Report: U.S. average daily mobile game time drops over 30% in a year | Hacker News Reader

Report: U.S. average daily mobile game time drops over 30% in a year

gamasutra.com

49 pointsphodo30 comments

Few years ago I remember article specifically saying that rampaging in-game purchases and greed in general will destroy not only mobile games, but gaming industry in general. Looks like the results are finally in. Additionally, article mentioned the rising popularity of watching other people play games. But I'm not sure that's very relevant in mobile gaming industry, because nobody watches people play mobile games anyway. Unless we say that Hearthstone is a mobile game. In general mobile games are such low quality that people don't want to give them time of the day anymore.

This is so true and it is getting ridiculous. I recently tried Mortal Kombat for iOS and I just wanted a fighting game, but instead it was full of 'Kards', 'Koins', 'Kostumes', all of which you could pay for. It actually felt like work, not a game.

"because nobody watches people play mobile games anyway"

I'm one of those nobodies ;-) A quick search on Youtube will show at least half a dozen Clash Of Clan dedicated channels with more than 100k subscribers (ie Galadon, Chief Pat, Molt, Nickatnyte ...)

It's seemingly done quite a lot. I have no interest in that content but have seen tons of YouTube recommendations for it.

why? Seriously why. Like watching paint dry.

It is identical to watching traditional sports (NFL, NBA, football, etc). Why do people watch those?

The commentary is definitely a big part of the appeal. The strategy, the luck, the skill, the occasional swing at the last moments, and the drama (or metadrama).

I cannot say I like watching every game stream, but certainly watching Starcraft II with people like HuskyStarcraft commentating is pretty entertaining.

Each to their own however...

Personally, I don't find watching sports to be very engaging either, but I know I'm not typical in that regard. Theoretically, I can see more of an argument in favor of watching traditional sports since it's harder to go out and find other players of similar skill in your location and then organize everyone into teams, etc, etc. The barrier to participation in video games is much lower though with the internet and automated matchmaking for multiplayer games. Singleplayer and free-to-play games are even easier to get into.

I love playing video games, but I've never had the patience to seek out and watch other people play. I'd much rather be experiencing it for myself - but as you said, to each their own.

Another analogue would be watching people play chess. Many people find it interesting to watch people who are good at what they do.

Games are stories, things to explore, played by people who add their own commentary to it. That's interesting to me. Do you think an adventure movie is boring because you're merely watching a person going on an adventure, rather than doing it yourself?

Other games are competitive and require skill, and the way people play them, the tactics and strategies used, and the commentary, that's also interesting to me. Do you think sports (from a 'sport' like poker, to say football) are boring? Or say coding challenges?

I can get behind the idea that you prefer to play yourself, but can you not imagine (any reasons) that also watching games be played to many is not like watching paint dry, at all?

Interest is subjective.

It's not true. Reasons for the decline are that people are using their mobile devices for other things. Read the article.

https://www.mobcrush.com/ seems related.

Ok seems I was wrong about that part.

Personal anecdote...

I used to play a lot of mobile games, mostly on my iPad. Now it is pretty much limited to checking Clash of Clans in the morning and at night because it strikes the right balance of brain candy vs. time I need to invest per gaming session.

I play a lot of desktop games though still, and I think the big thing for me has been the contrived IAP-focused experiences that have dominated the app store. Finding games that encourage you to continue playing using the carrot (by making the game actually fun) vs. the IAP stick to punish you for playing is a chore.

Steam on the other hand seems to be mostly games that are not P2W, and reviews are quick to point out details of any P2W or IAP-hell mechanics. I'm more than happy to pay full price for those games and definitely get value out of them.

Beyond that, I think I've just reached the "peak gaming" point of my life for now. I realize that every moment I spend playing a game is giving into my vice and helping me unwind vs. being spent building something or being otherwise productive. Sometimes I need that to relax, but as I get older I increasingly become aware of the amount of time I've collectively "wasted" on video games in my life. I put "wasted" in quotes because I've definitely gained a lot of value from it over the years, but it has likewise not produced anything physically tangible to show for it.

Everyone has room for a little entertainment in their life. I don't think it's healthy or even possible to do productive creative work during all your waking hours.

Besides, gaming offers a way to escape from reality, which for some people is essential therapy.

I agree that some release is healthy, but it is hard to avoid mentally tallying all the hours I've spent gaming in my life and wonder what more value I could have created during that time if I had spent it on something productive...

I'm sure I beat myself up over it too much, but it definitely becomes harder to ignore as I get older.

This could potentially be explained by the amount of time non-gamers spend on mobile devices increasing dramatically relative to gamers.

This explanation could make sense: gamers tend to be early adopters of new technologies (including mobile), and then make up a smaller fraction of the total users as technologies become mainstream.

Can someone with access to the data support or reject this explanation?

Really odd that the report (and the article) focuses on average minutes, without going into number of total minutes/total users. Which means the numbers tells us almost nothing without some more context.

If you seek to design for monetization over fun, it's no wonder that you'd wind up with neither and have no players, too.

I wouldn't be surprised to see most games settle on $5 with a big NOIAP being the primary selling point.

The current blight is both an app purchase price and IAP in a pay to win style.

People aren't stupid, and they don't like being used. Give them a fair product at a fair price, and they will line up.

Better yet, use IAP in a manner that benefits customers as well as developers/sellers: make it the new shareware.

I'm much more likely to spend $5 on a game if the first 10 levels or the first episode are free, with an optional IAP to unlock the full game. It's a win-win. I understand that the freemium model works because there's less "friction" involved in the initial download.

If someone is browsing potential time wasters, it's a lot easier to click on the free option than the $5 option. Still, developing and supporting a good game costs money so they need to make it somehow. Too often you end up with a modern version of the arcade cabinet where you need to keep feeding it quarters if you want to continue playing or if you want any meaningful progress.

I would much rather spend money on something I've tested and found to be fun than something unknown but I also refuse to spend money on the blatant pay-to-win stuff or really anything that requires Facebook spamming or endless microtransactions to get anywhere. Free demo with full unlock via IAP or separate purchase is definitely my preferred setup. Doing it in-app is probably best for the people selling the game since, again, it removes the friction of having to go back and download another app in the store. As long as it isn't insulting or blatantly exploitative, I'm fine with it.

If only more mobile games were sold this way I'd buy and play more mobile games.

I havn't heard in a while "hey check out this mobile game". All I hear is about new gaming console games coming out.

The 30% decline mirrors my behavior and certainly that of my friends. Anecdotal I know. Increased time spent watching streaming video, especially "let's play" gaming type videos/eSports.

Blaming in-game-purchasing is a red herring. It's easy and human-nature to blame your pet hate for problems. See Trump and immigrant-blaming.

Many IAPs are designed to prevent you from playing the game unless you pay. It doesn't seem unreasonable to blame that for some reduction in playtime.

Take a game like Alphabears. I'd spend hours playing this, except there are at least three differet cooldown timers that are avoided with cash.

You need "honey" to enter events. You can buy unlimited honey for $4.99 (This is fine, I see this as a demo-mode limitation with a price for the full game.)

But then you use "bears" for each round, and your bears nap after each round. You can wake your bears with coins. Some rounds need coins to enter. You can't buy unlimited coins, you eother let them build up slowly over time or pay cash every time you need some.

It's potentially a great game but the IAPs make it really hard to play more than a couple of events a day.

(I tried to buy the first IAP, unlimited honey, but it failed so I'm not sure how much difference that would make).

Your argument about IAP is true and I also think it's hated too much. It's not a problem in itself. But there are really too many games which focus too much on just increasing IAP instead of delivering gaming content. My interest in playing mobile grows every day. But I see less and less opportunity for it. Hearthstone and maybe Fallout Shelter are the only two examples that are playable in my eyes, and both also try to convince you to spend unreasonable amounts of money on IAP content.

I hope it's a learning process for the development community.

I felt Fallout Shelter was horrible. There's no real skill involved, only time, and spending money just speeds up the game. Alright fair enough if the mechanics are fun, but it's really just looking at a person's bars, identifying what he's good at, and putting him in the right room where he's most productive. You keep some guys at the door for security, put weapons on them... then you wait, and wait. Expand. Wait and wait. Expand. Every now and then you send or recall a person from scavenging. There's no real story, nothing to explore, the game isn't very complex. Combat is a game of tag. I can see why it's popular, but I can't see why it's a good game. And as you say it's riddled with IAPs (although kudos that there's none of the constant popups, share with friends, watch an ad etc crap), despite being supposedly one of the most significant releases this year. Absolutely disappointing.

Yes, there are much better games on the planet. But not on Android, afaik. For a game to be "playable" it doesn't need to be great, right?

Fallout shelter isn't much of a game.

Comments here and on the article mainly point to in app purchasing. It's disgusting to see wonderful creativity turned into such mean-spirited awfulness in the hope of earning more money in the short term.

I hope that Apple (for one) wakes up and realises what this is doing to destroy the overall iOS experience.

Is it because people rather watch netflix than grind through a games mainly built around in-app-purchase mechanics?

"mainly built around in-app-purchase mechanics"

In-app-purchase mechanics is awesome for Amazon delivering stuff to my house, listening to music, watching videos, kickstarter type support. As the root of atari2600 level gaming experiences, it doesn't work well. Once you condition people to sit on the couch and spend small amounts of money online, don't be surprised when they spend it on movies, music, pr0n, amazon stuff, instead of the intended "we wrapped Frogger in an in-app-purchase skin, now give me my entitled billions".

If I'm sitting on my couch in the mood to blow money on worthless stuff, almost anything I can buy provides better return than IAP games. So in a supply and demand sense either games have to get better (good luck) or cheaper (good luck) or they can collapse down to the point the survivors can do better or cheaper. Or games have to find a way to destroy online paid shopping / video / music.

There is another aspect of free hit where a new tech like mobile gaming gets a free hit... for awhile. Now its not new anymore and they (as an industry) can't survive, well, that's why they'll go away.

Nobody is making money off Pixel Dungeon and its forks. Oh well, good luck stopping them. I think they're a lot of fun.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com