Any tips for increasing sales?

[lightbrush]

Hi all,

Just wondering if any of you more experienced developers out there have any tips for increasing sales?

Obviously I need to make better games but are there any other factors that have helped? Anything else I can do? Good ways to get seen? Good places to advertise?

Cheers!
Doug

http://www.dougday.co.uk/iphone.html

[PointOfLight]

I know you weren't soliciting my opinion, since I'm not even a developer yet (at least not of iPhone software), but it seems that providing a "lite" version of software has helped a lot of people's sales. Sadly, even at 99 cents most people aren't willing to buy without trying.

[fieldrunners_dev]

From what I noticed, actually, Lite versions don't seem to help much in most scenarios. Only in very specific cases- I can think of only three, out of hundreds (thousands?) of Lite versions that actually helped with product sales.

It's true that people are interested in trying things for free, specially when the free store receives so much attention and is easily accessible. However, there's a fine line between giving a taste for a compelling experience, leading people to want your product, and giving away too much.
People seem to have come to expect Lite versions to be their own complete experiences, with a diverse variety of content as well as updates, rather than take it for what it is- A trial, meant for you to decide whether or not you'd like to invest more time and money in the full version.

With that said, though, if well executed on the right product, I still think it is possible to give a Lite version that is interesting, letting people know you have a quality product, and increase sales.

[Adams Immersive]

This is nor from personal experience (I have no apps to sell yet) but I'm thinking it might be worth making a free app, but calling it Demo or Trial, so it's clearly not expected to stand alone and have long-lasting value.

I'm guessing that the risk of putting too LITTLE into a lite version is that it will get poor reviews. So hopefully, being clear with your audience that this is "only a taste" might help that perception. Or maybe not :o

I'm also thinking of putting a lot into a free version (when/if I have a game to sell)--maybe TOO much--but using ads to help recover at least a little money if it backfires and kills sales of the full paid app. I haven't actually looked into ad services yet--just thinking out loud.

And I know the ultimate answer for increasing sales: there's a lot you can do, but a lot of it is also luck.

And so: good luck! :)

[Little White Bear Studios]

calling it Demo or Trial, so it's clearly not expected to stand alone and have long-lasting value.

Apple will reject you if you use the words demo or trial, in your app or in your description. But you're free to say the game is just a taste, and here's how to get the full version.

[On-Core]

I know you weren't soliciting my opinion, since I'm not even a developer yet (at least not of iPhone software), but it seems that providing a "lite" version of software has helped a lot of people's sales. Sadly, even at 99 cents most people aren't willing to buy without trying.

I tried a 'lite' version with one of my apps and I would have to say it was a TOTAL waste of time. I pulled the lite version from the App store as a result. It *slightly* increased sales for (at most) 8 days. (read: not worth the effort whatsoever!)

It took us almost 1 month to get it by the BS filters at Apple. They REALLY make it hard to make a lite/free app. It's almost impossible to 'cripple' the apps. They don't allow "up selling", so you cannot even reference in the app that there is a full version. Before we even got it to 'pass' I got so pissed off that I wrote them an email and told them to pull it from my dev (submission) page. They called me on the phone to talk about it. I told them, as I'm sure many other have, that the free apps are diluting the store and making it very hard to find anything, and I said that they *really* need to use the "shareware" model where someone could try the *full* app for 7, 14 or 30 days, then it should expire. They refuse this idea like you would not believe. By the end of the call the guy was not please to be talking with me because I let him have it.

I don't know if they will ever cave in and do "shareware". The store is a complete mess and it is nearly impossible for people to find anything just by browsing. (that is not looking for anything in particular).

[Little White Bear Studios]

From what I noticed, actually, Lite versions don't seem to help much in most scenarios. Only in very specific cases- I can think of only three, out of hundreds (thousands?) of Lite versions that actually helped with product sales.

My Lite version has worked wonderfully for six months now. I average one full version sale for every ten Lite version downloads. Lite versions work if:

1. Your game doesn't suck in the first place.
2. You don't give away too much, but you give them at least a 30 minute experience.
3. You make it easy for them to upgrade to the full version.
4. Your full version isn't overpriced.

Without all four, it won't work very well.

[Adams Immersive]

Apple will reject you if you use the words demo or trial, in your app or in your description. But you're free to say the game is just a taste, and here's how to get the full version.

Ah ha. So that's how "Lite" became such a popular term? Now that you mention it, I don't recall seeing Demo or Trial ever mentioned on the store. Oh, well.

They don't allow "up selling", so you cannot even reference in the app that there is a full version.

I take it that "reference in the app" means you're barred from having the app itself mention the full app? But the app's store page still can? Because I DO see the store page for lite apps often touting the full version as well.

(And I feel like I remember lite apps containing links to the full one too--but maybe I'm confusing with desktop shareware titles. Since I can't think of an example.)

[Little White Bear Studios]

so you cannot even reference in the app that there is a full version.

Tons of apps, including mine, have a button to buy the full version. I'm not sure why they're denying you the option.

[On-Core]

Tons of apps, including mine, have a button to buy the full version. I'm not sure why they're denying you the option.

That's amazing. We had that in there and that was one of the reasons that they rejected one of our *many* 'attempts' to get it thru.

As far as your other comment. With over 13,800 downloads, in 3 weeks before we pulled it, it probably netted us about 5 extra copies per day for the 8 initial days. At $1.99, I don't think it's over priced. We had great reviews, I believe that the lite version had 4.5 stars when we pulled it. In the description, we did mention the full version, since that was the only place we were allowed to even mention it.

For some of the things that they rejected it for, such as only being able to play once per day (when we tried to 'limit' the full version), we complained that there were a dozen other apps that were on the store that did that and all he said was he couldn't comment on that. The same for the other things we tried. The version that finally was accepted, we limited it to 6 fixed puzzles per easy, medium and hard (instead of generated). That was the only option left.

I guess it depends on what kind of game it is. Perhaps we had too many 'fixed' puzzles and people didn't realize that they were playing the same game over. This actually happened to me when I was first testing it.

[Little White Bear Studios]

That's amazing. We had that in there and that was one of the reasons that they rejected one of our *many* 'attempts' to get it thru.

As far as your other comment. With over 13,800 downloads, in 3 weeks before we pulled it, it probably netted us about 5 extra copies per day for the 8 initial days.

Interesting. Perhaps it was the lack of a buy button that made your conversion rate so low. How were you displaying the buy button? I know they will reject you if you present one of the game options as a choice, but instead of doing what the button suggests, it tells you to buy the full version. I also know they don't allow disabled buttons.

[On-Core]

Interesting. Perhaps it was the lack of a buy button that made your conversion rate so low. How were you displaying the buy button? I know they will reject you if you present one of the game options as a choice, but instead of doing what the button suggests, it tells you to buy the full version. I also know they don't allow disabled buttons.

I believe we had it after you finished the game, it popped up a window where you could click on "OK" or "Buy Full Version" after the game was completed. I cannot remember exactly what the full text was anymore. It was not on any menu and could only be seen when you completed the game. It also brought you directly to the App Store and the product.

[PoV]

tips for increasing sales?
Advertise during the Superbowl. ;)

[Little White Bear Studios]

I believe we had it after you finished the game, it popped up a window where you could click on "OK" or "Buy Full Version" after the game was completed. I cannot remember exactly what the full text was anymore. It was not on any menu and could only be seen when you completed the game. It also brought you directly to the App Store and the product.

Yep, that's what a lot of other people have too. Perhaps they were using it as an excuse to fail your app. You mentioned they failed it for several reasons, so it's certainly possible they were throwing the book at you for some reason.

[Acceleroto]

Tons of apps, including mine, have a button to buy the full version. I'm not sure why they're denying you the option.I just got one approved with a "Full Version" buy button. There are lots of devs trying the free thing right now. It'll be interesting to see how they all do. Like was said earlier, don't give away too much, but make sure you give a good taste to make people want to buy the full version.

[PoV]

Free Smiles got through without a hitch. I read a note here about Apple having issues with grayed out/faded options, so I "de-button-ified" something I wasn't going to let you use.

I got the impression that Apple wants each app to be a standalone product, free or not. You're welcome to inform a player of something else they could buy, to tease them about it, but you want to do it tastefully so not to discourage them.

[Anders]

Hi all,

Just wondering if any of you more experienced developers out there have any tips for increasing sales?

Obviously I need to make better games but are there any other factors that have helped? Anything else I can do? Good ways to get seen? Good places to advertise?

Cheers!
Doug

http://www.dougday.co.uk/iphone.html

Try to build up hype, and once you've got it, you better live up to it when you release it.

And of course, it helps if the game is new and fresh, nobody is likely to get that excited about a word game or another Tetris clone (no name dropping here).

We usually make a trailer (admittedly not that high quality yet, we still suck at that department hehe), put it up somewhere, and spread the word.

It takes a lot of time to do a proper trailer. We spend about 3-5 days fulltime on a trailer. I know it sounds a lot (?), but there is so much you have to think about -- not too long, must be interesting to watch it all, you want to see more, find legal music that suits the trailer, synch everything to the music and so on.

I still laugh at our early trailers (Touchgrind trailer 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nNz8qVFz-I)), but we are getting better (Touchgrind trailer 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6uDKCBiYDOk&fmt=18) and Sway (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tyguj8d9fQA&fmt=18)).

[PointOfLight]

This has definitely been an interesting discussion. It sounds to me like Apple is going out of their way to make it difficult for developers to really sell anything. It seems a bit counter-intuitive if you ask me. In a way I'm surprised that lite versions don't really help, but I suppose it would be annoying for people to have to download two different versions of a game. Has Apple ever given any rationale for why they don't want to adopt a shareware model, or has it pretty much been the "we don't want it, so don't ask" type mentality?

[Adams Immersive]

A shareware model wouldn't be any more annoying to users than Lite versions, especially if it wasn't timed. If you could play a "Lite versions's worth" of a game as much as you like, and then play the rest without a second download, I wouldn't think Apple would have any problem with that.

But I suspect that the system wasn't designed for shareware--and it's quite a complex architecture, with DRM and all, not to mention the agreements and legalese involved. So adding a shareware model to the store could be a huge task, one that Apple's not in a hurry to tackle or even decide about. They may be playing "wait and see," because adding that complexity BEFORE they know if it's truly needed would lock them (and users) into something complex for all time. I'd say there's hope for an App Store 2.0 or 3.0 someday with a shareware model added, but I bet Apple doesn't even know for sure.

Playing devil's advocate, though, I can see two reasons why as a USER I would not like the shareware model:

1. Right now you can try a lite app and then buy the full app. Adding a second method to achieve that same result would be additional complexity ("which kind of game is this? lite or shareware?"). You could say that ANY one feature is OK and not too much complexity, but when you take the app store experience as a whole, that complexity really does matter.

2. If you keep the shareware app on your phone in "lite mode," it's still taking up the storage space of the full app! 3 levels of fun, for 30 levels of storage space? AND 30 levels of download time when the app updates... even if the app hasn't changed anything that "lite" users can access anyway? That would be obnoxious. The current Lite apps dodge that potential problem.

As a (potential future) developer I wouldn't mind users facing those issues :) And I'd like that I only had to maintain one app, not two. But as a user and gamer myself, I have some reservations, and I like the Lite model OK for now.

(I also wonder how ratings would be affected by the shareware model--do have one average rating for "lite" mode and one for full paid mode? Do you mix the ratings together?)

[nattylux]

This has definitely been an interesting discussion. It sounds to me like Apple is going out of their way to make it difficult for developers to really sell anything. It seems a bit counter-intuitive if you ask me. In a way I'm surprised that lite versions don't really help, but I suppose it would be annoying for people to have to download two different versions of a game. Has Apple ever given any rationale for why they don't want to adopt a shareware model, or has it pretty much been the "we don't want it, so don't ask" type mentality?

I have a couple theories on this.

1. Apple is not trying to make money with the App Store, even though they've "accidentally" made a ton. They are using it as advertising to sell devices. They've said this many times. As such, what they want is a LOT of free/low-priced apps that will appeal to as many potential customers as possible. So I don't think the glut of apps/lite versions bothers Apple as much as it bothers the developers.

2. Given Apple's goal above, it makes sense why they don't want any shareware apps - they are annoying to customers. They want every app to be full-featured and standalone, rather than flaunt its limitations and annoy consumers.

3. Incidentally, I'm pretty convinced that *forcing* a free time-trial mode on every app will lose everyone money. The vast majority of customers buy apps without doing any research at all. If you give those same people a free time trial, a lot of them are not going to go on to buy the app.

[Adams Immersive]

3. Incidentally, I'm pretty convinced that *forcing* a free time-trial mode on every app will lose everyone money. The vast majority of customers buy apps without doing any research at all. If you give those same people a free time trial, a lot of them are not going to go on to buy the app.

I agree. "Shareware" comes in may flavors, and time-limited is not one I'd want to see. Feature-limited or fewer levels (equivalent to a "lite" version) sounds OK.

I know that when I buy desktop shareware games, I won't even TRY a time-limited game unless I already have a lot of interest in it. But I will download a non-timed game on the spur of the moment with much less hesitation. It's not entirely logical, but in the back of my mind I perceive time-limited demos as "useless" on some level, while a short level set or feature-disabled version seems like something I might keep around and enjoy even if I choose not to buy more of the game. If other users feel that same psychological perception, then timed demos might not be good for users OR developers. (And certainly not for Apple or the platform, if that adds annoyance.)

(Now, timed trials of productivity apps--especially if they last for weeks--is something I understand the need for on the desktop. But I'm not downloading big productivity apps on the spur of the moment--my behavior there doesn't apply to iPhone games.)

[PointOfLight]

Actually, depending on how it ended up being implemented, a "shareware" app would be far less annoying to me than a "lite" app. Personally, I hate the fact that I have to download one app, try it out, and then if I like it, delete it and download the full version of that app. Personally, I'd much rather download the app, if I like it click a "buy now" button in the app and have it updated to the full version, and if I don't like it then just delete it. That would be a lot more user friendly to me.

As for timed-trials, I really despise this method of crippling software, especially since so many developers abuse it with something stupid like a 5 minute time limit. How much can you try out in 5 minutes? I really think people need to go back to the days of Apogee to see how to achieve a decent shareware model. Anyway, that's an aside since Apple doesn't support shareware :D

[Adams Immersive]

Personally, I hate the fact that I have to download one app, try it out, and then if I like it, delete it and download the full version of that app. Personally, I'd much rather download the app, if I like it click a "buy now" button in the app and have it updated to the full version, and if I don't like it then just delete it. That would be a lot more user friendly to me.

It would be awesome if you could click "Buy Now" right in the app and have it automatically REPLACE the original compact app with a fresh, full-size download. Your trial version would be small, and it would be even easier on users than the current system. Best of all would be if it could maintain your high scores and settings when performing the swap (if the dev felt that it made sense to keep them).

[PointOfLight]

The other big advantage to my proposed method is that fixes could easily be made to both the shareware and full version, since they are in effect the same application. Plus it gets rid of the clutter in the App Store. Apple may not care about the flood of applications, but as someone else in this thread pointed out, end users certainly do.

[indyraider4]

Assuming you have a good core game play, if graphics aren't good, it will be passed over. I would recommend getting pro graphics! Check this guy out, he made the graphics for Jabeh which are pretty awesome!

http://graphicpeel.com/
:)

[Adams Immersive]

On a related note: a good icon is key I feel. Especially if someone's interested but hasn't taken the plunge--yet. An icon they notice and remember is like the cover of a book or the poster of a movie.

I'd also want the icon to LOOK like the game itself, but I won't pretend to know whether that helps sales. Looking good, at least, has to help though.

[tsunami0ne]

On a related note: a good icon is key I feel. Especially if someone's interested but hasn't taken the plunge--yet. An icon they notice and remember is like the cover of a book or the poster of a movie.

I'd also want the icon to LOOK like the game itself, but I won't pretend to know whether that helps sales. Looking good, at least, has to help though.

I kind of believe this too.

After doing the 30 and Dirty 1.1 update, sales are slightly higher than when I first released it despite raising the price, but then again, I changed quite a bit of stuff for 1.1 and don't know exactly what gave me the boost in sales. Despite the boost in sales though, I only make enough to pay for lunch and maybe dinner with what I make. I honestly believe that, in order to get really really really good sales, my game needs to show up somewhere in a top 10 list or something in the app store, or at least be praised at a respected website. This is what I changed for v1.1:

- new icon
- made a shorter youtube clip, highlighting gameplay moments, instead of recording a full playthrough
- changed the release date so that my app would actually show up in the first page if the user sorted action games by release date (when I first released 30 and Dirty, it showed up at the 6th page)

One thing I did when I first launched, which I sort of regret doing, was setting the price at 99 cents for a whole month. Looking back, that was a really dumb decision, and I should have only did it for maybe a week at most. Sales dropped to 1 copy/day within 2 weeks. The good news for early adopters of 30 and Dirty is that I don't like screwing over early adopters. Being an HD DVD supporter in the past, I know exactly what it feels like to be screwed over by fire sales. Rest assured, you will not be punished for buying and supporting my game early.

Also looking back, I submitted 30 and Dirty to several iPhone review sites, and I don't think any one of them has done a real review of 30 and Dirty. I wouldn't know the reason why it wouldn't be reviewed, but I'm leaning towards either:

- too many other review requests are being considered
- presentation of 30 and Dirty was lacking so they didn't want to bother wasting their time with it
- the game sucked so much that they didn't want to give the game a 0/10 rating and face my wrath afterwards.

I think presentation is a huge factor. Don't slack off in that area. Make sure your game doesn't look like another crappy knock off game made by a 12 year old.

[PeterM11]

yeah i agree, lite versions seem to boost sales a lot

[Adams Immersive]

Just wondering--how quickly can you update your app's...

a.) Price

b.) Description text

Can you change those instantly or is there an approval process?

And can enter new description text for EITHER the current app version OR the next version (if any) awaiting approval?

Sometimes I'd want to update the current text with new info about what's coming. At other times I want to enter text that will only apply to the new version, and will appear once that's approved. Can you do it both ways?

And what about your App Store icon? Can you change that without releasing a new version of the app? (I know your app's real icon wouldn't change then--but can you change the one that shows up in the iTunes store? Like when I see a "sale" banner but the game is the same old version?)

[Shroomies]

For both Price and Description text, you change make changes without it being approved by Apple. It takes 2-4 hours before we actually see the changes on the App Store.

When we submitted an update, we used to change the description but we noticed that the description gets updated to the App Store even before the update gets approved. It seems that the current version and the new version share the same description text. We now wait until the update gets approved before changing the description. It's been a couple of months since we have tested this so someone correct me if things have improved.

For the App Store icon, when you submit an app to Apple the App Store icon needs to match the App icon. After your app gets approved, feel free to update the App Store icon to say SALE or NEW or whatever you want. It takes a few hours to show up on the App Store.

[Adams Immersive]

Cool--thanks.

Sounds like it all makes good sense, except that you have to carefully time your "new in this version" text by hand. (Unless, as you say, that has improved.)

I assume you get an email when your app goes live, so that you know to go enter the new version's text?

[PointOfLight]

One thing I noticed about price is that in the time it's being updated, you apparently can't buy the product (I got a message saying as much one time).

[Adams Immersive]

You mean you can't buy it just for a moment, or for the 2-4 hours between when the new price is submitted and when it appears?

[PointOfLight]

I don't know. All I can say is that the message was worded something along the lines of "this product can't be purchased because the price is being updated". Or at least that was the general idea (the exact wording truly escapes me right now).

[Shroomies]

When a new app or an update gets approved, you get an email. If this is a new app, you will not see it on the App Store yet but the direct URL for the app will work. As soon as we get this email, we update the description and App Store icon.

We have also heard that buyers have issues with changing prices until some time has passed. We have only had 1 price change and we made the switch in the middle of the night to minimize issues.

[Adams Immersive]

Good thinking. I suppose you probably even have hourly stats you can view to decide when is the slowest time of day?

What would be great (speaking from total NON-experience :p ) would be if Apple approved your app, sent you an email, and then didn't post until YOU pulled the trigger. Which you could opt to do in advance--complete with new text that would accompany the release. Or you could wait and pull the trigger it manually--to coordinate a 48-hour intro sale, or whatever.

[Shroomies]

You do not get hourly stats. You get daily stats. Since 99% of our sales are from United States, it was not hard to determine a good time to change the price.

[yourofl10]

make a lite version
make a demo video
give away ad hoc versions or
promo codes
Give promo codes to review sites (I write reviews BTW)
(thats all I can think of)

[PointOfLight]

Sorry to go off topic here a bit, but @yourofl10: do you have to be registered to see the entirety of a post on your site? It looked like most of your reviews were only 5-6 lines of text.

[yourofl10]

Sorry to go off topic here a bit, but @yourofl10: do you have to be registered to see the entirety of a post on your site? It looked like most of your reviews were only 5-6 lines of text.

No, just click the review link/title

But I would like you to become a member ;)

[SudoWorks LLC]

My lite version has stabilized sales of the full version. Don't get me wrong my sales still suck overall.. but at least they suck uniformly.

[mstream2008]

Meteor Lite influenced non-US sales. People from Europe or Latin America have been saying that they purchased the full game only because they tried the demo.
Though the conversion rates are worse than in traditional, non-iphone shareware sales, the lite version improved sales a bit.