It doesn’t sound like we disagree at all. I think it’s perhaps the case that the TA article was simply a bit misleading in that last sentence. Certainly moving on, and starting a second (or third or fourth) game is a solid strategy for success, (and one I should take to heart, personally), but I’d argue that has nothing to do with how difficult Imangi is to play. That’s all.

Wish you guys the best. Imangi’s success is certainly an inspiration to a lot of us. Thanks for your thoughtful comment.

Firstly – of course, simplicity != success. If we knew what = success, well, we’d be a lot more successful :)

We shared some strategies that I think have worked well for us. Obviously, they don’t apply to everyone. In fact, we saw 3 talks by 3 different successful companies that have completely different business strategies.

Now, we definitely don’t think Imangi was a failure. We are very proud of it, it is an original concept, and there are people who play it almost religiously. It’s flattering to have that kind of devotion and following of our game. It was also profitable, and, like you said, it launched our name. So Imangi != failure. We didn’t imply that in our talk – maybe it seemed that way out of context.

However, it IS difficult to learn, difficult to play, and takes a long time to get a good score. When we handed Imangi to a family member, 1) we’d have to give them a full in person tutorial, and 2) they would generally move some letters out of politeness and then hand it back, saying it was too hard for them. That was the most common reaction. Which is perfectly fine. It just doesn’t have broad mainstream appeal.

For all the things Imangi had done for us, every additional update had diminishing returns. If, instead of making more games, we had continued to update Imangi with the hopes that adding the next bell or whistle would give it that broad appeal, we wouldn’t be in business right now. It’s just not a sustainable business model on the App Store. And we’ve seen plenty of people get stuck in that rut. And that was the point about “moving on.” If something is not working, developers need to be realistic about it and try something new.

I don’t think complexity in a game is necessarily bad. What *is* bad is an unnecessarily complex or obtuse interface.

“Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler.”
- Albert Einstein