# anyone have experience of selling Android game?

This topic is 1227 days old which is more than the 365 day threshold we allow for new replies. Please post a new topic.

## Recommended Posts

have anyone sold Android games in play store?
if so, how much u've earned in about one month?
I'm working on a game project...
I just curious to know if it will be beneficial....

##### Share on other sites

I think you put this in wrong category.

##### Share on other sites

have anyone sold Android games in play store?
if so, how much u've earned in about one month?
I'm working on a game project...
I just curious to know if it will be beneficial....

You have games that probably make cents, maybe some dollars, and you have games that make thousands per day. I'm not sure how knowing the earnings of other projects will help yours, but it depends on different factors.

Does it have In-App-Purchase?

Is it free? (there are non-free games with in-app-purchase too)

It would be better to create a marketing plan, to define your monetization model and to estimate your earning based on different number of active players. You'll have a better idea with that approach, looking at other games numbers will give you pretty useless information I think.

Edited by DiegoSLTS

##### Share on other sites

I think you put this in wrong category.

Definitely. Selling games is a Business question, so I'm moving this to the Business forum.

##### Share on other sites

I have 4 apps on the google play store, I'm not sure how much money I would make because they are all free, but I can tell you about how many downloads I'm getting.

If I was selling the apps that would probably be a lot less.

Generally people are most successful with a free trial version of an app so that people can see what they are buying.

##### Share on other sites

As outlined, its already very hard to find a spot. Also Android has an "apk" issue.

So, I'd rather see if I can tailor games to fit in in-app-purchase and in-game-advertisement to set "free"

##### Share on other sites

Even good, high-quality games fail to find a market every day in these economies, for whatever reason.

This is so depressing. The world has become a lottery :-(

##### Share on other sites

The world has become a lottery

There was a time when it wasn't??

##### Share on other sites

The world has become a lottery

There was a time when it wasn't??

Not too sure about that but I think there was more low hanging fruit. In 1993 or so it might have been possible to monetise a game on a platform like the Amiga for about €50 or something whereas now everyone and their grandmother is an App developer, free apps of course because it is hard to still sell one for even $.99 I'm not saying a game didn't have to be very good but I mean to say that nowadays even excellence is absolutely not a guarantee for success. #### Share this post ##### Link to post ##### Share on other sites I think there was more low hanging fruit. In 1993 or so it might have been possible to When an easy way to make money is discovered, people flock to it, and it quickly becomes a more difficult way to make money. Early adopters take a risk. They invest time and money and they're risk that the items will fail. They took a risk, and for those early adopters it happened to pay of spectacularly. People noticed, and flooded the market. Today there is still a huge risk, just a different risk of obscurity rather than a risk of the device not becoming popular. There have been many such places where early adopters succeed. Early adopters in ebooks, who had books even when they were high risk, rode a wave to great profits even when their books were poor quality. Franchise restaurants in the 1960s took a risk on building businesses of unknown popularity and many became millionaires. In the 1990s a few groups took risks and made online businesses before the WWW was even a thing people knew, and some succeeded spectacularly, others wanted to repeat the success and flooded the market with a dot-com bubble. Look around you, there are opportunities everywhere if you take a risk. They will require an initial investment. You may or may not succeed. If you succeed spectacularly you will find your previously untapped market flooded with people trying to imitate your success. #### Share this post ##### Link to post ##### Share on other sites When an easy way to make money is discovered, people flock to it, and it quickly becomes a more difficult way to make money. I apologise to OP first because I think I hijacked his thread. I could perhaps create one if this is going to be a lasting debate. Now to the line I quoted and replied to... Indeed and I'm completely aware of the phenomenon. It's known as the 3 I's. Innovators, imitators and idiots. But game creation is anything but easy. That's my point. I think barring OS dev and compilers it is one of the hardest fields of programming yet one apparently still doesn't qualify as elite from being able to do this. The bar nowadays is ultra high. You need to be a truly innovating Quantum Physicist who knows how to create a 1nm transistor to still matter. Needless to say that's way above my head. #### Share this post ##### Link to post ##### Share on other sites The bar nowadays is ultra high. You need to be a truly innovating Quantum Physicist who knows how to create a 1nm transistor to still matter. I don't think that's necessarily true. I was at a startup conference a few weeks ago, and it was interesting, despite my being a fish entirely out of water there. The crowd-favorite was a startup called Shipster -- basically, think of it as Orbitz or Travelocity, except for shipping cargo internationally (specifically, shipping containers across the sea). Just like Orbitz puts together a package including your flight, hotel, rental car, insurance in one self-service package, Shipster does for your cargo -- over-land shipping to and from the port, customs, shipping, documents, etc. all in one self-serve package. They likened it to when, just 20 years ago when you wanted to take a trip you went through an expensive travel agent, in shipping, the norm today is to go through sometimes shady shipping brokers who charge high margins and disappear when there's a problem. The thing that struck me about it most was that, having solved the problem 20 years ago for people, basically no one had thought to do the same for shipping cargo in all that time. And its a good idea, shipping is a billions-of-dollars industry, and yet it was a hidden opportunity for two decades. #### Share this post ##### Link to post ##### Share on other sites The easiest way (most easily grafted into any kind of game with minimum effort) is to build your game to support adds and have it be completely free, then, as an in-app-purchase, offer an item that disables adds and sell it for$1. Crackers will even remove the adds, probably, but usually people will just take the official free version with adds rather than risk whatever other malware a cracked copy might contain.

Thnaks for ur helpful rply :-)
I really appreciate it.....

I was kinda thinking the same thing.....
making a free game with good graphics and ads....

hope this'll help me for getting started.....

Less scrupulous publishers hire shadowy firms to inflate their initial download numbers so that they can raise into the public's conciousness, in hopes of cracking the top-10 list where the real money is.

now that's something interesting :-D
sure to be a great starting method if I have some bucks to spend

##### Share on other sites

I have 4 apps on the google play store, I'm not sure how much money I would make because they are all free, but I can tell you about how many downloads I'm getting.

can u give the me the link to your most popular app?

##### Share on other sites

Also Android has an "apk" issue.

I didn't get it....
what u meant by it?

##### Share on other sites

Unduli, on 04 Oct 2014 - 04:16 AM, said:
Also Android has an "apk" issue.

I didn't get it....
what u meant by it?

APK can sounds like EPIC

ot too sure about that but I think there was more low hanging fruit. In 1993 or so it might have been possible to monetise a game on a platform like the Amiga for about €50 or something whereas now everyone and their grandmother is an App developer, free apps of course because it is hard to still sell one for even $.99 I don't think it was easier. Back then, getting the equipment to develop was much harder. We didn't have the internet to learn how to make games, so we needed books etc. I recommend listening to some of John Carmack's words on the days of Wolfenstein 3D actually for this. You'll notice that those that ended up developing games back then were taking huge risks (such as a lawsuit that would take over a decade to settle!). It is easier to make games now, which means there are more games, but it doesn't go to say there wasn't any volume of luck back then, or that great titles didn't make it. It was a challenge then, and it is a challenge now! #### Share this post ##### Link to post ##### Share on other sites now that's something interesting :-D sure to be a great starting method if I have some bucks to spend I wouldn't recommend you follow their lead. I mean, they write the expense off as marketting, but the practice isn't endorsed by the marketplaces, can get your app penalized or banned, and what's more, doesn't guarantee success. I don't think it was easier. Back then, getting the equipment to develop was much harder. We didn't have the internet to learn how to make games, so we needed books etc. I recommend listening to some of John Carmack's words on the days of Wolfenstein 3D actually for this. You'll notice that those that ended up developing games back then were taking huge risks (such as a lawsuit that would take over a decade to settle!). It is easier to make games now, which means there are more games, but it doesn't go to say there wasn't any volume of luck back then, or that great titles didn't make it. It was a challenge then, and it is a challenge now! An interesting dynamic is that the barriers to entry -- equipment, know-how, reach -- have been pushed down so far, especially where people begin. All you need is a PC, which you probably already have, a mobile device which you might already have, and$100 to get your app on the store. Knowlege is freely available if you have the time and ability to grok it. The rest is your own creativity and gumption.

The result is that almost no one fails before they hit the market, and combined with the apps gold-rush, one could only expect to see the kind of over-saturation and market dynamics that exist today. There's no natural forces keeping those doomed to fail out at an earlier stage (to be clear, I'm not advocating that the previous Plutarchy was "better" but it definitely was different, and those that actually made it to market had a better shot at meaningful success). This leads to rather few people making money at what's become a very large but rather dysfunctional market.

##### Share on other sites

An interesting dynamic is that the barriers to entry -- equipment, know-how, reach -- have been pushed down so far, especially where people begin. All you need is a PC, which you probably already have, a mobile device which you might already have, and \$100 to get your app on the store. Knowlege is freely available if you have the time and ability to grok it. The rest is your own creativity and gumption.

The result is that almost no one fails before they hit the market, and combined with the apps gold-rush, one could only expect to see the kind of over-saturation and market dynamics that exist today. There's no natural forces keeping those doomed to fail out at an earlier stage (to be clear, I'm not advocating that the previous Plutarchy was "better" but it definitely was different, and those that actually made it to market had a better shot at meaningful success). This leads to rather few people making money at what's become a very large but rather dysfunctional market.

So, essentially, you're saying that those that should fail along the way get to hit market and wonder why they're not making revenue?

Or is your point rather that all of the shovel ware makes it actually harder for quality games to turn up a penny?

##### Share on other sites

So, essentially, you're saying that those that should fail along the way get to hit market and wonder why they're not making revenue?
Or is your point rather that all of the shovel ware makes it actually harder for quality games to turn up a penny?

My take on it is that since the barriers moved, and because of where they moved the consumer experience is worse. And because the vetting takes place later, the developer's experience is worse.

Before the barriers were at the cost of manufacturing and distribution. You could build a game on your own but achieving wide release meant you had to convince those with money or with power.

Now the barriers are moved all the way out to the end retailer. While it is good for the individual developers since they can get their goods more cheaply to market, it is horrible for the consumer. Where once the consumer had a small number of choices that had all been vetted and pruned to the high quality items, there is now an enormous pile of merchandise. Since no vetting has occurred the individual is left with the curse of too many choices. There is an enormous collection of choices, so many that they cannot sufficiently evaluate them to make a decision. A person who simply says "I want a game" can go to the marketplace, but there are over one thousand games added every day. There are many hundred thousand games already out there.

Since there is no way for the individual to evaluate the enormous piles of options themselves, the consumers turn right back to other sources of vetting. Instead of a financial barrier doing the vetting, they rely on the top-100 lists or the editor choice lists or whatever other vetting services to do the job.

So then the individual developers are kept in an even worse spot than before. Before they were usually stopped for vetting early, before they invested time and effort and money into the product. Now they are stopped for vetting late, after the enormous investments. Thus the marketplace is dysfunctional for the small developer as the market is more like a lottery for those who cannot afford the vetting process. And the market is dysfunctional for the consumer because they are faced with an overwhelming number of choices with no viable method to sort between the excellent products and the terrible ones, which are all presented with an icon, some screen shots, and a 99 cent cost.

##### Share on other sites
Brilliantly articulated and accurate indeed.
Some say the mobile bubble is about to bust but I have my doubts.
Casual market went in decline because the demand simply decreased.
I don't believe the mobile market demand is in decline: just because suppliers find it less and less appealing does not mean there won't still be enough (short-lived?) studios to meet the demand. Perhaps then, when overall production quality keeps decreasing, will that bubble bust.

I had hopes the mobile market was going the other direction but it seems it is too big monster for its own sake.

How do you figure it all looks like 5 years from now?

##### Share on other sites

I don't think there is a bubble, and therefore, it cant really bust.

A bubble would mean the market was in some way overvalued, and/or that people would just stop buying games through their devices.

Neither is true or very likely...

I also definitely do not agree with any production value generally decreasing... If anything else, the bar is constantly raised on what is acceptable quality for a success.

There will always be flukes like flappy bird, but that has absolutely nothing to do with the general trends.

There will though always be a big percentage of the releases that does not make money, but that has been true from day one.

It has, as others have pointed out, to do with the ease of releasing, and relatively low cost of distribution, compared to the old way of physically distributing boxes with your game on a piece of plastic to physical stores.

The problem is that even though it now is easy to distribute, its still just as hard/expensive as before to get people to know about your game.

Before this was rolled into one, you got a publisher deal, and they handled distribution and marketing. Now ju only get the distribution, and have to do most of the marketing yourself.

It might be hard, but it definitely is not impossible to be consistently successful on the app stores.

Several companies are. (I'm working at one of them)

It's even possible without spending fortunes on marketing, and without faking ratings/downloads...

Edited by Olof Hedman

##### Share on other sites

So, essentially, you're saying that those that should fail along the way get to hit market and wonder why they're not making revenue?
Or is your point rather that all of the shovel ware makes it actually harder for quality games to turn up a penny?

Frob pretty much nailed it -- What I quote from you here isn't an 'or' at all, its one leading to the other. I wrestle over whether the complete openness of the platforms is a good thing -- yes, its good that anyone can enter the market and compete, on the other hand, there are so many people trying to game the system for a quick buck, that its hard for the rest of us to keep our heads above the waves. This visibility issue, along with people who are earnestly trying but are either not producing quality software or are simply being out-competed, forces the entire market into a race for the bottom. When these markets started, there was software at all kinds of price-points, then as people flooded the market 99 cents became normal, now free is normal. There are people--trolls, really--who will give your freemium game a very negative review if you have the audacity to put content or to cap progress behind a paywall, they'll be angry that they can't grind out your game in its entirety, no matter how tedeous.

I don't think its good for gamers either -- firstly because it precludes certain kinds of games from being able to monetize effectively, so they disappear from the marketplace, or they are so changed in awkward, unnatural ways that they cease to be what made them fun. Second, games that can be monetized in the new-school ways often have a conflict of interest, many games either actively annoy the player into paying, or make unpaid play a waste of time. Some will say that these products wouldn't exist if the market didn't bare it but I think that's a shallow understanding -- most of the market *doesn't* bare it, 90% of these games' revenues come from less than 5% of users. One could also make the argument that these 'whales' aren't really having fun either, but are being psychologically manipulated into addiction behavior, not unlike a compulsive gambler; often, they have sound effects very similar to vegas slot machines, stacks ofpoker chips, etc, even when it doesn't fit thematically. Its transformed these games from a shared expression of fun, to a cynical bleeding of human resources.

Freemium can be done well and ethically, but most games don't. I wish for a movement to bring back the old pay-to-own, sticker-price model. Maybe its a problem of public perception, maybe we should start marketing such games as One-Time-Purchase, and pitch it as a value-prop.

##### Share on other sites

I agree that the barriers have moved, which means that although we get more people being able to release software, it's also far harder for any of them to get anywhere.

I don't think it's horrible for consumers though, it's good to have choice. Having barriers earlier doesn't necessarily mean higher quality.

I don't think things are worse as a consumer because there isn't any "vetting". Yes, years ago I could spend £30 on a game, and although it might be good or bad, it still had to pass some hurdles to be published. But there was also plenty of freeware (before Internet access, there were "PD libraries"), and I loved looking through that too. There was some rubbish, but when it's free you don't expect that, and the freedom today. I don't have a problem on Android when something free might not be great. The problem is when everything seems infested with ads, or it's crippleware with IAP to enable everything. And vetting doesn't help, because some the popular games coming from commercial companies rather than individual developers are the prime culprits.

The problem is a lot of people (myself included!) are lazy or don't have the time to try out lots of new games, so they only download what they hear about, and what's top in the search results. I don't think I'm worried that something lower down the list might be poor quality, rather with so many choices, there simply isn't the time to play very many of them at all.