u/TaurusE11E

I have commented and posted about this in other places, but I will speak on it once again for the devs that are afraid of their hard work getting bad reception:

Sharing your work with others entitles them to their opinion, but it does NOT give them authority over yours. All criticism should be given an ear by virtue of extending your view through other's eyes, but only that which helps YOUR vision for the game should be given a try - it is your game the end of the day. You really cannot please everybody, and the closest you can come to it will most likely end with YOU being miserable - which is never worth it.

Naturally, critical feedback will start to build as more players come to your game - and it will probably reflect technical errors and the public's preferences more often than the actual quality of your game (I define a game's quality by how well it accomplishes what the dev intends it to, especially when they put their best foot forward). This feedback is largely helpful for the game quality if you take the time to understand exactly what it means and try to see how it will affect your vision. It is also important to take in the "unspoken heards" that accompany this feedback - if out of all reviews, no one says a thing about a certain feature or format (not error), you can assume that (1) they are fine with it or (2) it is not impactful enough on the playing experience to be a problem (for maintenance purposes). Either way, you get something out of it - a broadened perspective, if not an actual solution of improvement that brings you closer to what you had in mind.

So my central point is this: when you get reviews for your game, understand that no matter how they judge the experience of it, they are not taking your creative freedom - they are just giving you a new option.

[I have also posted this in the ItchIO subreddit but this one doesn't allow reposts so I just made a post for it]

I am the among the smallest of the small in hobbydevs and while I have a cardinal rule of always having a free version of my games available to play in browser, it gave me an idea for if I ever felt brave enough to try and earn a little change.

One thing I have considered is releasing a free-to-play, complete (not demo but full story) web browser version of a game, giving it about a year to gain an audience, and then adding an option to download the game for a price if the metrics look good enough (otherwise, it stays free and browser).

The free version would still be available no matter what, but the price would come from the convenience of not having to rely on an internet connection to play (and probably some extra content and GUI enhancements that would normally be too much for browsers). It would be similar to purchasing a "physical" copy of the game that I cannot take away *side eyes as PlayStation*

What do you all think of this idea?

One thing I have considered is releasing a free-to-play, complete (not demo but full story) web browser version of a game, giving it about a year to gain an audience, and then adding an option to download the game for a price if the metrics look good enough (otherwise, it stays free and browser).

The free version would still be available no matter what, but the price would come from the convenience of not having to rely on an internet connection to play (and probably some extra content and GUI enhancements that would normally be too much for browsers). It would be similar to purchasing a "physical" copy of the game that I cannot take away *side eyes as PlayStation*

What do you all think of this idea?

A piece of advice I live by is that no matter how they paint your game, public reviews help by alerting others to its existence.

For my games, I encourage people to leave public reviews knowing that they hold a LOT of power: they are granted the option of anonymity, the guarantee of an audience, and the ability to be as cruel as they can get away with being on the platform they choose. Pretty risky for a smalldev like me - so why would I encourage it?

The answer is simple - I have faith in human autonomy. No two people are the same, so they should not be expected to look at the same creation the exact same way. I know that if a review is made public, one of three things will most likely happen every time someone reads it:

• they will ignore it (possibly the game too) and move on
• they will take the reviewer's word for it and act accordingly
• they will decide to judge for themselves how much of the review they agree with by playing the game

As hopeful as I am for aspects of my game to be considered good, criticism is the only thing I actually expect. I will lend all criticism an ear and do my best to understand when I reply, but I will only implement what helps my vision for the game. I have done this before, and it helps greatly as I can't please everyone.

So as long as you review a game of mine publicly, where anyone can read and agree or disagree, I say feel free to go crazy with the red Sharpie if that makes it more enjoyable for you. I know some people to find more comfort in leaving reviews if they don't feel pressured to say anything nice about it, and there are other who are more likely to interact if it seems more likely for their criticisms to actually be implemented.

I'm not saying this is a requirement or anything, I just believe that even the most scathing reviews still do that one favor to the dev if they are made public.

This one is for devs in general - but it has the greatest effect on what I call "smalldevs" like me - those who make games for any reason but have yet to hit the "thousand" mark for any aspect of an individual game release (likes, follows, comments, plays, etc.) I use the word "rule" for conciseness, but it's more of a theory backed by my own experience and the trends I have seen persist throughout the years on social media.

In the simplest of terms, the ten-percent rule is an explanation as to why a game takes time to find its audience and build a presence regardless of its quality. With a fair bit of luck, a work can take off fairly quickly , but for the most part the Internet chooses to observe silently. The concept is structured as follows:

• For any social media platform or hosting site, only 10% or less of your following can be expected to interact with any one post instead of scrolling past it.
• Only a tenth or less of that 10% can be expected to do anything more for the game itself than interact with any one post about it (for example, in a follow count of 1000, 100 people or less can be expected to like a devlog post for the game, but you can only count on 10 people or less to actually play the game).

The key words here are "statistical" and "expected". These are statistical theoretical values, meaning they are just as likely to fluctuate as the preferences of players in any given category of gaming if they are the case at all. The expectation comes from the fact that an increase in size does not hurt the chance of a following containing people that would interact in any way.

So I ask all devs big and small, don't be too quick to doubt your abilities when your game launch is greeted with silence. The ten-percent rule is almost always in play and it may be that you just have to wait and build your presence on a platform to get the traction.