Conversion Rates, Improving
by Jeremy Alessi · in General Discussion · 09/06/2004 (3:15 pm) · 33 replies
This thread spawned off my latest .plan a little as Joe Maruschak from Bravetree wanted to share some of his ideas about this topic. For us at this time we haven't got this nailed down pefectly yet. Our latest game uses a trial limit in addition to content limit. It also has online ranking which isn't limited so you can start trying to compete only to realize you'll need the full version to compete with Income (Incoming from Orbz) or VIP3R another excellent player. So in Market Value your "tries" with the demo are limited but so are your abilities to compete on top of the content being limited. So far this worked out ok for us on our first weekend ... of course 1 weekend doesn't tell very much story ... we'll have to see how the game converts over the long haul.
Aerial Antics our other title at at Leadfoot Productions doesn't convert very well. We initially had a demo with 5 levels and no time limit, then we messed around with time and content limits to try and make it more enticing ... didn't matter. I even completely overhauled the control style (you can see that in the www.leadfootproductions.com version). Ultimately I just put it back to 5 levels with no time limit (actually 60 minutes for 5 levels) and the conversion went back up a little.
That game is a slight enigma because it gets good reviews and attention but so far we haven't figured out the best way to sell it to players. After spending a few extra months with it changing things to no avail I decided I'd better get on with another game because there's always the possability that the game just is not what people want to buy at this point in time with it's current gameplay ... no matter how much they like it ... it doesn't mean they'll buy it. Also it never hurts to take some time away and come back with a fresh perspective.
Needless to say we at Leadfoot still have a lot to learn about selling titles online and haven't hit the the proveribal golden nail on the head just yet. Market Value seems like it's got a shot for us but it's not exactly the game we really enjoy making ourselves. Sure we like it but we want to make a great 3D multiplayer action title ... don't want to get stuck in one niche, even if we're successful in that niche (hmm might depend on how successful we are ;) .
Anyway, anyone else with some insight please contribute maybe we can all learn a thing or two! Got to make these games like sweet little golden nuggets for players and the tool to do that is the demo ... how do you make yours convert well?
Aerial Antics our other title at at Leadfoot Productions doesn't convert very well. We initially had a demo with 5 levels and no time limit, then we messed around with time and content limits to try and make it more enticing ... didn't matter. I even completely overhauled the control style (you can see that in the www.leadfootproductions.com version). Ultimately I just put it back to 5 levels with no time limit (actually 60 minutes for 5 levels) and the conversion went back up a little.
That game is a slight enigma because it gets good reviews and attention but so far we haven't figured out the best way to sell it to players. After spending a few extra months with it changing things to no avail I decided I'd better get on with another game because there's always the possability that the game just is not what people want to buy at this point in time with it's current gameplay ... no matter how much they like it ... it doesn't mean they'll buy it. Also it never hurts to take some time away and come back with a fresh perspective.
Needless to say we at Leadfoot still have a lot to learn about selling titles online and haven't hit the the proveribal golden nail on the head just yet. Market Value seems like it's got a shot for us but it's not exactly the game we really enjoy making ourselves. Sure we like it but we want to make a great 3D multiplayer action title ... don't want to get stuck in one niche, even if we're successful in that niche (hmm might depend on how successful we are ;) .
Anyway, anyone else with some insight please contribute maybe we can all learn a thing or two! Got to make these games like sweet little golden nuggets for players and the tool to do that is the demo ... how do you make yours convert well?
About the author
#22
Darn it, I knew there was something I missed, and you nailed it Joshua, good for you.
When you goto some of the bigger review sites like GameSpot theres ton's of shots of the games. I understand that these games are much much larger in content but there should be happy middle ground.
Phil Carlisle makes some great points as well, alot of them are givin, like the game being stable, you guys should not have too many problems there with the Torque.
#3 stands out the most to me, don't bore the player, get to the action.
#4 As well, there has to be a reason to progress to buying. Tuff one in your guys business because there is alot of competition out there.
Think Tanks did this very well, and once the bug bites you got to buy it. =)
I think it's harder with single player games then with multiplayer games, I don't know exactly why, but it just feels that way to me. Mabey it's just me cause I love multi play so much..
Does that make any sense??
One other thought I had and mabey this is
totally nutz, but has anyone here thought of ever starting any polls of what type of games players would like to see?
Get some ideas about what the Gamers that are visiting Garage Games are interested in.
Mabey its racing, or shooters, or puzzle games, rpg's , whatever.
Now after you throw out all the
MMOORRPPGGS(lol) that kids put in there it might help narrow down to specific ideas on who your customer is.
I know part of being indie is you guys get to make the games you want to make.
But you should also try to zero in on what the customer wants if your goal is too make sales.
If the right games are getting made alot of the complex marketing tricks that are being talked about here wont be as important.
Just A thought
09/07/2004 (4:05 pm)
Quote:Another note -- screenshots, screenshots, screenshots! I was re-looking over the ThinkTanks demo, and I don't think it had enough screenshots of other levels in it.
Darn it, I knew there was something I missed, and you nailed it Joshua, good for you.
When you goto some of the bigger review sites like GameSpot theres ton's of shots of the games. I understand that these games are much much larger in content but there should be happy middle ground.
Phil Carlisle makes some great points as well, alot of them are givin, like the game being stable, you guys should not have too many problems there with the Torque.
#3 stands out the most to me, don't bore the player, get to the action.
#4 As well, there has to be a reason to progress to buying. Tuff one in your guys business because there is alot of competition out there.
Think Tanks did this very well, and once the bug bites you got to buy it. =)
I think it's harder with single player games then with multiplayer games, I don't know exactly why, but it just feels that way to me. Mabey it's just me cause I love multi play so much..
Does that make any sense??
One other thought I had and mabey this is
totally nutz, but has anyone here thought of ever starting any polls of what type of games players would like to see?
Get some ideas about what the Gamers that are visiting Garage Games are interested in.
Mabey its racing, or shooters, or puzzle games, rpg's , whatever.
Now after you throw out all the
MMOORRPPGGS(lol) that kids put in there it might help narrow down to specific ideas on who your customer is.
I know part of being indie is you guys get to make the games you want to make.
But you should also try to zero in on what the customer wants if your goal is too make sales.
If the right games are getting made alot of the complex marketing tricks that are being talked about here wont be as important.
Just A thought
#23
In AAA games, it is not that much of an issue. With a big marketing push, there should at least be someone online to play against. With indie games, it is much more difficult.. in the first few weeks, there is no one really online, and empty servers give the perception that the game is not fun enough to attract online players.
People log on.. check the server list.. see no one, and leave. I have an image in my head of 4 or 5 people, sitting in the server list GUI screen, refreshing.. waiting for someone to join..
We solved this problem with bots. The ThinkTanks bots show up in the server list and are playing on the servers. When you first get the demo, and go to play online. you don't see empty servers.. you see full servers. You join, figure out they are bots, and then , usually, someone else human will join you. Whehter the person does not know they are bots or whether they just go.. eh.. at least there are bots... they join instead of quitting.. and for us it made all the difference in getting people online and playing.
It might just be a matter of seconds.. the difference between sitting in the GUI screen or in the game. but it helps.. and it also makes a difference to go to the server list and see the servers full, instead of a list of zeros. It is all about the perception of the new player.. list of zeros on the servers leaves a bad impression.. Lists with 60-70 players in the servers, even if they are bots, leaves a totally different impression.
A lot of subtle little things.. they all add up to turn the experience for the new player into a good one.
09/07/2004 (6:15 pm)
A note on online games and critical mass. In AAA games, it is not that much of an issue. With a big marketing push, there should at least be someone online to play against. With indie games, it is much more difficult.. in the first few weeks, there is no one really online, and empty servers give the perception that the game is not fun enough to attract online players.
People log on.. check the server list.. see no one, and leave. I have an image in my head of 4 or 5 people, sitting in the server list GUI screen, refreshing.. waiting for someone to join..
We solved this problem with bots. The ThinkTanks bots show up in the server list and are playing on the servers. When you first get the demo, and go to play online. you don't see empty servers.. you see full servers. You join, figure out they are bots, and then , usually, someone else human will join you. Whehter the person does not know they are bots or whether they just go.. eh.. at least there are bots... they join instead of quitting.. and for us it made all the difference in getting people online and playing.
It might just be a matter of seconds.. the difference between sitting in the GUI screen or in the game. but it helps.. and it also makes a difference to go to the server list and see the servers full, instead of a list of zeros. It is all about the perception of the new player.. list of zeros on the servers leaves a bad impression.. Lists with 60-70 players in the servers, even if they are bots, leaves a totally different impression.
A lot of subtle little things.. they all add up to turn the experience for the new player into a good one.
#24
A lot of the size of ThinkTanks is in the shell screens. We probably could have done better in this department, and we may seek to improve this on our future games.
09/07/2004 (6:18 pm)
On the lack of screenshots in the ThinkTanks demo.. that was all about download size. We were pretty ruthless in managing to keep the demo under 10MB and the active X demo at about 3MB. A lot of the size of ThinkTanks is in the shell screens. We probably could have done better in this department, and we may seek to improve this on our future games.
#25
Awesome, just like UT2004.
You a smart cookie Joe.
09/07/2004 (6:34 pm)
Quote: We solved this problem with bots. The ThinkTanks bots show up in the server list and are playing on the servers.
Awesome, just like UT2004.
You a smart cookie Joe.
#26
09/07/2004 (10:27 pm)
Yeah that was a great design decision with the bots I must say. The impression of people playing or at least giving the players a chance to play while they wait for human opponents makes a huge difference. Probably why Orbz had a hard time when it first came out without any single player or Bots. That only works if you're hosting dedicated servers though :( Speaking of which how'd you set all those up? What kind of machines, connections, etc... went into that?
#27
It takes you through everything basically, and the terrain even looks somewhat similar to some of the real levels.
We believe thats the right thing to do, rather than kick them into a game where they only catch a glimpse of.
For multiplayer games the bots are essential. Joe's approach with bots is the right thing, except there are way too many servers with bots on them in my oppinion. I tried last night, and the top 10 servers available for demo has only bots. Humans played the "not available here" servers, but then again that might be another "here is what you miss - want to play vs humans, then buy the game".
Regarding Arial Antics, here is what kept me from buying - replayability and diversity. I played the first few levels, and thought it was a neat little game. But gameplay was the same over and over again - harder yes, but not enough to pull out my credit card. That might not do justice to the game (if I didnt play it enough to see more of the game). If so, then fix your demo so it shows 3-4 levels that have very different gameplay so I can see I get some challenges from the game.
09/07/2004 (11:19 pm)
We are working on a single player action adventure, and we approach the demo issue by creating a custom demo level showing a little of everything compressed into approx 6-7 minutes of gameplay.It takes you through everything basically, and the terrain even looks somewhat similar to some of the real levels.
We believe thats the right thing to do, rather than kick them into a game where they only catch a glimpse of.
For multiplayer games the bots are essential. Joe's approach with bots is the right thing, except there are way too many servers with bots on them in my oppinion. I tried last night, and the top 10 servers available for demo has only bots. Humans played the "not available here" servers, but then again that might be another "here is what you miss - want to play vs humans, then buy the game".
Regarding Arial Antics, here is what kept me from buying - replayability and diversity. I played the first few levels, and thought it was a neat little game. But gameplay was the same over and over again - harder yes, but not enough to pull out my credit card. That might not do justice to the game (if I didnt play it enough to see more of the game). If so, then fix your demo so it shows 3-4 levels that have very different gameplay so I can see I get some challenges from the game.
#28
Actually, it's all good. This thread has given me a couple of things to think about --- and to try, assuming I can get them in and tested quickly enough. Mainly it just raised some priorities. We're in the final stages right now, working on the demo version & trying to figure out how to capitalize better on the strength of the multiplayer game.
09/08/2004 (8:07 am)
Durn you Joe! You may have just delayed Void War's release a few days :)Actually, it's all good. This thread has given me a couple of things to think about --- and to try, assuming I can get them in and tested quickly enough. Mainly it just raised some priorities. We're in the final stages right now, working on the demo version & trying to figure out how to capitalize better on the strength of the multiplayer game.
#29
09/08/2004 (8:58 am)
Yeah, we had a demo up for a month that showcased a few levels with different gameplay ... it didn't work that month. We'll be taking another run at it again soon though.
#31
I feel that the game demo should be part of the design process from the very beginning and not something left until the last stages. Having an idea of how the game will be presented in demo form is a good thing and it will allow you to make good decisions regarding features during development.
when I get to work later, I will write some moe regarding the target audience we defined for ThinkTanks.
09/09/2004 (6:11 am)
And to add on to Phil's comment, don't make it too easy either. The game has to represent a challenge to the player in your target audience. Not too much, not too little. It is my opinion that clearly identifying your target audience is key to making a demo that converts well and is a good guide to focusing the game development. I feel that the game demo should be part of the design process from the very beginning and not something left until the last stages. Having an idea of how the game will be presented in demo form is a good thing and it will allow you to make good decisions regarding features during development.
when I get to work later, I will write some moe regarding the target audience we defined for ThinkTanks.
#32
09/09/2004 (10:07 am)
Quote:I feel that the game demo should be part of the design process from the very beginning and not something left until the last stages.another golden tip
#33
When we were starting thinktanks.. we wanted to make a game that had the feel and excitment of a shooter, but not the uber-intense "get killed 20 times a minute have to devote 40 hours a week to be competative on open servers" type of scenario that is pretty prevalent nowadays.
I pictured in my head two groups. Guys and Gals in their late 20's-early 30's who cut their teeth on Doom but don't have time anymore (due to real life and kids) to play CS or Planetside, etc...
AND
younger kids, 8-15, who never played Doom and are not yet into the hardcore online games.
As I fit into the top catagory, it was easy to have a sample of our demographic. We were pretty pleased with how on target the game turned out being. We have players from age 4-75, but the emails that were the most vocal in praising the game were so on target it was spooky.
One that stands out in my head was a guy, about 33, with two kids (ages 8 and 10) who praised ThinkTanks as being absolutely perfect... with him being able to fill a void in his life since he stopped playing Quake AND he can play with his kids.
If you know who you are trying to sell the game to, it is much easier to test people in that sample demographic and tweak the game and the game upsell. Luckily for us, the targer demographic also seems to have a pretty good disposable income (exception being the 14 year olds that have NO disposable income)..
09/09/2004 (11:14 am)
Suppose I should follow this up with a description of our target audience.When we were starting thinktanks.. we wanted to make a game that had the feel and excitment of a shooter, but not the uber-intense "get killed 20 times a minute have to devote 40 hours a week to be competative on open servers" type of scenario that is pretty prevalent nowadays.
I pictured in my head two groups. Guys and Gals in their late 20's-early 30's who cut their teeth on Doom but don't have time anymore (due to real life and kids) to play CS or Planetside, etc...
AND
younger kids, 8-15, who never played Doom and are not yet into the hardcore online games.
As I fit into the top catagory, it was easy to have a sample of our demographic. We were pretty pleased with how on target the game turned out being. We have players from age 4-75, but the emails that were the most vocal in praising the game were so on target it was spooky.
One that stands out in my head was a guy, about 33, with two kids (ages 8 and 10) who praised ThinkTanks as being absolutely perfect... with him being able to fill a void in his life since he stopped playing Quake AND he can play with his kids.
If you know who you are trying to sell the game to, it is much easier to test people in that sample demographic and tweak the game and the game upsell. Luckily for us, the targer demographic also seems to have a pretty good disposable income (exception being the 14 year olds that have NO disposable income)..
Torque Owner Joshua Dallman
Default Studio Name