Apple Arcade game developers talk about experience with Apple

Posted:
in iOS
A trio of developers that had their games recently appear on Apple Arcade have suggested how their games are a good fit for the subscription service, and their initial dealings with the company.




Since its launch, Apple Arcade has regularly made additions to its roster of games, with the list including quite a few titles from well-established developers. In interviews, the developers behind three games added to the service in August explained how being part of Apple Arcade changed development as well as hinting at why Apple elected to sign them up.

Jake Hollands, a developer of "Game of Thrones: Tale of Crows," told TechRadar the game was intended to be an indie title before publisher Devolver Digital talked to Apple. By being able to do without microtransactions, the game design changed to make it a more seamless experience, one without the typical advertising or prompts to buy in-game currencies.

"The core idea was to make it a 'healthy' indie game that takes this style of gameplay and uses it in a way that can fit the player's life, as opposed to trying to just keep them hooked constantly on the screen," said Hollands. Unlike said microtransaction-based games, this healthy view also led to the game having an ending, rather than leaving it run effectively forever.

Night School Studio's "Next Stop Nowhere," a follow-up to "Oxenfree," was apparently warmly received by Apple in its pitch, with the existence on iOS providing it a new audience. "I was fairly dubious that a premium game could still survive in this world," said co-founder Sean Krankel, suggesting that beyond reaching "art house gamer people" and fans of horror titles, "now on iOS we're reaching tweens who read creepypasta and a much broader audience."

Krankel also proposes the game the studio had been "kicking around" would be a good fit for Apple Arcade, "especially if we don't need to cram in monetization hooks that we frankly are not good at." Much like Hollands, Night Shift Studios also "semi-intentionally" made it feel like there's chapters, or natural places in gameplay for people to stop playing and move on to do something else.

This idea of making a game easy to digest as players switch between apps is something that's ever present throughout the Apple Arcade catalog, with no real pressure for players to keep playing a title longer than they wish.

Steven Burgess of Hello Games brought up a 2018 meeting with Apple, where it asked for titles that could be a good fit for Apple Arcade, a discussion that led to the creation of "The Last Campfire." According to Murray, Apple was looking for "creatively-led premium experiences native to the device."

As the studios in the interview were brought aboard Apple Arcade long before the official launch of the service, the group may not necessarily be a true reflection of the future Apple Arcade releases.

In June, a report claimed Apple was changing strategy to focus on titles with higher "engagement" levels, at the same time as scrapping contracts with studios for in-development titles that didn't meet the altered brief.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 21
    y2any2an Posts: 214member
    So this whole debacle is more about Epic trying to silo customers to an Epic ecosystem and not face competition from Arcade games where switching to another game is more seamless..,?
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 2 of 21
    cpsrocpsro Posts: 3,226member
    On what basis does a developer continue to receive revenue, when players finish the game and don't come back? Is this largely dependent on attracting new players? I'd like to hear more about this whole process, including any need for promotional advertising.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 3 of 21
    Apple Arcade has been an immense failure for developers. I have been in the industry for 15 years and friends in the industry with professional studios have lost a lot of money on Arcade.
    Although IAPs really suck from a game design point of view (Apple raped the market by pushing for lower/free pricing structures causing developers to have to become masters in convincing people to do an in-app-purchase on a platform where their game is barely discoverable), it is the best option today. With a subscription model Apple tried to correct this and go back to ‘clean’ games without IAPs or ads, but in the end has no serious money available to award developers. Their earnings/pay-out structure is not transparent to developers. A game studio has no idea how the money is redistributed across content, including their title. It’s best guessing and hoping Apple gives them every penny that is contractually owed. Developers receive no rights to audit Apple.
    Therefore the only thing you can do as Dev is bargain an upfront fee with Apple, but Apple is only willing to pay low amounts.
    Unfortunately this also lead to an overall poor offering on Arcade. Nobody I know actually likes what you can download for the money paid. 

    In order for Apple to be successful with Arcade, they will have to buy entire game studios and/or pay for tentpole productions. Go for the Sony/Microsoft approach. There should be a clear program for indies, with all the appropriate earning forecasts and offerings.

    Somehow Apple is not that company (yet), and the big bucks only go their TV services. They don’t really seem to value and respect game developers outside their PR/conference efforts where Cook does a little dance for them. They are known to be cocky with the review process and there is no way to actually speak to anyone of them. The times they ruined expensive times launches by poor review processes and weeks of delays, then approving the game when the marketing efforts make no sense anymore; I’ve seen it many times.
    Apple rather spends money on getting Tom Hanks or Oprah on board, even though the gaming industry is much bigger.

    Curious to see where their new strategy takes them. 
    FileMakerFellerappleinsideruser
  • Reply 4 of 21
    @CheeseFreeze, Thanks for your take on your experience, but to be honest I'm surprised by your stated perceptions. Are game studios participating in AA paid per download or a flat amount per month for example?

    I haven't had any dealings with respect to Apple Arcade, but I strongly recall Apples approach to iAds was pretty much the opposite of what you are saying about AA. With iAds, the payout to developers was tenfold the competing networks, so Apple effectively threw lots of money at iAds, and developers (like me) that took advantage reaped significant rewards. I feel that iAds was closed down likely due to them over-spending and over-investing, which is the opposite of what you are saying is happening with AA. 

    Further, my personal conversations with app-store staff, for example, did nothing but leave me with admiration for Apple's pursuit of excellence for its end-users.

    I strongly suspect that the truth lies somewhere in the middle, and would be interested to know how much revenue a game studio can expect to receive for having a single game in AA. I imagine it's far more than some may think you are implying but likely far less than the opportunity available to the larger studios via the unsavory alternatives of ads or IAP. Personally I'd be happiest if Apple just banned all ads and IAP in games.
    lolliverBeatsFileMakerFellerGilliam_Batesforegoneconclusionwatto_cobrajony0
  • Reply 5 of 21
    canukstormcanukstorm Posts: 2,732member
    Apple Arcade has been an immense failure for developers. I have been in the industry for 15 years and friends in the industry with professional studios have lost a lot of money on Arcade.
    Although IAPs really suck from a game design point of view (Apple raped the market by pushing for lower/free pricing structures causing developers to have to become masters in convincing people to do an in-app-purchase on a platform where their game is barely discoverable), it is the best option today. With a subscription model Apple tried to correct this and go back to ‘clean’ games without IAPs or ads, but in the end has no serious money available to award developers. Their earnings/pay-out structure is not transparent to developers. A game studio has no idea how the money is redistributed across content, including their title. It’s best guessing and hoping Apple gives them every penny that is contractually owed. Developers receive no rights to audit Apple.
    Therefore the only thing you can do as Dev is bargain an upfront fee with Apple, but Apple is only willing to pay low amounts.
    Unfortunately this also lead to an overall poor offering on Arcade. Nobody I know actually likes what you can download for the money paid. 

    In order for Apple to be successful with Arcade, they will have to buy entire game studios and/or pay for tentpole productions. Go for the Sony/Microsoft approach. There should be a clear program for indies, with all the appropriate earning forecasts and offerings.

    Somehow Apple is not that company (yet), and the big bucks only go their TV services. They don’t really seem to value and respect game developers outside their PR/conference efforts where Cook does a little dance for them. They are known to be cocky with the review process and there is no way to actually speak to anyone of them. The times they ruined expensive times launches by poor review processes and weeks of delays, then approving the game when the marketing efforts make no sense anymore; I’ve seen it many times.
    Apple rather spends money on getting Tom Hanks or Oprah on board, even though the gaming industry is much bigger.

    Curious to see where their new strategy takes them. 
    100% This.
  • Reply 6 of 21
    chasmchasm Posts: 3,525member
    I agree with CheeseFreeze to a limited extent, mainly on the point that Apple should consider taking their best studio partners and making an offer to bring them in-house or become exclusive partners to ensure a steady supply of great games. The part where I disagree with him is about the relentless ads, IAP, and game design that encourages addictive and other mentally unhealthy behaviours as being the "best model" for the industry.

    It's certainly the best model if you're just a greedy SOB who only wants to harvest as much money as possible by fleecing parents and addicted players, certainly. But -- and apparently CheeseFreeze (great name) doesn't know any of these studios -- there do exist creators that enjoy creating more artistic/interactive "experiences" and games that would not do as well/get lost in the marketplace by going his "preferred" route. The developers interviewed by AI for this article did not say a single word complaining about the money they got, and I don't profess to know if they were paid a flat fee for the rights or if they get a percentage of the pot, but if its the latter a small studio (which is what Apple mostly seems to focus on) could do quite well depending on how revenues are split -- there's only around 100ish games on AA at the moment, and likely to be a few 10s of millions of players. The value of the constant promotion of AA games is bound to mean a LOT to indie creators.

    Best of all, studios can try both approaches: they can develop and exclusive for AA and get their contract payout or percentage or however the compensation works (presumably a royalty based on game time spent), AND they can go develop a money-grubbing dopamine-triggering "rat/cheese" game very low on originality or artistic value, but loaded with fun play, cool graphics, and a shedload of IAP you have to spend to keep playing. So they can make their millions and they can also work on more satisfying projects where constant revenue generation isn't the overriding concern. I think we've seen that Apple is also offering that alternative to developers who want to pursue that path, or both paths. They give a fair amount of attention to non-AA developers that are doing interesting and/or new things in the game space.

    I have certainly noticed that I enjoy the casual games on AA a great deal more than my favourite non-AA casuals, mainly because of the lag of nagging about IAP and/or ads, and also the ability to actually finish a game. Perhaps I'm the odd man out, but there's room in head (and wallet) to get something out of both models, but now that I have the option to go ad/IAP-free, Arcade gets my "first look" for games I might enjoy, and sifting through the millions of IAP-based "free" games out there has become more of a chore, albeit with some rewards when you find something that's right up your alley. While I'm not a parent, Apple Arcade would be my main choice for a gaming market for any children I had, at least until they were old enough to earn their own money! :)
    BeatsGilliam_Batesmuthuk_vanalingamtmayCheeseFreeze
  • Reply 7 of 21
    BeatsBeats Posts: 3,073member
    Been saying the obvious for years. Apple needs an in-house game studio.

    @Chasm rounding together the best indie partners for an Apple game studio is a great idea and easy to do.

    Apple hates spending money but they might have to drop 1 billion for Capcom, Namco or someone huge. I know indie studios who are cranking out HITS who would sell for half that price. Nintendo would be the ultimate but that would be hard for various reasons and cost more than 1 billion.

    Apple also needs to drop the "family friendly" crap. With parental controls, just don't show the kids inappropriate games. This way they can acquire Rockstar or have an exclusive online-only GTA. That would make Fortnite look like a ghost town in comparison.
    chasm
  • Reply 8 of 21
    canukstormcanukstorm Posts: 2,732member
    Beats said:
    Been saying the obvious for years. Apple needs an in-house game studio.

    @Chasm rounding together the best indie partners for an Apple game studio is a great idea and easy to do.

    Apple hates spending money but they might have to drop 1 billion for Capcom, Namco or someone huge. I know indie studios who are cranking out HITS who would sell for half that price. Nintendo would be the ultimate but that would be hard for various reasons and cost more than 1 billion.

    Apple also needs to drop the "family friendly" crap. With parental controls, just don't show the kids inappropriate games. This way they can acquire Rockstar or have an exclusive online-only GTA. That would make Fortnite look like a ghost town in comparison.
    Apparently, Apple is spending up to $2 billion a year on exclusive content for ATV+, so they obviously don't hate spending money.  I'm also sure those big name DJ's for Apple Music One Radio (formerly Beats One Radio) don't come cheap either.  If Apple wants to make a splash in gaming, I suggest acquiring Nintendo.
    edited August 2020 watto_cobra
  • Reply 9 of 21
    BeatsBeats Posts: 3,073member
    Beats said:
    Been saying the obvious for years. Apple needs an in-house game studio.

    @Chasm rounding together the best indie partners for an Apple game studio is a great idea and easy to do.

    Apple hates spending money but they might have to drop 1 billion for Capcom, Namco or someone huge. I know indie studios who are cranking out HITS who would sell for half that price. Nintendo would be the ultimate but that would be hard for various reasons and cost more than 1 billion.

    Apple also needs to drop the "family friendly" crap. With parental controls, just don't show the kids inappropriate games. This way they can acquire Rockstar or have an exclusive online-only GTA. That would make Fortnite look like a ghost town in comparison.
    Apparently, Apple is spending up to $2 billion a year on exclusive content for ATV+, so they obviously don't hate spending money.  I'm also sure those big name DJ's for Apple Music One Radio (formerly Beats One Radio) don't come cheap either.  If Apple wants to make a splash in gaming, I suggest acquiring Nintendo.

    I meant they don't like spending money on acquisitions. Wouldn't Nintendo theoretically be their biggest acquisition ever?

    Edit: Just looked it up. It would cost Apple roughly around $40 billion.
    edited August 2020 Gilliam_Bateswatto_cobra
  • Reply 10 of 21
    I hoped Apple would make some games themselves for arcade because, depending on the type of game, they may have been able to build in accessibility support. As a visually impaired game fan, it's extremely disappointing that the reveal trailor for Apple Arcade had audio description, yet there are no games on Apple Arcade that support VoiceOver. 
    Beatswatto_cobra
  • Reply 11 of 21
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 6,957member
    Apple doesn't really do gaming because it believes folk should get their recreation through being outdoors and taking exercise, rather than sitting in front of a screen.

    Having said that, I think Apple should work with gaming studios in much the same way it works with its manufacturing partners.

    Apple doesn't manufacture its own stuff because it doesn't want to be saddled with a manufacturing infrastructure which they would need to sell or retool when they start making new widgets.

    Likewise, Apple doesn't want to be saddled with a game studio that creates something that might be out of fashion in a year or two.

    However they could create a really great gaming engine (and they might need one soon) and work with/pay game studios to produce really great games to run on it.


    Beatswatto_cobraDetnator
  • Reply 12 of 21
    Rayz2016 said:
    Apple doesn't really do gaming because it believes folk should get their recreation through being outdoors and taking exercise, rather than sitting in front of a screen.

    Having said that, I think Apple should work with gaming studios in much the same way it works with its manufacturing partners.

    Apple doesn't manufacture its own stuff because it doesn't want to be saddled with a manufacturing infrastructure which they would need to sell or retool when they start making new widgets.

    Likewise, Apple doesn't want to be saddled with a game studio that creates something that might be out of fashion in a year or two.

    However they could create a really great gaming engine (and they might need one soon) and work with/pay game studios to produce really great games to run on it.


    Yes… a gaming engine, but also a game server network and some other common infrastructure elements for gaming — most of which would come in handy also for the other entertainment services. August 30, 2020 10:59AM
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 13 of 21
    BeatsBeats Posts: 3,073member
    zhtfreak said:
    I hoped Apple would make some games themselves for arcade because, depending on the type of game, they may have been able to build in accessibility support. As a visually impaired game fan, it's extremely disappointing that the reveal trailor for Apple Arcade had audio description, yet there are no games on Apple Arcade that support VoiceOver. 

    Lame. I hate when companies do this. The Legend of Zelda Twilight Princess had a DVD trailer in 5.1 surround sound even though the Wii didn't support surround! Nintendo Power magazine(which the DVD was packed into) even bragged about it!! It pissed me off so much!

    Rayz2016 said:
    Apple doesn't really do gaming because it believes folk should get their recreation through being outdoors and taking exercise, rather than sitting in front of a screen.

    Having said that, I think Apple should work with gaming studios in much the same way it works with its manufacturing partners.

    Apple doesn't manufacture its own stuff because it doesn't want to be saddled with a manufacturing infrastructure which they would need to sell or retool when they start making new widgets.

    Likewise, Apple doesn't want to be saddled with a game studio that creates something that might be out of fashion in a year or two.

    However they could create a really great gaming engine (and they might need one soon) and work with/pay game studios to produce really great games to run on it.


    Yes… a gaming engine, but also a game server network and some other common infrastructure elements for gaming — most of which would come in handy also for the other entertainment services. August 30, 2020 10:59AM

    Game Center was a huge disappointment. No one uses it because it sucks.

    Are you a game developer by the way?
  • Reply 14 of 21
    Judging by comments in this thread, I take it that some people aren't aware that Apple is subsidizing a lot of the games in Arcade? 
    edited August 2020 watto_cobra
  • Reply 15 of 21
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,605member
    Judging by comments in this thread, I take it that some people aren't aware that Apple is subsidizing a lot of the games in Arcade? 
    They have, at least when Apple Arcade was rolled out. I haven't seen mention since but that doesn't mean they still don't.
  • Reply 16 of 21
    gatorguy said:
    Judging by comments in this thread, I take it that some people aren't aware that Apple is subsidizing a lot of the games in Arcade? 
    They have, at least when Apple Arcade was rolled out. I haven't seen mention since but that doesn't mean they still don't.
    Judging by what the article is saying about the Game of Thrones title, they're still doing things along those lines. They originally planned to do indie/IAP and then dropped that when their publisher made a deal with Apple for Arcade. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 17 of 21
    danvmdanvm Posts: 1,465member
    Rayz2016 said:
    Apple doesn't really do gaming because it believes folk should get their recreation through being outdoors and taking exercise, rather than sitting in front of a screen.

    Having said that, I think Apple should work with gaming studios in much the same way it works with its manufacturing partners.

    Apple doesn't manufacture its own stuff because it doesn't want to be saddled with a manufacturing infrastructure which they would need to sell or retool when they start making new widgets.

    Likewise, Apple doesn't want to be saddled with a game studio that creates something that might be out of fashion in a year or two.

    However they could create a really great gaming engine (and they might need one soon) and work with/pay game studios to produce really great games to run on it.


    If what you posted was true, Apple would not have created and invested in Apple TV+ and it's content.  
    gatorguyBeats
  • Reply 18 of 21
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,605member
    danvm said:
    Rayz2016 said:
    Apple doesn't really do gaming because it believes folk should get their recreation through being outdoors and taking exercise, rather than sitting in front of a screen.

    Having said that, I think Apple should work with gaming studios in much the same way it works with its manufacturing partners.

    Apple doesn't manufacture its own stuff because it doesn't want to be saddled with a manufacturing infrastructure which they would need to sell or retool when they start making new widgets.

    Likewise, Apple doesn't want to be saddled with a game studio that creates something that might be out of fashion in a year or two.

    However they could create a really great gaming engine (and they might need one soon) and work with/pay game studios to produce really great games to run on it.


    If what you posted was true, Apple would not have created and invested in Apple TV+ and it's content.  
    Good point
  • Reply 19 of 21
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 6,957member
    danvm said:
    Rayz2016 said:
    Apple doesn't really do gaming because it believes folk should get their recreation through being outdoors and taking exercise, rather than sitting in front of a screen.

    Having said that, I think Apple should work with gaming studios in much the same way it works with its manufacturing partners.

    Apple doesn't manufacture its own stuff because it doesn't want to be saddled with a manufacturing infrastructure which they would need to sell or retool when they start making new widgets.

    Likewise, Apple doesn't want to be saddled with a game studio that creates something that might be out of fashion in a year or two.

    However they could create a really great gaming engine (and they might need one soon) and work with/pay game studios to produce really great games to run on it.


    If what you posted was true, Apple would not have created and invested in Apple TV+ and it's content.  
    You’re right about the first bit, but I’m not so sure about the second. I think tv and films cover a wider base of interest than games, and have a much larger audience. 


    watto_cobra
  • Reply 20 of 21
    BeatsBeats Posts: 3,073member
    Rayz2016 said:
    danvm said:
    Rayz2016 said:
    Apple doesn't really do gaming because it believes folk should get their recreation through being outdoors and taking exercise, rather than sitting in front of a screen.

    Having said that, I think Apple should work with gaming studios in much the same way it works with its manufacturing partners.

    Apple doesn't manufacture its own stuff because it doesn't want to be saddled with a manufacturing infrastructure which they would need to sell or retool when they start making new widgets.

    Likewise, Apple doesn't want to be saddled with a game studio that creates something that might be out of fashion in a year or two.

    However they could create a really great gaming engine (and they might need one soon) and work with/pay game studios to produce really great games to run on it.


    If what you posted was true, Apple would not have created and invested in Apple TV+ and it's content.  
    You’re right about the first bit, but I’m not so sure about the second. I think tv and films cover a wider base of interest than games, and have a much larger audience. 



    Are you a gamer? Some games are timeless and get re-releases. Nintendo has been milking Mario and other IP for decades.
    gatorguywatto_cobra
Sign In or Register to comment.