16 ms·

The mobile games industry is kept afloat by less than 1% of users

136 points by cpeterso 11y ago

Zikes 11y ago
0.19% of mobile users have "more money than sense". 99.81% of users don't see the point in buying the $5 "valu-pack" of [insert contrived currency here] to unlock an extra few hours of playtime every day. Mobile developers get angry and post rants about people being averse to spending as much as a cup of coffee on their abusively designed time sinks. And other gaming industries are starting to follow suit. There are AAA console/PC titles with microtransactions now, it's ridiculous.
- dave2000 11y ago
  It's not all virtual currency. Sometimes it's extra levels. The ones who don't pay must just uninstall then try one of the other forty million free/freemium games.
  - maerF0x0 11y ago
    I've played Boom Beach for over a year without paying a penny. If the game were to say "Content beyond lvl 10 is $1 a month" I'd probably pay . But $12 is nothing to me, and dear in other locales.
- besselheim 11y ago
  It's rather sad really, taking advantage of some people's propensity to addiction, exploiting it for financial gain. Somewhat the digital equivalent of rigged casinos or drug pushers.
- Analog24 11y ago
  You have a point but it's also ridiculous that mobile game consumers expect every game to be free. Game studios often spend tens of thousands of hours developing a mobile game, why should that be free? The freemium model is just an unfortunate consequence of this cultural shift towards expecting all mobile apps to be free.
  - Zikes 11y ago
    The mobile freemium model is exactly why I am so averse to spending money on mobile games. If I could spend $5 for a game and know that it is both worthwhile and fully available, I would do so. Instead, I've become cynical enough that I rarely bother unless the game is well-reviewed by sources I trust. There are examples of games that got the freemium model right and are fairly successful as a result, and the pattern is always the same: start with a game with a fun core gameplay loop, do not gate gameplay content or progression behind paywalls, let players spend money on cosmetic/status symbols, or to more quickly progress in areas that could also be progressed more slowly without spending. Warframe and Path of Exile do this and are seeing a good amount of success as a result.
  - Retra 11y ago
    One of the problems being ignored here is that, even if you only charge $1 for a game, I still have to trust you enough to give you my credit card info. And this trust is actually far easier to earn if I am making larger purchases, not smaller ones. I'll spend $100 on something if I think it's a high-quality, one-time payment. But I won't even spend $1 on some seedy, risky experiment.
    - dietrichepp 11y ago
      Distribution platforms mitigate this risk. These days, mobile app stores or services like Steam/Desura/Gog/Itch are what you trust, and they often have nice refund policies.
      - Retra 11y ago
        Well I've never heard of most of those, so why would I trust them? I mean, my phone basically pushes unwanted ads at me, so why would I do anything that would indicate that I'm willing to spend money over the phone?
      - JetSpiegel 11y ago
        Desura went bankrupt a few months ago, actually.
- ythl 11y ago
  Hearthstone recently introduced planned obsolescence to its system (i.e. certain cards become "obsolete" and you can no longer use them in ranked matches). I can see why they would want to do it, but it just makes me sad that good complete game experiences are going away in favor of infinitely evolving cash trains that will be forgotten as soon as their last server goes out of commission.
  - acbabis 11y ago
    Most trading card games "cycle-out" content to drive sales. The business model works because the players want new content. I wouldn't liken Hearthstone — where people generally know how much they need to spend to get a competitive deck — with games that are socially engineered to reward sinking arbitrary amounts of time and money into them.
  - lgieron 11y ago
    That's what WotC did with Magic: the Gathering very early (just a couple years after it was introduced) - it allows the company to make so much more money that it's really a no-brainer business-wise.
dave2000 11y ago
"Although, perhaps restructuring or ditching the freemium model might be the safest bet" Sadly there wasn't room in the article to elaborate on what form this might take.
- lnanek2 11y ago
  That's OK, because that's a pretty ignorant comment by the author anyway. We had a time when we didn't have in app payments in Android, and Google frequently showed slides showing a 20x increase in revenue for companies that switched from paid apps to in app purchases. Freemium definitely makes you more money. The biggest problem with apps nowadays is that you write it and no one ever hears about it or finds out about it, let alone downloads it, not how to get money out of your users once you have them. That's a much easier problem. The author probably just has no clue.
- Jordrok 11y ago
  At this point, even total nothingness would be preferable. The mobile games ecosystem has become so bloated and malignant that we may as well just amputate the infected limb, cauterize the wound, and try to move on.
iaw 11y ago
This is pretty common knowledge within the industry. In fact, more than 4 years ago, they were already calling these users "Whales" (as a fishing metaphor) and actively catering to their interests. There are people who will spend well over $10,000 a year to fulfill their compulsion for their "chosen" game. The advice in the article is actually rather asinine unfortunately: >"Game creators should begin to look at pushing more sales after install. Swrve suggests this should be done one month after the game has been downloaded. Another way to keep keen players coming back would be to reduce the privileges given in purchases so they will need to buy more to play more." It's implying that game creators haven't been carefully playing the analytics game since before freemium was a word. Any of these proposed changes will typically have catastrophic effects on the casual user base which could reduce game popularity and then tank the whale usage (depending on how much the game depended on network affects). Freemium games face the problem that TV networks do, there's too much alternative content out there. >"Although, perhaps restructuring or ditching the freemium model might be the safest bet." This is the right answer if you want to make good games. Freemium is an excellent model to optimization profit but it typically is directly counter to what can be considered a "good" gaming experience. The freemium games that have been largely successful (Clash of Clans, Hearthstone, Candy Crush, etc.) were all successful because they were easy to play for free, this garnered more popularity, which brought in more "whales" to support their creators. I see mobile gaming as a race to the bottom, the margins are razor thin for the company, the pay is mediocre for the employees (as well as growth opportunities). Occasionally King comes along and wins it for a year but there are hundreds of these companies out there and the odds aren't good for them.
- sosborn 11y ago
  > "Whales" (as a fishing metaphor) You probably already know this, but for those that don't, this phrase was borrowed from the casino community. Seems apt, no?
  - iaw 11y ago
    I actually didn't know that, thank you! Completely makes sense. I know it created some friction after a while when the company realized that calling users a synonym for fat, even if internally only and without that intent, was a bad idea (their game also targeted girls making it worse).
protonfish 11y ago
I am getting tired of people complaining that this is a bad thing. Freemium monetization works: developers get paid and consumers get a lot of great content for free. I disagree with the recommendations of this article to basically put the screws to the customers until they pay up > Another way to keep keen players coming back would be to reduce the privileges given in purchases so they will need to buy more to play more. Keeping happy users that recommend your game/app is the driving force of freemium. Pissing them off just kills the golden goose. All you need is to make certain that if a customer WANTS you to take their money, there is always something to purchase at high and low price points.
- maerF0x0 11y ago
  I dislike the model for this reason: 1. Game devs have an incentive to make the game crappy unless you pay 2. When it comes time for you to pay, you have to support all the freeloaders. I would venture a guess that most games could have higher median "fun" and still only charge $2-$5 . Instead of charging one person $10k and 5k ppl nothing. just my thoughts though, no science/data to back it.
  - deegles 11y ago
    It seems the problem is finding 5,000 people to pay you even $1.
  - Zikes 11y ago
    There are examples of successful freemium models: Warframe and Path of Exile. In those cases, point #1 is mitigated by the customers themselves keeping a very close eye on the game's development. If they feel like the developers cross a line they are very vocal about their displeasure and the developers will tend to roll back the change. That "line" is usually when you have to pay to accomplish a thing at all, rather than it just speeding the process along. If the slow/free path is too arduous, then there's a problem. The key point here is that the developers want to maintain a healthy and positive relationship with their customers. They're not just churning out a product and expecting people to give them money for it.
someguyfromwi 11y ago
Am I the only one who sees that this is eerily similar to the US federal tax model, the 1%, etc?
- hellbanner 11y ago
  It's called the 80/20 rule -- 80% of a result caused by 20% of its participants: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle
devit 11y ago
Note that this is mostly caused by the fact that mobile game developers are courting such a distribution by making "pay-to-win" games where you can pay more to get advantages without limits. While such a structure means that a game developer can earn 10k or more from a single player, it also makes the game worse for those who aren't willing to spend unlimited amounts of money and thus drives some of them away or causes them to decide to not spend any money at all. If this is not desired, the simple solution is to have an "unlimited pass" that gets you access to all current and future IAP/DLC content that gives a game advantage for either a fixed one-time fee or a fixed subscription fee. This is probably not often done because the game developers believe that it would be less profitable overall.
rrowland 11y ago
This article and the comments here saying "This is common knowledge in the industry" and "I'm getting tired of people saying this is a bad thing" are a beautiful illustration of why mobile games suck and freemium is destroying the industry. There are plenty of good games out there. The problem is nobody plays them. Then the devs of those games say "Fuck this, I'm out" and go on to start making pay to win games because that's how to get paid making games. It's gotten to the point where the games we play aren't even fun; we just find an easy game that lets us shoot up a shot of dopamine once in a while and settle for that. Or maybe we pick up clash of clans, play "free" for a month, then once we're hooked we pay way more than we'd ever pay for a real game every month just to be competitive. And we still lose, because someone else has more money. The majority of popular mobile games are a costly addiction, not a hobby.
- taurath 11y ago
  Its replaced smoking as a quick shot of dopamine and an alternate reward system for a lot of people I know.
  - madaxe_again 11y ago
    Although smoking is cheaper and better for your health. Honestly, I know people who have ended up homeless over bejewelled.
    - softawre 11y ago
      > Honestly, I know people who have ended up homeless over bejewelled. What? Story time?
    - HCIdivision17 11y ago
      Let's be fair here. Bejewelled is the crack-cocaine of simple addictive games. Minesweeper, Solitaire, and Pinball are mere gateways to Bejewelled.
      - pbhjpbhj 11y ago
akjetma 11y ago
> "... the report looked at over 40 free-to-play games through February 2016, analyzing the uses of more than 20 million players." If they're looking at 40 games with 20 million players during one month, they're looking at a specific class of mobile games, not mobile games at large. Also, > "A new report is highlighting that risk, showing that almost half of all the revenue generated in mobile gaming comes from just 0.19 percent of users. That means the other 99.81 percent of users aren’t worth anything money-wise to the creators." Uh, aren't they worth 'half'? edit: anecdotally, I've probably spent about $100 in the past year on random puzzle games that probably don't end up on the top of lists. Not sure how weird/errant I am though.
zongitsrinzler 11y ago
Personally I feel that both Play and App stores are partially to blame for this. The stores really reward clickbait games and make it nearly impossible to discover good/serious games.
- davorb 11y ago
  I agree with you. But the fact is that those clickbait games exist for one reason and one reason alone -- to make money. Unfortunately, this aligns well with the interests of the app stores; their interest is to make money, and not to make it easier for consumers to find good content.
  - legitster 11y ago
    Everything we buy exists to make money; everyone is interested in making money. But some stores actually do a better job stocking theirs shelves with things I will actually enjoy.
DrNuke 11y ago
The most successful game I made was my first and simplest but it was Nov 2011. By mid 2014 I was outmarketed as an indie dev.
Shivetya 11y ago
Isn't the freemium games on other platforms more of the same? I play a few and there never seems to be a game without those few who buy up every perceived advantage they can. If not advantages then every special item or unit. I remember Mechwarrior Online coming out with GOLD colored mechs for some obscene price and seeing them in game. I want to say they were like five hundred bucks. Wargaming also follows a similar model but I haven't see individual tanks or ships cresting a hundred bucks but there are enough that are in the fifty range and they are plentiful in matches
55555 11y ago
I would love to see similar statistics for gambling and taxation.
waterlesscloud 11y ago
I wonder if the same applies to say... Google. That they're kept afloat by less than 1% of their users.
vlunkr 11y ago
> is so reliant on a few hardcore users for revenue I might replace 'hardcore users' with 'children who don't know what real games are'
- odinduty 11y ago
  I doubt anybody is relying on children for revenue...
  - vlunkr 11y ago
    In my experience, they are the ones buying the IAP.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
newobj 11y ago
Let's pretend video games on console/PC are music albums. Let's pretend board games are live music. Let's pretend mobile games are ringtones. They're all "music", but they're all very different products. Ringtones are cheap, disposable, mostly looked down upon, but still popular at the same time somehow. Live music is seen as requiring a greater level of commitment; perhaps a little more exerting or rough around the edges, strangely pricey, but generally worth the above-and-beyond effort you have to make. Music albums are ubiquitous, real effort went into many of them and they are not really disposable. There are a lot of sad "me too" attempts to capitalize on other trends created by first-movers. Most people have at least a couple they are into, and connoisseurs can dive into a pile of esoterica to unearth unappreciated artistic gems. Every once in a while, a major production turns out to actually be artistically important too, and people freak out. What's my point? The "game" in "mobile game" seems pretty weighty, implying a closer kinship with other kinds of games, but, really they're as distant in kinship as ringtones are from "music". They're another product altogether. And ephemeral. And dangerous to tie your long-term longevity to as a content producer. [edit: typos]
- rrowland 11y ago
  There's really no reason it needs to be this way. Obviously, some games require controllers with their complex controls and aren't a fit for mobile gaming. But there are so many great games to be made with minimal interfaces that can run on these amazing little computers in our pockets we call "phones". Phones don't just have ring tones anymore. I can listen to just about any song ever published on my cell phone with spotify or pandora or slacker. There's no reason we should only be writing garbage "ringtone" games for mobile.
  - zanny 11y ago
    > we should only be writing garbage "ringtone" games for mobile. Nobody is buying non-ringtone games, predominantly because the ubiquitous exploitation of users through ringtone games has driven away any significant gaming crowd. Nvidia has interestingly been pushing for Android gaming for years, making handhelds and consoles for it, but I'd really wonder how their success is doing. It is a really fascinating behavior that consumers will buy Nintendo games on their handheld for incredibly high relative prices, but balk at spending a quarter as much on the Tegra Store for a more expensive to produce product.
jessaustin 11y ago
I haven't worked in this space, and I don't play this type of game, but ads for these freemium mobile games seem to show up everywhere. Are the ones with the giant ad spend the only ones making money? Are they not making money either? At first it seems that more discoverable app stores or even some other "curation" services could help lower the required ad level, but then it occurs to me that perhaps whales really only respond to flashy expensive ads on popular media properties?
- fasteddie 11y ago
  Like most businesses, most mobile games run on a customer acquisition cost vs. LTV model. Buy customers for $5 a pop, with LTVs of $7, which you can scale till you've used up all the profit. If you can drive that CAC down via better social (Words with Friends), better 1st party featuring (Clash Royale right now), IP (Star Wars: GoH), then more power to you.
  - jessaustin 11y ago
    Thanks, that makes sense, except I have no idea what "1st party featuring" is. It's not a term that seems amenable to googling, either.
    - fasteddie 11y ago
      Sorry, that'd be Google Play and App Store featuring (in their featured apps section). Quality editors choice or "best new games" featuring can mean hundreds of thousands of free installs, and a ton of momentum to drive word of mouth/virality.
      - jessaustin 11y ago
        Ah, that makes sense: "1st party" as opposed to "3rd party". This doesn't seem like an option for "indie" dev shops.
CM30 11y ago
This is what happens when the race to the bottom goes too far. People start realising this sort of tactic makes more money than traditional sales, so people start expecting all mobile games to be free with microtransactions and eventually you have an industry which is pretty much unsustainable in the long run. Still, it's not as bad as it could be, at least not in the US or Europe. If you think it's bad that people are encouraged to pay money for things in mobile games here, well, the 'kompu gacha' type stuff is another level of scary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOWFvlBPnk4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOWFvlBPnk4 It's basically literal gambling in some areas. You don't pay for items or even advantages in game mechanics, you pay for the 'possibility' of getting characters and items. It's between 1 and 5 dollars for a roll of the dice, and the probability of getting a rare character can be less than 0.1%. There are stories of people spending thousands of dollars in a few hours playing these games in a livestream on Twitch or the likes... Fortunately, this isn't as common in most games on the US app store just yet.
- Yhippa 11y ago
  I am worried that this is sustainable in the long run and that we will be saddled with these types of microtransactions forever. They have figured out the perfect topamine release methodology and people will pay for that.
  - CM30 11y ago
    Well, the Japanese legal system actually put laws in place to stop some of the worst excesses. That's probably going to happen to the mobile market in the rest of the world too. The 'freemium' games with microtransactions go too far, so the legal system puts out laws banning various practices and the industry crashes hard.
- anabis 11y ago
  FYI, the 'kompu gacha' has been self-censored by the industry body, and they are also considering $500/month limit. Although, the "shutdown law" in South Korea has caused disproportionate shrinking of game sales, so I am not sure how much regulation is good.
zf00002 11y ago
I'm wondering when we might see regulation, at least in the US, regarding certain gambling-like activities some games have (not just mobile). What I mean is some games have you build a team of characters. They'll have an in-game shop where you buy "card packs", with chances of getting legendary or what have you versions of cards. Yet nowhere are the chances of getting those type of cards listed and even if there were, there's no regulatory body ensuring that those chances are correct. From what I understand, Vegas voluntarily has rules in place that test this to keep from being regulated?
ksk 11y ago
People defending the freemium model are detestable IMHO. I don't agree with the notion that companies are justified in doing "anything" if it is going to make them money. Unethical practices should be publicly shamed as much as, and as often as possible.
- forgetsusername 11y ago
  >People defending the freemium model are detestable IMHO. You sound like a grade "A" human being.
  - ksk 11y ago
    You are free to support unethical behavior. Don't expect people to like you.
    - forgetsusername 11y ago
      >You are free to support unethical behavior. Don't expect people to like you. You sound like you've got a real issue with people liking you ,with all the projecting you do. Perhaps it's because you operate on stupid heuristics, like: "enjoys freemium games: is detestable". You should do something about that. Life would improve, and you wouldn't have to go around technology based message boards, like an 8 year-old, telling people you don't know "no one likes you".
      - ksk 11y ago
        Do you always give out free psychological evaluations over the internet? Thanks for explaining my own worldview to me. I really appreciate it.
  - dang 11y ago
    Personal attacks are not welcome on Hacker News. We ban accounts that do this, so please don't do this.
fpgaminer 11y ago
The game industry was born in arcades. You know, those arcades filled with people slumped over bright, flashing machines, pulling levers and plopping in quarter after quarter. No, no, not the casino. The arcade! The one where all the games were specifically designed to make the player lose, forcing them to insert more quarters to keep playing and get another chance at winning. Yes, I'm sure I'm talking about an arcade, and not a casino... Then came consoles, and everyone pretty much ditched arcades and stayed at home. We went from spending buckets of quarters drawn out over the course of an evening, to spending buckets or quartuers all at once every month or two, and taking out a loan to afford the next $400+ console. The arcade model died, because consoles were better in every regard. People wanted to stay home, the games were better and more engaging, the platform and context allowed for games with more depth and value than could ever be achieved in an arcade, and you didn't have to worry about the console eating your quarters. And no more collecting 10 million tickets only to realize that the best item you can redeem them for is a plastic transformers ring. Then came PCs, and PCs and consoles lived happily together alongside one another for the next decade or two. So how does the story end? Well, arcades are back baby, but in the form of pay-to-win freemium mobile games. They've evolved; now you don't have to go to some sticky floored dungeon to play Time Cop 15. You can do that from the comfort of your own phone. Just plop in $1 every now and then to keep playing. Best of all, game devs found out a way to price discriminate. Poor? Here's some ads and patience. Rich? Push a button and Apple will take care of the rest. But the games haven't changed. Mobile games are just as shallow as arcade games ever were. But weren't arcades great? Of course they were; those games were a blast. They're a different kind of fun. A kind of fun you can pick up, enjoy, and then leave without another thought. These aren't grand masterpieces like The Witcher 3, or thought bending games like The Stanley Parable. But they were still fun, exciting, and a great way to relax or kill time. So, my question is, why is everyone so caustic towards mobile gaming? Because it's exploitative? Sure, I can understand that, but so were arcades. If I had to guess, it's perhaps the pervassiveness of the games and the manner in which they present themselves that people find so offensive. See, arcades were at the arcades. You had to drive there, and physically be there for awhile. Mobile games are constantly with you, just one finger swipe away. And they take advantage of that, with notifications and constant come-hither looks to get you to play and spend. Also, arcade machines were upfront about their pricing model. The quarter slot is right there on the front of the machine, and the screen is flashing "Insert Coin". Mobile games advertise themselves as free, and even let you play a little bit before revealing their true payment model. That's deceptive in ways arcades were not. No real point other than to remind everyone of history. It's clear that mobile gaming shares a heritage with arcades. And it's perhaps clear that they've evolved the model, but perhaps that evolution is not what everyone was hoping for. I'm more curious what the next "console" evolution will be.
shkkmo 11y ago
Why is this article getting up-voted on HN? It is poorly written, contains very little information and completely mangles it's interpretation of the statistics.
- rezashirazian 11y ago
  Because I think many people here have developed a game or app for the App Store with little to no traction and are upvoting out of frustration. Here is mine https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/5-differences-2/id816500190?ls=1&mt=8 https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/5-differences-2/id816500190?...
tdkl 11y ago
I'd ask another question : are in the mobile world of instant gratification with social networks, image crafting and everything reachable at a click mobile games even "fun" enough to compete with all that ? If I get more gratification from other instant things, why even bother with a game ? Hell, why pay for it ?
rocky1138 11y ago
There is a potential market for an App Store which refuses to offer any free to play titles.
- st3v3r 11y ago
  I don't think there is, sadly. It isn't possible on the iOS side (although Apple has started to feature games that don't have pay-to-win or freemium mechanics), and while possible on the Android side, 99% of people are going to get their stuff from Google Play anyway, so even if such a store were to start up, anyone offering their wares on that store would be offering them on Play anyway.
  - fasteddie 11y ago
    The majority of premium titles on Android are pirated, especially for the most popular games. If someone wants to go to a 3rd party app store, it will be to pirate a premium game, not better curation to pay for one.
    - rocky1138 11y ago
      Most people, before GOG.com, would have said many of the same things about an ardently anti-DRM marketplace, whose main selling point is the same titles but without DRM. I've heard from a lot of gamers that would love to purchase a given version of a game outright for ~$15 than to be sapped with free-to-play mechanics. For example, take a look at the feedback on the Torchlight Mobile facebook page from 2015-06-25: https://www.facebook.com/torchlightmobile/photos/a.885045108228499.1073741828.876227465776930/890591147673895/?type=3&theater https://www.facebook.com/torchlightmobile/photos/a.885045108...
onion2k 11y ago
If I download a game that's made by a company who make a loss then it's their backers/founders/previous successes who have subsidised my gaming, not the 1% of people who buy things in Candy Crush. Candy Crush players have nothing to do with what I'm playing. Consequently the premise that the 1% of the players who buy in-app things keep the industry afloat is wrong - the industry is kept afloat by the money people risk speculating on investing or producing games in the hope of becoming the next Candy Crush.
jonmc12 11y ago
Tapjoy posted an infographic recently as well: http://www.adweek.com/socialtimes/infographic-whales-account-for-70-of-in-app-purchase-revenue/635073 http://www.adweek.com/socialtimes/infographic-whales-account...
_ph_ 11y ago
The big problem of the freemium model is, that it seems to push developers to make bad games. The model is based on making people repeatedly spend money on the game - and that is too often done by blocking the game until more money is spent, which of course creates a bad gaming experience. With a fully paid game, the incentive is to entertain the user to a point that he is happy with the purchase and spreads the word. Around the time the mobile world got dominated by freemium games, I bought myself a Nintendo 3DS and I have not regretted it. The games are much more expensive up front, but they do offer very elaborate gameplay and long time fun.
increment_i 11y ago
Its truly an amazement - I can't think of another field with such advanced, accessible tools yet such a shitty market to enter than the games industry.
sharkjacobs 11y ago
There's a semi famous aphorism about advertising: If you're not paying for it, you're the product. People who pay for consumable in-game resources aren't interested in the same kind of games that I'm interested in. Reading this article made me realize: If you're not paying for it, it's not designed for you.
programminggeek 11y ago
It just means that there is a small number of customers that pay A LOT to play those games. So the real price of those games might be $150 or $500+ for those customers.
JabavuAdams 11y ago
The bigger problem is the consolidation in the industry. 4-5 years ago, there were lots of relatively small studios making good money off of this 1-2% freemium model, while also releasing high quality games. However now, that money has dried up. Formerly successful studios that used to make a lot of money are having a hard time making ends meet on their own IP. The cost of user acquisition has gone up way too high, because the biggest players have effectively infinite ad spend.
saddestcatever 11y ago
Can anyone recommend me a good Android game? Good is subjective, but I find that Android games pale in terms of gameplay and replayability. I'd much prefer to play a GBA emulator on my phone. I'm more than willing to pay for mobile games, but I've been continually disappointed and how shallow the mobile games industry is. Mobile games currently have much more in common with Flash games (remember when those were all the rage), than the gaming industry. Cheap, and quantity > quality.
z3t4 11y ago
Humans are flock animals. Witch app would you choose, the one who has 1000 stars and 100 contributors on Github, or the one who has 1 star and 1 contributor? Do you read the top news on HN, or the new ? It doesn't help that the app store & play store are setup to favor popular apps, rather then quality apps. By giving away your app for free you can save a lot of marketing costs. A game budget usually is 79% marketing 1% production, 20% profit.

136 points by cpeterso 11y ago

Zikes 11y ago

0.19% of mobile users have "more money than sense". 99.81% of users don't see the point in buying the $5 "valu-pack" of [insert contrived currency here] to unlock an extra few hours of playtime every day. Mobile developers get angry and post rants about people being averse to spending as much as a cup of coffee on their abusively designed time sinks. And other gaming industries are starting to follow suit. There are AAA console/PC titles with microtransactions now, it's ridiculous.

dave2000 11y ago
It's not all virtual currency. Sometimes it's extra levels. The ones who don't pay must just uninstall then try one of the other forty million free/freemium games.
- maerF0x0 11y ago
  I've played Boom Beach for over a year without paying a penny. If the game were to say "Content beyond lvl 10 is $1 a month" I'd probably pay . But $12 is nothing to me, and dear in other locales.
besselheim 11y ago
It's rather sad really, taking advantage of some people's propensity to addiction, exploiting it for financial gain. Somewhat the digital equivalent of rigged casinos or drug pushers.
Analog24 11y ago
You have a point but it's also ridiculous that mobile game consumers expect every game to be free. Game studios often spend tens of thousands of hours developing a mobile game, why should that be free? The freemium model is just an unfortunate consequence of this cultural shift towards expecting all mobile apps to be free.
- Zikes 11y ago
  The mobile freemium model is exactly why I am so averse to spending money on mobile games. If I could spend $5 for a game and know that it is both worthwhile and fully available, I would do so. Instead, I've become cynical enough that I rarely bother unless the game is well-reviewed by sources I trust. There are examples of games that got the freemium model right and are fairly successful as a result, and the pattern is always the same: start with a game with a fun core gameplay loop, do not gate gameplay content or progression behind paywalls, let players spend money on cosmetic/status symbols, or to more quickly progress in areas that could also be progressed more slowly without spending. Warframe and Path of Exile do this and are seeing a good amount of success as a result.
- Retra 11y ago
  One of the problems being ignored here is that, even if you only charge $1 for a game, I still have to trust you enough to give you my credit card info. And this trust is actually far easier to earn if I am making larger purchases, not smaller ones. I'll spend $100 on something if I think it's a high-quality, one-time payment. But I won't even spend $1 on some seedy, risky experiment.
  - dietrichepp 11y ago
    Distribution platforms mitigate this risk. These days, mobile app stores or services like Steam/Desura/Gog/Itch are what you trust, and they often have nice refund policies.
    - Retra 11y ago
      Well I've never heard of most of those, so why would I trust them? I mean, my phone basically pushes unwanted ads at me, so why would I do anything that would indicate that I'm willing to spend money over the phone?
    - JetSpiegel 11y ago
      Desura went bankrupt a few months ago, actually.
ythl 11y ago
Hearthstone recently introduced planned obsolescence to its system (i.e. certain cards become "obsolete" and you can no longer use them in ranked matches). I can see why they would want to do it, but it just makes me sad that good complete game experiences are going away in favor of infinitely evolving cash trains that will be forgotten as soon as their last server goes out of commission.
- acbabis 11y ago
  Most trading card games "cycle-out" content to drive sales. The business model works because the players want new content. I wouldn't liken Hearthstone — where people generally know how much they need to spend to get a competitive deck — with games that are socially engineered to reward sinking arbitrary amounts of time and money into them.
- lgieron 11y ago
  That's what WotC did with Magic: the Gathering very early (just a couple years after it was introduced) - it allows the company to make so much more money that it's really a no-brainer business-wise.

dave2000 11y ago

"Although, perhaps restructuring or ditching the freemium model might be the safest bet" Sadly there wasn't room in the article to elaborate on what form this might take.

lnanek2 11y ago
That's OK, because that's a pretty ignorant comment by the author anyway. We had a time when we didn't have in app payments in Android, and Google frequently showed slides showing a 20x increase in revenue for companies that switched from paid apps to in app purchases. Freemium definitely makes you more money. The biggest problem with apps nowadays is that you write it and no one ever hears about it or finds out about it, let alone downloads it, not how to get money out of your users once you have them. That's a much easier problem. The author probably just has no clue.
Jordrok 11y ago
At this point, even total nothingness would be preferable. The mobile games ecosystem has become so bloated and malignant that we may as well just amputate the infected limb, cauterize the wound, and try to move on.

iaw 11y ago

This is pretty common knowledge within the industry. In fact, more than 4 years ago, they were already calling these users "Whales" (as a fishing metaphor) and actively catering to their interests. There are people who will spend well over $10,000 a year to fulfill their compulsion for their "chosen" game. The advice in the article is actually rather asinine unfortunately: >"Game creators should begin to look at pushing more sales after install. Swrve suggests this should be done one month after the game has been downloaded. Another way to keep keen players coming back would be to reduce the privileges given in purchases so they will need to buy more to play more." It's implying that game creators haven't been carefully playing the analytics game since before freemium was a word. Any of these proposed changes will typically have catastrophic effects on the casual user base which could reduce game popularity and then tank the whale usage (depending on how much the game depended on network affects). Freemium games face the problem that TV networks do, there's too much alternative content out there. >"Although, perhaps restructuring or ditching the freemium model might be the safest bet." This is the right answer if you want to make good games. Freemium is an excellent model to optimization profit but it typically is directly counter to what can be considered a "good" gaming experience. The freemium games that have been largely successful (Clash of Clans, Hearthstone, Candy Crush, etc.) were all successful because they were easy to play for free, this garnered more popularity, which brought in more "whales" to support their creators. I see mobile gaming as a race to the bottom, the margins are razor thin for the company, the pay is mediocre for the employees (as well as growth opportunities). Occasionally King comes along and wins it for a year but there are hundreds of these companies out there and the odds aren't good for them.

sosborn 11y ago
> "Whales" (as a fishing metaphor) You probably already know this, but for those that don't, this phrase was borrowed from the casino community. Seems apt, no?
- iaw 11y ago
  I actually didn't know that, thank you! Completely makes sense. I know it created some friction after a while when the company realized that calling users a synonym for fat, even if internally only and without that intent, was a bad idea (their game also targeted girls making it worse).

protonfish 11y ago

I am getting tired of people complaining that this is a bad thing. Freemium monetization works: developers get paid and consumers get a lot of great content for free. I disagree with the recommendations of this article to basically put the screws to the customers until they pay up > Another way to keep keen players coming back would be to reduce the privileges given in purchases so they will need to buy more to play more. Keeping happy users that recommend your game/app is the driving force of freemium. Pissing them off just kills the golden goose. All you need is to make certain that if a customer WANTS you to take their money, there is always something to purchase at high and low price points.

maerF0x0 11y ago
I dislike the model for this reason: 1. Game devs have an incentive to make the game crappy unless you pay 2. When it comes time for you to pay, you have to support all the freeloaders. I would venture a guess that most games could have higher median "fun" and still only charge $2-$5 . Instead of charging one person $10k and 5k ppl nothing. just my thoughts though, no science/data to back it.
- deegles 11y ago
  It seems the problem is finding 5,000 people to pay you even $1.
- Zikes 11y ago
  There are examples of successful freemium models: Warframe and Path of Exile. In those cases, point #1 is mitigated by the customers themselves keeping a very close eye on the game's development. If they feel like the developers cross a line they are very vocal about their displeasure and the developers will tend to roll back the change. That "line" is usually when you have to pay to accomplish a thing at all, rather than it just speeding the process along. If the slow/free path is too arduous, then there's a problem. The key point here is that the developers want to maintain a healthy and positive relationship with their customers. They're not just churning out a product and expecting people to give them money for it.

someguyfromwi 11y ago

Am I the only one who sees that this is eerily similar to the US federal tax model, the 1%, etc?

hellbanner 11y ago
It's called the 80/20 rule -- 80% of a result caused by 20% of its participants: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle

devit 11y ago

Note that this is mostly caused by the fact that mobile game developers are courting such a distribution by making "pay-to-win" games where you can pay more to get advantages without limits. While such a structure means that a game developer can earn 10k or more from a single player, it also makes the game worse for those who aren't willing to spend unlimited amounts of money and thus drives some of them away or causes them to decide to not spend any money at all. If this is not desired, the simple solution is to have an "unlimited pass" that gets you access to all current and future IAP/DLC content that gives a game advantage for either a fixed one-time fee or a fixed subscription fee. This is probably not often done because the game developers believe that it would be less profitable overall.

rrowland 11y ago

This article and the comments here saying "This is common knowledge in the industry" and "I'm getting tired of people saying this is a bad thing" are a beautiful illustration of why mobile games suck and freemium is destroying the industry. There are plenty of good games out there. The problem is nobody plays them. Then the devs of those games say "Fuck this, I'm out" and go on to start making pay to win games because that's how to get paid making games. It's gotten to the point where the games we play aren't even fun; we just find an easy game that lets us shoot up a shot of dopamine once in a while and settle for that. Or maybe we pick up clash of clans, play "free" for a month, then once we're hooked we pay way more than we'd ever pay for a real game every month just to be competitive. And we still lose, because someone else has more money. The majority of popular mobile games are a costly addiction, not a hobby.

taurath 11y ago
Its replaced smoking as a quick shot of dopamine and an alternate reward system for a lot of people I know.
- madaxe_again 11y ago
  Although smoking is cheaper and better for your health. Honestly, I know people who have ended up homeless over bejewelled.
  - softawre 11y ago
    > Honestly, I know people who have ended up homeless over bejewelled. What? Story time?
  - HCIdivision17 11y ago
    Let's be fair here. Bejewelled is the crack-cocaine of simple addictive games. Minesweeper, Solitaire, and Pinball are mere gateways to Bejewelled.
    - pbhjpbhj 11y ago

akjetma 11y ago

> "... the report looked at over 40 free-to-play games through February 2016, analyzing the uses of more than 20 million players." If they're looking at 40 games with 20 million players during one month, they're looking at a specific class of mobile games, not mobile games at large. Also, > "A new report is highlighting that risk, showing that almost half of all the revenue generated in mobile gaming comes from just 0.19 percent of users. That means the other 99.81 percent of users aren’t worth anything money-wise to the creators." Uh, aren't they worth 'half'? edit: anecdotally, I've probably spent about $100 in the past year on random puzzle games that probably don't end up on the top of lists. Not sure how weird/errant I am though.

zongitsrinzler 11y ago

Personally I feel that both Play and App stores are partially to blame for this. The stores really reward clickbait games and make it nearly impossible to discover good/serious games.

davorb 11y ago
I agree with you. But the fact is that those clickbait games exist for one reason and one reason alone -- to make money. Unfortunately, this aligns well with the interests of the app stores; their interest is to make money, and not to make it easier for consumers to find good content.
- legitster 11y ago
  Everything we buy exists to make money; everyone is interested in making money. But some stores actually do a better job stocking theirs shelves with things I will actually enjoy.

DrNuke 11y ago

The most successful game I made was my first and simplest but it was Nov 2011. By mid 2014 I was outmarketed as an indie dev.

Shivetya 11y ago

Isn't the freemium games on other platforms more of the same? I play a few and there never seems to be a game without those few who buy up every perceived advantage they can. If not advantages then every special item or unit. I remember Mechwarrior Online coming out with GOLD colored mechs for some obscene price and seeing them in game. I want to say they were like five hundred bucks. Wargaming also follows a similar model but I haven't see individual tanks or ships cresting a hundred bucks but there are enough that are in the fifty range and they are plentiful in matches

55555 11y ago

I would love to see similar statistics for gambling and taxation.

waterlesscloud 11y ago

I wonder if the same applies to say... Google. That they're kept afloat by less than 1% of their users.

vlunkr 11y ago

> is so reliant on a few hardcore users for revenue I might replace 'hardcore users' with 'children who don't know what real games are'

odinduty 11y ago
I doubt anybody is relying on children for revenue...
- vlunkr 11y ago
  In my experience, they are the ones buying the IAP.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

newobj 11y ago

Let's pretend video games on console/PC are music albums. Let's pretend board games are live music. Let's pretend mobile games are ringtones. They're all "music", but they're all very different products. Ringtones are cheap, disposable, mostly looked down upon, but still popular at the same time somehow. Live music is seen as requiring a greater level of commitment; perhaps a little more exerting or rough around the edges, strangely pricey, but generally worth the above-and-beyond effort you have to make. Music albums are ubiquitous, real effort went into many of them and they are not really disposable. There are a lot of sad "me too" attempts to capitalize on other trends created by first-movers. Most people have at least a couple they are into, and connoisseurs can dive into a pile of esoterica to unearth unappreciated artistic gems. Every once in a while, a major production turns out to actually be artistically important too, and people freak out. What's my point? The "game" in "mobile game" seems pretty weighty, implying a closer kinship with other kinds of games, but, really they're as distant in kinship as ringtones are from "music". They're another product altogether. And ephemeral. And dangerous to tie your long-term longevity to as a content producer. [edit: typos]

rrowland 11y ago
There's really no reason it needs to be this way. Obviously, some games require controllers with their complex controls and aren't a fit for mobile gaming. But there are so many great games to be made with minimal interfaces that can run on these amazing little computers in our pockets we call "phones". Phones don't just have ring tones anymore. I can listen to just about any song ever published on my cell phone with spotify or pandora or slacker. There's no reason we should only be writing garbage "ringtone" games for mobile.
- zanny 11y ago
  > we should only be writing garbage "ringtone" games for mobile. Nobody is buying non-ringtone games, predominantly because the ubiquitous exploitation of users through ringtone games has driven away any significant gaming crowd. Nvidia has interestingly been pushing for Android gaming for years, making handhelds and consoles for it, but I'd really wonder how their success is doing. It is a really fascinating behavior that consumers will buy Nintendo games on their handheld for incredibly high relative prices, but balk at spending a quarter as much on the Tegra Store for a more expensive to produce product.

jessaustin 11y ago

I haven't worked in this space, and I don't play this type of game, but ads for these freemium mobile games seem to show up everywhere. Are the ones with the giant ad spend the only ones making money? Are they not making money either? At first it seems that more discoverable app stores or even some other "curation" services could help lower the required ad level, but then it occurs to me that perhaps whales really only respond to flashy expensive ads on popular media properties?

fasteddie 11y ago
Like most businesses, most mobile games run on a customer acquisition cost vs. LTV model. Buy customers for $5 a pop, with LTVs of $7, which you can scale till you've used up all the profit. If you can drive that CAC down via better social (Words with Friends), better 1st party featuring (Clash Royale right now), IP (Star Wars: GoH), then more power to you.
- jessaustin 11y ago
  Thanks, that makes sense, except I have no idea what "1st party featuring" is. It's not a term that seems amenable to googling, either.
  - fasteddie 11y ago
    Sorry, that'd be Google Play and App Store featuring (in their featured apps section). Quality editors choice or "best new games" featuring can mean hundreds of thousands of free installs, and a ton of momentum to drive word of mouth/virality.
    - jessaustin 11y ago
      Ah, that makes sense: "1st party" as opposed to "3rd party". This doesn't seem like an option for "indie" dev shops.

CM30 11y ago

This is what happens when the race to the bottom goes too far. People start realising this sort of tactic makes more money than traditional sales, so people start expecting all mobile games to be free with microtransactions and eventually you have an industry which is pretty much unsustainable in the long run. Still, it's not as bad as it could be, at least not in the US or Europe. If you think it's bad that people are encouraged to pay money for things in mobile games here, well, the 'kompu gacha' type stuff is another level of scary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOWFvlBPnk4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOWFvlBPnk4 It's basically literal gambling in some areas. You don't pay for items or even advantages in game mechanics, you pay for the 'possibility' of getting characters and items. It's between 1 and 5 dollars for a roll of the dice, and the probability of getting a rare character can be less than 0.1%. There are stories of people spending thousands of dollars in a few hours playing these games in a livestream on Twitch or the likes... Fortunately, this isn't as common in most games on the US app store just yet.

Yhippa 11y ago
I am worried that this is sustainable in the long run and that we will be saddled with these types of microtransactions forever. They have figured out the perfect topamine release methodology and people will pay for that.
- CM30 11y ago
  Well, the Japanese legal system actually put laws in place to stop some of the worst excesses. That's probably going to happen to the mobile market in the rest of the world too. The 'freemium' games with microtransactions go too far, so the legal system puts out laws banning various practices and the industry crashes hard.
anabis 11y ago
FYI, the 'kompu gacha' has been self-censored by the industry body, and they are also considering $500/month limit. Although, the "shutdown law" in South Korea has caused disproportionate shrinking of game sales, so I am not sure how much regulation is good.

zf00002 11y ago

I'm wondering when we might see regulation, at least in the US, regarding certain gambling-like activities some games have (not just mobile). What I mean is some games have you build a team of characters. They'll have an in-game shop where you buy "card packs", with chances of getting legendary or what have you versions of cards. Yet nowhere are the chances of getting those type of cards listed and even if there were, there's no regulatory body ensuring that those chances are correct. From what I understand, Vegas voluntarily has rules in place that test this to keep from being regulated?

ksk 11y ago

People defending the freemium model are detestable IMHO. I don't agree with the notion that companies are justified in doing "anything" if it is going to make them money. Unethical practices should be publicly shamed as much as, and as often as possible.

forgetsusername 11y ago
>People defending the freemium model are detestable IMHO. You sound like a grade "A" human being.
- ksk 11y ago
  You are free to support unethical behavior. Don't expect people to like you.
  - forgetsusername 11y ago
    >You are free to support unethical behavior. Don't expect people to like you. You sound like you've got a real issue with people liking you ,with all the projecting you do. Perhaps it's because you operate on stupid heuristics, like: "enjoys freemium games: is detestable". You should do something about that. Life would improve, and you wouldn't have to go around technology based message boards, like an 8 year-old, telling people you don't know "no one likes you".
    - ksk 11y ago
      Do you always give out free psychological evaluations over the internet? Thanks for explaining my own worldview to me. I really appreciate it.
- dang 11y ago
  Personal attacks are not welcome on Hacker News. We ban accounts that do this, so please don't do this.

fpgaminer 11y ago

The game industry was born in arcades. You know, those arcades filled with people slumped over bright, flashing machines, pulling levers and plopping in quarter after quarter. No, no, not the casino. The arcade! The one where all the games were specifically designed to make the player lose, forcing them to insert more quarters to keep playing and get another chance at winning. Yes, I'm sure I'm talking about an arcade, and not a casino... Then came consoles, and everyone pretty much ditched arcades and stayed at home. We went from spending buckets of quarters drawn out over the course of an evening, to spending buckets or quartuers all at once every month or two, and taking out a loan to afford the next $400+ console. The arcade model died, because consoles were better in every regard. People wanted to stay home, the games were better and more engaging, the platform and context allowed for games with more depth and value than could ever be achieved in an arcade, and you didn't have to worry about the console eating your quarters. And no more collecting 10 million tickets only to realize that the best item you can redeem them for is a plastic transformers ring. Then came PCs, and PCs and consoles lived happily together alongside one another for the next decade or two. So how does the story end? Well, arcades are back baby, but in the form of pay-to-win freemium mobile games. They've evolved; now you don't have to go to some sticky floored dungeon to play Time Cop 15. You can do that from the comfort of your own phone. Just plop in $1 every now and then to keep playing. Best of all, game devs found out a way to price discriminate. Poor? Here's some ads and patience. Rich? Push a button and Apple will take care of the rest. But the games haven't changed. Mobile games are just as shallow as arcade games ever were. But weren't arcades great? Of course they were; those games were a blast. They're a different kind of fun. A kind of fun you can pick up, enjoy, and then leave without another thought. These aren't grand masterpieces like The Witcher 3, or thought bending games like The Stanley Parable. But they were still fun, exciting, and a great way to relax or kill time. So, my question is, why is everyone so caustic towards mobile gaming? Because it's exploitative? Sure, I can understand that, but so were arcades. If I had to guess, it's perhaps the pervassiveness of the games and the manner in which they present themselves that people find so offensive. See, arcades were at the arcades. You had to drive there, and physically be there for awhile. Mobile games are constantly with you, just one finger swipe away. And they take advantage of that, with notifications and constant come-hither looks to get you to play and spend. Also, arcade machines were upfront about their pricing model. The quarter slot is right there on the front of the machine, and the screen is flashing "Insert Coin". Mobile games advertise themselves as free, and even let you play a little bit before revealing their true payment model. That's deceptive in ways arcades were not. No real point other than to remind everyone of history. It's clear that mobile gaming shares a heritage with arcades. And it's perhaps clear that they've evolved the model, but perhaps that evolution is not what everyone was hoping for. I'm more curious what the next "console" evolution will be.

shkkmo 11y ago

Why is this article getting up-voted on HN? It is poorly written, contains very little information and completely mangles it's interpretation of the statistics.

rezashirazian 11y ago
Because I think many people here have developed a game or app for the App Store with little to no traction and are upvoting out of frustration. Here is mine https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/5-differences-2/id816500190?ls=1&mt=8 https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/5-differences-2/id816500190?...

tdkl 11y ago

I'd ask another question : are in the mobile world of instant gratification with social networks, image crafting and everything reachable at a click mobile games even "fun" enough to compete with all that ? If I get more gratification from other instant things, why even bother with a game ? Hell, why pay for it ?

rocky1138 11y ago

There is a potential market for an App Store which refuses to offer any free to play titles.

st3v3r 11y ago
I don't think there is, sadly. It isn't possible on the iOS side (although Apple has started to feature games that don't have pay-to-win or freemium mechanics), and while possible on the Android side, 99% of people are going to get their stuff from Google Play anyway, so even if such a store were to start up, anyone offering their wares on that store would be offering them on Play anyway.
- fasteddie 11y ago
  The majority of premium titles on Android are pirated, especially for the most popular games. If someone wants to go to a 3rd party app store, it will be to pirate a premium game, not better curation to pay for one.
  - rocky1138 11y ago
    Most people, before GOG.com, would have said many of the same things about an ardently anti-DRM marketplace, whose main selling point is the same titles but without DRM. I've heard from a lot of gamers that would love to purchase a given version of a game outright for ~$15 than to be sapped with free-to-play mechanics. For example, take a look at the feedback on the Torchlight Mobile facebook page from 2015-06-25: https://www.facebook.com/torchlightmobile/photos/a.885045108228499.1073741828.876227465776930/890591147673895/?type=3&theater https://www.facebook.com/torchlightmobile/photos/a.885045108...

onion2k 11y ago

If I download a game that's made by a company who make a loss then it's their backers/founders/previous successes who have subsidised my gaming, not the 1% of people who buy things in Candy Crush. Candy Crush players have nothing to do with what I'm playing. Consequently the premise that the 1% of the players who buy in-app things keep the industry afloat is wrong - the industry is kept afloat by the money people risk speculating on investing or producing games in the hope of becoming the next Candy Crush.

jonmc12 11y ago

Tapjoy posted an infographic recently as well: http://www.adweek.com/socialtimes/infographic-whales-account-for-70-of-in-app-purchase-revenue/635073 http://www.adweek.com/socialtimes/infographic-whales-account...

_ph_ 11y ago

The big problem of the freemium model is, that it seems to push developers to make bad games. The model is based on making people repeatedly spend money on the game - and that is too often done by blocking the game until more money is spent, which of course creates a bad gaming experience. With a fully paid game, the incentive is to entertain the user to a point that he is happy with the purchase and spreads the word. Around the time the mobile world got dominated by freemium games, I bought myself a Nintendo 3DS and I have not regretted it. The games are much more expensive up front, but they do offer very elaborate gameplay and long time fun.

increment_i 11y ago

Its truly an amazement - I can't think of another field with such advanced, accessible tools yet such a shitty market to enter than the games industry.

sharkjacobs 11y ago

There's a semi famous aphorism about advertising: If you're not paying for it, you're the product. People who pay for consumable in-game resources aren't interested in the same kind of games that I'm interested in. Reading this article made me realize: If you're not paying for it, it's not designed for you.

programminggeek 11y ago

It just means that there is a small number of customers that pay A LOT to play those games. So the real price of those games might be $150 or $500+ for those customers.

JabavuAdams 11y ago

The bigger problem is the consolidation in the industry. 4-5 years ago, there were lots of relatively small studios making good money off of this 1-2% freemium model, while also releasing high quality games. However now, that money has dried up. Formerly successful studios that used to make a lot of money are having a hard time making ends meet on their own IP. The cost of user acquisition has gone up way too high, because the biggest players have effectively infinite ad spend.

saddestcatever 11y ago

Can anyone recommend me a good Android game? Good is subjective, but I find that Android games pale in terms of gameplay and replayability. I'd much prefer to play a GBA emulator on my phone. I'm more than willing to pay for mobile games, but I've been continually disappointed and how shallow the mobile games industry is. Mobile games currently have much more in common with Flash games (remember when those were all the rage), than the gaming industry. Cheap, and quantity > quality.

z3t4 11y ago

Humans are flock animals. Witch app would you choose, the one who has 1000 stars and 100 contributors on Github, or the one who has 1 star and 1 contributor? Do you read the top news on HN, or the new ? It doesn't help that the app store & play store are setup to favor popular apps, rather then quality apps. By giving away your app for free you can save a lot of marketing costs. A game budget usually is 79% marketing 1% production, 20% profit.