Flash Point: Fire Rescue
Exciting news, everyone! RetroEpic is announcing today that we've been working with Indie Board & Cards to bring the award-winning board game Flash Point: Fire Rescue to PCs and iPads near you! Expect to see it out next year.
“All men are created equal, then a few become firemen.”
Become a real hero in the brand new digital version of the award-winning fire-rescue themed board game, Flash Point: Fire Rescue. Command your skilled squad of highly trained fire-fighters through the hazards of a building set ablaze and rescue the men, women and animals trapped inside.
Check out all the details and concept art here: http://www.retroepic.com/our-games/flash-point/
Pocket Gamer has already written about it here: http://www.pocketgamer.co.uk/r/iPad/Flash+Point+Fire+Rescue/news.asp?c=71731
“All men are created equal, then a few become firemen.”
Become a real hero in the brand new digital version of the award-winning fire-rescue themed board game, Flash Point: Fire Rescue. Command your skilled squad of highly trained fire-fighters through the hazards of a building set ablaze and rescue the men, women and animals trapped inside.
Check out all the details and concept art here: http://www.retroepic.com/our-games/flash-point/
Pocket Gamer has already written about it here: http://www.pocketgamer.co.uk/r/iPad/Flash+Point+Fire+Rescue/news.asp?c=71731
Comments
I like the concept art.
.
Our fig campaign is up and running and from what we've been told is running well, we're so excited I don't even know what to say, take a look and please vote for us on Greenlight.
https://www.fig.co/campaigns/flash-point-fire-rescue
The funding goal is very low though, right?
Really think it's a big missed opportunity to not implement online multiplayer though, for a game as inherently social as this that's also turn based, it seems to me like the business decision of not implementing online multiplayer is one of not investing another 20% of the budget in order to double your sales (and in my eyes with a reward of possibly more than doubling whatever you'd receive without online multiplayer).
Also without multiplayer there's little reason for a person who owns (or has friends who own) the board game to buy this (if they need to travel to someone's house anyway to sit in front of their friend's computer to play the game). The single player sounds like it might be cool, but I'd certainly expect that those who really love this game love it because of the camaraderie they feel with their friends when they play it.
@EvanGreenwood, There have been developments in this area which you can read about on our Campaign update
@roguecode yes, this amount is not the only source of funding, but it is the amount the team requires to get the game to the finish line, without stretch-goals, we already have a playable family rules game, which imo is playing pretty well. It's going to be exciting to see other people play and how it will highlight areas that need more clarity.
On behalf of the team I extend our deepest gratitude to everyone who has backed us, re-tweeted and liked Flash Point, it's awesome to see the community getting behind us, games can't get made without the help of many people so thank you very much.
I'm both excited and nervous about the online multiplayer announcement. There is no guarantee of anything obviously, but one thing for certain is that features cost, some more than others. Local multiplayer being a much easier and faster than online. The problem with your double your sales comment is that it works well when talking about games that sold well AND had multiplayer, for every game like that, there are dozens of games that sunk the cost of online multiplayer but didn't make any money. One way to mitigate the risk of online multiplayer is to make sure you have a player base that's asking for it. What I mean here is that the risk is very difficult, near impossible to qualify.
Imo Flash Points hook isn't it's co-op, it's a game that is well suited to single play. Games that excel in multiplayer have it as a core part of the experience or mechanics. I get that a potential buyer who wants to play the game can nudge a friend into buying a copy to play together, maybe there's something I'm missing about the sales curves of a game, do you only get one chance at selling to a player? I don't think so, I've bought games that have been on my wishlist for far more than a year. I disagree, Digital forms make the game far quicker to get into playing and remove the clumsy parts of counting, keeping track of tokens and rolling dice. It brings a focus to strategy and removes the tedium of setup.
With the campaign mode we're hoping to attract more than just the board game owners. It would be really interesting to see the percentage of board game players that play digital games.
We got two Fire Chiefs, a Deputy and two Fire Marshalls, something I didn't think would happen at all when we were drafting the rewards. It's not hard to think then that there's other aspects of game development I just don't understand, may the journey continue.
I'm a little concerned that you appear to be making decisions based on what you think is good about Flash Point and not necessarily what the audience for the game wants. I'm actually not certain at all about what the audience wants, the digital board games marketplace is not one I've consumed or developed for, but RetroEpic shouldn't be in the position of not knowing who is buying the existing version of Flash Point and for what reasons (as it is a game that is already on sale as a physical game and RetroEpic has a relationship with the developer), and RetroEpic also shouldn't be in a position of not knowing who is playing digital board games and what their preferences are and why.
If you do have that data it might very well refute me. I could conduct market research into it, but that's not really my place. The point I'm trying to make is that what you're saying when you explain the virtues of the digital game is logically true, and these virtues should have a positive effect, but these virtues might not have any baring on other factors (like lack of online multiplayer) that may constrain parts of audience. There's games out there that are brilliant experiences for everyone who plays them but yet have disappointing sales (like this lovely game with 100% positive reviews and under 2000 sales). I really don't think this is that difficult. It's time consuming, it involves a lot of research, but it involves well established processes (for instance Ryan Clark talks about this kind of thing a lot). The most obvious process is to look at the sales performance (on mobile and desktop) of all the games that have similarities with Flash Point (the more similar the better) and to look for patterns. You need enough games to be able to isolate factors. Do the games with strong single player experiences outperform similar games that are multiplayer only? Do the games with online multiplayer outperform comparable games with only local play? How much do the trailers and marketing materials matter? Do games that have popular digital versions result in more sales? Or is the quality of the digital game the primary factor? Are digital board games becoming more popular or less popular? How important for sales are production values in a game like the digital Flash Point? How popular are the games with family friendly themes? Or are abstract themes, or mature themes, or serious simulations more popular?
On top of this you already have quite a bit of information as a result of doing a crowd-funding campaign. You should be able to look at comparable games that did crowdfunding campaigns and extrapolate estimates for eventual sales based on those games' sales and their similarities. And if there are enough of them you might be able to see a difference between those that implemented online multiplayer and those that didn't (or maybe see no difference at all).
If it were me, I wouldn't be adding online multiplayer post launch either. Given the limited information I have, I think it's still better to add online multiplayer post-launch that to not add it, but adding online multiplayer after launch minimizes the benefit you'll receive. I think post-launch updates are more effective on mobile than on Steam, in fact my (admittedly dated) experience on the App Store suggests adding meaningful features post launch can be as good as another launch. But on Steam having a strong launch is very important - the game's sales have a strong effect on the game's visibility on the Steam platform and a weak launch guarantees weak visibility on the platform going forward.
I'll post here what my previous reply to you was, as it's quite long and a couple of the points in it are in response to the same points you've raised now. It's a bit of repetition of what I just said, but it covers some other points about why I believe online multiplayer is beneficial in general.
.
(Though I can imagine that hearing that the game is multiplayer might convince some existing backers to tell their friends to back the project so that they can play together, but that's just me guessing).
I think this is true for most board game fans - we're interested in social play more than single play - particularly those between 27 - 40 years of age (which I believe is largely the target market). Once multiplayer is implemented, I am more likely to encourage my friends to get the game so we can play it together online. I can't imagine a situation where if I have friends over that I'm likely to pull this out rather than one of my actual board games so I imagine this is a game I'd play with friends who are not visiting - and possibly live very far away.
Those are my thoughts anyway. Looking forward to seeing this finally done :)
The UI has undergone some drastic but awesome improvements (compared to the UI seen in the trailer) and I think the team over at RE are making a game they (and everyone who was involved with this initially but aren't at RE anymore) can be super proud of!