5 ms·
Furthermore, this is an inherently unsticky kind of niche. Every customer will need to be won over again in 12 months or less, as they tire of that one charming
by dakrisht 13y ago
Furthermore, this is an inherently unsticky kind of niche. Every customer will need to be won over again in 12 months or less, as they tire of that one charming game.
Full agree with this statement. If you look at titles like Candy Crush, sure, they're doing amazing right now, pulling in huge numbers (users and revenue) - but in 3-6 months - they won't be around. Retention will switch over to the next 45th copy of Bejeweled.
It's actually a very interesting model. The same games are re-created by new "startup" companies every few months. 1/100 hits and becomes a Top-10 item in the app store. The game gets huge traction by leveraging FB's massive user base, company puts together obscene numbers showing engagement, in-app purchases, growth projections (which end up diving after a few Q's) and then go out and raise Series-A rounds.
What I CAN'T figure out is - are VCs really this dumb to invest in companies that won't be around in 12-18 months? Maybe they're not, maybe it's the VC model that's flawed. Invest in 100 companies @ $1.5-3M per and 1 will go public or get acquired and we'll make our money back. But this is an entirely different conversation.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- psuter 13y agoIt's like watching fireworks and thinking "ooh I really think that purple one is different!".
- dakrisht 13y agoThis is how most VC's and kids calling themselves "entrepreneurs" these days see the world. If I have to hear one more idiot with an app or another 56th version of a similar service like Instagram say they're "changing the world" I might lose it. Ha!
- parasubvert 13y agoCandy Crush may be a bad example... King has been around for 10 years, so not really a startup. They're somewhat similar to Rovio in having a late hit. It depends what they do with the success that determines their future, I'm pretty sure they're aware that Candy Crush is a fad, just a matter of exploiting it while working on the next thing.
- dakrisht 13y agoI'll give it up to Rovio. They had an original idea, a great product, they kept releasing new additions to the product. They built a large business around it. They branded the product, they created merchandise, they never scummed their employees and took their early equity. They're a good company.
- dan1234 13y agoDon't you think Angry Birds was rather "inspired" by Crush the Castle[1]? They did well milking the idea for every penny, and I think they were a key driver of the casual gaming genre (along with Zynga and their Facebook gaming) but I think they were pretty lucky with a few key celebrity endorsements. [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crush_the_Castle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crush_the_Castle
- dakrisht 13y agoNever played Crush the Castle. And now that I looked it up, well, there goes the originality of their IP. Unreal.
- CmonDev 13y agoThey are also using Box2D but will only admit if you ask question face to face in public. And that phys lib is the crux of their gameplay.
- rhc2104 13y agoCertainly a good part of the mechanic of Crush the Castle there, but the main differences are: 1) Aiming where the projectiles go is easy 2) Most projectiles use "powerups" Which to me, make the games as different as say, Mario and Sonic.