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

That's what I was trying to say, but the sleeping pill I took hasn't worn off yet, and I'm a bit woozy, but yeah to me there are no "real gamers" live and let live and all that ...

 

You see, now this post actually makes the most sense. Well done.

And to those attacking the OP, come one, give it a rest.
"Real gamers"? My ass. Everybody who plays games is a Real gamer.
Is a 1989 Ford driver any less of a "driver" than a 2015 Porsche driver?

Some of us even started out in arcades. Anybody hating f2p remember arcades? They had to be fed even more coins than f2p.
Just because we started playing on those, are we not "real gamers" as well?

Any person who plays games just prefers different styles. This "real gamer" argument is about as pointless a point as anyone can make and an extremely weak attempt at elitism and snobbery.

Are Freemium the "best"? Well, no probably not in some cases.
Are they the "best" for the platform? Well, that would be debatable.
I see a lot of GTA V being mentioned. Is that not the highest grossing console game?
Does it not fall in to the exact same criteria as CoC if you just take a step back.
Yes, of course it has more depth, more content and all that but it's designed to be played for hours in front of a big screen on its own platform and is tailored perfectly for it.
Is CoC, Candy Crush and whatever not tailored perfectly in exactly the same way for their own specific platform. Could it not be argued that they too are the "best" for their own specific platform?

A key point people seem to forget in these discussions is that these game are for different specific platforms and different target audience.
Good designers design for their target audience. It's really as simple as that.
And each of the game examples above represent the "best" in relation to who they are targeted at and the way they will play them.

A good example to demonstrate the difference would be Bioshock, arguably one of the "best" games ever.
However, the reviews of the iOS version do not exactly show it in a glowing light.
Yes, it's a great game but does it really suit mobile? Well, obviously enough, no it doesn't. And all the reviews have said as much.
Would CoC suit console? Again, obviously enough, no.
So maybe when people are hating on f2p, maybe just consider the platform they are playing on.
Is a 3.5/4/4.7/5.5/9.7 inch really ever going to be the same as playing on 60 inch widescreen at home?
Is it really going to offer as immersive an experience as the large screen one?
Should it even?

What it really comes down to is different strokes for different folks.
That doesn't make one any better than the other and those that are successful on each medium/platform are the ones that have actually put in the thought and effort and designed something excellent (not necessarily the "best") for the device/platform/play style/target audience that they envisioned in the first place.
And with that design, they have achieved success.

I think what this debate has more clearly shown is that people have a massive incongruity and dissonance with what types of devices they are playing games on.
People play games just for the pleasure they give them at the time. Some for long periods, some for short.
Some are designed better for short, some for long.
The associated elitism and snobbery from the "real" gamers is no different from some guy in a Ferrari looking down on some guy in a Ford even if they both turn out to have equal wealth.
They are still both drivers though, they just have different tastes.
Nothing particularly wrong with that, is there?

As the economical model in the App Store grows and evolves, we will see some changes we like, some we don't, but don't be in any doubt that there will always be a market for both freemium and premium. Some will make more, some will make less, that's sorta exactly how a consumer system works.
Rather than hating on one model or the other, simply support the GAMES you enjoy and like.
Last year demonstrated something very clearly. Throw out some thing of the extremely high quality of Monument Valley and you will do well in premium.
The difference though is down to quality.
The same could be said for Candy Crush Soda. Irrespective of people hating it or liking it on here, it is still a high quality, highly polished product and people have been happy to spend money in it. They wouldn't be spending that money if it were crap or if they were not getting enjoyment from it.
So just support quality for whichever you want at the time.

And possibly the most key point.
All of these alleged non-gamers that are playing these alleged non games, what do you think those people will want to play next when they are finished with the short mobile experience?
Don't people see that it opens up a far greater marketplace for the types of premium games people are talking about.
More people than ever before are now playing games. Tastes change over time.
People will eventually demand more from their games and developers will step up and give them exactly that.

Games are probably at the highest potential marketplace penetration than they have ever been before and as far as I'm concerned that is only a good thing that could only possibly lead to greater things.
It certainly has the potential to as long as the great developers that are out there, both freemium and premium, seize the great opportunity that is now before them.
So rather than hate on freemium, see it as the doorway to great potential that it opens.

And as a PS, there really is no need for some of the people here to be calling the OP a troll or whatever they seem to like insulting him with now.
He makes some very valid points, some I agree with, some I don't but I definitely see no justification for the insults and I applaud that he makes his argument at all and also that he does it in a reasonable way. The use of the word "best" is debatable I suppose but it's only one word out of the many reasonable ones he has put down.
But when one resorts to calling him a troll or not a "real" gamer (whatever the hell that means), do you really think that helps your case or does it just show your own lack of ability to construct a cohesive and compelling argument in a reasonable and polite way?
It's an interesting discussion with valid points on both sides, at the very least try and be even a bit civilised or polite.
It is a front page article after all, think about how you'd like to represent yourself and your side of the argument to the rest of the world that might not normally read it.

Oh and Eli, love the new title

 

I like this site and forum for checking out new games. I don't have a problem with good games that are free. There's plenty of good stuff that's both free and paid once you sift through 99% of the crap.

I value the opinions here far more than the average person. The average people I run into have terrible views on things in general.

 

Two points: 10 years from now no one will be playing Clash of Clans only because they will be playing Clash of Clans 4 which will be making five times more money than the original.

Secondly. People may be still raving about GTA V but no one will be playing it because it will be broken by iOS 14 or whatever and never updated. They will be playing GTA X which will be a freemium game though.

 

I only said it sounds like he's trolling because so many people came in here and made very valid arguments to explain why "most profitable" doesn't necessarily equate to "best" or "most fun" and instead of responding with an equally thoughtful answer, he just pops in to tell us "Nope, you're wrong! CoC is absolutely the best mobile game ever -- there is no disputing that!" (Those weren't his exact words, but almost.) What is one supposed to think is that situation? Why even make a thread if you don't want to hear others' opinions?

For the record, I wouldn't even try to declare anything "the best." One of my favorites? Sure. But how can any game ever be declared the absolute best (outside of something measurable like profitability)?

As for you other points... Like I said earlier, I've no problem with Freemium games themselves. It's when they start to creep into the games and developers I love. There were Freemium games back when I got my first iDevice, but they didn't dominate the market like they do today. There are plenty of games out now that I would probably have enjoyed playing if they weren't designed around a pay-to-win model. Recently (after so thoroughly enjoying Hero Emblems but getting absolutely frustrated and disappointed with the IAP in Gemcrafter), I decided to start looking for match-three games without any pay-to-win options. There are sooooo many match-three games out there, but finding those without pay-to-win IAP is exhausting and (so far) not proving very fruitful: http://www.appunwrapper.com/2015/01/25/match-three-ios-mobile-games-without-pay-to-win-iap/

I think most people who hate on F2P wouldn't mind it so much if it didn't kill their excitement every time they see a new cool-looking game coming out and then read "free with IAP."

On the other hand, if a game comes out that you want to play and it costs money, but your reaction is "oh man, I really wish it was free, because it looks like a game I'd like," that's an entitled way of thinking (and unfortunately probably what has gotten us to this point). In what other industry would companies cater to those who want things for free? "Oh you want a Dyson vacuum cleaner instead of a cheap Shark? Here, why don't I give it to you for free." The rest of the world doesn't work like this -- and the App Store only does because of the whales -- not because of the masses trying to get away without spending a penny on any game. If Dyson were able to sell every 1000th vacuum for $1 million, then sure, giving away the other 999 for free could make business sense. But most things don't work this way. (Also, for this analogy to work, the Dysons would likely all have to be turned down to half power unless you swipe your credit card on the side every time you vacuum. Sure, some would be happy with this and just spend more time vacuuming. But then there are those who will spend a lot more by swiping their credit card each time they vacuum than if they had just bought the thing in the first place. But most people who use it instead of scrapping it for a different vacuum are just happy because they didn't have to pay for it, even if it's gimped.)

 

You know, I've been thinking more about this since yesterday, and I'm willing to push even further against the original premise of this piece.

I think the type of freemium exemplified by Clash of Clans is a bubble, and I think that bubble will burst. I've been a gamer a long time, and I've witnessed the rapid ascention and collapse of genres many times.

When Mario made it huge, everyone needed to make cartoon mascot platformers.
When Street Fighter 2 came out, fighting games were everything - Sega bet big and lost that they always would be when they tailored the Saturn to them.
When Tony Hawk's Pro Skater came out, everyone had to make an extreme sports game, slapping whatever license they could find on it.
When Guitar Hero made it big, suddenly all the money was in hardware peripherals, and everyone rushed to come up with a plastic dongle to bundle with their more expensive game. When World of Warcraft was all anyone was playing, suddenly everything had to be a massive online experience.

All of these genres reached saturation, and then the bubble burst. Platform games went down market to kids because developers focused too much on big-name lisences and not enough in clever gameplay. Fighting games withered and died (as a mainstream thing that every company made) with arcades, no longer being a part of the past two major console launches. Tony Hawk can't even make an extreme sports game anymore. The entire rhythm game genre is dead, and with it, every game that relied on plastic controller accessories. World of Warcraft is fading fast, and as much as I personally love ESO, no competing MMOs are picking up ANY steam.

We're sitting here taking it as a given that people will still be playing Clash of Clans, or some version of it, in 10 years. Let's step back a little bit. Clash of Clans is basically FarmVille with gameplay. People stopped playing FarmVille because it was boring, and moved on to slightly more engaging versions like Clash of Clans. What if that's the progression - freemium gaming keeps getting more engaging to maintain an audience, and eventually turns into something we'd consider "real" gaming?

Or what if it plays out like Netflix? What if streaming gaming gets great, and an all-you-can-eat streaming service starts giving people access to all the real games they can play, at a price that is effectively free? What if the fight for exclusives becomes not a war of consoles, but a war of streaming platforms? Would freemium gaming be such a draw then?

I don't know the answers to these. What I do know is, talking about any currently-popular genre of gaming like it's always going to be massive doesn't usually work out too well.

 

Not only that but by then or sooner Apple and every other corporation will have a thought transmission pay transaction technology built into their devices. Just the mere thought of a freemium game or any other app will automatically start the download on your device. And any delusion a person may have of reaching to the top of hacked Game Center leaderboards will immediately access your credit card and purchase all Iap within the game against your will. No refunds would be possible because there was the intent in thought......get ready people

 

Exactly. For me, this thread is not about answering the creator of this topic but trying to address several misconceptions arising from this complex market. Mobile is the perfect storm for a Clash of Trends hehe.

Well said. I wish that would be the case for more developers instead of having games that either generate too little or too much income.

That's a tough call but I think that most of the time, a game with a high perceived value does best at launching at its highest acceptable price point. By doing so, it allows the price to deflate over time and keep re-emerging in the top charts, extending greatly tail revenues.

If you look at Infinity Blade I for instance, 5 different price drops in the first year allowed in to re-enter the top charts every time. After one year, a couple of price drops to 0.99 put it as the top 4th and top 8th game. After 2 years, going free placed it as the top 4th free game (in principle, yes they could have placed ads at this point but it could have hurt their premium brand). It really extended the period over with the game stayed relevant sales wise.

In this case, I don't think that its virality or monetization model would have made it dwell better by launching directly as a free game. But Glue launched a similar game with a different monetization model which was free off-the-bat and I think it did well also so it all depends.

 

I feel weird including the Infinity Blade series in this discussion because, as much as I like the games, they do include IAP. It's not really a competitive game (other than the Leaderboards and those new Clashmobs, but those rely mostly on skill and perseverance -- like if you can give a single battle 10 minutes of your time -- than on how much gold you have), but it still isn't an IAP-free game. So they're depending somewhat on the continued payments from players who stick with them. Obviously their monetization is not as effective as CoC or they'd be up in the top grossing charts as well.

My question is whether a completely free game can do well with just ads and and an IAP to remove ads. No other IAP. I don't mean "can it make as much as CoC" -- I mean, can it be profitable enough to make it worth the developer's time? If the answer is yes, then why isn't this a more common model? And if the answer is no, why is that?

 

A game placed in the top 10 paid will yield 8000-25000 downloads a day. Multiply this by 7$ (less the 30% retained by Apple), you get 40k-122k a day.

A game placed in the top 10 free will yield roughly 100-750k downloads a day. Multiply this by 3 cent per download (a reasonable ads monetization value), you get 3000-22 500$ per day. And you can't deflate your price to extend its life value.

But that's for a high perceived game value. If you have a smaller project but an in-game currency, it is probably safer to expand a bit your monetization system.

For a smaller project with no in-game currency, this can be a good approach but you know, it will still be hard to get a decent return on your time investment. Let's say you're 2 guys working 80 hours a week for 6 months on a relatively small but quite decent project, that's almost 4000 hours. If you want to earn 10$/h, you need 40 000$ in income, or 1.3 million downloads generated....and that's really not a number easily reached.

Would Crossy Road have monetized better with a deeper monetization system? Maybe not. It could have disturbed the experience and disrupted its virality. Monetization is like a carpet, you pull one corner and the other corners move with it.

I don't think that it is possible to have a single monetization system, it's a case-by-case scenario.

 

Ok, maybe I should adjust my question. For a game that keeps you coming back for more. Say it's an arcade high-score type thing, or just something with a lot of content. That means people will be seeing more than one ad -- so it can't just be 3 cents per download. In that situation, the dev makes money as long as they keep the player's interest. If it's a short game or a crappy game, then obviously ads won't work well. Short games and crappy games work best as premium -- although I would argue that the crappy games shouldn't have a place at all.

This would also allow players who don't like the ads to pay to remove them, yet still get all those players who only download free stuff. It means fewer complaints when someone doesn't like a game -- they didn't pay for it, so they didn't lose anything.

I think the biggest obstacle to this (and correct me if I'm wrong) is that the App Store doesn't differentiate between different kinds of IAPs. Hell, you can't even see what IAPs a game has until you either download it or enough people buy some so they show up under the most popular IAP. That, to me, is a very broken part of the App Store. If it were easier to navigate games based on their IAP, I think free trial with full game unlock or ads with remove ads would be a much more viable option, especially for unknown indie devs trying to get noticed. Am I wrong?

 

Without going into details, 3 cents per download is already high and happens for good games with a high retention rate (well unless you spam ads a lot and disrupt the experience). Absolute gems like crossy roads monetize better with ads but as a dev, you can't plan for an absolute gem. You can only try to make a great game and perhaps one day you'll stumble on an absolute gem (think about Rovio for instance).

And yes, crappy games are not even part of this discussion because they usually get no attention and no download at all. 90% of the games just pop under the pile at launch and are never heard of, unless they hit a loophole (which unfortunately happens a lot).

 

The problem with games is that they are a digital good. Most people don't consider digital goods to be worth much ( most games getting pirated same goes for music, software or any other intellectual property). The thing is people don't want to pay for stuff that the majority can get for free (pirated) with no effort. Tough people value they're time a lot. That's why they don't buy a game for 1.-- but they easily seem to pay 4.-- to remove a timer. So it figures why there can never be a fair digital market. People don't treated intellectual property like a real good. If u want to cash in you offer a free game that's so annoying that you want to bypass the grind with cash.

 

You know,some of these games with extreme amount of freemium cannot be considered as games,it would be more fun to stare at a wall and wait for something else in real life than waiting for a shitty energy refill or something like that.

I do agree that SOME freemium games as one person in this thread said have very good freemium models but not perfect.Dead trigger 2,as an instance,you can always grind despite the upgrade timers and it is still fun.

But King's crap and other puzzle shit makes me puke,such games have NO content at all,NO in-depth,nothing that could make me want to come back,it is for weak minded fools who have no idea what true fun is.

Yes I play clash of clans but only because it is the only strategy that I play on ios,some strategy games are meant to have timers.

It is not like energy stuff makes the game bad,it is not like a lot of grinding makes the game bad but if you'll mix everything,you'll get a defecation,a true piece crap that is not worth playing.Extreme freemium is what ruins the games.

It is possible to make a game with a good freemium model aaaaaaand get some good profit from it but scumbags just CANNOT BE ASKED TO DO SO,all they care about is $$$$$.

You know desert bus?Well most of the freemium games play exactly like desert bus,because they were not made with love,they were not made with a purpose to deliver something fun and also profitable but instead they were made to get a lot of profit and NOTHING ELSE,greed is what controlling such developers.

If premium will extinct,freemium will extinct as well eventually because people will realize how boring and stupid these games are,they will realize that the main purpose of the developers of such games is to drain as much money from the players as possible.

 

I remember an article talking about how "free" games were getting a lot of women/girls into gaming. I thought that was probably a good thing. Even if it was games that "core" gamers had no respect for. Ie candy crush, flappy bird, ... Whatever.

All the complaining and fighting between us isn't going to change the industry. All you can do as a gamer is vote with your money. More people are voting free at the moment. Personally, I feel like the product and not the consumer with free games. I don't enjoy the experience, so, I tend to like to pay up front. One day, maybe, more of the newer gamers will feel the same way.

Some games designed to continually suck money from the user are great. Thinking of the old arcades. Street Fighter was designed with that intent and was amazing. Sega's Daytona racing or hard drivin' before that were the pinnacle of their genres. Monetization doesn't necissarily make games bad.

I'd suggest enjoying the massive selection of games that fit your personal interests instead of focusing on how free games are ruining gaming though.

To the point of free games being better on iOS, some have very high production values, most are designed to be much longer experiences than their paid counterparts. It's all a matter of taste as to what you enjoy. I'll take Bastion and Space Miner over clash of clans. I could argue why they're better. I'm not going to change anyone's opinion though and I don't want to.

Enjoy what you do. Have fun with it. Isn't that what games are all about?

 

So basically freemium games you don't like are played by weak minded fools with no idea what true fun is? But the one you happen to like is ok because it's strategy and strategy games are meant to have timers?

When the name calling starts it invalidates any good points you might have because it comes across as you not liking the fact that people enjoy something you don't. What makes you think you have the right to say what passes for "true fun" anyway?

I personally am not a fan of strategy games, which is why I've not tried CoC, I don't think you are a weak minded fool for putting up with timers in that, nor do I think you don't know what true fun is, I just think your someone who likes a different game to me, plenty out there for me to play something else. You have fun playing your game and let others have fun playing theirs.

Ps I texted my mum your weak minded fools who have no idea what fun is, (I mentioned earlier she is having an utter blast with candy crush) her response after she stopped pissing herself laughing, "kids will be kids"

 

Wow Hitmantb you are making a lot of sense. Maybe because I am a father of 3 kids all under 5.