The archived October 8, 2009 essay urged prospective iPhone game developers to examine the work behind apparent App Store success. It discussed shifting game trends and the danger of treating highly visible success stories as a dependable plan.
This is a new discussion of that historical argument. The original essay does not establish current market conditions, development costs or expected revenue.
Start with the central interaction
A proposed game should be describable as something a player repeatedly does: timing a move, choosing between options, arranging objects or solving a particular kind of problem. A genre label is a starting point, but it does not explain why this specific interaction would be enjoyable.
Build a small test around that action before expanding the feature list. Observe where a new player hesitates and whether they choose to try again. Those observations can guide the next revision more directly than a comparison with an exceptional commercial hit.
Distinguish evidence from enthusiasm
A positive reaction to an idea is different from a completed play session. Likewise, a download count answers a different question from ongoing use or sales. Decide which assumption each test is intended to examine.
Write down what would change your mind before running the test. This makes disappointing feedback useful instead of encouraging a search for the one comment that confirms the original plan.
Include the work around the game
Instructions, readable controls, release preparation and maintenance are part of what reaches a player. They deserve space in the project plan even though they are less visible than the prototype’s most entertaining moment.
The 2009 essay remains an interesting record of early App Store expectations. Its most useful prompt is not a promise of success or failure, but a request to examine the whole product and the evidence behind the decision to build it.