My child is still too young but my policy is that it should learn to use a real PC first before switching to tablets and smartphones. The core concepts of how to use a mouse and keyboard, what are files and folders, how to use actual desktop software gets lost on smartphones.
I will also start with harsh restrictions and parental controls first and then allow more and more. It is easier to limit access right away than applying restrictions afterwards.
Was this really an option here? They probably aren't launching that many apps on the Play Store. So they had one shot to try out a pre-registration campaign to get a big app launch.
I would like to criticize your landing page for your app. It very very much bugs me, when landing pages for apps have only a QR code which I am supposed to scan with my phone.
Luckily, you also added a "Get the App" button. Problem is, that you try to be smart and automatically forward me to either the Google Play Store or Apple App Store. Since I opened the link on a Macbook Pro, you assume I want to see the App Store. However, I am an Android user.
I just want to be able to see two buttons, one for each store and click it myself.
You are by far not the only one who does this. Would be great if App devs would change it all together.
Yeah. The landing page didn't answer the questions I had. It's a hard pass. Feedback:
- Give a long enough free trial to get addicted (e.g. 30-90 days). If you're delivering value, I will pay $4/month
- For me to have value, you'd need to plan things like ingredients. In a best-case scenario, you'd integrate with Instacart and other delivery services, and there would be zero waste. You'd also make use of ingredients I already have.
I have no idea what it is you actually do, though, so I won't install. I can already subscribe to a recipe listserv, and I have no idea the delta. Is this the same thing, only for $$$ and with aggressive data scraping from my mobile?
You don't need to answer here. Answer on your landing page. I was curious around to click around, and find crickets.
Yeah we often think about the free trial vs freemium experience. I really admire apps like FitBod who just let you try out 3 free workouts without needing to commit to a free trial.
Eating healthy is one of the toughest habits to commit to. The benefit of the 7 day free trial is it really pushes people to try it out during those 7 days and see if it's for them. Otherwise you download and think "I'll look at this later" and then never come back to it.
Not saying what we have is perfect and I'm still looking for better options. We're always down to give people a longer trial if they get in touch with us. I get that 7 days won't be enough for everyone.
> RE: Instacart integration - we already integrate!
From the point of view of a potential user deciding whether to convert, no you don't!
Do a few cafe studies where you buy random people a coffee in return for exploring your landing page and figuring out (1) what you do (2) how it would integrate with their life (3) what they need.
I'd like a product which takes thinking out of eating cheap and healthy, and if you do that, your app will pay for itself. I have no idea if it does.
This is definitely something I was cognizant of when I made my product page.
Since I have an app for both platforms, 2 buttons works very well, allows the user to make the choice, and you can even add a simple useragent check and redirect the user after X seconds if they haven't actioned.
There are some interesting "rules" (or recommendations) around how to place app store images, their sizes, etc, too.
I'm using Brave on a Windows PC, the "Get the App" button sends me to the Apple store also. In fact, there is no indication that this is even available on Android at all.
How many people out there install smartphone apps from a desktop web browser? You anyways have to pull out the phone to use the app. Having a QR code front and center and navigating to the app store listing on the phone is the preferable outcome for 99% of customers. The majority of them aren't even signed in to Apple/Google on the desktop browser.
I almost exclusively install apps from my desktop browser. Is that not normal? I find it much easier to verify that I'm looking at the app that I intend.
Again, what do you gain with inconveniencing the user and adding friction, instead of just taking them to Play Store and letting them install with one click?
There is also another scam where people agree to buy a home, the sign a contract, ask for your key to be able to unload some furniture early and that's it. Once they have the key, they can live there without paying. Getting them out of there then requires waiting for courts to do their work. I only found a video about it in German unfortunately:
I like this approach as well. I already cancelled Amazon Prime and I don't miss it. The Video service wasn't interesting anymore and shipping with Prime isn't what it used to be.
I also do this with the Xbox Game Pass. Subscribe for a month, play some shorter indie games for which I wouldn't pay 15€ each and then cancel.
I think a fair number of people, including myself, consider MM > OoT. They are very different games, but MM excels in areas that OoT doesn't.
You're right that this inversion is rare though. I think Phantom Hourglass is a great sequel to Wind Waker, but I can't reasonably claim it's better. (And Spirit Tracks was not better than Phantom Hourglass.)
Majora’s Mask is such an incredibly ambitious title. The game loop is just super cool. The aesthetic is this super interesting depressed melancholic cheerfulness of people coping with their impending death. OoT’s ambition is of course noteworthy in its own right, but damn Majora’s is just so cool.
It's a very recent thing, from players liking to go against the grain for the sake of it. No one would have assumed that in the 64 era. In fact Majora was pretty unloved, which lead to the "for those who knows" phenomena about it.
This seems pretty revisionist. I loved Majora to bits as a child, and I don't recall this being a contrarian opinion whatsoever on the Zelda Universe forums at the time.
Maybe there's a difference between critical and popular reception at play here?
This is definitely not the case. If anything the opposite is true, when MM was released those who played through it found it to be a better game and only with time have people (myself included) come to think of it as worse than OOT.
People hate Phantom hourglass because of the Ocean temple, despite the entire POINT of the ocean temple being improving your ability to skip most of it the next run. By the midpoint of the game, you can get to the midpoint of the ocean temple in a minute, without using any tricks. It's a speedrun integrated into a mainstream game that doesn't require stupid precision to be good at.
Meanwhile it had incredible music, looked really good, the combat was a great fusion of 2D simplicity with the openness and flexibility of Windwaker, the boss fights were fun and felt "Big", boat customization was great, the world was huge, writing directly on your map is a wonderful feature, the characters were lovely, I just don't understand the hate it gets.
I feel like a lot of people wanted it to be a 3D zelda game and that's why they were upset. 2D zeldas and 3D zeldas are basically two different franchises.
PH really is underrated. It's one of the only Zeldas I've gone back to for repeat playthroughs, and it's fun every time. You're absolutely right that the Ocean Temple is an integrated speedrun experience -- and even then, they really make it fun to go back through old floors to make use of new routes and obtain locked-off treasure chests.
Also, Linebeck is one of my top-three sidekicks out of any Zelda game. He really grows on you over the course of the story.
My favorite part of the ocean temple was a simple trick on one of the early floors. You have to get a key out of a closed room, by sneaking around some guards and solving a puzzle. OR you have a boomerang that you can throw around the room, and it will go through the walls on it's way back to you but still pickup the key. You bypass the entire floor.
There should be this thing called 'Free Market', where you don't have to buy whatever stupid improvement is pushed onto the folks.
But this platform was awesome for independent developers, who could use it to sell their game, get payments, do the license management, anti-piracy, some amount of support, and even make the installation straightforward for the user (so less support to offer)
I can totally get why developers would use Steam to retail their games
But let's not forget that clients can be a nuisance, and won't work if they just push features with no value. Games for Windows Live was a nightmare, for exemple
I'm stuggling to make sense of your points. To the extent that I can't tell whether you're coming down on steam or not.
But one thing that isn't relevant here is the "free market". The "free market" refers to a system where prices, production, and distribution of goods and services are determined by supply and demand, without government intervention. Examples of threats to the free market include monopolies, price fixing, government regulations, and trade barriers.
Steam is not a monopoly, indeed it's one of many ways of getting gaming entertainment. It very rarely even has exclusive games (unlike say XBox and Playstation). It does not,to the best of my knowledge, engage in price fixing or impose trade barriers on others. Government regulations are not relevant in this context because they are not a government entity, nor to they receive preferential treatment under the law with regard to permission to engage in selling software.
My point was that Steam's point was not focused on the user, it was neither the client nor the outstanding features that made it popular.
They were driven by a solid business plan, not "features".
It's just a convenient proposition to retail games, because it's easy for the developper, and securing for the buyer.
This was an addition to the parent comment.
And the previous comment complained about the Steam launcher. The comment was fair, especially on lower end PCs with an old school HDD. He felt like someone was bloating his PCs with functionalities he didn't need.
So yeah, the Steam launcher is there because it's a technical requirement to retail games.
But I don't agree that it was successful for its new features. It's just ok because it sells games.
Games for Windows Live tried to do the features without actually retailing the games, and it didn't work.
And I will not reply further. As usual, there are more downvotes than actual replies. I never understood Reddit mobs on that.
>There should be this thing called 'Free Market', where you don't have to buy whatever stupid improvement is pushed onto the folks.
... you mean the free market Steam operates in? Go use another digital distributor. Go start your own. Nothing is stopping you. I will continue to use Steam because of the value it provides.
Had this happen once as well in another country. We landed further away from the airport and had to get into a bus. Bus dropped us off at the domestic flights terminal instead of the international one. People who traveled with carry-on only just got out. The rest of us stayed confused at the baggage claim until staff noticed the mix-up.
I just want to be able to pay once and not get annoyed by any crappy news or adds.
I am super annoyed about my Sony Android TV which for weeks shows me a huge "Audi" add that fills half the home screen. I am not going to buy that car ffs!
I usually just recommended Harvard's CS50 as it is a very high quality introduction course (To be clear I was not a Harvard or any _fancy_ university).
I usually recommend starting with How to Code: Simple Data, then How to Code: Complex Data. Then after that CS50 or some class in a language like Python, Java, Javascript, etc.
The reason I really like starting with the How to Code series is because it really teaches how to solve problems with code in ways that apply to any language. And the projects are reasonably fun. The simple data ends with creating a graphical space invaders game.
I will also start with harsh restrictions and parental controls first and then allow more and more. It is easier to limit access right away than applying restrictions afterwards.