Esports has come a long way: from high-score chasing, to the Battle By the Bay, the World Cyber Games, and much more. It wasn’t until the 2010s that the legitimacy and ubiquity of esports reached a fevered pitch, with studios chasing after this market and the push to give esports as big of a profile as traditional sports. But as I looked at genres like fighting and RTS, I started to think about whether esports has helped or hurt game development.

The Intended Effect

Esports and live service have gone together since the 2000s and the rise of League of Legends. The idea was that by creating an esport, a game would become popular outside of just playing the game; people would follow the esport and sponsors could sell ad revenue. There has always been this dream in the US to have esports reach the same level of recognition and impact that we saw in South Korea with StarCraft.

By continuing to support a game with more content, it would mean people would spend money on said content, and more support would keep a game going for years. When you look at the big successes — LoL, CS: GO, Rainbow Six: Siege, and so on – it does turn into that. For multiplayer, it has been a godsend in terms of keeping these games relevant and playable for years thanks to people continuing to play for the competitive side. This symbiotic relationship has been the envy of publishers and developers who all tried to make their own take on these games, as we saw with the numerous battle royales, MOBAs, shooters, and so on. And while esports has been good to these games it hasn’t been good to the health of these genres.

The problem is that making an esport and making a marketable game might not be as compatible as you think.

Making an Esport

Esport design is different from the traditional design and mechanics we see in other games. When you are building an esport, you must focus on the competitive side — all map design, all balancing, all future content, must be built around what the competitive people want to see. This has been the driving factor for fighting games for years and was part of what led to the decline of traditional RTS games in the mainstream in favor of MOBAs.

An esport is all about “the match” and everything that isn’t related to it is seen as fluff to the competitive side.

Matches are meant to be as balanced as possible and favor player skill above all else. With every esport game mentioned in this piece, you’ll find very little content outside of that. For the games that do add in single-player or story content, with rare exceptions (that I’ll come back to below), it is kept minimal and seems like something added to check off a list.

Casual vs. Competitive

When we look at games and genres that have gone out of their way to be the next esport, it’s time to face an important truth: esports suck the fun out of those games. From a community standpoint, some of the worst games imaginable, with regard to community management and moderation, are from the esports side. You have those who send horrible messages to other players, players who look down on everyone else, and reports of corruption and cheating from time to time.

From an onboarding and UI/UX point of view, these games are ineffective at providing accommodations and educating new players on how to play competitively. When it comes to the importance of UI/UX design, esports games fail this test time after time, and a lot of it comes down to their player base, specifically the esports side. Just as single-player gamers often fail to understand the difference between complexity and depth, so do a lot of multiplayer fans. Some immediately fume the second someone wants to change a game to make it easier to play or modernize it for audiences today, as we saw with the modern controls debate from Street Fighter 6. The problem is that teaching someone how to play against an AI is not the same as teaching them how to fight another player. For games that introduce new rules and mechanics, onboarding and tutorials may never cover those advanced elements.

In the last section I mentioned that esports players tend to focus on match design and match balancing above all else, however, the “else” in this regard is what attracts people to play these games in the first place. An esports player wants something that is consistent across however many matches they tend to play over the game’s lifespan and this is also why progression, outside elements, or those that don’t fit within the match are viewed as negatives. For everyone else, this kind of stuff is what makes these games appealing. Something I wrote about in my RTS book with unit design is that at the end of the day, cool trumps balance. Are the different factions in the Command & Conquer universe or the races in StarCraft 2 perfectly balanced? Heck no, and any self-respecting fan would say the same.

Keeping with StarCraft 2, it's the only game I can think of that came out with a fully supported esports model with its competitive play and a completely original campaign for each faction featuring unique units and progression not seen anywhere else. This is in line with how NetherRealm Studios revitalized the fighting game genre in the late 2000s by focusing on content for people who have no interest in the competitive side.

Esports players, no matter how much money gets thrown at sponsorships and tournaments, represent a fraction, of a fraction, of a fraction, of your consumer base, and it's why only catering to them does not keep a game financially afloat.

Where the Money Comes and Goes

Live service game design is all about money coming in and going out in a continuous cycle. If you’re not creating new content, money stops coming in, which means no more budget to create new content. And if you’re not creating “attractive” content for people to buy, then you are just wasting development time and money.

The issue with catering only to esports players with your game’s content and growth is that it doesn’t leave room for anyone else to keep playing. You’ll see this with any competitively-driven game — the first month or two will have peak player counts with new players trying to learn the game and see if it works for them. And then, without fail, those numbers plummet and the people who stick around are just the competitive side or those trying to be competitive.

This group only cares about one thing: content that plays into the competitive side of the game. Anything else is not of interest to them, and if you think new cosmetics are going to be enough to bring casual players back, that’s not going to work. To that point, trying to create new game modes, new mechanics, or anything that runs counter to the esports/competitive side will be met with angry esports players, and still may not be enough to get people to come back. Blizzard’s strategy of splitting StarCraft 2 down the middle between the competitive and casual sides with its content was a brilliant move. Conversely, trying to shoehorn competitive and casual together is what doomed Command & Conquer 4.

The problem with trying to cater to an esports market is that instead of being able to grow your game with new content and interest over the months and years, it starts to shrink. Once a game’s audience becomes fixed like this, no one new is going to join, and if they do, chances are they won’t stay long. If players feel like they are just there to be served up to the expert players, they will leave even faster, as Activision’s report on Skill-Based Matchmaking covers in detail.

The Better Live Service

Some of the most popular live service games today come from the mobile space and are as far away from competitive experiences as a game could get. Creating attractive content for a live service game requires making sure that all segments of your audience can experience it. If there are new missions, storylines, etc., then they should be accessible to all groups. For bonus challenges or limited-time events, there needs to be content for each group of players.

Whenever there is content that only one group of players can use or will support, it’s going to push the other ones away; you need as wide of a consumer base as possible if you want your game to keep growing.

What Is the Future of Esports?

Esports is in a very awkward place now; it’s no longer the new thing on the market, and tournaments like the LoL Championship Series and EVO have reached the mainstream, but prospects for continued growth are debatable. Part of the problem is that it’s not about organically making a game an esport, where the process would look like this:

1. The game comes out
2. People like to play it
3. Tournaments are developed
4. The game becomes an esport

Now, many developers and publishers are chasing the market to will their games to become an esport. The ones that specifically are built for esport players are not finding a market outside of just those players.

Just as the RTS genre needs to have a hard talk about modernizing and appealing to more people, the fighting genre needs a similar one.

Despite how many copies Street Fighter 6 sold and how popular it was, less than half the player base on PC tried a multiplayer match. Designing additional content for mainstream and non-competitive players has helped, but it doesn’t fix the inherent problem of trying to get someone who isn’t a pro player interested in playing a game designed around that mindset.

What do you think: Is esports going to keep growing, or has it reached its limits?

Rocksteady’s Suicide Squad: Kill the Justice League was recently available for free on Amazon, so I decided to give it a try. Overall, it was a fun comic book romp, and I think it could have easily become a beloved franchise if not for the cascading ramifications of its live service trappings. These are my speculations as to how live service shaped its game design, and why some people believe it is responsible for killing the Suicide Squad (SS).

One of the main criticisms I saw floating around was why all these iconic characters like King Shark and Captain BOOMERANG were given guns instead of unique combat styles. The financial incentive to keep players coming back for a live service model demands infinite scalability. A loot system based around guns is easy to make, can be given to any character, and can be infused with any number of stats and mods. It broadens the build variety, but the consequence is a homogenization of the individual traits that make each SS character interesting. It's a particular shame considering how different all their traversal styles feel.

This homogenization consequently affects enemy design, requiring all of them to be killable with guns. So despite the enemies' various gimmicks, your strategy ultimately doesn’t change very much no matter who you're playing. This lack of necessity in dealing with your foes is a sobering contrast to Rocksteady’s previous Arkham games, and even Guardians of the Galaxy, which had you coordinating with your squad to overcome certain foes.

The talent trees alleviate some of this uniformity to encourage certain play styles. Since the game is online co-op, I imagine Rocksteady wanted players to create unique versions of each character. One player's Harley might be a "Run-and-Gunner," while another might be a "Slugger", a decision that thematically fits with the narrative of multiple (Elseworld) dimensions.

The financial incentive to keep players coming back for a live service model demands infinite scalability.

However, the talents still need to exist within the framework of the gunplay and live service model, which pumps out seasonal content in the form of new weapons and mods. Designing talents to be future-proof is no easy task, requiring a very rigid structure (see homogenization). The result is a lot of passive talents, further obfuscated by its dependence on a combo meter to activate. This makes it difficult to capitalize on or feel empowered by your talent choices.

While I feel the decision to include co-op was a bold and worthy pursuit, the homogenized gameplay and unimpressive talents across all characters don't fulfill the fantasy of making a character your own. This is further exacerbated by the requirements of a single-character/co-op shooter where players have to feel self-reliant. There can’t be “puzzles” that only one character can solve. All of this combined fundamentally detracts from the appeal of an SS game about a found family covering for each other’s weaknesses. There's a very clear mismatch with the thematic goals that should have driven the game, versus the retention model of the live service genre.

While I feel the decision to include co-op was a bold and worthy pursuit, the homogenized gameplay and unimpressive talents across all characters don't fulfill the fantasy of making a character your own.

Ironically, SS’s best feature — its traversal – is also its least synergistic. It makes gunplay frenetic, with enemies occupying huge vertical swathes of the environment. It makes your proximity to your team unpredictable, which is probably why there are no team-up actions in the game. And I assume it made the camera finicky in interior spaces, which forced all the gameplay to occur outside. Who knows if traversal dictated mission design or vice versa, but the live service model necessitated a structure that could be repeatedly used anywhere. So they embraced the outdoor gameplay, where any and all objectives could spawn on rooftops no matter what district or dimension you’re in. The resulting lack of mission diversity is abundantly felt in a Metropolis that doesn’t feel lived in and is just a forgettable transitory space to move between repetitive tasks.

While mission modifiers are fun, you expect bespoke experiences from a premium game, especially when the Justice League is concerned! Rocksteady’s Arkham series blended the scale of gameplay brilliantly, from soaring over Gotham to entering a parlor on street level to confront Professor Pyg. That artistry in crafting memorable gameplay moments stems from its inherently singular nature — and nothing in a live service game can be made to be singular. (Except its cutscenes which are a definite standout here.)

A co-op blend of Sunset Overdrive and Doom Eternal sounds like a home-run concept, but the additional factor of a squad, filled with iconic characters in their own right, goes wholly unutilized. The unfortunate decision to pursue live service cornered Rocksteady into creating a rote structure that they’re now caged in when the universe of SS called for bombastic set pieces.

Xsolla, the company behind Roblox, proudly announces the launch of Xsolla Academy Online (XAO). Since its inception in 2005, Xsolla has been a cornerstone in the gaming industry, assisting developers and publishers in funding, launching, selling, and monetising their video games globally. Now, Xsolla extends its wealth of knowledge and expertise to the wider gaming community with XAO, a gamified training platform designed to empower game developers and professionals.

Xsolla Academy Online is crafted to help individuals at all stages of their careers, from seasoned professionals seeking advancement to newcomers navigating the complexities of the gaming business. The platform offers a comprehensive suite of training programs focusing on practical application and industry relevance, ensuring that participants can confidently tackle business challenges.

Key Features of Xsolla Academy Online

• Industry-Relevant Skills and Best Practices: XAO offers six gamified tracks covering essential areas such as Game Business, Monetisation, Marketing, Distribution, Investment, and Xsolla Solutions for Business. These tracks provide frameworks, effective practices, and tools to enhance business strategies and career development.
• Bit-Sized Skills Training: Address your most pressing questions with concise, expertly crafted content. Select your area of interest and dive into a variety of topics designed to provide quick and effective learning.
• Engaging, Gamified Learning: Learn at your own pace with interactive, engaging content. The gamified approach ensures a fun and effective learning experience, accessible from anywhere in the world.
• Always Up-to-Date Content: Stay current with the latest industry trends and practices, all available on one convenient platform.
• Networking Opportunities: Connect with a global community of fellow developers, industry experts, and potential investors through forums and networking events, fostering valuable connections and growth opportunities.

Join the XAO Community

Explore the diverse programs and meet the exceptional instructors who bring unparalleled expertise to XAO. The platform is designed to help you build strategies with long-term positive impacts and provide solutions to daily business challenges. Whether you aim to advance your career, enter the gaming industry, or elevate your game business, Xsolla Academy Online offers the tools and support you need.

Join Xsolla Academy Online today for free and set your game business on a path to success. Visit xsolla-academy.com to learn more and become part of an amazing community dedicated to fostering innovation, accessibility, and growth within the gaming industry.

The post Level Up Your Skills and Game Business with Xsolla Academy Online appeared first on Gaming Debugged | Gaming Site Covering Xbox, Indies, News, Features and Gaming Tech.

Game art companies are available all around the world to help you level up your games or bring your ideas to vision. Video game industries are quickly growing and ever-evolving, calling for a high level of quality, creativity, skill, and innovation. Game art is an extremely important part of game production. Finding a reliable video game art company for game ideas is a challenging and complex process due to the need for time, knowledge, and attention.

Leading Game Art Companies

Here, we have prepared a complete and helpful list of top game art companies, which provide high-quality game art services for your game idea; look no further than here.

1. Pixune Studios

Pixune Studios is a full-service game art studio, from 2D game art, 3D game art, game animation, game concept art, game asset design (characters, environments, props, and UI), video game trailers to cinematics.

This company emphasizes high quality standards across all game art styles, as well as punctuality and client satisfaction. In their professional game art production pipeline, they use a range of software tools to create and refine their game art, including Maya, Blender, 3Ds Max, ZBrush, etc.

They can produce art suitable for various game engines, including Unreal Engine, Unity, Godot, etc. Pixune Studios also offers the service of implementing the art directly into the client’s game engine. 

Specialty: 

2D &3D Game Art Production

Strengths: 

High Level of Quality 

Knowledge of Game Art Principles

100% Punctuality and Delegation

2. Room 8 Studios

Room 8 Studios is an international art production and game development outsourcing company, which provide various game art services with high delivery standards from visual development to engine integration. This experienced studio has been worked with industry leaders across diverse sectors like Activision, Nintendo, Ubisoft, Gameloft, and many others.

They also provide many options for art styles, including photorealistic, semi-realistic, and stylized art. Room 8 Studio covers the entire production cycle, from pre-production to LiveOps, with a team of professionals, including artists, motion designers, concept artists, VFX animation specialists, game designers, and game UI/UX designers.

Specialty: 

Game Art 

Game Development 

Strengths: 

High-Quality Assurance

Collaboration with top Publishers

High Delivery Standards

3. Starloop Studios

StarLoop Studios as a renowned game development company, offers a various range of game services, from art and design to testing. They have been providing end-to-end gaming solutions, including full-cycle game development, game co-development, NFT game development, game VFX, and game porting since 2011.

Their professional team is made of over 150 experienced memebers, who provide services for various game platforms, including PC, mobile, console, and VR/AR. They have collaborated with over 200 clients, including AAA game publishers and world-class brands like Activision, Blizzard, Disney, Ubisoft, etc.

Specialty: 

Game Art

Game Design

Game Development 

Strengths: 

Professional Team Across 14 Countries

Fast Delivery of Output

+300 games for various platforms

4. Ejaw Studios

EJAW is a game development and game art creation agency since 2011. They specialize in creating mobile, desktop, browser, console, cross-platform, and VR/AR games. Their game art services includes 2D/3D art, animation, VFX, slots, and casual game art.

This studio prides themselves on turning ideas into successful industry-leading projects using advanced technologies and creative approaches. 

EJAW Studios has produced more than 100 games for various platforms and prides themselves on turning ideas to successful industry-leading projects, using advanced technologies, trends, and creative approaches. 

Specialty: 

Game Art

Game Development

Game Performance

Strengths: 

Client-Centric Approach

200+ Mobile Games and Apps Developed

Co-development and Dedicated Team

5. Keyword Studios

Keywords Studios is a global traded game company providing creative and technical services, from game development, localization, game art design to game audio design. 

This studio highlights the importance of effective collaboration, quality standards, and innovation. In this way, they can provide top-notch solutions tailored to their clients’ specific needs.

Their software engineering teams collaborate with clients in video games and other sectors to develop compelling games, solve critical issues, develop tools, and port content across platforms. Keywords Studios is a trusted partner to leading companies globally like Google, Ubisoft, Microsoft, SEGA, and Nintendo.

Specialty: 

Game Art

Game Development

Audio Development 

Strengths: 

Prominent Player in the Video Game Industry

Three World-Class AI Products

Game Marketing Services

Conclusion

As you can see, there are many experienced and professional game art companies across the world with a high range of services. When it comes to outsourcing game art, try to narrow down your choices and consider several items. So many options are available, and making a decision is overwhelming. You can find the best suitable one for your project by analyzing their portfolios, asking about their expertise, looking for time and budget compatibility, checking their online reviews, and examining their technical knowledge. 

The post List of Top Game Art Companies   appeared first on Gaming Debugged | Gaming Site Covering Xbox, Indies, News, Features and Gaming Tech.

For strategy fans, one of the biggest pieces of news from the barrage of summer showcases was the long-awaited announcement of a new Civilization game. We're certainly overdue; with Civ (like everything else) transitioning to a live service-lite model, brand-new releases are coming farther apart. The people who started frantically searching for Civilization VII around the time that Civilization VI launched can certainly sleep easy.

That being said, we don't have much information, or any specific information, aside from the fact that Civ VII is somewhere on the horizon. 2K and Firaxis have promised more details in August, which will inevitably lead to rounds of analysis, scrutiny, criticism, and planning. What are the key mechanics? Have they changed any of the things that people have complained about? Which countries will be available out of the gate? Will we once again be subjected to the worst people in the fandom complaining about how it "looks too much like a console game," whatever that even means? These are all questions waiting for answers.

I suspect that different people are anticipating different aspects. Some want to see what combat will look like. Some want to get a handle on unique units and civilization abilities. For me, it's all about the technology tree. As someone who's obsessed with being ahead of time in tech, this is what I always scope out first.

I anticipate being disappointed because no strategy game has ever gotten the tech tree exactly right. Frankly, I'm not sure perfection is even possible.

This isn't to say that they're not trying. Civilization VI featured two very profound changes to technology: The Eureka system, which added little mini-quests to speed up research on specific upgrades, and the splitting of "social" technologies into an entirely separate tree. Both of these were significant improvements, but they still failed to address all the problems I've noticed.

So let's discuss those problems and all the ways that a developer might address them.

Issues with tech tree design

Most people probably don't have serious problems with the Civilization tech tree. It's certainly a functional mechanic, and the trees have improved greatly from earlier versions, shedding useless upgrades and making the overall design more intuitive, for example. That doesn't mean there's no room for improvement, though.

Balance issues and key technologies

The most obvious issue with tech trees is something that Firaxis has already been working on for a while now: balance issues. In older Civilization and Civ-type games, there were inevitably a handful of key technologies that any half-competent player would race toward, often ignoring everything else in the way. Often, these techs unlocked Wonders or their equivalents, which could be game-breakingly powerful in earlier games.

Both Civilization VI and Beyond Earth (and even Civ V to a lesser extent) showed signs of Firaxis trying to fix this. These games feature less powerful Wonders that are nice to have but not worth prioritizing, as well as more types of units to create more nuance in the combat. Even so, most victory types have certain essential developments that encourage this race for certain tech upgrades.

Contribution to third-act problems

Strategy games in general can have some serious issues during the late game. Put bluntly, the end of any strategy campaign can be boring. Civilization games in particular suffer from the "next turn" problem, with a player pursuing a Space Race or other late-game victory type, absentmindedly tapping the "End Turn" button for the last thirty minutes or so.

While this isn't directly a tech tree problem, the two issues are tied together. End-game technologies should feel really impressive, but the player is far more likely to just ignore anything developed in the last fifty turns or so. Either you're already on track to hit a victory condition, or you're falling short and whatever unit or building you unlock isn't going to be around long enough to change that. Technologies developed in the fifty turns before are unlikely to play much of a role in the game, simply because everyone's strategy is largely set by that point.

Narrative issues

The most abstract problem with the standard Civ tech tree is how artificial it feels.

This didn't matter all that much in older strategy games, which more resembled board games. However, strategy games have been developing in a more narrative-focused direction, and that includes Civilization. In Civ II, it was amusing that you could potentially start the Apollo program without having ever developed the wheel. It feels much more false in a modern game, and so does the idea that your country could so consciously focus its technological development.

Alternatives to the standard Civ tech tree

While some variation on the tech tree is still standard in the strategy space, there have been plenty of games - ranging from very early 4X titles to recent indies - that took other approaches. Whether these are viable options depends on a wide range of factors, including the game's overall focus (big-picture strategy vs. turn-to-turn tactical), scope, setting (historical vs. speculative), speed, and complexity.

Linear tech tree/tech tracks

A few games have simplified their tech trees to the point where they feature linear tracks down which players can advance as far as they want.

An extreme example of this is Europa Universalis 4, which features three tracks for administrative, diplomatic, and military advancements. Each track consumes a different resource, so there are no real decisions beyond deciding when to unlock the next level. This is clearly too restrictive for a series like Civ; I'm not sure anyone would or should accept it. It works in EU4 because of that game's focus on strategy over tactics - technology isn't about specific choices, but rather a component of resource management.

A more robust version can be seen in some of the older Galactic Civilizations games, in which there are many tracks that represent specific upgrades - weapons, trade, industry, etc. This solves the problem of having to unlock undesired technologies - a player in need of happiness-generating buildings can simply pursue the appropriate track without needing to research anything else first. It's not a nice narrative fit for a historical game, though, and only feels natural in GalCiv because the upgrades are more abstract in its sci-fi setting. It's also worth noting that GalCiv has moved away from this in the most recent release.

Tech web

Firaxis' own Beyond Earth experimented with a nonlinear tech tree. Rather than moving along in a fixed direction, players can develop their technology down three distinct paths representing not just different scientific disciplines, but different philosophical approaches to the relationship between humans and the alien planet. There's no specific endpoint, and many upgrades feature ample "leaf technologies" - nonessential upgrades that players only need to pursue if they are useful.

The tech web is a really interesting idea, but like most things in Beyond Earth, it's not exactly well-regarded.

I think one of the problems was the attempt to connect technology with philosophy. The idea was that players would select whatever upgrades were immediately useful, and this would guide them down one of the three paths. For example, a player in bad starting terrain would seek out technologies that helped clear that terrain and make it useful, pushing them down the Purity path. The problem is that there were perks (including unique victory conditions) that really required the player to commit to one of those three paths from an early point in the game, so it wasn't exactly a natural exploration.

Besides that, this is another situation where it just works better in a speculative setting than a historical one. Real-life technological development isn't as linear as people assume, but in a history-themed game, we still expect events to proceed in a manner similar to history.

Tech tiers

The tiered approach, as far as I know, has never been tried in this context. Tiered upgrades have been used as a replacement for skill trees (for which a tech tree is just the strategy equivalent), and even the Civilization series has experimented with tiers, such as in the ideology system in Civ V. The notion is that the player would not need to research specific precursor technologies to unlock the next one, but would unlock a new era of technologies after researching enough from the previous era.

Tiered upgrades are sometimes used in other games (such as action RPGs) because they are seen as less restrictive than skill trees. With tiers, the player isn't forced to take unnecessary upgrades to gain access to desired ones. Such a system would allow for a lot of flexibility while still keeping clearly defined eras in place.

The drawback (and the reason I think this hasn't been tried) is that it doesn't seem all that narratively satisfying. Research is an iterative process, and a tiered system would allow a player to skip what would seem like keystone technologies. Honestly though, if it's done right, a tiered tech upgrade system might actually be more realistic than a conventional tree, as it would capture real-world concepts such as the advantage of backwardness. Every society didn't have to invent the wheel ex nihilo - you ultimately know what your neighbors know.

Random/blind research

Alpha Centauri added an interesting twist to the tech tree, one that was radical enough that Firaxis enabled players to turn it off (and, full disclosure, I usually did). Technologies in Alpha Centauri are divided into four categories - Explore, Discover, Build, and Conquer, loosely mapping onto the 4X concept. Rather than researching specific techs, the player sets research priorities and then gets either a tech in that category or a precursor to one. Thus, a player looking to develop an economic base might set Discover and Build as priorities to gain new base facilities.

So what was so wrong with this concept that no one bothered trying it again for almost a quarter of a century? For one, Alpha Centauri has an old-school tech tree, with Secret Projects (their equivalent of Wonders) that can be so disgustingly powerful that some strategies are designed around them. When a single Project can make or break your playthrough, blind research is a massive disadvantage.

Alpha Centauri's tech tree is also big and messy, and that makes it too unintuitive for this system to work as intended. Say you're focusing on your military, so you do the sensible thing and focus on Conquer tech. You might not get a single Conquer tech for a while if you lack the prerequisites for them (which can include techs in the other three categories), but it doesn't matter because most of the weapons, armor, and unit types are unlocked by other tech types. It's simply not intuitive enough for blind research to work.

I think some variant of blind research could work with Civ's current style of tech tree. The more streamlined and balanced trees from the last few games are already split nicely into de facto categories (transport, civic, military) that make this much more sensible. But would players accept it? As I said, even the original version had an option to go back to the standard tree.

Narrative-linked upgrades

The most interesting prospect is foregoing a tech tree altogether. I don't mean eliminating tech upgrades altogether, though this has been done; tech-free strategy games are restricted to those with unorthodox settings, such as the high fantasy setting in Master of Magic. What I mean is getting rid of a purposeful tech tree in favor of tying tech upgrades directly to the player's actions.

This is another concept that Firaxis has played with. The Eurekas and Inspirations of Civ VI are kind of a lightweight version of this concept. Research speeds up based on how the player's civilization is growing - a country with cities on coasts will naturally develop sailing faster, those with lots of archers will gain access to better bows, and so on. It's an interesting way to blend mechanics and narrative in a way that really suits the new direction strategy games have been growing.

Would it be possible to go farther? I have seen games in which tech development is based wholly on the player's natural actions, but these tend to be city builders and base builders - distant cousins of strategy, with similar design principles but very different objectives and sensibilities. In a game that's innately competitive, a narrative-based tech tree becomes just another thing to manipulate, which is exactly what happened with Eurekas in Civ VI.

This is maybe the most interesting possibility, but also the hardest to put into effect. Maybe someday we'll see a system like this, but probably not in Civilization.

Non-tree tweaks

Most of the problems I've identified don't necessarily demand radical changes to the tech tree. A standard tree with some under-the-hood adjustments can accomplish the same thing without upsetting anyone.

I've already explained one way that Firaxis has done this - less powerful Wonders to discourage tech tree races. Other issues can be addressed in similar ways. Third-act issues can be overcome by staggering the emergence of game-changing developments. The slow pace of the endgame can be addressed with more flexible victory conditions that require more attention and input from the player. The narrative issue is trickier, but a few changes in how tech trading works and a sprinkling of random events could do wonders here.

Does it really matter?

Firaxis will almost certainly experiment with the tech tree, but I don't expect any game-changing differences. My guess is that you'll see an expansion and refinement of the Eureka system, more leaf techs to add flexibility, and perhaps some new mechanics to make the technology and civics trees feel more distinct. They may not even go that far, and could just move a few things around.

Why not make more profound changes? As much as we like to talk about "balance" as this perfect end-state of video games, it's not clear that the actual consumers really care. To the people who end up buying Civilization VII, what's important is that the tech tree be creative and intuitive, and these are things that Firaxis does reasonably well.

Honestly, it's probably for the best. I said at the beginning that perfection is likely impossible. It doesn't matter how flawlessly balanced your system is, someone is going to find a way to break it. For many strategy fans, that's the whole reason they gravitate toward these games in the first place. Make it perfect, and you're just going to encourage them to try harder.

So while I'm curious as to what Firaxis might pull, I'm not sweating too much over it. After all, I'll likely end up as one of those people trying to break the system.

Animal Well is a game that communicates almost exclusively in riddles, even when it comes to its core gameplay mechanics. Take fast travel, for example. At the start of your journey, you might wonder if fast travel is even possible. You don’t even get a map until you’ve explored the opening sections of the game, so…

Read more...

Imagine this: You’re a game developer and you’ve just created a mobile game that you’re sure is the next hit in the market. What you might not have realized is that you might have fallen victim to common mistakes made by game devs in mobile game design.

Creating a successful mobile game involves more than just coding and design; it requires something crucial: the ability to immerse players in a captivating user experience. To achieve this, game developers must steer clear of common design pitfalls that can detract from the overall quality and appeal of their games. In this article, we’ll explore ten prevalent mistakes in mobile game design and provide insights into how to avoid them.

1. Poor User Experience

One of the most critical aspects of mobile game design is ensuring a seamless and enjoyable user experience. Because this is your best first impression to your users! Failing to prioritize intuitive controls, clear navigation, and responsive gameplay can lead to the absolute no-go: which is frustrated players and negative reviews. This is exactly why mobile game devs should conduct thorough testing to identify and rectify any user experience issues prior to launching the game.

2. Messy and Disordered Interfaces

Cluttered and disorganized interfaces can overwhelm players and impede their ability to engage with the game. Designing clean, intuitive interfaces with clear visual hierarchy and navigation can significantly impact the overall user experience. A tip is to make sure the users stay engaged in your game is for your user interface UI to be interactive with engaging game components and a low loading speed.

3. Making the Game Too Complex

Hypercasual mobile games are naturally easy to play and known for their fun game mechanics. While some complexity can add a level of depth to a mobile game, overwhelming players with convoluted mechanics and a steep learning curve can lead to user disengagement. Striking a balance between depth and accessibility is crucial to cater to players.

Remember the phrase: Simple to grasp yet difficult to master!

4. Not Choosing a Relevant Target Audience

Target the right audience! When creating any product, it is essential to know who you’re selling the product to. So it goes unsaid how vital it is to understand the preferences and expectations of the target audience when designing a game that resonates with the right players. This could mean doing a thorough market analysis and drawing the sketch of what, where and who your target group is. What their needs, hobbies and pain points are the very details that will help you understand how to segment your audience and market the game. It can also help with deciding on a format and placements of your ads.

5. Underestimating the Power of Trends

Match-3, puzzles, action, casino… there are endless trends that come up every now and then. It can be an advantage to understand the market trends and have a mobile game that resonates with it. The report from Adjust and Applovin also mentions that racing and simulation games have been placed on the top of the charts. The installs witnessed the growth by 61% and 53% YoY, respectively. They are followed by arcade games followed with 38% and 19% increases in installs and sessions. Trends are not only found within the market itself though, it is worth it to keep a close eye on social trends as well like mainstream entertainment, social networks, toys & fashion, major events, etc.

6. Not Paying Enough Attention to Marketing and Monetization

Developers often focus solely on game mechanics and aesthetics, overlooking the importance of a well-rounded marketing strategy and a sustainable monetization model. Integrating marketing and monetization considerations into the early stages of game design can be the make or break for long-term success. The Gaming App Insights Report from Adjust and AppLovin stated that gaming in-app revenue is increasing! In January 2024, the growth of in-app revenue witnessed an increase of 13% YoY.

7. Too Many Push Notifications

While push notifications can be a valuable tool for player engagement, bombarding users with excessive or irrelevant notifications can be an annoyance and lead to the dreadful: app uninstalls! Game devs should implement a thoughtful and targeted approach to push notifications to avoid alienating their player base.

8. Absence of a User Feedback Channel

User feedback is one of the things that can be made readily available through mobile game apps. Fostering this kind of open communication with players and gathering insights drives iterative improvements to the game. Try to incorporate a user feedback channel, such as in-game surveys or community forums. This will allow developers to understand player sentiments and address their concerns effectively.

9. Neglecting Privacy and User Protection

In an era of heightened awareness around data privacy, it is a huge risk to not prioritize user privacy and protection. This can erode your game reputation and inevitably your players’ trust. So implement a robust privacy measure and transparent data practices! This will not only safeguard player information but also cultivate a sense of trust and credibility.

10. Ignoring Game Reviews

Player feedback, as reflected in game reviews, can offer invaluable insights into the strengths and shortcomings of a game. Ignoring or dismissing game reviews deprives developers of an opportunity to identify areas for improvement and refine the game based on player feedback.

Conclusion

Mobile game design is an extensive process which concerns various aspects. Often, in this process, mistakes can be made and go unnoticed which can hinder what would otherwise be a compelling and successful gaming experience. It’s best practice to avoid common mistakes such as underestimating the power of trends or understanding the target audience, neglecting user experience and failing to integrate thoughtful marketing and monetization strategies. Developers can enhance the appeal and longevity of their mobile games. Additionally, fostering open communication with players, prioritizing user privacy, and leveraging player feedback can further contribute to the success of mobile game design. Ultimately, by steering clear of these pitfalls, developers can take the quality of their games to new levels and establish a strong connection with their player base.

This article was originally published by TapNation.

You need to wear a lot of different hats when you’re making a game – especially if you’re doing it solo. One day, you’re a foley artist. Next, you’re a marketer. Even as a programmer or designer, it’s useful to understand how these elements come together, so you can make sure everything ties into your theme.

To help you along the way, we gathered all the free resources you can use to learn about the different areas of game development. Before you use the resources, we encourage you to make sure the assets are royalty-free.

Game design resources

Game design is all about the choices you make. The rules and mechanics that bring your idea to life. From small decisions, like whether to use coyote time in your platformer, to big decisions, like the main theme of the game.

1. Game Accessibility Guidelines. Every game designer should bookmark these guidelines. They go through the principles you should follow and give examples for each task. There’s even a checklist you can download.
2. Develop.Games. Thor Hall, the creator behind Heartbound and ex-Blizzard developer, has put together the Develop.Games site. It goes through both the development and the business side of creating games. A must-read for any would-be developer.
3. GameMaker’s Toolkit. This YouTube channel is an excellent series that deep dives into the most important elements of game design. You’ll find topics like creating puzzles, developing for a specific genre, and the psychology of the players themselves.

1. GDC Vault. The Game Developers Conference adds all the various talks and presentations from their events to their vault. These range from technical advice on how to develop specific ideas to wider trends and best practices.
2. The Level Design Book. This website covers everything about level design, starting from the theory to the actual tools you’ll need to get started. There’s even a section for specific assets and resources you can use.
3. Scroll back (the theory of cameras in side scrollers). This gigantic article could be a book all to itself. It covers everything you might want to know about how to use a camera in 2D games.
4. Pixel Architect. Dev diaries like these can be a useful way to see how to actually build your game. There are plenty to follow, but Pixel Architect is a particularly good start.
5. Design Doc. This channel answers the tricky, specific questions you might have about game design, focusing on the mechanics themselves. How do you stop people from hoarding items? Why add critical hits? What’s the point of fast travel?

1. The Architect of Games. While this channel seems to be about critiquing games with humour – it actually analyzes the actual game design decisions and explores the themes of the game in depth.
2. Brackeys. A huge channel of tutorials that also delves into the actual game design decisions behind that development. The only downside is that they shut down a few years ago, so some videos can be a little outdated.

Game development resources

At the heart of every game is the code itself. Even if you’re experienced with a programming language, you’re likely to bump into a few surprises when developing your game. Either way, there are tons of resources out there. And if you need an engine, consider the open-source Godot.

1. freeCodeCamp.org. If you want to learn to code, this is the channel to visit. They go deep into the practical and theory side and even have the full Harvard Computer Science University course as a 25-hour video. Yes, a Harvard University course – completely free.
2. Game Programming Patterns. Keeping your code clean and organised is a major challenge, so this free ebook teaches you the best practices.
3. Programming Patterns on Unity. Unity has released a similar guide around coding patterns and explaining how to use them inside Unity.
4. Ludum Dare. A twice-yearly game jam over a weekend. Not only is it inspiring, but it’s worth reading the posts from other developers as they delve into their process.
5. Introduction to Game Development with Unity. This Udemy tutorial is a perfect start for anyone looking to use Unity. You’ll see how to use cameras and objects, and understand the Unity interface.
6. GDQuest. If you want to get into Godot, then look no further than GDQuest. A huge treasure-trove of free tutorials that cover pretty much everything you need – even if you’re not going to use Godot.

1. Game Development Crash Course. Udemy also has a crash course about how to use the Solar2D game engine.
2. GitHub Student Developer Pack. Get your school enrolled, and you’ll be able to get access to real-world tools and practice using them. There’s a page about how to get your school involved.
3. Codeacademy game dev course. This four-hour introductory course will help you get the ball rolling and learn about game design and development.
4. LootLocker free guides. These step-by-step guides walk you through specific mechanics, particularly meta-mechanics like energy systems.

Game art free resources

Not all games need fantastic graphics to be a success. Vampire Survivors used assets that Luca Galante simply bought in a pack. There are also plenty of videos out there about how to draw pixel-art-style games. If you need a free tool, consider open-source tools like Gimp, Blender, or Krita.

1. Itch.io. There are thousands of free assets on itch.io, from character sprites to user-interface elements. Even if you only use them for inspiration, it’s a fantastic collection.
2. Kenney.nl. Not only can you get thousands of free 2D and 3D assets, there are loads of guides on how to edit them or create your own.
3. Blender Guru. If you’re looking to create slick 3D graphics, Blender Guru is the channel to follow. He offers guides and tutorials for beginners and advanced artists alike.

1. Polligon. Created by Blender Guru, you can find Blender textures, models and more in the free section.
2. CRTLpaint. This site has a bunch of free video series that teach you how to get into digital painting for yourself. From concept art to the principles of design. You can also follow their YouTube channel.
3. Proko. If you want to learn the basics of drawing, particularly characters, then this channel will help you get there.
4. 2DGameArtGuru. Learn all the most useful tools, such as Inkscape, Adobe Illustrator and Corel Draw. There are absolutely loads of tools here.

Music and sound-free resources

Your music can define the tone and atmosphere of your game. It’s vital to make your game come alive. These resources can help you produce that soundtrack, from composing your melody to putting it all together. If you need an open-source tool, check out Ardour, MuseScore (if you know sheet music), and Audacity.

1. Sonniss: Free archive. This is one of the biggest libraries of sound effects out there. Every year they give out free samples at GDC. This is the link to their 10GB archive of all those free sound effects.
2. Bensound. A huge collection of royalty-free music that you can filter and organise by mood.
3. Music Matters. If you’re completely new to music theory, this channel has tons of videos that will get you up to speed in no time.
4. Spitfire Audio. Not only does this channel talk you through music theory and crafting tracks from multiple instruments, but they also show the process behind actually composing a track from start to finish. They also have a free library of instrument samples called BBC Symphony Orchestra Discover.
5. Ryan Leach. Ryan creates videos about how to compose music for TV, film and games. He covers not only basic music theory, but how to easily turn that into an orchestral masterpiece.

Narrative game design resources

Storytelling and narrative design are quite different from writing a novel or script. You need to consider not only the character and plot, but what actions the player might take. It’s all about choices. If you need a tool to help you plan out your story’s flow, look into the open-source engine Twine.

1. Emily Short. This blog is a huge list of books and blogs that you should read if you want to learn about interactive narratives.
2. Screencraft: Write for video games. This article explores the various types of writing you might need to cover, from cut scenes to side quests.
3. Game Developer: Storytelling in games.This article is the first in a series that dives deep into what narrative design is and how to think about it.

Game marketing and monetization resources

Once you’ve developed your game, it’s time to start getting it out to the masses. Here are a few resources to help you get the word out.

1. Kickstarter: Tips for games. Unsurprisingly, Kickstarter has a section on their site about how to set up your project, entice people in, and get funded. A lot of the advice works well for your general marketing, too.
2. Helpshift’s marketing guide. Focused on mobile gaming, this ten-step guide walks you through what you need to do as well as in-depth case studies.

1. Game Marketing Genie. These guys have a great guide and overview about how to market your game, from understanding your competitors to using Steam.
2. AskGameDev. This channel has a specific playlist all about how to market your video game. There are 17 videos here that will surely help.
3. Steambase: If you want to research other games, Steambase is a really useful resource. It tracks Steam sales, so you can know when to best discount your own game.

How to keep track of gaming industry trends?

Not only is it important to market your game, but to keep an eye on trends in the industry. What’s working? What isn’t? Here are a few resources that can help you out.

1. GWI’s gaming playbook. This free report from GWI goes into the stats and figures that you need to know about the industry.
2. GameAnalytics. Our free tool can help you track and research your own game, but we can also give you insights into the industry.

It’s clear that AI is entering every aspect of gaming. So where is the technology when it comes to voice-overs? Does it work? And is it worth using? We looked at the various tools out there to see the best ways to use it and whether the quality was up to scratch.

AI voice-overs won’t replace voice actors

First of all, we don’t believe the quality of AI voice-acting is anywhere close to a real actor. Even AI tools that are focused on the gaming sector hover in that uncanny valley, where the voice just sounds robotic and stilted. Not awful. But it just doesn’t have that same cadence a real person would give.

True, the technology will advance. But we don’t see it replacing the need for a real person. For one, you need to model the AI after someone. But even then, an AI can’t decide when to pause to show emotion or emphasise a point. It doesn’t have that same awareness of the context of the situation.

A YouTube comment on Sonantic’s video about AI voices. 

As models improve, it’ll get better. But it’ll never be perfect, and it’ll take a lot of work from the developer to make it believable. A well-written scene, filled with character development and poignant moments, will always need a real actor to do it justice.

The results are rather stilted

We experimented with a few different voice-over AI tools to see how well they performed, such as ReadSpeaker, PlayHT, REsemble.AI, Lovo.AI, and Replica Studios.

Even just listening to the highlight reels on their websites, the examples sound robotic and somewhat lifeless. They might be passable for minor moments or tutorial text, but they’re certainly not good enough for emotional scenes or believable characters.

Replica Studios’ digital voice studio.

There are more specialised tools, like Replica Studios, which allow you to change the emotion behind the text and adjust the settings. But even these fall flat when the text gets longer or more nuanced. Small snippets of text, like one-liners, tutorial hints or narration, can be okay. But some words seem to completely mystify the computer and it can’t make the whole paragraph… flow.

So if the quality isn’t up to scratch, what’s the point of using it?

AI can speed up prototypes

There aren’t many studios using AI for voice-over work. At least, not work that’s out in the wild. It seems that most are using it to help speed up their development process, rather than using it for their final release.

Obsidian uses AI to make sure that the story is flowing properly and that the characters are behaving believably. And, as games become more and more customizable, it’s impractical to record those lines until the very end. AI can improve the quality of the prototype and testing build.

This seems to be a trend with most studios.

“We use Replica’s software to test scripts, dialogue, and gameplay sequences before engaging human voice actors to record the final lines,” said Chris O’Neill, the senior audio designer at PlaySide Studios.

Likewise, Ninja Theory said on X (Twitter):

“We use this AI only to help us understand things like timing and placement in early phases of development. We then collaborate with real actors whose performances are at the heart of bringing our stories to life.”

This seems like a good way to think about AI in general. Use it as a placeholder or way to brief your creative team. It can help your director communicate what they want and speed the process along.

AI allows for ‘generated’ content

There are already hundreds of thousands of lines of dialogue in modern games. Bethesda’s Starfield has around 250,000 lines. Baldur’s Gate 3, even during early access, had well over 45,000 lines – and that was just the first act. Red Dead Redemption 2 reportedly had over 500,000 across 1,000 voice actors.

Games are just getting bigger and bigger. The main bulk of the dialogue probably won’t replace the need for human actors. But it can help tidy up the quality after it’s been recorded.

With so many lines of dialogue, it’s not always practical to record it all at once. Baldur’s Gate 3 has great writing and quality actors. But sometimes it’s clear the lines were recorded at different times. Using AI to just tidy it up and make it consistent could really help.

But that’s just the written dialogue. The intentional dialogue. What players want is interactivity – to be able to talk to characters and have unique responses.

The next step is inevitably more “generated” or “dynamic” dialogue. Dialogue that’s powered by AI language models to respond to the player in real-time.

Replica Studios is already working on this, with their Smart NPCs plugin for Unreal Engine. And it’s pretty impressive.

AI will soon respond to players – and it can’t all be acted

The idea is simple. Imagine you could walk around a world and talk to any NPC and they’d respond like a real human being. It seems fantastical, but it’s within reach. We wouldn’t be surprised if we see a game with AI NPCs in the next couple of years.

Replica Studios did a demo with Matrix Awakens using their Smart NPCs. Their official demo is a bit lacklustre, so here’s a better example from YouTuber TmarTn2 trying it out.

As you can see, it’s pretty impressive. But janky. The novelty of saying anything to an NPC would likely wear thin after a little while and the responses aren’t world-shattering. Mix in a real writer, coming up with scenarios and stories that the NPCs could draw from – and we’re sure it’ll be mind-blowing.

The problem is that it’s all unique content. It needs an AI voice actor to speak the lines, because it’s literally impossible to record the dialogue.

We predict that studios will need to licence an actor’s voice to allow for this dynamic content. Pay the actor normally for the ‘real’ dialogue and then an extra fee to model their voice for the generated content.

Sure, the generated content will never be as good as the parts the voice actor actually performed. But, you know what? That’s fine. As a player, I’m willing to accept a bit of janky dialogue as an extra. I suspend my disbelief. It feels like the old days where the graphics weren’t particularly good. After a while, your mind fills in the blanks.

AI could help accessibility

Text-heavy games are always a problem for those that can’t read them. Whether the player is completely blind or just struggles seeing the tiny font – having a computer read out the text can be incredibly helpful.

Developers could use AI as a tool for accessibility. For example, you could have it narrate actions for blind people like “Frank enters the room.” Or just have it read out the in-game text and menus.

This is particularly useful for ports of old games. A game like Final Fantasy VII was purely text-based. Imagine Square Enix, when they ported it to PC, could just slap on an AI tool to read out all that text. It’d open it up to so many more players.

It’s possible to embrace AI and be ethical

If a developer wants to only use AI for their voice acting, it’s not really viable right now. Even in the future, it’s going to take a lot of effort to get to the quality you’d expect from an actor. There’s still a price to pay – time. For the most part, we imagine that developers will need a mix of AI and real people.

But how do we balance the two? Society, in general, has a lot to learn about how to work with AI. Regulations need to be set. Standards need to be made. Questions need answering.

With the right licences for voice actors, which pay them fairly for their talent, we can see a bright future for gaming. AI has the potential to become the private Game Master, helping run unique games for every individual player. Even if the voices do all sound the same.

But, then again, isn’t that every Game Master?

If you’d like to stay in the loop about the latest news from the gaming industry, make sure you subscribe to our newsletter.

VR games are growing in popularity – with predictions that there will be 23 million VR-related jobs hit the market by 2030. And with better technology and increased interest, more and more developers are shifting towards this new field.

But even with better tools, online tutorials, and a larger community, making a VR game is still no walk in the park. It’s very different to what you may be used to building. To get ahead, we’ve been doing our own research and interviewing the best VR devs to get their top-tier advice. So, here’s what we learned and what you need to know.

Controls being second nature

Depending on your audience, you can usually expect your players to have some experience with games in the past. So they should have a good understanding of controls and button layout. This may not be the case for VR.

For starters, VR controllers are a new concept. Playstation and Xbox controllers have been around for decades and are usually the first thing people think of when you mention gaming. But unlike other platforms, your players can’t see their hands with VR. Saying ‘Press X’ isn’t enough in this situation. They can’t remember where it is and can’t see their hands to figure it out.

Think up creative ways to lend them a hand. ‘Show, don’t tell’ is a handy tool here. You could have a semi-transparent image of their controller pointing out which button to press and showing exactly where it is on their controller. Seeing where the button is on their controller can help them feel for what they should be pushing. That’s what Half-Life: ALYX did, and it worked quite well for them.

Playing for hours upon hours

Unlike other platforms, people can’t wear their headsets for long periods. It’s very easy for players to experience eye strain, headaches, and motion sickness if they play their VR for too long.

So you may want to think about a target session length. Too long, and your players may quit halfway through with a pounding head. If you’ve created hyper-casual games before, then the rules of ‘keep it short, sweet, and satisfying’ can easily transfer to VR.

With that in mind, it depends on the type of game and players you have. Ramen VR’s Zenith MMORPG game saw players spending two hours at a time in their title. So take this section as a guide rather than a strict rule. Use data to listen to your players and find what works for them.

Cutscenes or forced camera perspectives

Cutscenes can be great to help tell your story or highlight important events. And in traditional gaming, it’s fine to shift your player away from first person and into a cut scene or even certain camera perspectives. But the sudden shift of perspective in VR can be very jarring and disorienting, if not done correctly.

The unique element with VR is that your players are always in a first-person view. So rather than watching from the sidelines, your players can be in those cutscenes, experiencing them first-hand.

Clash of Clans actually tackled this quite nicely. They have a 360 movie for VR, placing you directly in the action. It’s a shame this isn’t a full on game and instead more of an experience. But consider treating your cutscenes like this – making your storytelling methods much more interactive, even letting your players participate.

Quick-time events

Quick Time Events, where players are prompted to press specific buttons within a time limit, are great for adding tension to your games. But not so great in VR. For one, the sudden change can break their immersion and slap them back into the reality of they’re just playing a game. And keep in mind that your players can’t see their controls, so they may struggle to react quickly if they’re also processing which button to press.

Focus on more natural and immersive mechanics to add tension. Or, if you want to add a time-based element, run focus groups to see if that’s what your players like. You’ll probably need to test this quite vigorously to find the right balance of fun and challenging without being overwhelming and disruptive.

HUD elements

In most games, you’ll have some key information on-screen (like health bars, mini maps, objective markers), which convey crucial information to your players. But in VR, these elements can hinder their immersion and obstruct their view.

So consider how you’ll relay this information without overloading your players. We recently interviewed Halfbrick Studios, the developers behind the Fruit Ninja series. When designing their HUD, they opted to instead create a pad with all of the info their players needed in the form of a ninja scroll. It made it so much more natural for the player and kept it in the game’s theme.

Don’t underestimate the power of level design here, too. You don’t always need to spell things out for your players. Having clear objects, buildings and landmarks with certain colours and shapes can help intuitively guide your players to where they need to go without relying on a mini-map. This technique has been used many times in open-world games, too.

Nintendo devs actually revealed that they use this technique in their Zelda games. Key landmarks were always in a triangular shape. When players saw those shapes (usually mountains), they had two options: walk around or climb up them. Both actions led the players in the right direction. This same technique can be used in VR, too.

Written information

The screen of your VR is right in front of your eyes. And that can sometimes be uncomfortably close, especially if you need to read things. Having too much text for your players to read can break the immersion, add to their eye strain, and cause headaches.

So you’ll want to get creative when relaying information. Using auditory or visual cues whenever you can keeps the players immersed but also eases up on their eyes.

Precision controls

When playing games on consoles, PC, or even mobile games, your players can get pretty precise with their aiming. When playing multiplayer games with a mouse and keyboard, a flick of the wrist is all your players need to do to target their enemies. With mobile, you just slide your finger across the screen.

VR games can be a little trickier. You will be directly mapping a player’s hand movement to virtual weapons, so they may not have the same level of precision. Consider what limitations you’re working with. And depending on your game, perhaps give the option to increase aim assist or develop mechanics that feel natural and responsive.

Robo Recall, one of the first games to come out on Oculus, tackled this quite nicely. Here’s what we could see:

• They used very clear visuals: You can grab weapons, enemies, and even bullets out of the air easily. There’s a clear white circle around where you can grab them, so you know exactly where to point your controller.
• Time slows when catching objects: In the game, all of the bullets coming at you are slowed down. One, to help you dodge (otherwise, you’d be overwhelmed). But you can also catch bullets and fling them back to the enemy. Lots of fun. But impossible to do in real time.
• They use larger hitboxes for items: You don’t need to be precise when catching or picking up objects. If you’re close enough to a weapon or object, you can easily summon it by pointing in its rough direction. This is very common in VR, considering how restricted players are when moving around.

Lots of assets

In most games, you’ll have lots of background objects to fill the scene. Otherwise, the game can feel bare and barren. The issue with VR, everything needs to be rendered twice (as you have essentially two screens). Not only that, but every object should arguably be interactive. If a player tries to pick something up and can’t, well, that’s just another reminder that they’re just in a game. It can be confusing to know what’s interactive and what’s just background stuff when you have loads of objects. And think about the frame rate and CPU power – the more you have, the more power you’ll need.

So you’ll likely have less clutter and objects in the background. But that’s okay. Just make sure that whatever you have in your levels, your players can engage with them in some way. Even if it is just picking up a mug and throwing it across the room.

We recently interviewed Schell Games, the creative minds behind ‘I Expect You To Die’ and ‘Among Us VR’. They had items in their game that didn’t do anything and were just there. But after testing, they noticed their players trying to interact with it. It led them to decide to make it a unique object that they could pick up and break.

Get started making VR games

We hope this has been a helpful guide to get you started on your VR journey. Some of these techniques and rules may not always apply to you. That’s where data comes in. Sign up for free and download our SDKs to get going.

Read our documentation for each to get started: Unity, Unreal, or Android. Or check out our integration guide for Meta Quest 2.

It’s been the highlight of the news: AAA console games are coming to mobile. After Apple’s announcement in September, premium games are making their way to iPhone 15, with some already released. We’ll now be able to play AAA titles like Assassin’s Creed Mirage, Resident Evil 4 (the remake), Death Stranding, and more on our pocket devices.

Is this the start of the AAA game era on mobile? Will we expect to see more high-end, hardcore games hitting the smaller screens? And will players actually play them? Here’s what we know.

Can mobile devices handle AAA games?

Yes, they can. But they’ll require a specific technical frame in order to work. Technology has always been getting better, more powerful, and, more importantly, smaller. Only 20 years ago, the CPU in your desktop PC would’ve been 1 GHz. Now, phones are twice that. It’s no different for the latest Apple phone.

“The iPhone 15 Pro is powered by Apple’s first 3-nanometer mobile chip, the A17 Pro. Apple says the A17 Pro marks its most significant GPU redesign ever, with 20% more power than last year’s A16. As a result, the iPhone 15 Pro is reportedly capable of high-end native gaming features like ray tracing, upscaling, and variable refresh rates—as well as HDR support.” – Rhys Elliot, Newzoo.

Even though the tech is advancing, there are still a lot of challenges to overcome when bringing AAA games to mobile.

The tech isn’t quite up to scratch

The device needs to be able to run the games. That means a CPU, GPU, processor, cooling system, RAM, storage, etc. All powerful enough to run high-end AAA games.

When we checked the iPhone’s 15’s tech in PassMark, we found that the CPU is about as good as the AMD Ryzen 5 1600 (which came out on Apr 11th, 2017). That’s the year Horizon Zero Dawn, Injustice 2 and Breath of the Wild came out. If we look at the specs alone, the new Apple chip is as good as a top-end (and, you know, still pretty decent) processor from six years ago. That said Jackie Thomas at IGN tested an early version of Resident Evil 4 on the iPhone 15, and the results weren’t too promising.

“I was recently invited to get some hands-on time with AAA games coming to iPhone, namely Death Stranding and Resident Evil 4. However, it’s clear that both of these games are either very early in the porting process, or they’re just not going to be that great of an experience on your phone.” – Jackie Thomas, IGN.

Overheating and battery life

Consoles and PCs have both experienced overheating problems in the past when running intensive games. To keep them cool and running, these devices are designed to be big and able to accommodate fans.

Even if the CPU of the latest phones can handle a top-end game, you won’t be able to hold the device if it gets as hot as a PC does. Players will need to get their hands on cooling devices built for phones to simply play the games on the go.

Gaming can also suck the battery life of devices in no time. YouTuber Ammar Ajjoub did a drain test while playing games, and found the phone drained after four hours of constant gaming. That actually isn’t too bad, considering that the average daily playtime for the adventure genre on PlayStation and Xbox was around 124 minutes in June (sourced from 2021).

The size of the games will be too big

You have a few different storage options for phones, usually: 64GB, 128GB, 512GB, and 1TB. If a game takes up between 40GB to 60GB, that already eats up a big percentage of your phone space. Players will be limited to how many games they can have on their phones at once. And, unlike consoles, where your only competition for space is mainly other games, you have other apps and forms of media on your phone) to compete with.

Players aren’t used to hardcore games on phones

The majority of mobile games tend to be quick, simple, and easy. That’s why the hyper-casual genre is so popular among the developers. You can play them on the go without having to dedicate too much of your attention.

AAA games are different – they’re built for dedicated gaming sessions, where you give yourself a few hours in the evening to play with your full attention. You can’t easily play Death Stranding while waiting in a queue at the bank. The exceptions are long commutes (like on a long train journey or flight). This is where devices like the Nintendo Switch and Steam Deck are good alternatives – something with better controls, powerful tech, and a decent-sized screen. These devices give a much better experience over mobile.

For AAA games to work on mobile, players will need to change their idea of what a mobile game actually is.

Apple is trying to change the users’ view of mobile gaming

Apple is making a statement. By porting popular AAA titles, they’re proving that the tech is now up to scratch. But the question still remains: Will people be willing to compromise storage, battery, and finances to play AAA titles on their phones? Especially, if we consider that some of these games will still have that AAA price tag on them.

The key lies with the younger generation

When we look at overall stats, people do play on mobile more than they play on console. But we need to take into account how vast the mobile gaming audience is. If you look at more demanding games, people prefer to play those on console and PC, rather than mobile. It’s clear that the vast number of genres, and rise of casual games, are inflating the stats of mobile gaming.

For AAA games, the story is different. It’s the younger players that play on smaller, touchscreen devices. They’ve grown up with mobiles and are already playing games like Minecraft, Fortnite, and Call of Duty on them.

Even back in 2010, we were seeing that the younger generation are far more willing to play on mobile devices. A 2010 Nielson study found that kids under the age of 13 opted for an iPad or iPod touch over gaming consoles. This lowered for teenagers, but mobile devices were still the top choice. Fast forward to 2022, mobile phones and tablets are still the highest for kids aged kids between 3 and 7.

This starts to shift to console when people hit 8 onwards, with console gaming taking the lead, tablet use going down, but mobile remaining a close second.

So why do players then shift to console? Perhaps it’s because the games aren’t available on touchscreen devices or because they aren’t good enough quality. Either way, players have no choice but to make the switch when they want to play more advanced titles.

But with better mobile hardware, that trend could change. By introducing new AAA games to mobile – and not just adaptations – there’s less reason for a player to make the switch (aside from wanting a larger screen). By bringing these more demanding games to mobile, Apple will prove that these games can run well, that the tech is up to scratch, and that they’re worth the money. This could change the perception around mobile gaming and open up a new market for developers.

It’ll take time to bring AAA games to mobile

With all these challenges, it’ll take a while for AAA games to truly take off on mobile. The shift in the mindset of premium games on mobile, the technology itself progressing, and even the marketing around these games – they all take time.

By making Assassin’s Creed Codename Jade exclusive to mobile, and porting some of the most successful AAA games to mobile, we’re at the beginning of a proof of concept. Players will be tempted to try out the new game on the smaller screens. We’ll have to wait and see if it meets their expectations.

Use data to perfect your game

It’s uncertain how things will progress over the next few years. But one thing is for sure: mobile gaming is expanding and evolving. According to Statista, in 2023, the mobile games market is projected to generate a revenue of $89.25bn worldwide. And it’s clear that more developers, publishers, and companies are trying to break into the mobile gaming market.

Data has always been crucial for a studio’s success. But considering how fast the industry is progressing, with new genres entering uncharted territories, it’s now more important than ever. Get in touch with our team to learn how data can help your studio.

Once your mobile game has had time to mature, it might be worth developing a version for console or PC. If you’re looking to port the other direction, from console to smartphone, check out our blog on adapting games for mobile.

In this article, we’ll look at how porting to consoles or PCs could help extend the lifespan of your game, bring in more revenue, and the challenges you’ll face.

What are the benefits of porting your mobile game?

Not every game is suitable to port over to PC or mobile. The platforms have vastly different requirements and player expectations. However, this shouldn’t deter you from exploring the option.

Porting can open your game to a new market

The mobile gaming market holds around half the overall gaming revenue in the world – consisting of around $92 billion. However, it’s worth remembering that console and PC markets still make up the other half.

While there’s an overlap of players, porting your game gives it more visibility, opens up new revenue streams, and provides new opportunities to reach a wider audience.

It isn’t just porting your game that can help you take advantage of the PC and console markets. Cross-platform play is becoming increasingly common, as we explored in our trends for 2024.

The advantages of launching on a new platform are similar to launching in a new country. Not only do you reach those new players, but you can celebrate the launch, reach out to press, and keep your game present in the zeitgeist.

It also gives more choice to your current players. If they can play on their PC or console, as well as their smartphone, they’re far more likely to continue.

Porting increases your return on investment

The cost of porting an existing game is typically lower than going through the whole game lifecycle – half the initial cost, according to iLogos Game Studios.

This is borne out when we look at the figures. In a post from Kevuru Games, elementary 2D games cost up to $10,000 to develop, causal games cost up to $50,000, and mid-level games cost up to $120,000. As a benchmark, they claim that Angry Birds cost around $140,000 to develop.

Meanwhile, iLogos Game Studios estimates it costs around $5,000 to $20,000 to port simple games. Although, for more complex games that can rise to between $20,000 and $100,000.

This makes it a viable option for publishers with an already successful title. Being able to reach the other half of the gaming market, while costing only half your initial development is a far better return on investment than taking a risk on a completely new title.

Porting can lead to increased session length

People tend to play for longer on PC and console than they do with mobile. The average session length of a mobile gamer is around 30 minutes to an hour. The average for console gamers is an hour to two hours.

This was even more prominent when you look at the extremes – an additional 20% of console gamers said they play between two and four hours, compared to only 10% of mobile gamers.

These increases in session length can directly lead to more in-app purchases. The longer people play, the more likely they’ll pay.

What are the challenges to porting your game?

There are plenty of reasons to port your mobile game to another platform. However, there are a few challenges you’ll need to consider before you start the journey.

Advertising is uncommon on PC and console

This trend is changing. While it’s a relatively new and unexplored market right now, Microsoft and Sony have both announced that they’re looking to bring advertising to their games. The difference is that most advertising on consoles or PCs tends to be more subtle native advertising, where the ads are a part of the scenery and world.

Because advertising is still an emerging trend, free-to-play console and PC games rely on microtransactions and subscriptions for their revenue. With that in mind, you’ll need to carefully analyze your data to identify the best strategy. You can also look at other creative ways to increase your revenue on our blog, such as merchandising and IP deals.

The development takes time

Though there are fewer costs associated with porting a game than developing one from scratch, there are technical challenges to consider. The game engine and programming language you use could be unsuitable for the new platform.

After rewriting sections of your code, you’ll also need to make sure that you’ve optimized your game for the new platform. There are different hardware and resolutions to consider, which may need additional options in your settings.

Controls and interfaces might need revisiting

How players interact with your game on PC and console is very different from mobile. Certain mechanics and inputs can be physically impossible to replicate identically. Likewise, your user interface might not be optimized for different controllers. For example, moving items around an inventory can be very different between console, PC, and mobile due to the different ways people interact with the menu.

Data is key to finding the right balance

You’ll need to experiment with subtle variations between platforms. For example, you might show offers at longer intervals than you would on mobile, make levels more difficult to compensate for more dexterous input devices, or adjust user interface elements to be more intuitive. If you need help in this regard, we have a guide on how to run A/B tests using our platform or check out how we can help with your live ops.

You will also need to amalgamate the data from all your versions to see what trends are specific to a platform and which are generalized to your game design. If you need to collect and study data from multiple platforms, look at our DataSuite.