The best freemium mobile games are simply better than best paid mobile games

You've clearly not spent much time with the Infinity Blade Universe leveling up and competing in the multiplayer Clash Mobs. If you had you'd have a better informed decision. CoC single greatest game ever made? Lol. You are a super fanboy my friend. Or just a clever troll. Either way you got people's attention for sure.

 

Of course he's trolling, but that doesn't invalidate the topic as something worth discussing

 

Excuse me while I pick my jaw off the ground and check to see if I've been transported to some alternate universe where McDonald's actually *is* the best food around (save me!).

 

Personally I think that this statement is correct but anyway that's beside the point.

1- Whether or not CoC is the best game in the world does not make freemium intrinsically better (or worst) than premium.

2- Content is not a synonym for greatness. You can have a life changing memorable experience in a game that lasts 15 mins. Take the labour needed for CoC and split it in 100 different projects made by great devs. I bet that most people will end up being more entertained by the latter.

 

This is still subjective, being number one doesn't make it the BEST mobile game ever, I don't care how long it's #1 and how much money it makes. It makes it the best grossing app. I would venture to say there are some like me here and in the world with an iOS device that have never touched it.

Best is a subjective word, it's the most profitable mobile game and coincidently the most likely to feed off people that don't know any better...

If supercell closed up shop tomorrow, where would everyone be? Could they still check their villages? No, it requires servers.

 

We are still doing this? *sigh*

 

This is a topic of intense discussion personally for me as the implications of what Freemium games could become would be a potentially lifelong commitment for me as a developer. At our studio, we've had intense discussions about many of these issues and I'd like to share some of the views that we've held in hopes that it will help shed some like to the discussion at hand.

Are the best Freemium mobile games simply better than the best paid mobile games?
Many posters in this topic have gave their opinions on this and I tend to agree with them. Here are some of the quotes:

These quotes highlight to me the problem with the original question. I interpret these comments as saying: Look, F2P business models are designed to bring in more money than Premium business models. As a result, the claim that F2P games are the "best" games is inaccurate as the reason why they are the top in the first place is because of a superior business model.

I completely agree this claim. The current Appstore/Playstore set up is super conducive to the F2P business model and because of this, F2P becomes the superior business model. As such, in evaluating whether a F2P game is "better" than a Premium game, we have to discount the business models in both. This makes the evaluation an entirely subjective one.

Now, I'd like to mention a few common underlying thoughts in this tread that has frequently been brought up in any discussion of F2P games that I've had in the past. I think that these underlying thoughts are the source of major confusion and, often times, derail constructive discussion.

"F2P Games are Skinner Boxes and nothing more"

This line of thought is something that I have never been able to constructively defend. The Skinner Box is a simple lab tool that many psychologist used to condition behavior in lab rats. All games, from Skyrim to Candy Crush, are essentially Skinner Boxes for human beings, only with varying levels of theme/sophistication/complexity to serve different audiences.

Most of us here are lifelong gamers. We've been exposed to immersive and complex games, and as a result, our bar for gaming is extremely high. I'm currently enjoying Darkest Dungeon, Talos Principle, Hearthstone in my daily gaming sessions because they are able to provide me the entertainment that I need. However, I remember the time as a kid when this game held me for hours:



The point of this is that "simple F2P games = skinner boxes = bad" doesn't really make sense because the idea of a game being "simple" is a SUBJECTIVE evaluation. If you have been a lifelong gamer, odds are many F2P games are simple to you. But we still live in an age where a vast majority of people out there are not lifelong gamers. As a result, I actually have come to believe that these "simple F2P games" give them as much entertainment as I have when I play Talos Principle for example.


"F2P games are shovelware/clones/garbage"

On this claim, I'd like to first state that I agree with this claim in many ways. Case in point:



Is this a problem? Yes. But what kind of problem is this? Oftentimes, I hear evidence such as the picture above being shown as evidence for the underlying claim that F2P games are NECESSARILY inferior to Premium games . This is highly debatable. Instead, I think that we should see the evidence presented above as supporting the claim that the current state of F2P is terrible. I hope I've explained this subtle distinction enough, as it is very common for a discussion to get confused at this point.

With these two points in mind I think we should focusing our efforts into these areas:

1) Why is the current state of F2P mobile gaming the way it is?
Here's my take on this: The Appstore/Playstore approach has effectively circumvented the "reviewer" industry.

Big companies are paying for Superbowl Ads instead of great websites like TA for ad space because the Appstore is set up in a way that is NOT CONDUCIVE for the reviewer. Valve saved Steam from the same fate by introducing the "Curators" feature. I can follow TotalBiscuit, Jim Sterling, PC Gamer on their Curator pages and get recommendations directly from them. I ignore steam top-gross/top-selling/top-new because of this.

Dear Apple, Google, Microsoft, if you're reading, we need this.​

​

I wish. I really really wish that I can customize my Appstore to only show what TA/SlidetoPlay/Pocketgamer recommends. Just imagine! You check the Appstore every weekend and on the Editor's Choice spot, you have "Eli's Recommendation" because you've set your Appstore to show it. This is currently my personal wet dream as a indie developer.

Apple, if you're reading this, please listen. Indie developers on your platform really really need this. We need the Reviewer Industry to thrive for us small developers to thrive.

2) Can we, hypothetically, create an F2P mobile game that would be successful in both the quality of experience and the amount of revenue generated?
Yes, we almost certainly can. There is absolutely nothing intrinsic to the F2P business model that would necessarily ruin the immersion and depth of a game. It's going to be hard to pull it off, but from my perspective, there is no inherent contradiction that would prevent us from achieving both.

Personally, I thought Nimblebit's Tiny Tower launch opened up my opinions that F2P can be enjoyable. Tiny Tower was innovative to us. It threw out some of the basic F2P template and it served as one of the main inspirations for us to make Pixel People. With Pixel People, our goal was simple: We wanted to make a F2P game that we ourselves, as life-long gamers, could really really enjoy. I think we did it successfully with Pixel People. Our goal now is to replicate that success and add in more engaging elements that would appeal to us (as gamers) even more. Fingers crossed real hard on this.

Point is, this is where developers have the responsibility of pushing the envelope and this is also where I think we can clearly see why the appstore is the way it is. There are very few indie developers that are willing to fully invest in this line of thought. Reasons for this tend to be in the form of "Developing F2P has no integrity", a claim which I think is not true, but sadly, many mainstream gamers think so.

Couple this claim with the fact that the current Appstore/Playstore landscape is not conducive for the reviewer industry to flourish, and you very easily see how the industry became the way it is.

Quick Summary:
1) Appstore/Playstore is not set up to help the Reviewer industry to thrive.
2) Instead of "Customer -> Reviewer Recommendation -> Appstore", we have "Customer -> Appstore."
3) As a result, companies solve the problem by going for Brand Recognition, Superbowl Ads, In game Ads etc to solve a marketing problem.
4) This, in turn, highly favors Big Corporations as they are the only ones that can execute the strategies in (3).
5) Corporations want stability, and shy away from pushing the envelope.
6) Another side effect is that smaller companies only successfully compete by "cloning", not innovating, as a result of this.

Conclusion: Pushing the envelope in F2P is not encourage, resulting in current landscape.

Final Thoughts
I really hope the Appstore/Playstore looks at the Steam Curator system and give the Media more power to influence what people buys. This would totally change the landscape of the Appstore in an instant. We really need this.

TLDR: Give us the Steam Curator System. #giveusCurators.

 

Threads like this are really kind of counter productive. Arguing whether the best premium games are better than the best freemium games is like trying to say whether the best buffets in the world are objectively better or worse than the best a la carte restaurants in the world.

Everyone will likely find some examples and personal experiences where they are better one way or another but overall, what's best in a given situation is what best suits the wants and needs of whoever is deciding it. No type of game is universally best in every given situation for every given type of consumer, premium, freemium or otherwise.

A business model, by itself, is in no way biased one way or another toward quality... it's the developer (and publisher) that makes the decisions that determine the quality of the product. As a gamer, I've paid $50 or $60 many times for terrible premium experiences, just as much as I've played free games for months and had a great time.

A good developer should in theory be able to balance out business needs with customer needs and deliver a fun and engaging experience that serves the needs and wants of everyone involved, business model be damned.

As gamers, our priority should be always about finding and playing good, fun games. We have never been unwilling to put our money to where our enjoyment is - why do we have to look at premium and freemium like we have to draw up enemy lines in the sand and stand on one side?

I personally hate free to play games with overly aggressive monetization. But I hate slow tedious premium games that draw out the gameplay to make the game longer also. So why hate on free to play? I personally love free to play. Yeah, you deal with some drawbacks in some cases but you can't have a more attractive price than free. And at that starting point I can invest money over a long period of time and still come out ahead vs some of them mediocre $60 I've bought before. In fact, like some others have said, I've felt more love and care to user experience and user engagement from some free to play titles than premium titles - the nature of free to play simply demands it... otherwise I'd just take my time and possible money to another game. In some cases, core developers take my $60 and run. They never patch bugs, they never give us new content. They just have the mediocre experience, with tacked on multiplayer and leave us to our devices (until they turn off the servers two years later).

And yet, we've never held the business model as a whole accountable when a premium game is horrible. We complain about how it's 'just a rental' or wait for price drops or just flat out pirate it... but we never use the endless examples of terrible games as an excuse to condemn all premium games as a whole.

I've always maintained that free to play is going to be a great complement to the games market alongside premium games. It's a fair way to monetize (economically people based on the enjoyment they get) and it's good for the industry because it helps reach customers turned off by premium pricing. However, long term 'games as a service' models aren't always feasible for every game type and as such, each game should have avenues to succeed based on what they want to achieve.

So as game lovers, why not just appreciate what we have right now? Games are so accessible and catering to so many tastes and demographics now that we should all be jumping out of our seats.

 

People Love Free Stuff

Whenever, in my brief existence, some company gave out stuff for free, people flocked to get the stuff, regardless of the fact if it was a quality product or if they even liked it. If they would give away free dog food samples on a street corner, people would go and get it, even if they did not have a dog.

Usually the products that get distributed for free, or sampled (get a bit now but you'll have to pay for the full experience) are pretty poor quality or very hard sells.

They do this to launch new products which will face a though market. (eg. soda) They do this with gambling, they do this with drugs.

If something is actually valuable, people will rarely give it away for free. Unless it is your birthday or someone really likes you.

 

I definitely agree with the Steam Curator system. This could filter out and resurface the real AAA games instead of the "most downloadable/top grossing free game"

 

I consider myself a "gamer" and have been ever since my dad brought home our first Atari 2600. I was 3-4 years old and I was instantly hooked. Then when the NES came out I was really in trouble. Super Mario Bros., Metroid, Legend of Zelda, and Castlevania (just to name a few) were all spectacular and I knew I was in for the long haul. That was roughly 30 years ago and I play games just as much now as I did back then. My main game now is World of Warcraft. Can't tell you how many hours I've spent in front of my computer screen. I still get excited on Wednesday nights when the big releases drop. I take serious offense at you trying to say that Clash of Clans is the best mobile gaming has to offer. I honestly don't even consider it a game. It is a shell of a game whose sole purpose is to bleed some poor unfortunate souls wallet dry. Sure I tried CoC back when I first got into iOS gaming a few years ago. That lasted a couple days at most. Anyone that considers themselves a gamer most likely does not play CoC. Who wants to be told when they can play a game and for how long? That just goes against every reason for playing a game in the first place. The fact that it is #1 on the charts just lets you know how gullible people really are. They are just holding that carrot on a stick right in front of you just close enough so you think you can get it. Then you think hey maybe if I spend some money on this I will get that carrot. WRONG! You will never get the carrot. CoC is not set up for the gamer to win. It is set up for the company that makes it to win. Now please get out of here with your nonsense of this is the best game. It's really embarrassing the real gamers.

 

You're totally right on that, a lot of people get blinded as you said. It almost reminds me of gamblers. They'll lose $100 on 6 occasions, and then on the 7th, they'll win $500, and boast about how they won all this money gambling, even though they're still in the negative.

 

f2p games like CoC are mostly made for little kiddies. And this kiddies don't understand much but to follow the carrot they are holding in front of their face. Its a very sad psychological tactic the developers of f2p games use to make kiddies addicted to this kind of games. And because every kid has a smartphone or tablet but no money, its so easy for this games to throw a hook.
After playing a lot of supercell games and seeing what they do everytime they make an update, im pretty sure everyone is working for this company will never get a place in heaven. It's only about money making.

 

Another aspect is, how many of the ios users are children? I have three nephews aged between 9 and 15 who all have an ipad each, other than the £ 15 i put on their accounts two Xmas ago they have never had anymore credit, the on,y premium games they get are ones I gift to them or ones that drop free and I tell them about it. So for them, the only option is mostly free games, and I know that they are not unique, as it is, I can't gift iaps to them so they won't be contributing to the grossing charts but will contribute to the download numbers which lush them up the charts.
I have lost count of the amount times I've gifted minecraft now to all my nephews and daughters classmates because their parents think AppStore/play store credit is a rip off, but will then chew my hand off when I offer the gift.

To me, too grossing, top charts or whatever across the whole entertainment industry indicate what's most popular, not necessarily what is best. When it comes to what is best, it's personal choice. If someone thinks candy crush is the best game then that is what's best to them, is someone prefers the spice girls to Rolling Stones,then that's personal choice too, neither are wrong.

So I don't think that because freemium games are at the top of the charts means they are better, just that they are more popular, and holding them against premium games is unfair as usually premium is a one of payment,now hears freemium nature encourages micro transactions so it makes sense they will gross more.

I got a bit rambley there, no sleep.

 

Money money money. you are not being part of a game, you are a pawn that makes a company money. if not by spending your own money, then you always look at the ads or click on them. and even if you dont do that, you are being part of the overall experience by paid members.
The winner of these games are the company. You cannot win these games and become the great god almighty if you do not spend your monthly income on it and dump your wife and kids.
This is why i do not play these games. you cannot have tactics, strategy or skill to win. It is decided by your wallet who wins.

 

The very idea of "real gamers" is changing though. Gaming itself is changing with each generation. If someone plays games and identifies as a gamer then they are a gamer. When you have one set of gamers telling another they are not real gamers because they don't play the type they think they should, it comes across as dismissive and maybe narrow minded too. It's a bit like when people go "in my day......"

Edit to add, I've never played coc so can't comment on it's quality, but there's no denying it's popular. If someone things it's the best game they've played, then it is the best to them. I might disagree but it doesn't make them wrong in enjoying it.

 

That can be true, but in my book a "real" game is not about dices or money. but should be about skill or strategy. If it has either dices or money, its not a "real" game.

 

For what it's worth, if I see a game with Iap my heart sinks, but I'm happy to try any love when you find the rare one that does everything right.

I see my mum(technophobe), who in her 50s has just got her first tablet (her mobile is one that can't do photos still but I'm working on her upgrading) having as much fun with candy crush as I did with Mario, and just think, her enjoyment is a valid as mine. I prefer zelda, she candy crush. Does it really matter? Two people having fun playing a game, just different games. (She won't be making iaps, doesn't trust the internet)

I wonder also how many people, like myself who have consoles and pcs and compare the experience they have on those to what the AppStore offers. They are different in my opinion.

 

What's most ridiculous about this thread is that so many people are coming here to make very reasonable arguments, and the OP just pops his head in once in a while to yell "sorry, you're wrong! CoC is the best game ever because I say so!"

Whether or not he's a troll, it feels like we're talking to a wall.

The "longevity" argument also makes me wonder if that's why more and more movies are hitting the three-hour mark these days, despite the fact that they could easily be 1.5-2 hrs long. Length is not everything, but maybe the masses feel better about paying for a 3-hr movie than a 1.5-hr movie?

If someone only plays CoC and not short gems like Monument Valley or The Room, I just feel bad for them.