John Romero, co-founder of id Software and designer of Doom ($4.99), has just re-released one of his first games on to the App Store, in Dangeroud Dave in the Deserted Pirate’s Hideout (Free). This is a platformer from the late 1980s, where you collect gems and make it through levels as quickly as possible. It has the kind of clunky feel of a game made back in that era, but it’s still a pretty cool relic from the era, and it comes with either retro visuals or high-res art to play the game with. Plus, it’s free to download, with only IAP to remove ads. It’s a piece of gaming history from a legendary developer, it’s certainly worth a download.
What’s kind of crazy about this is that the game is published under the name “Alfonso Romero." Alfonso is John Romero’s first name. So, yeah, one of the most important figures in the history of gaming can’t go by the name he’s always been known by on the App Store, he has to go by his legal name. In case you wanted some insight into how Apple operates and has policies that don’t really make any sense for anyone.
Glad they're making frequent tweaks. But this is one of the worst "discoverability" feature they could have added... these rank lists focus success on whichever apps happen to get near the Top, and keeps them there, rather than fostering diversity of content in the app store(s).
It's not a bad feature to tuck away somewhere for curiosity, or even include a little "trending searches" thing somewhere... but I hate to see Apple sticking with this technique as one of the most prominent ways for users to choose the "best" apps for them.
It's been 4 days -- a bit early to pass judgement.
What will everyone whine about now...? ;-)
How would you best expose games that'd otherwise fall outside of the most downloaded lists and featured sections? It's a problem for discoverability but not one anyone has had a decent replacement for.
You're right that a solution (if "perfection" is the goal) will never exist. Improvement is the goal. I'd start with three improvements:
1. More curated features, in many more smaller, specific, quirky categories (maybe for 12 hours show three suggested "black and white game" and then 12 hours show three "games about boats" etc.). And/or curation focusing intentionally on undiscovered titles. Apple has been slowly doing more manual featuring of apps and I approve. It would be nice to see more of that, which seems very doable coupled with the long review process.
2. Tuck those top lists away somewhere less prominent so that all the OTHER ways people find stuff (even doing a search) get used more. Those lists magnify success and concentrate it, making the App Store suited more to venture capitalists and hobbyists and less to all the people/companies in between who could be giving us great stuff. Simply removing (or greatly demoting) those lists would be low-hanging fruit to reduce the problem they cause. (I also accept that SOME concession should be made for people who want to find popular things—that's what popular means. But it seems the top lists get TOO much use as they way people discover apps.)
3. Add sections(s)/list(s) that feature things through other automated means, that don't tend to concentrate and cement success for a few. Including random (guided by algorithms to reduce pure shovelware maybe, or simply curated with a quick human glance). Ot featuring anything that's new, like a Twitter stream of sorts (which Apple used to do and maybe still does, but it should be featured more so there's always new stuff you haven't heard of on the home page when you come back in an hour).
My hope is that Apple would spread the possibility of success beyond the big companies with deep marketing pockets (plus a handful of lucky lightning strikes like Flappy Bird). To that end, anything that rotates less-popular/less-noticed things onto the first-glance home screen(s) of the App Store(s), and demotes the Clash of Clans etc., is a step in the right direction. Those successful games will still be successful, but by sheer merit, a healthier app ecosystem would let an app that is below 100 on the popularity list do OK too.
It's worked really well for the App Store on iOS. The cream always rises to the top. They review every single app by hand and the really good ones get featured which helps as well. I'm sure over time there will be more discovery stuff but as it is there are barely any apps. Just search "a" and the amount of stuff with an a in it alone is something you can look through in a few minutes. Needs more apps, it'll happen.
To be clear, I'm talking about all the App Store versison—primarily iOS—and am sad to see AppleTV following the Top Chart route we've seen with iOS.
The human-curated featuring of apps does help, yes—but lots of fantastic apps never get featured, and lots of titles rise to the top that are NOT better than what lies buried. Being a free-to-play app with big investors and superbowl ads is always going to be an advantage over simply making a really great game. But I hate to see that advantage magnified by so many Top Lists that simply solidify the rankings that already exist. Any kind of list that fluctuates more rapidly would be great!
So I wouldn't say the cream ALWAYS rises to the top. Some good games rise, some mediocre ones do, some awesome ones never do.
I've never actually seen an app that was truly awesome at what it tried to do that wasn't extremely popular, granted that's somewhat the nature of the conundrum to begin with, but I used to do a lot of deep-app store searching trying to find those hidden gems and there was a certain point where I just stopped finding them.
That said, if there are good apps hidden somewhere, by all means, anything you can think of to unbury them is fine. I think the reality of the situation on tvOS right now is that there are maybe a few hundred apps tops. There aren't many decent quality ones that aren't already featured.
I find them thanks to TouchArcade mainly :) There's no way that all great apps are popular.
Think of all the suberb games you have found on here—maybe ones that got a single article, maybe ones that got lots of attention—that never held a Top Chart position and never were featured by Apple editors. Many great games covered by TA are those big names—but many aren't.
Think in particular about a HUGE class of games that will NEVER make any popularity lists, even if they're great: non-mainstream games. Games that appeal to a certain niche.
Imagine if the only music most people could ever hear or learn about was the top 10 hits on the radio. What if you like some other niche of music? Same goes for apps. And movies, books, etc.
UNpopular does not mean bad, it can also mean "not what the masses are used to." But how do you find all that more creative stuff?
I haven't ever found a game on this site that I liked that was not at some point featured on the front page of the App Store.
Some people are into more obscure stuff and it's great that there are resources to find them like this very site. But when we're talking about actually, -objectively- well designed apps, there really aren't that many. Half the time they use filler apps.
Non-mainstream is just another word for unpopular apps. So yeah, unpopular apps will never be popular. Most commonly these types of things are severely lacking in some department. Like a game that is super fun but has subpar graphics. Or an extremely useful app that is just a pain to use so it defeats its own purpose. I would just encourage app developers to work on all aspects of their app.
I'm not trying to argue with you though. I'm not opposed to more methods of discovery. The main thing is, I'm not really sure what more they could do with what's there now.
Yeah, I don't think there's any big answer to discover... I just see those top lists as a negative worth making less prominent. Probably won't happen. The trend to more human curation probably will go on, though, and that's all good!
Go Android, less typing for you ;-)
Anyone else finding the App Store in the last 24 hours to be ridiculously slow?
Has there been any recommendations between 32gb and 64gb? That's primarily what I'm waiting for. No need to spend $200 unless necessary.
You don't understand what storage is?
I don't think she was asking what storage is, but wanting help deciding which size to get.
If you understand what storage is why would you ask which to get? The only difference is storage. So... decide how much storage you need.
Good question. Music and movies will stream primarily, which means the storage is for apps. It's very hard to predict our app usage, so the real answer to how important that storage will be is, "nobody knows yet." Since we can't know, buying double storage is a safety measure or future-proofing, to let you fit more games and bigger games. It's a personal call—you might end up wanting that space... you might end up wasting it.
I purchased the 64GB. It took me no time at all to fill my 64GB iPhone 6 Plus. I figured it was a safer bet.