In the project tab :
1. I would get rid of the Feedback and Contribution sections. I think it is too early to make people vote for specific new features when the basics are not there yet, and anyway all the heavy lifting for the subjects related to these sections is done through the diffusion list. 2. I would also get rid of Guidelines and Marketing : part of it is just lists, and the rest could be replaced by a blog, it would actually a better format to build an audience. 3. I would keep but simplify Gameplay Lab and communication section 4. Developper's corner and Translation could be hidden in some specific place for now : they are not very relevant yet... In the Company tab : I would only keep the Pitch and Business plan section. I would get rid of the whole References tab and use the content to fuel the blog... I think you have to further define your target : do you expect to reach a female audience, old/young people... Is it more a Mafia wars, or a Farmville kind of game ? I think on the basis you have chosen : ownership of a website, you can go in any direction, but to meet your target you have to frame it right (I mean frame the game). I think you should think in terms of preexisting communities: what community(ies) are you addressing? And how are you addressing them? You can look at diverse framing/targets before making a decision, but IMO it should be your first priority. I think you should indeed focus on one of the many possibilities, rather one simple in order to get it out fast and iterate, learn and indeed reframe if needed... David might a god at getting funding but I don't really see anybody getting serious about your project before you have shown you can federate (or even better monetize) a community around your games. Josselin 2010/6/29 Xavier Antoviaque <[email protected]> > On Tue, 2010-06-29 at 13:55 +0200, Josselin Perrus wrote: > > Xavier, my following remarks might sound pretty critical, but don't > > take me wrong I'm emphasizing only on what I think could be improved : > > the time has not yet come to praise... And if it sounds like I'm > > lecturing, be sure it is not my intention... > > Don't worry - good constructive criticism is what the project needs the > most, especially right now. I'm glad you took the time to write it down, > thanks a lot for this Josselin. > > > First a quick remark on the gameplay: I very much agree with what > > Anton has brought up. I very strongly feel against the "tree" thing : > > even for someone who gave it time to understand, it still does not > > make any sense... > > Hmmm... I think Anton and you are right, it doesn't make much sense, and > even if it did, the concept would probably be too tricky for a majority > of players. I think I've spent so much time having the concept in mind > that I couldn't see it anymore. Let's try to see if we can come up with > something else. > > > Now the real thing : I think the overall effort is not focused enough. > > Your website examplifies what I think is wrong : it is difficult to > > understand and to browse because there are lots of contents that reach > > in many directions. I totally understand that you want to make the > > project as open as possible : not only the code but also the process. > > I value that a lot. However I think the website could be brought down > > to a few pages and a mailing list without losing any of the signal. > > But you would get rid of the noise... > > I agree - the wiki is a mess. : ) That's why I've started reorganizing > it, especially the home page, to progressively move to a more > streamlined experience for the newcomers. A lot of the pages are only > needed occasionally, for reference - defining a smaller set of pages > where we direct newcomers can definitely help. Which pages would you > keep? > > > The target > > Till now it looks to me like you are trying to meet all possible > > gamers expectations. I think you cannot target people who want to > > fight over control, people who want to nurture, people who want to use > > the game as political medium, etc... at the same time. I think you > > should focus on one market segment and define from there what is the > > smallest set of features you need to develop in order satisfy your > > target. > > Not exactly - the goal is not to target everyone, I don't think anyone > thinks we can do that. It's more about trying several approaches, to try > to see which one would take off, and then go for it. > > But you are right about one (big) thing here: the approach needs to be > more methodical and focused. Trying to define one target for now could > help to speed up things, instead of trying everything at once - we would > just try one approach, see what we learn, and eventually redefine it and > start over if we need to. > > > The framing > > The framing is about the context, the role of the player in the game, > > etc... Typically the framing is defined by the metaphore you use. > > Anton has recently brought forward some ideas that tend to reinforce > > the Hacking frame, meaning : you are a hacker and you fight over > > websites to make money. You buy stuff that help you get better,etc... > > However, and that brings us back to the target issue, you have to > > acknowledge that if you frame the game as a pure hacking game you are > > de facto ruling out some segments and focusing on a rather savvy, more > > or less hardcore gamers target. Maybe it has been clear to you for > > quite some time but it does not seem that way from the outside. > > I have to thank you again for this email Josselin - you're completely > right about this. > > The hardcore gamer shouldn't be the first target we should try to reach > - the one we have been talking about is more the casual gamer, a bit > geek but not too much, who played facebook games and is ready for more. > We could accomodate more hardcore audiences, especially if we fail with > a more casual audience, but that shouldn't be our first try. > > What are you thoughts on this? Does the target I just described makes > sense for you? > > > I hope I did not come down too hard, but, well, now you know where I > > stand. I believe focus and iteration to be key in order to achieve > > what some call a Minimum Viable > > Product http://venturehacks.com/articles/minimum-viable-product > > My english is a bit rusty, so I hope what I wrote makes sense. > > Not at all - you gave lots of insights, and fair and constructive > critics. Thanks for the link - I'll listen to the presentation. > > Xavier. > > > _______________________________________________ > Hackit Bar mailing list - [email protected] > > Wiki: http://community.hackit.cx/ > List: http://community.hackit.cx/ml/ > Forum: http://community.hackit.cx/forum/ > Ideas: http://community.hackit.cx/ideas/ > IRC: irc://irc.freenode.net/#politis >
_______________________________________________ Hackit Bar mailing list - [email protected] Wiki: http://community.hackit.cx/ List: http://community.hackit.cx/ml/ Forum: http://community.hackit.cx/forum/ Ideas: http://community.hackit.cx/ideas/ IRC: irc://irc.freenode.net/#politis
