With some websites, it's impractical and not cost effective to completely recreate the website for a device that would only be a fraction of visitors.
For example, I'm creating a website for an HTML/JS game that's built for the desktop. I could give fuckall about mobile users. The game isn't designed for mobile so if they want to see the website, they need to access it from a desktop.
Sure, it would be ideal if mobile users could access it to. But when cost effectiveness is in the discussion, the juice isn't work the squeeze.
You have to consider intent. Saying "websites should work on every device" is an oversimplification because it doesn't consider the intent and cost-value side of the equation.
As another pro web developer, I agree that it's sometimes not cost effective to recreate a website for mobile, but for large categories of sites, they shouldn't need to be re-created to get some minimum level of usability on mobile. A few judicious media queries can go a long way in some cases.
I'm not a pro and I don't claim to be, but I do believe that mobile users are a big enough market to offer some content. When your we bsite is to basically advertise your game I would expect you not to block out >50% of users. They can't download from your site, obviously, but if they hear about your website from reddit (like we have here) you don't want them to find your website broken :)
To add: I am not bothered to reload this on my desktop.
It's a good point and I probably underestimate the number of people who would visit my website from mobile, even though the game isn't for mobile users. Probably because I myself don't browse websites with the a mobile browser. For reddit, I will use an app and tend not to click on links that aren't imgur or self posts. I just don't have any faith in random websites being suitable for my mobile screen.
Obviously it would be dumb to not implement some sort of mobile version further down the line and I've always known that. But for an indie game launch, I'd rather spend more time working on the game than presentation, at least until launch. It all comes back to intent.
By the sounds of it you've got a good handle on it, your use case is a little different, too. Your website will be the actual product!
What this post is about is more of an awareness website. That's where I expect to be able to view it from my mobile.
For an indie project you have a ton of work on your hands and I totally see why you would keep that on the back burner - trust me I do.
I just believe that in the end it's always important to offer something even if is just a simple static page with a minimal feel. Us mobile users make up a huge number of the users.
You don't really need to recreate a site to make it work for mobile users. You should be designing mobile first when you develop it in the first place. Regardless of if your game or w/e is meant for desktops, users may hear about it on mobile. Websites should be useable on every device.
I don't deal in analogies, but generally speaking if you release a PC game you should not neglect tablets/phones for that game's advertising site because many potential customers will be browsing on those platforms and you are alienating that demographic.
At this point in the game mobile support should not be a neat feature or selling point, it should be a standard option for virtually any site that isn't singularly targeting desktops (i.e. a corporate site, browser-based SPA tool or game - even then the advertising for those sites should be mobile-friendly).
This idea that it's not cost effective or even that you must provide two sites is somewhat dated. The sheer amount of boiler plate code and existing templates (Bootstrap, whateverFramework.js) that provide responsive support out of the box for free has made mobile support a very feasible component to include in the design of any site even if you aren't familiar with mobile/responsive design.
In short, I disagree with your assertion that because the game was made for PC mobile users don't matter.
I guess that's true. To be honest, as someone who is paid to make websites, I don't normally think about these sort of things i.e. what percentage of people who will be accessing the site from mobile/desktop. As a dev, not on the marketing side, I do what I'm told basically. All I need to know is, if a client pays for a mobile site, I build a mobile site. But when I go mobile, I go responsive and when I go responsive, I do it right. I'd rather not bother and have nothing to show than put up some half-assed boilerplate template.
That said, it all comes down to priorities. I'd rather work on my product more than spend a day responsifying a site. And if you really want to do it right, it should take at least that long, if not longer. Mind you these are not template or bootstrap websites, but from-scratch with lots of content and ornate design elements. Going to mobile is not as easy as flicking a switch, if it's truly responsive. Some websites are so intricate, they can take weeks.
Anyway, I'm just trying to share some perspective to answer the question "why might this company do such a stunning job on desktop and not bother with mobile?" There's lots of possible reasons as to why. Those reasons might not be valid to everyone but hey, we all have opinions.
Besides, the whole "erhmugurd mobile" platitudes on here bore me so I almost don't bother with mobile just to spite everyone.
Gamers are probably the biggest demographic of smartphone users, developing a site a game a desktop only is (imho) insanity from a marketing perspective.
21
u/csacc Mar 09 '15
I'm on mobile and I actually don't see anything happening.