Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Hit Game Makes £52 In First Week On Windows RT

Posted by Soulskill on from the congratulations-on-all-your-success dept.

Barence writes "Great Big War Game, a popular iOS and Android app, made only £52 in its first week on Windows RT. In an angry blog post titled 'Windows RT — Born to fail,' UK-based developer Rubicon blamed Microsoft for the paltry sum and said it won't be bringing any more of its titles to the fledgling platform. It seems Microsoft refused to promote the app as it would only run on Windows RT devices. However, Microsoft quickly got in touch with Rubicon, and the post was deleted and replaced with an apologetic response saying, 'Microsoft have graciously decided work with us to iron out the problems and get us past this incident.' Rubicon will be hoping that £52 figure improves quickly, as it spent £10,000 porting the game to Windows RT."

36 of 308 comments (clear)

  1. Sorry to be frank but what did he think by PopAndGame · · Score: 5, Interesting

    He took a business risk trying to port the game to Windows RT and lost? Now he's crying about it? Great, yeah, it costs money to port things to new platforms. But that's why you do your research first! Hell, I'm not going around yelling how my non-existing game on Steam is selling bad!

    But I know a thing or two about business and this is exactly why you research and don't cry about failed business decisions.

    1. Re:Sorry to be frank but what did he think by SydShamino · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sometimes you want to dive in, be first, and maybe get a huge portion of the market's mindshare.

      Fortunately for the rest of us, we can now review his experiences when doing our research. So the rest of us can be more cautious. Likely, though, the rest of us won't get Microsoft's dedicated attention to our game as he is getting now.

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
    2. Re:Sorry to be frank but what did he think by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why blame the platform?

      There was a commercial (I have no idea what it was for anymore) of an interview with a hypothetical sports star after a bad game. My poor memory of the dialog follows.
      "That was a rough game, what do you think lead to the loss?"
      "Well, I've learned that after a failure, it's always best to look inward first."
      "The great ones always do."
      "But since I know I'm not at fault, I blame the other players, the coach, the refs, the fans, ..." (it went on for a while)

    3. Re:Sorry to be frank but what did he think by kelemvor4 · · Score: 5, Funny

      He took a business risk trying to port the game to Windows RT and lost? Now he's crying about it? Great, yeah, it costs money to port things to new platforms. But that's why you do your research first! Hell, I'm not going around yelling how my non-existing game on Steam is selling bad! But I know a thing or two about business and this is exactly why you research and don't cry about failed business decisions.

      I agree, I mean based on the headline it sounds as though nearly every single user of RT purchased his game. What more could he want?

    4. Re:Sorry to be frank but what did he think by h4rr4r · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I have some bad news for you kiddo, you might want to sit down for this, the casual gamers are now a market bigger than what you think of as gamers. They are todays gamers, welcome to 2012.

      Also most PC games these days play fine on a middle of the road PC with a $100 video card. Even most of the fairly hardcore shooter games.

    5. Re:Sorry to be frank but what did he think by hairyfeet · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well anybody who couldn't look at the painfully pathetic WinRT numbers and realize it would be best to wait and see if it gains momentum or turns into another Megaflop like WinPhone 7 (I'm betting the later myself) frankly deserves to lose money, because it is foolish to spend 10,000 pounds to port something for such a small userbase whom you don't even know are gonna be willing to buy apps or not!

      We are talking about a company with a history of mobile flops, trying to force their flagship OS onto a platform where the majority of their software won't run, and on top of that they are charging iPad money for the thing...who couldn't smell the stench of fail from a mile away? Did this guy do the same retarded move for the Playbook and the Touchpad? No? Then why in the hell did he think that the same stupid move that didn't work for two huge corps like RIM and HP would magically work just because MSFT stuck their name on it? Especially after seeing the horrible numbers WinPhone 7 put up?

      I'm sorry but this dumbass deserves to lose money, he picked a widely panned OS from a company with a history of mobile failure and then whined because surprise! Selling an app on a flop platform don't make money. Well no shit next you'll be telling me those guys that spent lots of money porting to the Touchpad and Playbook didn't break even. If this isn't a double facepalm moment I don't know what is, one facepalm simply isn't enough.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    6. Re:Sorry to be frank but what did he think by Xeth · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Casual games are the biggest market in the same sense that Lego is the biggest tire manufacturer. Based on some quick googling, it looks like the casual game industry has revenues of about $3 billion, versus $78 billion for the video game industry as a whole.

      --
      If your theory is different from practice, then your theory is wrong.
    7. Re:Sorry to be frank but what did he think by Synerg1y · · Score: 4, Insightful

      He whined, so MS would take notice and help him off-set his loss. Not the most ethical of practices, but seems to have worked.

    8. Re:Sorry to be frank but what did he think by PickyH3D · · Score: 3, Interesting

      To be fair to the author, he released his software before there were any numbers.

      To be fair to Windows RT, it's sold through an excessively limited distributed channel (Microsoft kiosks and Microsoft Stores). To then expect overnight miracles for a game that, admittedly, I have never heard of is a little astounding. Granted, 52 pounds is probably a bit of a shock, but having never heard of it (as an admitted iPad and Surface owner), I can't really say I am stunned.

      It appears that he expected it be promoted by Microsoft because of their 10,000 pound investment, even though his company apparently refused to recompile and support x86, which sounds like an obvious no brainer. I cannot imagine that a game like theirs has many ARM-specific code blocks, and if it does, then I fully expect they are easily swappable for something in x86-land (if not just the high level language equivalent that would run faster on x86).

      We are talking about a company with two mobile flops, and one of them was seemingly expected internally. The Kin was an undersupported and overpriced piece of junk thanks to Verizon (pricing it like a smartphone), with apparently a poor experience thanks to Microsoft. Windows Phone 7 appears to have been merely a stopgap to flesh out Metro, and to hold on until the Windows 8 kernel was ready for the phone.

      As I have described in my random other posts, the Surface is actually a very solid (physically) device with much higher usability than my iPad (although I only have an iPad 2). Having a kickstand, USB port, microSD card expansion slot, attachable keyboard, larger (admittedly lower resolution than the "New iPad") screen, direct access to the file system and bundled Office makes the Surface worth iPad money. I'm honestly a bit stunned so many people hate it on Slashdot, beyond the obvious Microsoft bias, because it actually supports Flash. That's something that even Android cannot say ever since Adobe stopped supporting "mobile" platforms.

    9. Re:Sorry to be frank but what did he think by thoromyr · · Score: 4, Interesting

      the Surface is actually a very solid (physically) device with much higher usability than my iPad (although I only have an iPad 2).

      That sounds interesting. What is "much higher usability" -- by itself that statement means nothing.

      Having a kickstand, USB port, microSD card expansion slot, attachable keyboard,

      Those are common features of android tablets (and kickstand and attachable keyboard are certainly available for iOS devices). What about their presence on the Surface makes the Surface notable for having them?

      larger (admittedly lower resolution than the "New iPad") screen,

      So, even though it came out after the new ipad it doesn't achieve the same resolution? That's a shame.

      direct access to the file system and bundled Office makes the Surface worth iPad money.

      For some folks I'm sure those are features worth paying for. Hasn't seemed to be that significant to the overall market, however.

      I'm honestly a bit stunned so many people hate it on Slashdot, beyond the obvious Microsoft bias, because it actually supports Flash.

      I'm really not quite sure what to say here. Maybe you aren't aware that the lack of flash is a *feature*? Not everyone wants to have crappy flash apps whether its on a mobile device or not. My desktop systems are flash free since I have a choice in the matter.

      For the record, I don't hate the Surface, I just fail to see anything to be excited about. The Samsung Galaxy Tab is similar specs at similar price (even having flash, ugh!) with the advantage of a mature marketplace. Or, a new ipad is better specs and a mature marketplace for a similar price balanced by the lack of a USB port or SD card slot. Its just hard to see any place for the Surface other than those who want to run MS Office on a tablet.

      That's something that even Android cannot say ever since Adobe stopped supporting "mobile" platforms.

      Again, I'm not sure you understand that this is not a negative for a significant fraction of users.

    10. Re:Sorry to be frank but what did he think by KingMotley · · Score: 4, Funny

      You mean the button that both the same icon and the same location as all the major browsers out there, that also coincidentally don't the word back on it?

      Oh, and the same for Pandora One on iOS. iOS mail, button top left takes you back. Also video library.

      Man, what a terrible design, they should come up with something completely new that no one else uses, like removing the button, and having you twirl your finger clockwise once then counterclock wise twice and then a double tap. That would be so much better.

    11. Re:Sorry to be frank but what did he think by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Snarkiness aside it's not Microsoft's fault that it's only on Windows RT.

      Microsoft has created a set of developer tools so that x86 and RT apps can be sold and used across all of your PCs seamlessly. This is Microsoft's pitch: buy an RT tablet and use it on all your computers.

      The game developer though sells his game *through a publisher* on Windows x86. So he's not allowed to sell it for both platforms. This wasn't a technological impediment it was a licensing one. So Microsoft--pushing a unified x86/RT universe failed to promote a game for him and give him free advertising since his game didn't align with their own goals of a great user experience where your applications run everywhere.

      I don't have a lot of sympathy that Microsoft didn't give random developer who I've never heard of free marketing and promotion. I see plenty of games on my surface being promoted by Microsoft? You're not one of them? Boo fucking hoo. Promotion space is a zero sum game. No matter what Microsoft does someone is going to fall from prominence in placement.

    12. Re:Sorry to be frank but what did he think by Alphadecay27 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      To be fair to Windows RT, it's sold through an excessively limited distributed channel (Microsoft kiosks and Microsoft Stores). To then expect overnight miracles for a game that, admittedly, I have never heard of is a little astounding. Granted, 52 pounds is probably a bit of a shock, but having never heard of it (as an admitted iPad and Surface owner), I can't really say I am stunned.

      This game sells 100k+ copies/day at $3 a piece on android. https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.rubicon.dev.gbwg&feature=search_result#?t=W251bGwsMSwyLDEsImNvbS5ydWJpY29uLmRldi5nYndnIl0. It peaked at 500k/day within the past 30 days. Even if it had a massive refund rate (which it likely doesn't with a 4.5/5 rating) it probably made over a million dollars on other platforms within the same time frame. We're not talking about a tetris clone someone knocked out over the weekend from their mom's basement.

      It appears that he expected it be promoted by Microsoft because of their 10,000 pound investment, even though his company apparently refused to recompile and support x86, which sounds like an obvious no brainer. I cannot imagine that a game like theirs has many ARM-specific code blocks, and if it does, then I fully expect they are easily swappable for something in x86-land (if not just the high level language equivalent that would run faster on x86).

      They expected Microsoft to promote it because it is really popular game that has sold over 2.5 million copies on other platforms. They didn't "refuse" to port to x86. From his blog comments, it seems they have contractual obligations to not publish on x86 because they have a publisher (Viacom) that limits their ability to release on x86 since there is a PC version (through steam).

    13. Re:Sorry to be frank but what did he think by hairyfeet · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Wow, way to pick apart the strange post! The only thing I would add is even Adobe has abandoned mobile flash so I really wouldn't call having a soon to be dead flash port to be a "feature".

      And I have to wonder if this is some new twist on the classic shilling MSFT has been pushing for WinRT because I've noticed a couple of posts lately all over the place where they gush about the Surface and WinRT...while they talk about how they own an iPad. I don't know, is that supposed to give them "cred" somehow? that if an iPad owner who doesn't actually own a Surface brags about the Surface then it must be good?

      One thing is for sure, I'd hate to be handed the bill that MSFT must be racking up on the pro shilling as you can take a line from any of the real gushing WinRT or Win 8 posts, slap it into Google, and find that just like a spam email somebody has posted that word for word on dozens of tech sites across the web. Its like they think if they can turn the geeks around with shilling and astroturfing then Win 8 and RT won't be a VistaBomb.

      And believe me, I'm NOT the kind that uses words like shill and astroturf lightly, because I know you can find rabid fanbois for just about any product ever made, hell they have a fan club for the Zune. But when you can take a chunk of the text and find out like the Nigerian Prince it has been plastered all over the web? Then somebody is getting paid to do some serious product selling. You name the tech site, ZDNet,Slashdot, OSNews, The Reg, they are ALL seeing these posts over and over and over. Does MSFT think we are really THAT stupid? Or are they just hiring lazy ad companies that recycle too much?

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  2. You idiots by AmiMoJo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You ported your game to a new platform, out for a month on a single high end high price tablet, and you are shocked that you didn't sell as many copies as the Android version. There are hundreds of millions of Android devices out there, with a couple of million more being added every day.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    1. Re:You idiots by Jesse_vd · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You know, I'd always heard that too. I've been an iOS user since the iPhone 3G so I've bought my share of apps there and have a good feel for mobile app pricing. I was pretty surprised by the prices in the Google Play store when I bought a Nexus 7 last week. Often things I'd expect to pay $.99-$1.99 for in the App Store are $5-7.

      I wonder if this is a new trend? Are they compensating for lower sales, or has the Android market changed recently?

    2. Re:You idiots by Bill+Hayden · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Odd, I've had the exact opposite experience. I've found things are generally more expensive in the Apple store.

      --
      Protect your browser with the Force Safe Search add-on
  3. Heard this same story over and over with indies by MetalliQaZ · · Score: 4, Informative

    This story certainly doesn't seem new to anyone who follows the development of indie games, especially WRT the Xbox360. Microsoft has a history of deprioritizing indie games in general, making it difficult to get promotion for titles without large publishers, and general indifference to a healthy developer ecosystem.

    No surprise, then, when mobile games suffer the same fate. They seem to think that they can just copy the worst parts of Apple's model and it will just flourish...

    --
    "Here Lies Philip J. Fry, named for his uncle, to carry on his spirit"
    1. Re:Heard this same story over and over with indies by UnknowingFool · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Microsoft's most recent problems have been execution. The company by many aspects is too slow and bureaucratic.

      The Zune is a good example. The iPod came out in 2001. Many here thought it would fail but it didn't. As early as 2003 MS was working on a competing product; however, Jim Allchin called their own product "terrible". It would take MS another 3 years to get a product to consumers. At the time, the Zune was probably the best MP3 player out there (questionable color choices aside). The marketing was horrible; the PC software was buggy. But more importantly, MS failed to realize that the market wasn't in MP3 players anymore. Apple came out with the iPod Touch which was a portable computing device that functioned as a PDA/browser/MP3 player/whatever. The Zune never caught up.

      The Kin was another example. When MS bought Danger, the plan was to release a new phone in six months. It took 18 months and when released the phone was buggy and lacked a market. Insiders say many internal decisions doomed the effort. The Sidekicks used Java as the primary language, but being a MS product, that would not be allowed. The product team had to replace the entire OS with Windows CE. That decision alone would doom the six month deadline. There were two internal mobile teams and the Windows CE team refused to help the Danger team as they wanted to kill the project.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  4. Expectations of Promotion? by _bug_ · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It seems Rubicon's beef was the lack of promotion by Microsoft of their title. Is this promotion Rubicon pays for or is this an expectation that their app would be freely promoted for them?

    Is an app's success due in large part to the operator of the app store promoting said app? That seems like a system ripe for bribery.

  5. It's Clearly Microsoft's Fault... by Revotron · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...that nobody wants to pay for his game.

    Okay, so, £52 in the first week? That's about $83. That's roughly $12/day. In the first week. On a brand new platform.

    What the fuck was this guy thinking? That when he hit the magic "Submit" button on the developers portal for the MS App Store, money would start raining down from the ceiling? Did he think scantily clad women would arrive on his doorstep within minutes to personally "massage" him in a hot tub full of champagne?

    The title might as well read, "Developer Underwhelmed by Product Success, Blames Everyone Else".

    1. Re:It's Clearly Microsoft's Fault... by MetalliQaZ · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Sales generally peak very early in the release of a game. Opening week is extremely important for a game company.

      Don't forget that they have bills and salaries to pay. They can't sit back and live off a trickle of money, hoping it will grow at some point in the future. It's either make decent money or start laying off.

      It is a new platform but Microsoft made certain promises to developers, and this story shows that they may not be doing enough to keep those promises. It also shows that they seem to hold great power over them as well.

      --
      "Here Lies Philip J. Fry, named for his uncle, to carry on his spirit"
    2. Re:It's Clearly Microsoft's Fault... by Missing.Matter · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Sales generally peak very early in the release of a game. Opening week is extremely important for a game company.

      This is true as long as the game company actually markets their game. It seems this company expects the app store to do its marketing for it, by way of featuring their game in a highlights section or some other way, and they didn't actually promote the game themselves. They invested a whole *10 grand* in development (absolute peanuts relatively speaking), but then decided it wouldn't be worthwhile to actually promote their work, and expect Microsoft to do all the leg work? Whatever promises Microsoft made to developers, I'm sure "we will handle all promotion and marketing of all apps in our store" was not one of them.

  6. What's the install base? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    He should be happy with his 95% market penetration...

  7. Where's the Windows 8 version? by Tridus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    An RT only version means that you're targeting a tiny portion of the user base. That's what, Surface RT users only? Not a lot of surprise that it failed given that target market.

    --
    -- "So they told me that using the download page to download something was not something they anticipated." - Bill Gates
  8. show me the money by alen · · Score: 3, Insightful

    if Microsoft wants Surface to have any chance of success they need to start writing checks to the top devs to port their games/apps to RT. otherwise there is no financial incentive since the sales will probably not pay for the costs to port and test the apps

  9. No shit by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Also, it is for a game that has already been on sale for awhile, thus many have already played it and aren't interested in re-buying it.

    If they think there'll be massive sales on a new platform, well they are dumb. If they think there'll be massive sales on a new platform of a game that is old, they are doubly dumb.

  10. Actually, it *is* Microsoft's fault. by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Either their marketing and sales department is just dumb OR the software development divisions have so much internal clout that they don't have to listen. I'm betting on the latter.

    You want your platform to succeed? You need apps. You want a lot of apps quickly, you'd better make it EASY EASY EASY to port existing apps from other popular platforms to your new platform. Preferably, with one click. Another solution would be a near perfect OS emulator. However you do it, you have to do it.

    The Fuck You development culture of Microsoft says "No. Go recode and don't bother me with your problems. You're just an ISV after all. The only people we care about are large business customers." The other obvious characteristic that's becoming obvious is the assumption of success. MS obviously has no plan B. No backup to boost sales or make the platform desirable. It's "We're Microsoft. Here it is. Take it or leave it."

    Frankly, I don't see how Microsoft is going to last another 10 years this way.

    --
    Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
    1. Re:Actually, it *is* Microsoft's fault. by MojoRilla · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I was asked about porting a major live video application to the Surface recently. The Surface doesn't support flash in web views inside apps. It doesn't support HLS (without a third party library). They stubbornly insist that Silverlight and VC1 are still relevant. My answer to the request was, well, sure, but it will require a new encode farm, and rebuilding the app from the ground up. Which is basically a no-go.

      Microsoft is very late to the party. Two other operating systems are there first, have far more users, and are generally more compatible with standards. Microsoft is late to the party, and clinging to all of their old proprietary baggage. And they wonder why they are losing.

    2. Re:Actually, it *is* Microsoft's fault. by MightyMartian · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I wouldn't even say Redmond is losing at this point. They're not even in the race. You can hear it in the shills that post around here, where the latest explanation is that Microsoft isn't going after the iOS and Android market share, that Windows RT and Surface are so incredibly advanced and superior that they're going to make their own market.

      It's like they've hired Baghdad Bob to do the marketing.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  11. No trial version by Missing.Matter · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Gamers on Windows are used to having a trial version. Honestly, if there isn't a trial version I just pass right over it. I've been burned by shitty apps time and time again, I won't risk the money just to find out it's terrible. I've certainly bought plenty of games after playing the trial version, so perhaps they'd see some more sales if they added that feature.

    They should also think about porting to Windows 8.... no idea why the limited their app to only Windows RT, as the market share is so small right now.

    1. Re:No trial version by Missing.Matter · · Score: 3, Informative

      Of the paid apps in the US store that I can see, 45% have a trial. For games, this figure goes up to 48%. Of the top 20 apps in the Noteworthy category, 85% have a trial. Not including one is a serious misstep for this developer.

  12. Won't promote RT apps? by Enderandrew · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Microsoft is selling tablets and phones that won't run traditional Windows apps, and can only run Windows RT apps. Microsoft is encouraging developers to make RT the standard for future Windows development, but for some reason they aren't willing to promote RT apps?

    Here is the problem. Most people have an Android or iOS device today. If there Android and iOS apps you really love, you probably already purchased them for those platforms (and perhaps for both if you jumped ship at some point).

    How many people are jumping at the bit to buy them again for another platform?

    What Microsoft really needs is killer new apps that take advantage of Windows in a unique way that aren't on Android or iOS. And I just don't see that happening. Windows RT is dead on arrival for a number of reasons (can't join a domain, can't run legacy Windows apps and doesn't offer anything new for future development).

    --
    http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
  13. Since when are developers entitled to customers? by detain · · Score: 3

    I must be doing something wrong or missed a very important memo. I find it hard enough to get people using my open source software let alone paying for it, and this guy is clearly under the impression he is entitled to a steady instantly large flow of income from his first platform release.

    --
    http://interserver.net/
  14. Re:Porting to Windows RT by cbhacking · · Score: 5, Interesting

    What I don't get is the existence of an ARM-only app at all. What idiocy could lead somebody to intentionally exclude a large number of users, users who have more powerful hardware at that, to save the cost of changing one drop-down menu in Visual Studio and hitting Build again? On the face of it, that seems completely asinine. Unless the guy was using assembly or something else stupid like counting on pointers being 32 bits (which would *still* work in an x86 app, just not x64 native), porting to x86 should have been trivial.

    --
    There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
  15. Re:Liars, damn liars, and made up figures. by artfulshrapnel · · Score: 3, Insightful

    £10,000 is actually pretty reasonable. Assuming he's got... say... two programmers on staff, and they're good enough to demand industry standard wages? That's about 1-2 months of development and debugging, plus the costs of dev kits, testers, and software licenses.

    As near as I can tell, the big issue is that RT can't run the object oriented code favored by Android and iOS. Result is that large portions of any program would have to be completely refactored instead of simply converted and debugged.