[HN Gopher] TouchArcade Is Shutting Down
___________________________________________________________________
TouchArcade Is Shutting Down
Author : samsolomon
Score : 110 points
Date : 2024-09-16 18:08 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (toucharcade.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (toucharcade.com)
| n3xus_ wrote:
| I'm wondering how many sites are being affected due to AI, I've
| noticed myself using Google less
| minimaxir wrote:
| TouchArcade dying is completely unrelated to the AI slop boom:
| as the post notes they've been on the deathbed for many many
| years due to shifts both in web revenue and mobile game
| interests. They were good when premium mobile games sold well
| (TouchArcade was the best place to learn about deals) but that
| time is long gone.
|
| Notably, websites specialized around gacha mobile games have
| been doing very well.
| PlunderBunny wrote:
| I recall reading several years ago that Apple dropping
| affiliate links (? Not sure if that's the correct name) was a
| major financial blow. I had no interest in the podcast or the
| reviews of games on other platforms, or the increased
| coverage of anime games, but I continued to support them
| financially in a modest way just so that I could read the
| roundup of new games released every week. A few years ago,
| there would be several games I would check out each week, but
| more recently I would just scroll through the list and find
| nothing of interest.
| minimaxir wrote:
| That is also correct.
|
| > Apple Kills the App Store Affiliate Program, and I Have
| No Idea What We Are Going to Do. (2018)
|
| https://toucharcade.com/2018/08/01/apple-kills-the-app-
| store...
| wahnfrieden wrote:
| Are there any good backend/IAP-integrated ways to do
| affiliate referrals now ? I guess the only way is to use
| in app code entry to unlock access to a promo code or a
| special IAP
| dlbucci wrote:
| Now that is a name I haven't heard in a long time. I almost
| struggle to remember where I heard them from, but I distinctly
| remember reading this site trying to find the next great game for
| my first-gen iPod Touch. I can't say I've ever followed it
| closely, but there's a certain sadness bound to happen when a
| childhood site goes down.
|
| I'll poor one out for TouchArcade (and Joystiq. and Rooster
| Teeth. Just checked, and gonintendo is still kicking!)
| davidczech wrote:
| Darn, I remember checking this website everyday for new games
| when I had the 1st generation iPod Touch.
| fidotron wrote:
| This is a highly visible manifestation of something that has been
| going on for years. I have been around mobile games for 20 years
| (going back to J2ME) and have never seen interest in the field so
| low.
|
| Essentially the noise is that people are locked into habits in
| the app stores. It takes huge amounts of money to get people to
| try something new, and this invariably leads to amazing
| conservatism on the part of publishers. The big breakout hit last
| year was a Monopoly spin off, admittedly well executed, but with
| absolutely massive marketing pushes.
|
| Steam is squeezing on one side and web games on the other. When
| the mobile herd simply moves where the marketing dollars lead
| them who needs reviews?
| burningChrome wrote:
| I used to be a huge mobile gaming person, but then a few years
| ago, I found out several of my mobile games were available on
| PC so I just stopped gaming on my phone all together. I have
| several co-workers who also did the same thing. We used to talk
| all the time about whatever new game was coming out on mobile,
| but now its all about PC and console titles.
|
| You're 100% right that it takes massive amounts of money to
| move the needle for gamers now. It seems like the group I run
| in, whatever your game is and you're good at, you stay in that
| lane. Any new additions or versions, you're on right away and
| excited about.
|
| It takes a lot for the people I know to try a new game and
| actually spend the time and money to see if they like it.
| Nobody I know is willing to do that now since the economy is
| not great and money is really tight all over. The people I know
| are only going to buy what they know they'll like.
|
| I feel like a lot of this is people sticking with what they
| know since the market is so saturated like you point out.
| tourmalinetaco wrote:
| I haven't bought a new game for myself for years. Most of
| what I play is retro emulation, and what PC titles I do play
| are ones I already own and have a lot of replay value. Indie
| titles are far cooler than AAA, but even they don't speak out
| to me as often. Why spend $60 on a flop like Hyenas, or even
| $20 on a game inspired by Harvest Moon, when I can actually
| play the original games for free? Especially on mobile, where
| most games are idle timewasters looking to lock me into a
| microtransaction loop. I'd rather boot up a GBA game and
| spend my time on that.
| golergka wrote:
| If you're already pirating games with game emulators,
| what's stopping you from pirating AAA titles as well? I'm
| not making any value judgement here, it just feels like you
| compare apples to oranges.
| a_t48 wrote:
| Buying a retro game no longer gives money to the
| developers. It doesn't support the development of further
| games, it mostly just puts money in the pockets of
| collectors and scalpers.
| golergka wrote:
| > Buying a tomato in a grocery store no longer gives
| money to the farmer, because he's already been paid for
| it.
|
| Same logic, same fallacy.
| benoau wrote:
| Except you don't have to hunt down the descendants of the
| grocery store or who acquired the company that acquired
| them that sold it for parts, decades later. With old
| games the rights holders are scattered and even unknown
| until they assert a claim they believe they have.
| tourmalinetaco wrote:
| I would if there were any AAA games I was interested in.
| jhbadger wrote:
| >or even $20 on a game inspired by Harvest Moon, when I can
| actually play the original games for free?
|
| If by that you are referring to _Stardew Valley_ , while it
| is indeed inspired by _Harvest Moon_ , it is so much richer
| and deeper and after playing it I guarantee you won't want
| to go back . It is like saying why play a modern Roguelike
| when you can just play _Rogue_.
| tourmalinetaco wrote:
| I've played a fair bit of Stardew Valley, and that
| complexity can be fun, but sometimes I prefer to return
| to Friends of Mineral Town for the simplicity, and can do
| so on mobile (iOS lacks a mobile port of SD to my
| knowledge).
| nox101 wrote:
| To you and the previous commenter, is it possible you've
| just aged out of the market? (not sure what other word to
| use than "aged") but my point is, most people eventually
| change their habits in almost everything.
|
| The way I game now has changed drastically over the years
| for various reasons. The latest for me is probably just
| being tired of games that seem 3% different than the last
| fps/shumps/twin-stick-shooter/metroidvania/...
| layer8 wrote:
| Then there's also people opting to watch gaming streams or
| videos to experience a game, instead of playing themselves.
| the_af wrote:
| I do this with DCS.
|
| Flightsims fascinate me, and I used to play the old
| Microprose sims, but nowadays it's too expensive and time-
| consuming a niche. DCS is expensive, both the hardware and
| the modules, and it also requires way too much time.
|
| So I watch a couple of YouTube channels dedicated to DCS, and
| get to "live" the experience through them.
| abecedarius wrote:
| Seems a natural result of monopolist app stores treating
| software developers as a complement to be commoditized. That
| relationship was what held me back the most when I was tempted
| to write for iPod Touch.
| golergka wrote:
| I worked in mobile gamedev a long time, and I remember the
| excitement around 2010, where it really seemed like we got a
| new, innovative platform which will allow for completely new
| types of gameplay and turn a lot of casuals into real gamers at
| the same time. But turned out, the mobile crowd (which is
| basically most of humanity at this point) really prefer
| spending their money in a very specific genres, and innovative
| gameplay just doesn't convert that well.
|
| Marketing doesn't lead people. It just enhances the signal
| about what people choose. Marketing can only drive an install,
| but after that, it's the game quality and a person's
| preferences that decide the LTV.
| fidotron wrote:
| > Marketing doesn't lead people. It just enhances the signal
| about what people choose.
|
| Marketing is also the process of surveying the market and
| deciding what to make in the first place.
| golergka wrote:
| Good point, I should have phrased it differently.
| pier25 wrote:
| > _the mobile crowd (which is basically most of humanity at
| this point) really prefer spending their money in a very
| specific genres, and innovative gameplay_
|
| Yeah although what percentage of mobile users actually play
| on their phones regularly these days?
|
| It's anecdotal but I haven't played a mobile game in almost a
| decade now. I played a lot on my iPad 1 and 3.
|
| The app fever of 2010 has passed. Again anecdotal, but I
| avoid installing apps on my phone as much as I can.
|
| My wife still plays candy crush on her iPad almost every
| night but has zero interest in any other game.
| jamesgeck0 wrote:
| Anecdotally, when I was in Asia I saw people playing mobile
| games all over the place. Mobile is the biggest gaming
| platform by a large margin.
| heraldgeezer wrote:
| Yes, but it's all anime gacha games like Genshin, Honkai,
| Arknights etc.
| chasing wrote:
| The mobile gaming market is overwhelmed with cheap trash. It's
| what you see when you open a mobile game store. (I just opened
| the iOS App Store games section and, apart from Minecraft and
| Roblox -- which I'm not interested in -- everything on the main
| screen pretty much looks terrible.)
|
| It's a marked contrast to the major consoles and other game
| store platforms which, for whatever reason, do a much better
| job of not just promoting stuff that will be profitable -- but
| of promoting stuff that's _not trash_ so when you think of a
| Nintendo Switch you think of amazing Mario games; when you
| think of a Playstation you think of The Last of Us or Elden
| Ring or whatever. You know if you crack open Steam that you 'll
| see interesting stuff.
|
| The difference may be the norms set on pricing. Console games
| are still $30-$70. People complained about the horrible race-
| to-the-bottom on mobile game pricing in the early days. And
| they complained about the total switch over to micro-
| transactions. Those complaints were ignored. So the marketplace
| was overwhelmed by companies who could execute cheap, micro-
| transaction-addictive games the best. And so I think the market
| generally treats mobile games like garbage. Which they by-and-
| large seem to be. (With notable exceptions!)
| fidotron wrote:
| > And they complained about the total switch over to micro-
| transactions. Those complaints were ignored.
|
| There is a good reason for this. "Premium" mobile games never
| reliably made that much money, even during the early iOS
| boom. If you were a publisher it took having quite a few hits
| to compensate, and Android was more trouble than it was worth
| for a long time.
|
| A successful MTX game made several orders of magnitude more.
| (Instead of getting low millions you would be getting
| hundreds of millions). The process was perfectly satirized in
| South Park by the "Canadian Department of Mobile Gaming"
| which like all the best South Park jokes wasn't nearly as
| fictional as might be assumed.
|
| Such games are "cheap trash" in the same sense as a vegas
| casino. Similarly the actual operating of them at scale
| becomes very sophisticated. Team Fortress 2 is an example of
| Valve indulging in exactly this on Steam, so it is far from
| isolated to mobile.
| bsder wrote:
| > It takes huge amounts of money to get people to try something
| new, and this invariably leads to amazing conservatism on the
| part of publishers.
|
| This is purely the fault of enshittifying the mobile gaming
| experience.
|
| I moved through various genres like Puzzle and Dragons, Clash
| of Clans, Clash Royale, etc.
|
| Each one of those games was a lot of fun because initially they
| left a path to play them with _skill_ instead of _money_.
| Putting together a set of characters to beat the tough bosses
| in Puzzle and Dragons required a _lot_ of skill to get the big
| combos you would need since you were underpowered. Clash of
| Clans was neat because you couldn 't make a castle to protect
| against everything and someone with some skill could probably
| get an extra star off you with some work (I was _really_ good
| at timing the placement of dragons against the algorithms to
| exploit seams and make higher leveled players cry). I had a
| Clash Royale deck based on Golems and Lightning that would win
| about 30% of the time even against players who had super
| powerful decks (I was casting things before stuff even hit the
| field in anticipation of what players would do and timing the
| delay from the system--sure it was high risk but also high
| reward).
|
| Alas, the siren call of the microtransaction is strong. People
| who spend money expect to win and complain when they don't.
| Those games eventually all nerfed any skill-only paths. And
| then they expanded to make _massive_ purchasing the only real
| path toward higher levels.
|
| And that led me to stop playing mobile games altogether. There
| is no point. If a game is money or gacha, it's completely not
| interesting. If a game has a skill path, it will get nuked post
| haste as soon as the publisher figures out that it exists.
| smileson2 wrote:
| Feels like the race to the bottom is nearing the finish line
| incrudible wrote:
| Case in point, I just saw one of these bizarre advertisements
| for a game where they show some simplistic gameplay that is
| supposed to hook you, which is not at all the point of the
| actual game. It was about a pregnant women and her other child,
| freezing outside in the winter. I had to watch it to the end
| and it turns out the game was... Gardenscapes.
| htrp wrote:
| a/b testing to the (local) max
| mschuster91 wrote:
| Yeah they've run shitty ads for years now.
|
| And it seems like the one time they _did_ face consequences
| for their fake ads four years ago clearly wasn 't enough [1].
|
| [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24761349
| n_ary wrote:
| It is a common trick. There are many culprits using same
| tricks: Gardenscape, Whiteout Survival, Frozen City,
| Township, Fishdom, Hero Wars and to some extent Royal
| Match.
|
| All of these appear to enjoy a lot of downloads, so
| whatever tricks they are using works very effectively.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| > All of these appear to enjoy a lot of downloads, so
| whatever tricks they are using works very effectively.
|
| That's because "# of downloads" is a crap metric that's
| easily gamed (be it by fake ads or bot campaigns or
| whatnot). A more useful metric would be "# of installs
| still active after 1/2/4 weeks", that would
| disincentivize a lot of these scams, but at the cost of
| Google being able to claim download numbers for the
| vitality of their app store ("# of app installs a
| day!!!"), which is why Google doesn't do much against
| this shit despite the "quality" dragging down the image
| of the entire Play Store. Unfortunately there is no
| competition worth the name as the Apple Store is
| similarly plagued by copycats and fakes, so neither party
| has an incentive to de-enshittify.
| jandrese wrote:
| The one thing I like about new Twitter is how those deceptive
| ads can get community notes that say "gameplay depicted is
| not in the game".
| bonestamp2 wrote:
| Ugh, if they make an ad that has non-game game-play that
| gets a lot of clicks... why not make that game instead/too?
| jprete wrote:
| I've heard that they do metrics on the ads to pick
| particular pseudo-games to implement.
|
| But they don't make money on clicks, they make it on
| whales, so they are also going to get rid of pseudo-games
| that can't get whales to spend more microtransaction
| money.
| tivert wrote:
| > But they don't make money on clicks, they make it on
| whales, so they are also going to get rid of pseudo-games
| that can't get whales to spend more microtransaction
| money.
|
| This video did a very good job of explaining it, to me,
| someone who never plays mobile games:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhajAqI66nU
| (https://archive.org/details/youtube-NhajAqI66nU).
|
| tl;dr: it's all about getting whales into the game. The
| type of games people will download based on ad game-play
| are not the most monetizable (b/c whales). So the main
| game is a highly monetizable city-builder (which whales
| spend on), with the ad's minigame _somewhere_ (which at
| most only has a few minutes of playtime). The ad 's mini-
| game is often developed as a concept for the ad _first_ ,
| then only actually implemented later after A/B testing
| the ads. It doesn't matter that most people will get
| frustrated and delete the game when it's not as
| advertised, because the people who do that aren't whales.
| rightlane wrote:
| One of the last bastions of good games journalism, and the only
| good mobile gaming site. Another casualty of the garbage
| listicles and AI generated garbage that fills up search results.
| I would do anything to have the old, fun, internet back. This
| monstrosity we have now just isn't doing it for me.
| thierrydamiba wrote:
| Can you explain to me what you mean by this? What about the
| internet today isn't fun? There are plenty of websites that
| don't have garbage listicles and AI slop, they just aren't as
| popular.
| mercacona wrote:
| But they don't get attention-public-funding enough to be
| profitable because of the garbage. The garbage is burying
| them in search results but also literally.
| firebirdn99 wrote:
| i don't know if they were ever profitable. But certainly i
| think there's been a paradigm shift to commercializing
| everything (mostly through advertising) the last decade or
| two and if you fall behind, whatever growth you were aiming
| for goes away and revenues shrink.
|
| And also almost all advertising revenues have probably
| become centralized with google search, social media by
| facebook, and youtube, etc. That combined with rising
| costs, and higher opportunity cost to instead do something
| else means these sites are biting the dust.
| soup10 wrote:
| Them featuring my game in a front page article was a big moment
| for me(and helped it become a viral hit). Best of luck guys.
| bmalicoat wrote:
| As a mobile game dev, this is a bummer. I have been fortunate to
| get review and preview coverage on a few of my games from TA.
| There aren't many sites doing what that do. I get that the market
| has moved and now discovery happens in the App Store and via
| advertisement dollars, but growing up reading EGM or IGN.com and
| seeing people excited about a game just from a few screenshots
| colored me for life. I'm sad mobile game players don't have that
| opportunity.
| MBCook wrote:
| Really too bad, but I'm not surprised. I know losing affiliate
| money many years ago hurt bad.
|
| But the truth is I don't care much anymore. I loved TA because
| they helped me find fun games. And while I've found a few from
| them in the last few years like Peglin most of their coverage is
| unsurprisingly what most of the industry makes: pay to win with
| smurfberries advertising laden crap.
|
| I strongly believe the iOS gaming scene died the day IAPs came
| out.
|
| There is the incredibly rare indie game that you can pay for now,
| and Apple Arcade. While I enjoy that most of the good games I've
| played before (a plus on the name = existed before). Those that I
| haven't played or are new often were obviously designed for IAPs
| and aren't that fun when they're removed.
|
| And I know devs seem to hate it, and I'm not surprised. But it's
| the only option I've got left.
|
| I'll miss you, Touch Arcade. You long outlasted the era of
| greatness for the platform you covered. Thanks for making it as
| long as you did. One more sign we can't have nice things because
| ruthless unnecessarily exploitive capitalism.
| Jyaif wrote:
| Shame!
|
| Fwiw nowadays MiniReview is a very good source of games:
| https://minireview.io
| nkrisc wrote:
| It's a shame for sure, as I've occasionally used sites like TA as
| a consumer. But it's also not anything I'd ever actually _pay_
| for. If these kinds of sites go away then I'll just go on living
| without them. They're nice to have, but they're not necessary by
| any stretch. Life will go on, with or without video game
| journalism.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-09-16 23:01 UTC)