Skyward Collapse tablet version?

[YoukaiCountry]

Now hear me out, I think that Skyward Collapse more than any other Arcen game would lend itself to mobile/tablet play. The interface is streamlined, and the game is turn based. It also seems to be a game that would be just as fun in small bites as in long marathons.

I know that you can get Unity modules that allow Android/iOS output, and although it probably wouldn't be trivial, it might open some new revenue streams.

Just my 2 cents, maybe it's already been considered.

[x4000]

Actually, we already have an iOS license for Unity, that we bought last year, because we had planned on bringing some of our stuff there.  It hasn't happened yet, and the new requirement that all games must have retina support is a bit scary when it comes to the iPad (no problem thought for iPhone), so we'll see how it goes.  No promises, but it's something we've considered and may do.

[keith.lamothe]

the new requirement that all games must have retina support is a bit scary

The scarier thing is that Apple thinks that kind of edict is just ok to hand down.  We'd be walking into a big set of obstacles there, and the ones we could see at the time might not be the worst.  But it might work out.

[x4000]

Yep.  But to be fair, non-retina games often look slightly blurry.  So I can see their point, but I'd still rather that were up to the app developer.  Plenty of their devices (like iPad2) don't even have retina graphics at all.

[Mick]

I can understand why Apple does it. Retina display would become much less of a marketable feature if only a small percentage of app developers took advantage of it. It kinda sucks for the developers, but it's a plus for the consumers.

[x4000]

Though in some respects it does suck for the consumers, you could argue, because it prevents porting of older games unless those games have their graphics redrawn from scratch.  Out of this World did that, but I thought it lost some of its original charm by doing that.  And I suspect that drove up the price for consumers.  And other 90s classics that might be ported could have an even tougher time.

So it's hard to say.

[YoukaiCountry]

Hmm, since I have an Android, allow me to point out that Android doesn't have that particular problem 

[keith.lamothe]

The Android has its own serious issues from the perspective of our making a successful (commercially) port for it.  But yea, it's not because of Tyrrany

[Mick]

So are you going to be rejecting UI-recommendations/features that don't translate well to a tablet?

The sky is falling!

*Runs around in a panic*

[x4000]

Wow, yeah -- Android is one set of devices I don't plan to touch with a ten-foot pole anytime in the foreseeable future.  The reasons:

1. It's about 1/10th as profitable as iOS.
2. It comes with incredibly more support problems because of all the devices with varying powers and varying screen aspect ratios and so forth.
3. It requires buying dozens of devices if you want to actually test how your game works on a variety of hardware.
4. I am not a fan of spending much of my time on porting anyhow, and this is not porting to one or two devices, it's porting to hundreds at once.  *Shudders*


If Android could reach a maturity level where there are a smaller number of aspect ratios, a consistent baseline of strong minimum hardware specs, and a consumer base that actually demonstrates a strong interest in buying apps... then yeah, I'm all for it.  I think it's a cool platform and I want to see it succeed.  But right now... yeah, that's just the sort of morass I can't see dragging myself into from a developer standpoint.

[x4000]

So are you going to be rejecting UI-recommendations/features that don't translate well to a tablet?

The sky is falling!

*Runs around in a panic*

Definitely not.  The game happens to be somewhat suited to a tablet at the moment, but our heavy use of tooltips is something that we wouldn't be doing if we thought mobile was a big thing we were going to hugely do.  Frankly if this game does really well on the PC and Mac, then my incentive to do mobile goes down because it's a hassle I don't want to deal with.  And if the game doesn't do well, then again there's... no incentive, because it's too much risk.  Gah!  That means that probably I'll never directly do a port, actually.  We'd have to contract someone to come in, do the port, and that would be that, I think.

[Mánagarmr]

If Android could reach a maturity level where there are a smaller number of aspect ratios, a consistent baseline of strong minimum hardware specs, and a consumer base that actually demonstrates a strong interest in buying apps... then yeah, I'm all for it.  I think it's a cool platform and I want to see it succeed.  But right now... yeah, that's just the sort of morass I can't see dragging myself into from a developer standpoint.

It will never reach that "maturity" level, since it goes against what Android actually is. Freedom to choose what device/power/budget you need.

[Mick]

I remember reading an article from a game developer who basically complained that porting to android simply added 10x more need to "tech support" for < 10% of the sales.

But .. you know.. freedom.

[x4000]

It will never reach that "maturity" level, since it goes against what Android actually is. Freedom to choose what device/power/budget you need.

See, I understand that, but I think that's actually not correct.  Case in point: there already IS a consistent baseline of hardware that nothing goes below.  No phone has less than a certain amount of CPU power, because it just makes no sense to have a phone with less and it doesn't cost any less to make them weaker than that.  You can't find processors that bad, etc.

The problem is that baseline is super low right now.  5 or 10 years from now, though?  What will the baseline be of "you can't buy a wholesale processor worse than this, or RAM smaller than this?"  In that regard it's not a matter of all the Android folks organizing, it's a matter of the market maturing.  For instance, right now I'm pretty sure it's impossible for me to buy a 200MHz laptop, but nobody made that an edict.  It just isn't something that would even happen now.  It's a pretty safe bet that almost everything has 1.6Ghz in terms of even netbooks these days.  1Ghz at worst, but I've not seen anything like that in a long time.

Standardization of screen sizes is also something that doesn't have to come from edicts.  It comes from a desire to do things cheaply.  There are only so many screen sizes for actual PCs, for instance.  It's about 10 sizes to support, in pretty close to two aspect ratios, not 50.  As phones and tablets mature, I would be surprised if some sizes didn't become preferred over all others, leading to a market shift simply because manufacturers want to jump on that bandwagon both for marketing and for cost reasons.

In terms of customers being willing to actually buy apps more... I think that if their phones had better hardware across the board and thus the app experience was better, that would change.  And a few stronger stores than what is there right now, too.  So that could change, but it will take a while.


In other words, I'm talking pretty far out, but I think that sort of maturity will happen even with this remaining as open as it is.  Just look at the PC, you know?

[tigersfan]

I remember reading an article from a game developer who basically complained that porting to android simply added 10x more need to "tech support" for < 10% of the sales.

But .. you know.. freedom.

Well, freedom for the consumer, not the developer.

That said, developing for iOS does have one glaring issue that Android does not have... and that is Apple. Going through their approval process can be a bear. I've heard it's a bit better than the last time I worked for a company trying to get an app on their store, but... that was awful.