Mining equipment can do a single game
Publish: 2021-05-18 04:42:48
1. Legend of the beast??? I seem to have played, I don't know if it's the name, but the game you described is very old, pig's feet have no level, all things are synthesized by fighting strange things, and going to a specific place to mine, it seems that it can also roast meat!!! ha-ha!
2. My world is the most fun, the history of the most fun, I like the most, there is no more fun than it game!
3. Hello, what you're talking about is probably this game. I've played it too. I think it should be this
make the world is an SLG game developed by black Maple games, which was released on November 21, 2013. This is a sandbox strategy game with a style similar to tararia. Players also need to collect various materials, synthesize equipment, and build dwarf castles to resist the invasion of the enemy. It is a horizontal version of the screen strategy game.
make the world is an SLG game developed by black Maple games, which was released on November 21, 2013. This is a sandbox strategy game with a style similar to tararia. Players also need to collect various materials, synthesize equipment, and build dwarf castles to resist the invasion of the enemy. It is a horizontal version of the screen strategy game.
4.
Project magnetic inction GS number of rollers proctivity T / h material granularity mm motor power kw parameter model cxj-40 Ⅰ≥ 3800 1 ≤ 0.6 ≤ 50.55 cxj-60 - Ⅰ ≥ 4000 1 ≤ 1.5 ≤ 50.55 cxj-60 - Ⅱ first cylinder ≥ 1000
second cylinder ≥ 4000 2 ≤ 2 ≤ 51.5 cxj-60 - Ⅲ first cylinder ≥ 1000
second cylinder ≥ 3000
second cylinder Three cylinders ≥ 4000 3 ≤ 2.5 ≤ 6 1.5 cxj-80 - Ⅰ ≥ 4000 1 ≤ 2 ≤ 8 0.75 cxj-80 - Ⅱ first cylinder ≥ 1000
second cylinder ≥ 4500 2 ≤ 2.5 ≤ 8 1.5 cxj-80 - Ⅲ first cylinder ≥ 1000
second cylinder ≥ 3000
third cylinder ≥ 4000 3 ≤ 3 ≤ 8 1.75 cxj-100 - Ⅰ ≥ 4500 1 ≤≤ 2.5 ≤ 10 1.1 cxj-100 - Ⅱ first cylinder ≥ 1000
the second cylinder ≥ 45002 ≤ 4 ≤ 102
5. I'm sure there will still be new people coming into the market with a fairly small budget. People often continue to spend money in areas where it is impossible to get back to their capital, which is not a phenomenon that can be explained by logic. But whether they can succeed or not is quite another matter
to a large extent, I agree with Kristian that I am even more radical: most of the people / companies that release new games, even those developers with a budget of more than $1 million, will find it difficult to succeed or even survive on mobile platforms. Even for those developers whose revenue ranks in the top 200, I guess this is already the case. In the next year or two, this trend will only become more obvious
it will be more difficult for developers with small budget to achieve sustainable success; Of course, as a person whose main job is to sell cardboard, I am of course biased
mark Sorrell, a free game design consultant
No
say a few reasons
1. You can spend money on developing users, but it's hard for you to buy retention and profitability. Therefore, even if all the money in the world is given to you, it is impossible to guarantee the retention rate and profitability of your game. There must be help (for example, you can hire me), but those are more like art than science, and may last for years
2. Cross platform is still reasonable. That's why King's original games stay on the market longer than Zynga. Therefore, we can not regard the mobile phone game instry as a bubble.
3. Development costs continue to decline. Marketing costs are rising. Of course, big studios are likely to put a million dollars into their budgets, but that money is increasingly used for marketing. If a small team with little money makes a good game, they can still cover the marketing cost (by being acquired)
4. Great success is a random event. That's out of control, so small bets can still bring big returns
so, yes, No
Teut Weidemann, Ubisoft's online game expert
"3. Development costs continue to decline"
When did it start
I can see that there are still many small teams (let's call them independent developers) that have achieved great success, but the frequency of success will become smaller and smaller. Independent teams can still make money
in order to make an impact, you need a lot of money, and $1 million can only help you get here. Think about it. Most of the top 10 games in terms of revenue are online games. The cost of the game itself, server code, infrastructure and operation team can quickly swallow up more than half of the money
therefore, if you want to squeeze into the top $101 million, it's absolutely necessary
mark Sorrell, free game design consultant
how much does it cost to make a frame of "to story" now, for example
I think the idea of AAA / big game is totally wrong. The huge success on the mobile / Facebook platform is nothing like that
candy crush, puzzle & Dragons, Clash of clans - none of them immediately reminds me of AAA. They look good, of course, but to the same degree as Peggle. Now it's cheaper to make candy crush than it was when it was made Infinity blade is certainly well done, but it may not have a brilliant future
I have to say that a large part of the changes brought about by mobile phones and web games are about players, for example, their tastes have changed. I do think that the driving force for us to move forward has always been the design of roles and cycles and things that are more difficult to quantify. I don't think these basic things have changed
we play games, not technology. For example, you like racing games, but you are spending meaningless money. How much are you willing to spend on a puzzle game to pass the broken time
we tend to overestimate the short-term effects of technology and underestimate its long-term consequences. For games, technology leads to a way of playing that doesn't need and obviously can't use a lot of budget
I'm willing to double my bet on this idea - if a good idea is executed well, it doesn't need extra high cost, and if it is executed well, it needs some good luck to succeed
I'm sure there are more secure strategies (such as authorized adaptation), but I think that's too far from the point
Stuart dredge, guardian
many successful developers are trying to distribute on their own, working with small and talented independent developers without $1 million. Maybe that's a way out, too? Rovio stars is an example. But I don't think I've seen a huge success with this approach
Ben Cousins, director of Dena Europe studio
I am sure that small developers can still make money with small investment, if they can get strong recommendation or huge support from platform owners
but I think what Kristian is talking about is probably about higher revenue Rankings - "how do we make profitable mobile games?"
we see such a cycle in every game platform. In order to consolidate its position, a small company makes a lot of money by accident. It spends these profits on marketing and output value. It can only survive by making bigger bets to get rid of other competitors
I think the idea that "things are different now" is always wrong
compared with micro computer games, arcades bring games to more players; Compared with arcades, game machines play a more important role in the popularization of games; Compared with the game console, mobile phones play a greater role in the popularity of games
this transition is nothing special. There is no doubt that this transition has increased the accessibility of the target market
Where does money go Pong and Sega rally, who will Qian choose? They're all simple arcade style multiplayer games designed to pass the break time
Anthony pecorella, proct director of kongregate
I think Ben is absolutely right, because mobile games are getting closer to AAA games. When I say "close", I mean quality, proction team and budget. Apart from marketing, they have not reached the level of popular PC / game games or big proction movies. I'd like to see what happens as our expectations for the quality and scale of top games continue to rise. But of course, that doesn't mean that small studios have no hope of success, and even the success is divided into different degrees. While we do see big companies gaining the upper hand, we will continue to see "independence" succeed. Independent developers have developed well on steam, and game consoles have begun to treat them well. Many small teams' works have been recommended by Apple App store. Let alone "my world" let the small team see the hope of success
I think we will continue to see great innovations and disruptive technologies coming from independent studios, some of which will make a lot of money, a few of which will be able to maintain a long-term operation, but a few of them will be "truly successful". But the wages and management costs of small companies do not require them to make a lot of money every day
that is to say, with the increase of acquisition costs, I really think the games on IOS that occupy the top 50 in terms of revenue for a long time need a lot of development and marketing budget. However, I didn't say whether these budgets are about $1 million, especially considering that early revenue can be recycled back into user development
Oscar Clark, marketing officer of applifier
I like Einstein's definition of madness quoted by Ben: repeat something and hope the result will be different
every time there is a periodic change, we see that the big studio becomes bigger and the small studio becomes smaller
those who survive are often professional studios or destructive studios
I am sure that the budget of big games will go up and the publisher model will return (although they must also accept the concept of "game as a service")
I also agree with Anthony that not everyone should strive to be in the top 100... Nearly 70% of the revenue is generated by games outside the top 100, which reminds me of the power of "game as a service"
we have been sharing development risks; Start with the minimum viable proct. We use that assumption to test our ideas and get some revenue to keep the team running. That means we don't need that 10% upfront... But we may spend that money if our smallest viable proct succeeds... Otherwise we can move on to the next project without wasting any more money
that's why the free model is so popular... Not because of the extra money, but because of the extra stability and opportunities
Kristian segerstrale, director of supercell
I certainly hope that fewer and fewer people will enter the market - after all, I am a seed investor who actively sponsors the game team. But now we only look at the number of things at the competitive end:
1. Team - I think it's better to control the size of the team at 6-8 people, with special personnel in charge of code, art, design and business / numerical analysis. Depending on the talent, type of project and time required, you can increase or decrease the number of people appropriately
2. Time - obviously, there is no such thing as how many people and how many months it takes, but if someone told me that they have completed, tested and released a potential IOS / Android game in six months and achieved success, I might not believe it. If someone said that it took 10 people 18 months, I would think that for the first game, the result might be a little bit not optimistic, or that it was too ambitious at the beginning
I think we should choose a median, that is, 7 people in 12 months (9 months of development + 2 months of testing + 1 month of marketing to earn $5000 / day of net income or get into the top 300), so that you can make profits without having to worry about money
suppose your situation is that the average monthly cost (including office rent, taxes, equipment, daily expenses, legal fees, etc.) is $10000, and the operating income is about $840000. Plus the $20000 to $40000 of marketing activities and $100000 to $120000 of user development activities ring the test period, your $1 million is almost used up. It means you're out of money when you're going to make a profit. It's not a good way to run a company. I prefer to rece the above cost by 20% and spend another two months to adjust / modify the project, which may be more realistic
I still don't consider the long concept period, no direction change in the development process, no big problems in testing or release. So, I think $1 million is pretty conservative. Obviously, you can offset the cost with equity - founders don't get paid, offices become their own garages, local financial support, etc. But in either case, you're replacing other forms of investment with cash
to be honest, I hope my hypothesis is wrong. After all, the seed financing of game companies will soon become project financing, which is not a fun process. If I'm wrong, please let me know
Eric seufert, consultant to gamefounders
I think Kristian's number is reasonable, but I think the official launch should cost more money. I use a spreadsheet to calculate
to a large extent, I agree with Kristian that I am even more radical: most of the people / companies that release new games, even those developers with a budget of more than $1 million, will find it difficult to succeed or even survive on mobile platforms. Even for those developers whose revenue ranks in the top 200, I guess this is already the case. In the next year or two, this trend will only become more obvious
it will be more difficult for developers with small budget to achieve sustainable success; Of course, as a person whose main job is to sell cardboard, I am of course biased
mark Sorrell, a free game design consultant
No
say a few reasons
1. You can spend money on developing users, but it's hard for you to buy retention and profitability. Therefore, even if all the money in the world is given to you, it is impossible to guarantee the retention rate and profitability of your game. There must be help (for example, you can hire me), but those are more like art than science, and may last for years
2. Cross platform is still reasonable. That's why King's original games stay on the market longer than Zynga. Therefore, we can not regard the mobile phone game instry as a bubble.
3. Development costs continue to decline. Marketing costs are rising. Of course, big studios are likely to put a million dollars into their budgets, but that money is increasingly used for marketing. If a small team with little money makes a good game, they can still cover the marketing cost (by being acquired)
4. Great success is a random event. That's out of control, so small bets can still bring big returns
so, yes, No
Teut Weidemann, Ubisoft's online game expert
"3. Development costs continue to decline"
When did it start
I can see that there are still many small teams (let's call them independent developers) that have achieved great success, but the frequency of success will become smaller and smaller. Independent teams can still make money
in order to make an impact, you need a lot of money, and $1 million can only help you get here. Think about it. Most of the top 10 games in terms of revenue are online games. The cost of the game itself, server code, infrastructure and operation team can quickly swallow up more than half of the money
therefore, if you want to squeeze into the top $101 million, it's absolutely necessary
mark Sorrell, free game design consultant
how much does it cost to make a frame of "to story" now, for example
I think the idea of AAA / big game is totally wrong. The huge success on the mobile / Facebook platform is nothing like that
candy crush, puzzle & Dragons, Clash of clans - none of them immediately reminds me of AAA. They look good, of course, but to the same degree as Peggle. Now it's cheaper to make candy crush than it was when it was made Infinity blade is certainly well done, but it may not have a brilliant future
I have to say that a large part of the changes brought about by mobile phones and web games are about players, for example, their tastes have changed. I do think that the driving force for us to move forward has always been the design of roles and cycles and things that are more difficult to quantify. I don't think these basic things have changed
we play games, not technology. For example, you like racing games, but you are spending meaningless money. How much are you willing to spend on a puzzle game to pass the broken time
we tend to overestimate the short-term effects of technology and underestimate its long-term consequences. For games, technology leads to a way of playing that doesn't need and obviously can't use a lot of budget
I'm willing to double my bet on this idea - if a good idea is executed well, it doesn't need extra high cost, and if it is executed well, it needs some good luck to succeed
I'm sure there are more secure strategies (such as authorized adaptation), but I think that's too far from the point
Stuart dredge, guardian
many successful developers are trying to distribute on their own, working with small and talented independent developers without $1 million. Maybe that's a way out, too? Rovio stars is an example. But I don't think I've seen a huge success with this approach
Ben Cousins, director of Dena Europe studio
I am sure that small developers can still make money with small investment, if they can get strong recommendation or huge support from platform owners
but I think what Kristian is talking about is probably about higher revenue Rankings - "how do we make profitable mobile games?"
we see such a cycle in every game platform. In order to consolidate its position, a small company makes a lot of money by accident. It spends these profits on marketing and output value. It can only survive by making bigger bets to get rid of other competitors
I think the idea that "things are different now" is always wrong
compared with micro computer games, arcades bring games to more players; Compared with arcades, game machines play a more important role in the popularization of games; Compared with the game console, mobile phones play a greater role in the popularity of games
this transition is nothing special. There is no doubt that this transition has increased the accessibility of the target market
Where does money go Pong and Sega rally, who will Qian choose? They're all simple arcade style multiplayer games designed to pass the break time
Anthony pecorella, proct director of kongregate
I think Ben is absolutely right, because mobile games are getting closer to AAA games. When I say "close", I mean quality, proction team and budget. Apart from marketing, they have not reached the level of popular PC / game games or big proction movies. I'd like to see what happens as our expectations for the quality and scale of top games continue to rise. But of course, that doesn't mean that small studios have no hope of success, and even the success is divided into different degrees. While we do see big companies gaining the upper hand, we will continue to see "independence" succeed. Independent developers have developed well on steam, and game consoles have begun to treat them well. Many small teams' works have been recommended by Apple App store. Let alone "my world" let the small team see the hope of success
I think we will continue to see great innovations and disruptive technologies coming from independent studios, some of which will make a lot of money, a few of which will be able to maintain a long-term operation, but a few of them will be "truly successful". But the wages and management costs of small companies do not require them to make a lot of money every day
that is to say, with the increase of acquisition costs, I really think the games on IOS that occupy the top 50 in terms of revenue for a long time need a lot of development and marketing budget. However, I didn't say whether these budgets are about $1 million, especially considering that early revenue can be recycled back into user development
Oscar Clark, marketing officer of applifier
I like Einstein's definition of madness quoted by Ben: repeat something and hope the result will be different
every time there is a periodic change, we see that the big studio becomes bigger and the small studio becomes smaller
those who survive are often professional studios or destructive studios
I am sure that the budget of big games will go up and the publisher model will return (although they must also accept the concept of "game as a service")
I also agree with Anthony that not everyone should strive to be in the top 100... Nearly 70% of the revenue is generated by games outside the top 100, which reminds me of the power of "game as a service"
we have been sharing development risks; Start with the minimum viable proct. We use that assumption to test our ideas and get some revenue to keep the team running. That means we don't need that 10% upfront... But we may spend that money if our smallest viable proct succeeds... Otherwise we can move on to the next project without wasting any more money
that's why the free model is so popular... Not because of the extra money, but because of the extra stability and opportunities
Kristian segerstrale, director of supercell
I certainly hope that fewer and fewer people will enter the market - after all, I am a seed investor who actively sponsors the game team. But now we only look at the number of things at the competitive end:
1. Team - I think it's better to control the size of the team at 6-8 people, with special personnel in charge of code, art, design and business / numerical analysis. Depending on the talent, type of project and time required, you can increase or decrease the number of people appropriately
2. Time - obviously, there is no such thing as how many people and how many months it takes, but if someone told me that they have completed, tested and released a potential IOS / Android game in six months and achieved success, I might not believe it. If someone said that it took 10 people 18 months, I would think that for the first game, the result might be a little bit not optimistic, or that it was too ambitious at the beginning
I think we should choose a median, that is, 7 people in 12 months (9 months of development + 2 months of testing + 1 month of marketing to earn $5000 / day of net income or get into the top 300), so that you can make profits without having to worry about money
suppose your situation is that the average monthly cost (including office rent, taxes, equipment, daily expenses, legal fees, etc.) is $10000, and the operating income is about $840000. Plus the $20000 to $40000 of marketing activities and $100000 to $120000 of user development activities ring the test period, your $1 million is almost used up. It means you're out of money when you're going to make a profit. It's not a good way to run a company. I prefer to rece the above cost by 20% and spend another two months to adjust / modify the project, which may be more realistic
I still don't consider the long concept period, no direction change in the development process, no big problems in testing or release. So, I think $1 million is pretty conservative. Obviously, you can offset the cost with equity - founders don't get paid, offices become their own garages, local financial support, etc. But in either case, you're replacing other forms of investment with cash
to be honest, I hope my hypothesis is wrong. After all, the seed financing of game companies will soon become project financing, which is not a fun process. If I'm wrong, please let me know
Eric seufert, consultant to gamefounders
I think Kristian's number is reasonable, but I think the official launch should cost more money. I use a spreadsheet to calculate
6. Monster hunter you play, with PS2 simulator, mining smash equipment all have
all kinds of resentment material, resentment to your spitting blood
if not Qin Shang, the equipment system is still good
all kinds of resentment material, resentment to your spitting blood
if not Qin Shang, the equipment system is still good
7. I like to play magic baby, too
who will sell the stand-alone equipment? What can I do to earn money? Should not have that kind of game, the game that makes money has tycoon, imitate city and so on!
who will sell the stand-alone equipment? What can I do to earn money? Should not have that kind of game, the game that makes money has tycoon, imitate city and so on!
8. My world is very hot now
9. Take bus No.82 at Wuyuanwan sports hall station, get off at fanghu passenger transport center station after 13 stops, and walk 710 meters to Huli District Elderly activity center.
Hot content