Ron wrote:Our short-term plan is to release some updates that have some requested features for players, and some that have the potential to help us make more money...
If after some updates things don't change, we'll probably have to move on to other projects to feed our starving families

Ron wrote:right now we're planning to have three more major feature updates.
first one coming this week has giftable medals and anonymous games.
after that we plan to add the ability to rename outposts you control (probably as IAP), ability to mute conversations and players, and maybe add a couple of new game options.
and after that we will likely add tournament play.

^^This right here is bad news. Subterfuge isn't making enough money, so the development cycle can not continue, which means that there won't be many new features added into the game.


I'd like to suggest that we all try to convince Noel and Ron of fixing the one thing we all agree is a problem and to figure out how to monetize Subterfuge instead of adding new features. Personally, I'd much rather risk not having a few minor new features for the longer term success of the game.

That one problem we can all agree on is groups of pre-alined players joining in the same ranked games. Yes, people should be able to play with their friends. No, theres nothing wrong with 'multi-game deals'. But there shouldn't be a way for players to follow each other into the same ranked games. And the only way to fix this problem that I can see, is to either make ranked games more of a ladder type system. Or to scramble the game name, censor the player names, disable order scheduling, and to disable chat until the game starts.


Further more, we should all try and brainstorm possible monetization ideas that could help increase the amount of serious development time devoted to this game. I'll compile them all into the below list.


Community Promotion Ideas:

• Google Playstore Link (For Rating the App) - https://play.google.com/store/apps/deta ... subterfuge
• iTunes Link (For Rating the App) - https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/id702951905?mt=8
• Tutorials for new players.
• Mentoring

Monetization ideas:

• Steam Port - I'm not sure how difficult it would be to port Subterfuge to Steam, but I believe the $9.99 price point is a popular one on Steam. And a port to Steam could help to greatly increase the user base.
• PayPal Donation Button/Link - I've seen a vast number of different forums have a donation button somewhere so users could throw some money to the Admin/Host. PayPal transfers money for free between US accounts and charges a 4% handling fee on international accounts. On top of that, donations are considered gifts, and therefore are not subject to taxes. (Not to mention that you will get at the very least, receive 96% of the amount sent to you. Compared to the 70% you would receive if you were to make some sort of 'tip' IAP.)
• New IAP levels - $X for #Y Games/Moves/ (Maybe something like $2.99 to open a second game spot)
• New IAP Art - Art Packs, Different Skins.
• New IAP Specialist expansions - Not in a "Pay to win" kind of way. But in an expansion/alternative specialist pack kind of way. Carcassonne does this really well. They also charge $9.99 for the game and then sell their expansions that alter the gameplay slightly for $1.99.
• Stop giving L1's access to the new features - Continuing on from above, Carcassonne also requires that ALL parties own the expansion packs in order to play them. As it stands now, you are giving WAY to much away for free. And as such, theres no real reason for L1's to upgrade to L2.

I really hope we can keep development of this brilliant game going, but I there are other improvements that could be made which I believe would increase revenue:

* IMPROVE NEW PLAYERS FIRST EXPERIENCE.
Have a tutorial first game where new players have a high chance of winning. Too many people target noobs straight up, they lose and never play a second game. The tutorial scenarios are a little confusing /complex for newbies.

* NOOB MODE - where rating are hidden so newbies aren't targeted. When I encounter a first time player I actually try to give them a positive experience - in the hopes they continue playing. And too often players with 0 games are targeted early on.

* PLAYER ETIQUETTE VIDEO.
A short 1950's style humorous video could really help improve players experience. Some people do not handle betrayal or dishonesty very well and fly off the handle. I almost quit when I had my first "SHUT UP F***ING BACK STABBING **** #%^" for another player. It's hard not to take an attack personally. (Incidentally, I hadn't backstabbed the player at that point, but that outburst I changed my mind )

* BETTER GAME RATING IN APP STORE
I don't understand how there aren't more people rating this game 4 or 5 stars... It doesn't have enough ratings.

* COMMUNITY EMPHASIS
This type of game thrives on community and guilds; even this forums is too buried on the game website. Make use of Subterfuge celebrities like Pmoney, RoadKhiel, fatecreatr, 6payh... It would be nice getting more videos and tutorials/tips from guys like this. I learnt more and had my interest peaked from the exhibition match with Roadkhiel's excitement over having three kings only to have braxo psych him out than the official Tutorial scenarios.
Sorry RoadKhiel for bringing that up again.

How would this help make money?
I keep seeing the number of players and games drop lower and lower. I feel player retention is the key, and addressing issues that effect noobs would be beneficial to profits.

I too am worried about the future of this game. I've been telling nearly everyone I know about it just to spread it around through word of mouth. I wish I could think of a cheap and simple way to make it really popular. The simplest thing I can think of is just to spread the word. If you're reading this, and you want to see new updates coming out in the future, head over to the AppStore right now and rate this 5/5. Write a review about how much you enjoy it. Tell all your friends on Facebook to get it. The more people who know about Sunterfuge, the better chance it has of succeeding.

topkilla wrote:That one problem we can all agree on is groups of pre-alined players joining in the same ranked games.

How is this a problem for subterfuge making money? I think the problem for subterfuge not making money is the "one time purchase" option. Because there is nothing else to purchase once you hit L2, this makes people who are willing to spend more money on the app not spend their money further.

My opinions-
Steam port: too much work for too little of a revenue income
Donation button: yes. I know I would donate if it was the last option to see continued support of subterfuge.

As for the "noob videos" and "noob tutorials", this would be something that may or may not work and has no garunteed results in convincing players to stick around or even convincing them to purchase content. And also too much work for the devs to try to gain revenue.


Here is what I think should be done for better revenue:

I think subterfuge needs more ability to buy stuff (IAPs). I am totally purchasing the ability to rename outposts when it is released (so cool!!) and I think more IAPs that grant changed graphics, more customization (looks and feels; different color schemes? Backgrounds? New icons for generators factories etc.), different game-modes, reset player stats, tournament play as an IAP??The possibilities of IAP are endless and will be bought by a variety of people as they are cheaper. People who don't have L2 may even buy a customization IAP over L2 access.

I agree it should not become pay2win but without being able to buy more content how can money get generated if players are not willing to pay (large $12 commitment for a single app)? Smaller purchase items may be of interest; instead of just L2 why not have
$3 for scheduling up to 5 orders;
$6 for scheduling up to 10 orders,
$3 To play up to 2 games at once,
$6 for 3 games at once,
$12 for unlimited orders, games and taking notes.

Splitting the L2 features for smaller cost would attract different kinds of players, the "# of games" purchases for those playing with their friends; and the "scheduling orders" for those who like an edge in their gameplay.

I just think the debts need to add more IAP and more money will come in. (Add a store icon on the main menu and list all the options for purchase)

Seeing as keeping new players is key, how about we have a 'mentor' system- people volunteer to help out new players. Given that doing this in a 'real' game is quite difficult given the nature of the game (and that 2 players would be allied right from the start), how about a sand box mode where scenarios can be created and talked about- eg. generate a couple of outposts, some drillers and a specialist or two, where stuff can be explained quickly.

Also, seeing as PvE seems very popular, maybe give new players a chance to go up against AI? I appreciate a lot of the game is about diplomacy,trust (or lack of) and relationships, but don't underestimate how popular PvE is- Neptunes Pride have a competent AI when players drop out.

Just my 2p.

I am extremely surprised to see that no one has mentioned, in my opinion, the most crucial downside of this game: Games take too long. I know it says 'played out over a week', but to be honest, that's probably whats deterring the crowd. I can see many more people interested if the first lines of the description didn't say 'played out over a week', but instead 'can be played out anywhere within an hour to over a week'. If you compare the more popular games these days, its not about deep strategic thinking, but quick reaction times, and a 30-40 minute version of this game keeps in the same time scale as other games which are popular with teens these days such as LOL.

What I'm suggesting is changes in the timing of this game. Maybe add customisable time frames. Make a scroll bar on game creation for the time scale and/or there could be preset time scales which could be named after the chess time scales (standard = avg.10 days, rapid = avg. 6 hours, blitz = avg. 2 hours, bullet = avg. 40 minutes, lightning = avg. 15 minutes) so that there can be leaderboards for each time scale. I'm sure that after the creation of these there will be enough games going on to make each leaderboard actually legitimately detailed with enough seeds. Maybe say that you can play 1 multi-day game and 1 single-day game at a time to encourage 'standard' gameplay.

In my opinion, this will create much more excitement and add much more action and attract many more people who are looking for less strategy and more action, and that counts for the majority of people. In fact, I'm sort of disappointed that the implementation of x100 speed (which is still like 2.5 hours avg. ) isn't that high up on the priority list.... In fact I would like the next time scale to be x400 if not fully customisable

Also is it really hard to code for these time scales? It would be tedious but not hard? I'm guessing? Maybe, (if the Devs haven't though of this already) they could set a variable n which the game creator could set as the game speed multiplier (times n), and then add (times n) or (divide by n) where necessary throughout the game code to change the speed of subs, arrival times, tick length, etc.

r10t-- wrote:

topkilla wrote:That one problem we can all agree on is groups of pre-alined players joining in the same ranked games.

How is this a problem for subterfuge making money? I think the problem for subterfuge not making money is the "one time purchase" option. Because there is nothing else to purchase once you hit L2, this makes people who are willing to spend more money on the app not spend their money further.

It's a problem as gangs of players joining the same ranked games with the intention of taking the podium is a deterrent for new players to continue playing. Therefore, limiting the conversion of L2 sales.

I've been on both sides of it. It's not really fair or fun.

Actually, I lied. The game where I joined in on alliance has been the most fun I've played yet. But my opinions are usually the exact opposite of everyone else opinions.

r10t-- wrote:My opinions-
Steam port: too much work for too little of a revenue income

I don't want to get to much into arguing about what may or may not be too much time or effort. I'm looking more for positive brainstorming.

But you shouldn't write out the Steam Port idea too quickly. Steam's user base is huge, and people who play computer games are way more likely to buy a game than those on a phone. While the game isn't meant to be played on a computer, I would make a conservative guess that 80% of those who have Steam accounts, also have a device capable of playing Subterfuge. And because of that, the limitedness of having them play on a computer is adverted.

Which leaves you with the game on a third platform, with a large amount of potential players who are actually willing to spend money.

At least thats my theory anyway. I'm not a developer so I have no idea on how much work would actually be required to port to Steam. And I'm in no way a part of the Video Game industry. Other than I am really good at playing them.

madiranofo wrote:Seeing as keeping new players is key, how about we have a 'mentor' system- people volunteer to help out new players. Given that doing this in a 'real' game is quite difficult given the nature of the game (and that 2 players would be allied right from the start), how about a sand box mode where scenarios can be created and talked about- eg. generate a couple of outposts, some drillers and a specialist or two, where stuff can be explained quickly.

I'll second this. I learned to play this way, and I'm not sure if I'd have stuck with the game otherwise. I'd be willing to volunteer to do this, for sure. But maybe a "real" game could work if it was a "noob" game. Four mentor-mentee pairs could work great.

tw2000 wrote:I am extremely surprised to see that no one has mentioned, in my opinion, the most crucial downside of this game: Games take too long. I know it says 'played out over a week', but to be honest, that's probably whats deterring the crowd. I can see many more people interested if the first lines of the description didn't say 'played out over a week', but instead 'can be played out anywhere within an hour to over a week'. If you compare the more popular games these days, its not about deep strategic thinking, but quick reaction times, and a 30-40 minute version of this game keeps in the same time scale as other games which are popular with teens these days such as LOL.

What I'm suggesting is changes in the timing of this game. Maybe add customisable time frames. Make a scroll bar on game creation for the time scale and/or there could be preset time scales which could be named after the chess time scales (standard = avg.10 days, rapid = avg. 6 hours, blitz = avg. 2 hours, bullet = avg. 40 minutes, lightning = avg. 15 minutes) so that there can be leaderboards for each time scale. I'm sure that after the creation of these there will be enough games going on to make each leaderboard actually legitimately detailed with enough seeds. Maybe say that you can play 1 multi-day game and 1 single-day game at a time to encourage 'standard' gameplay.

In my opinion, this will create much more excitement and add much more action and attract many more people who are looking for less strategy and more action, and that counts for the majority of people. In fact, I'm sort of disappointed that the implementation of x100 speed (which is still like 2.5 hours avg. ) isn't that high up on the priority list.... In fact I would like the next time scale to be x400 if not fully customisable

Also is it really hard to code for these time scales? It would be tedious but not hard? I'm guessing? Maybe, (if the Devs haven't though of this already) they could set a variable n which the game creator could set as the game speed multiplier (times n), and then add (times n) or (divide by n) where necessary throughout the game code to change the speed of subs, arrival times, tick length, etc.

I don't what to say to this. It sounds like you want them to make Subterfuge into a completely different game... But for what its meant to be, the game is perfect. The length isn't a downside, it's a feature.

The problem with the game is it's niche. And the bigger problem is that its an mobile game. You either make it big or you are lost in a sea of endless apps. For example, the only reason I have this game is because I randomly visited Touch Arcade one day. If i would have been busy that day, I would have never even heard of Subterfuge.


I also think your expectations of how popular 'quick' games will be is widely inaccurate. I believe the feature is most likely intended to be used for friends all in the same physical location. As if it was a Digital Board-game. Like a modern version of Risk. If my experience with 'live' versions of asynchronous games is any indication of how popular a 'quick' game will be, I highly doubt there will ever be a fully completed 'quick' game where the players are not all in the same room.

P.S. I would expect x100 Speed to be goldilocks of 'quick' game speed. Slow, but also not too fast. @x100 speed, a sub can reach an outpost in 6 minutes that would normally take 10 hours. @400x speed, that sub would take 1.5 minutes to arrive.

I too would be open on some one on one noob time. Question is- how do we get to these new players?