It seems like if what you’re showing is what you understand they find appealing and fun, then surely that’s what should be in the game. You give them that.

But instead, you give them something else that is unrelated to what they’ve seen on the ad? A gem matching candy crush clone they’ve seen a thousand times?

How is that model working? How is that holding up as a marketing technique???

  • Ottomateeverything@lemmy.world
    0·
    9 months ago

    The same half dozen vertical slices or renders have existed for years so why have exactly 0 been realised as games?

    Already covered above. They likely prototyped it and it didn’t monetize well or something so they axed it.

    Because they aren’t games they are bait and switch adverts.

    Or they’re neither, and they’re just trying to gauge the market. But sure, you can believe whatever you want.

    There’s no market research campaigns and you’ve provided no fucking evidence for your claims at all.

    You haven’t either. You’re just assuming a) the worst and b) something that makes objectively less sense - if your whole premise is they’re advertising something fake, how would this even work as bait and switch if people see that’s not what the ad links to?

    Your thesis is bunk and I think so are your claims to be a dev too.

    And your thesis is “I feel like it’s bait and switch, so it is” and you have no claims of credibility. Nothing I say will prove to you that I’ve worked for some of the largest corporations in the US, so I can’t change your mind.

      • Ottomateeverything@lemmy.world
        0·
        9 months ago

        Can’t find the other comment you made about this anymore, but this is an advertising company that’s helping devs advertise their games, so yeah, it’s not going to talk about advertising non existent apps for market analysis. Instead it talks about twisting games to advertise them with exaggeration and weird hooks to try to convince people to download them… Which is another shitty advertising practice in mobile gaming (yeah, there are a lot of them, shocker) and not really pertinent to the topic/OP.

        I also find it funny you left the highlight showing you probably searched exactly for something that proved your point, but it’s listed “exaggeration” in the heading which is entirely different.