Background

Bored Meeting single-mindedly entertains groups; it has neither single player nor online capabilities. It is the best $1 $3 four friends can spend. The trouble is, only the savviest of savvy consumers know this, and here's why:

The average gamer plays alone, but Bored Meeting cannot be played that way.
Reviewers review for the average gamer, so Bored Meeting gets rated poorly.
Gamers looking for good group games read reviews, and so do not bother trying the poorly rated Bored Meeting!

In other words, to appeal to the gamer looking for a good group game, you actually have to make a good single-player game. Otherwise, the game will receive poor reviews, and no gamer will read about it in the first place. Here's an example:

A 2/5 review:

"If you have friends readily available then you'll probably have a blast with Bored Meeting. The game is very customizable and features a nice bit of strategy. If I was only judging this game based on its multi-player, I'd have no problem recommending it. The bottom line is that I have to judge this game from all angles and in doing so, the game doesn't end up as a must-buy." Score: 2/5

Did you miss it? Look past the 2/5 score for a second, because believe it or not, buried deep down below that score is the fact that this game is great in groups. Hint: read the first sentence.

The dollar discrepancy

Besides a 5/5, did you notice anything else missing from that all-angle review? The price! Although this was a $1 game at the time (yes, a puddle point game), that was not an angle from which this reviewer judged. This price was so low that it flew in below his price-to-feature relationship radar, so to speak.

My takeaways

When reviews are valued, even a targeted game needs mass appeal, and here, low prices will not make up for a lack of dimension. Instead, build well-rounded apps and charge accordingly!

One final thought: I wonder how much I could have charged and still gotten that 2/5?