will flock to buy them.

The first one may be good for a hobby, but is not a solid foundation for a business.

The second one changes the dynamics between player and game, necessarily affecting the player’s motivations. He no longer is exploring and discovering and trying to advance the story, he is instead seeking for a way to extend his game-play.

The third one sounds great on paper, but luck and serendipity are hardly a model on which to base your livelihood on. :wink: In “leveled” games, this works out because you just buy new levels and continue on your way, but an adventure game traditionally has a beginning and an end, and follows a story arc, so there isn’t a natural way to block out or introduce parts of it for separate purchase without it being contrived and arbitrary.

I submit that changing this (to add parts that can be locked out or added) is in effect changing the essence of the genre, it changes the player’s motivations, and it is once again a completely different beast.

Of course there is a fourth option:

.4. Charge money upfront.

However, that is the original problem, that people don’t want to pay for a game, right? :slight_smile:

-dZ.

I totally agree. There, on small screens, the 2d graphics is not perceived as obsolete. I think. the pixels are not visible. So the real market could be there. point & click seems very suitable.

one detail: I think SCUMM takes too much space on screen on smartphone. I would only leave a row for the inventory, and move the verbs to a popup menu.

And the graphics should be designed from the start in order not to have areas that are too small for a finger.

If they want to do other 2d adventure games in pixel art, I think they should. [Edit: before I read what Ron said above]

And by focusing on android and IOS, they could cut other costs. (would speech be still necessary? Would so many animations still be necessary? would so much graphic detail be necessary?)

Wow, it’s totally the opposite for me. On Android, I buy a lot of shitty 6$ makeup games for my daughter. On PC, I’d think twice before buying anything that is not TWP, even if it costs 15$.

OTOH, on mobile you don’t have mouseover, so drag is the only way to have feedback while you are pointing to something.

One of them being that BS2 sucked bad. :slight_smile: It was so boring that I just stopped playing back then.

(I wasn’t a fan of the original BS1 though)