iOS has it to some extent, you can enable "Intelligent breakthrough and silencing" in Focus settings, and it should (supposedly) learn which notifications are important for you and which can be skipped.
TL;DR you have to be like Duolingo only if you plan to monetize like them.
---
I think it totally depends on your goals, let's try breaking down why Duolingo is doing what they're doing, and then we'll try to map it onto your own goals.
So, Duolingo monetises via mostly subscriptions, this means that their sales funnel is something like UA channels -> conversion to install -> conversion to subscription -> conversion to renewal.
Leaving out the first two steps (it's marketing I am not competent enough to discuss them), we arrive at "conversion to subscription". The only thing I'll mention regarding user acquisition is that we have to keep in mind, that users from standard marketing channels are always less motivated/interested in a product, that organic users, who are actively seeking the solution for their so called "pains".
In order to convert a user to a subscriber, one has to have an appealing value proposition, which for Duolingo is something like "learn the language in a really fun and engaging way", they support this proposition by including gamification elements, both mechanical (streaks, lives, mini-games) and narrative (cast of characters).
The perceived value for a user also becomes more apparent the more the user interacts with an app (see metrics like time spent, retention rate, stickiness). Thus, the aforementioned gamification mechanics also serve retention purposes (namely, the main thing - the streak) both between sessions and inside a single session.
So the more a user is with Duolingo, the more value she perceives in it ("sunken cost" fallacy also comes into play here), and the more the probability she will subscribe.
---
Now, coming back to your question. From your post I see that you're talking about "today's market" so I assume you want to sell it somehow.
You face a choice:
- Go standard UA route, acquiring users via ads, this will potentially get you a lot of traffic, if you have money to spend. Downside: you have to have A LOT of money to spend in order to make positive ROI, as ad traffic is not as motivated, and you'll have hard time making these people convert to paid users without all that fluff Duolingo is doing. Sure "calm tech" is sort of popular thing nowadays, you can play off of that, but still, you have to convince these people to stay with you, learn the value of your thing and eventually pay for it.
– Target a niche in a non-traditional way, via Reddit (though it is not that non-traditional way nowadays), communities etc. Basically direct sales. This way might get you much more focused audience who will gladly be your paying customers. Those people will NOT need bells and whistles. Downside: you really have to nail the solution for them, or they'll get back to their custom Anki decks.
I share the general sentiment of the post. But I have to say this is one of the multitude posts exactly like that, condemning subscription based model, closed ecosystems etc. without proposing even a theoretical solution.
Yes, things are messed up, FSF is just some fringe radical micro-organisation with no real power, open source movement get EEE'd by the likes of MS, hardware is locked down, your always online games stop working the moment their publishers deem them unprofitable, so what are we doing now?
I don't see that you can do a lot as an individual. Sure, open source software for now as an alternative, but the subscription economy is taking over a world which has reached a certain level of market saturation. There's only so many e. g. Office solutions you can sell. As soon as that curve flattens, or threatens to flatten, a new form of revenue source is needed. Preferably one where control over the participants shifts from consumer to provider, because this model allows for a steady increase in profits, for example by hiking up rent every year or so. This will spread from media to consumer goods like cars etc. in no time. Car as a service is coming. As with everything vaguely political, control is the keyword here and to make line go up, it cannot rest with us.
Yes, things are messed up, but not as much as you describe, especially on the movement level. Focusing on games alone, the GOG store has 11377 games, and you can just download, install and enjoy them, as that's their shtick. DRM free. So that's one of the things you can now do.
I suppose it would've been fair if Goodnotes were selling their lifetime licenses with the clear remark that this license is for the current version only.
Of course it's on me, but judging by the title, I've expected some sort of UX deep dive showing how to use liquid glass but make it actually good. Instead it's just a list of accessibility options to turn on.
I thought there’s some sort of ‘adding this and that to the interface would make it actually pretty solid’ kind of thing. As I myself see this as promising, if it would be worked through. As the current implementation is just student (at best) level of work. Absolute incompetence.
Product manager ex. game designer with a number of puzzle/word game in operation here.
- Having a timer (urgency) is usually not a very good idea for thinky games. If you insist on having a timer consider making it count upwards.
- Additionally as other commenters mentioned is the game is a time trial it needs an explicit “Start” button. Also stop the timer when user is not playing e.g. reading the rules.
- There’s no point of having a “Play again” option for a Wordle style daily game, the thinking part is already done, so any replay is just an exercise in dexterity.
- It’s okay to be US-centric actually, doesn’t matter unless you are very serious about monetizing it, and even then being US-centric will work.
- Consider showing rules for first time users before staring the puzzle.
- Consider having some sort of overarching thing in your puzzle, so it’s not just five words on a specific topic to guess, but something more, like a hidden word across all five etc. This makes a delightful discovery moment and sometimes might work as a clue.
"a timer (urgency) is usually not a very good idea for thinky games" 100% agree. I hate the timer on the NY Times mini puzzle. I like these types of simple games for unwinding, and a timer makes it more stressful.
Contrarily, I love the mini timer, because it’s something to beat. The mini is too easy of a puzzle. The NYT crossword is more for the thinking type - it also has a timer, but its less in your face and I don’t feel the pressure.
You can still have that with a count up timer (like the GP suggested) but then you don’t put people off like myself who don’t want to be timed out of games
They do give the option in the settings for this reason but I think that's the best part about the mini specifically, it enables the daily leaderboards to work even for folks who's friend group doesn't sit down and do full Saturday level crosswords regularly. I think the midis/larges are a better balance if you're just looking for relaxing but short solo play and there I wouldn't really mind if the timer was off by default (or not, there is less competition at that point).
The timer makes it competitive. Every day I "compete" with a friend of mine across the country to see who can finish the mini crossword faster. Without that it wouldn't be fun (for me at least). I unwind with the bigger crossword and just ignore the timer at the top.
That’s why I liked the suggestion of a count up timer versus a count down timer. It’s a small difference, but removes immediacy while still allowing competition.
This reminds me a bit of Boggle which really needs a timer. If anything, the timer on this is too long: I did it in 0:32 and was better than 53% of other users, which suggests to me the timer should be about a minute
This is really good feedback I think. My puzzle has an overarching thing with down direction also forming words: https://squareword.org/
I think that would not work here as there are though as there are not enough combinations. I quite like this one though, combining the unscramble mechanic with a category. A bit like a combination of connections and waffle.
For the "play again" issue, in my latest game https://spaceword.org I made it an open-ended puzzle, where there is no correct answer, so people can keep improving as long as they want.
You got some fun games! I like your simple direction ui on spaceword. And I enjoyed the time it took to solve square word. It's good to have play again so players can get better. I implemented it on https://wordglyph.xyz for same reasons. It's nice to see players discover the stick strategy over time and get better.
Another note I had is: keep the words to a specific category rather than a broad category.
For example: the today’s puzzle of “professional sports teams” had 4/5 of the teams from the NBA. The 5th answer was either the Detroit “Lions” (a professional _American football_ team) or more likely the London “Lions” (a _British_ professional basketball team).
I live in the EU. I have no idea about US hand-egg teams. As long as these are proper words (e.g. Bucks, Lions) and they are not "rizzz" (or whatever other moronic sound comes out of people with 45 IQ) then people will play the game.
>There’s no point of having a “Play again” option for a Wordle style daily game, the thinking part is already done, so any replay is just an exercise in dexterity.
What if i'm handing it to a friend/spouse to play to beat my time?
>Consider having some sort of overarching thing in your puzzle, so it’s not just five words on a specific topic to guess, but something more, like a hidden word across all five etc. This makes a delightful discovery moment and sometimes might work as a clue.
That just sounds like your idea for a different type of game. I like his current idea for this game.
>What if i'm handing it to a friend/spouse to play to beat my time?
I generally find it more effective to improve the parts that concern most of the audience, like the timer that is seen by every player. The pass-and-play use case is valid but seems pretty rare.
>That just sounds like your idea for a different type of game. I like his current idea for this game.
Yes, it’s a part of giving feedback, the author might not like any of my comments and is free to ignore them, it’s their game. But why do _you_ seem so irritated about it?
> It’s okay to be US-centric actually, doesn’t matter unless you are very serious about monetizing it, and even then being US-centric will work.
As a European who on a typical day uses/watched/reads more English than my native language, I agree. Except sports teams and other more locally phenomena. Those are the worst.
Nah, it's very annoying to be country-centric. The NYT game clues are just so fucking American sometimes and it's very irritating.
It's difficult to avoid this altogether of course, but staying away from sports and politics helps a good bit.
Some crossword people like having their timers (see NYT Games app for example), but as I’ve mentioned the timers are counting up, not triggering any negative conditions, and can be turned off completely.
The OG Windows 3 solitaire has an option to disable the timer, it's one of the first things I uncheck. I did "speedrun" solitaire in my computer classes for fun, though. :)
> - Consider having some sort of overarching thing in your puzzle, so it’s not just five words on a specific topic to guess, but something more, like a hidden word across all five etc. This makes a delightful discovery moment and sometimes might work as a clue.
You've essentially described the Jumble puzzle, which appeared in daily newspapers. It's been around since 1954, but I'm not surprised to see it reinvented since few people get a daily newspaper anymore.
Reading comments about a puzzle game coming from a "product manager ex. game designer with a number of puzzle/word game in operation" is one of the main reasons why I come to HN.
The overarching "thing" in the puzzle is a great idea. Choose a column that spells another answer when you get them all right. Works even if you expand the size of the word grid.
I really dislike your suggestion to eliminate the timer. You frame it like it’s objectively the better choice since you’re a professional - however it’s not. It’s a design decision that leads to a sense of urgency that many players enjoy. Games don’t need to be for everyone. This drive towards the most universally appealing, milquetoast design decisions neuters games.
The implication wasn't that people have stopped knowing or using English. The implication was that much of the world, except Russia and her allies, suddenly has a much great deal of resentment toward the US.
Ads aside, I'm curious to know what you think would be a good monetizing strategy for this kind of games (simple, online): subscriptions, sponsorship, donations..?
Unfortunately, I think ads is the most realistic way to go.
Sponsorships and/or donations would be a nice “beer money” bonus.
Subscriptions are PITA and too much hassle unless you’re doing them via some third party and they won’t bring a good amount of money at the “online daily puzzle in a browser” scale.
There are more exotic ways like licensing your puzzles to other sites, like online newspaper puzzle pages, Puzzmo is going in this direction IIRC.
If you want a general overview try finding a book called “Fundamentals of Fame Design” by Ernest Adams. It is a sensible intro, after that - just dive into thematic communities and do your own things.
I know nothing about formal game design education sorry.
Also, because the keys "F" and "G" are adjacent in the keyboard layout, I believe you made a typo in the book title where you wrote Fame instead of Game.
"Turns out your product wasn’t ready for all the international users. Or the power users. Or the teens. They want to use your product in all the wrong ways, posting bad and weird things."
It is basically in line with the infamous "You're holding it wrong".
The article’s conclusion is that businesses shouldn’t chase big app launches or “going viral”, because that tends to not be valuable for the business, and that instead they should go for gradual, slow growth. In other words, the article doesn’t blame the users, it blames businesses using the wrong strategy.
For me personally this conclusion doesn't mean much, as the author bases it on his single experience with his app that by his own wasn't really ready for real world.
I don’t necessarily agree with the article’s conclusion. I’m saying that the article’s point isn’t to blame users, it’s to give advice to businesses about how to avoid that failure mode.
That’s not the articles conclusion, it’s the excuse.
Yes slow steady growth is a generic “good advice” but overall if the product was ready and provided value to the users they would have used the product.
A conclusion would be don’t ship a half baked product… And definitely don’t blame users for not liking your product, not understanding it, not being open to it at the time etc…
The users are always right and even if they are technically wrong it is still the fault of the product designer for not accounting for that in the first place.
“We do not blame users, ever.” is about as close to a prime directive as you can get regardless of what product or service you deliver.
“We're drowning under the weight of clueless product leads, managers, and owners who've never written a line of code, yet they somehow dictate how software should be built.”
We’ve been through that, you leave coders alone without management and the create a new game engine with custom scripting language and state-of-the-art rendering pipeline and no games to go with it and then they get sad
(I’m only half joking to illustrate the point that extreme points of view are often silly)
