Vainglory vs. Clash Royale, and the future of “hardcore” games on mobile

Video games have caught up with the rest of the common media in terms of publishing for profit. Most TV and movies (not even counting adult films) are completely garbage. They are built around formulas that are known to work so people make money. The indie games movement railed against this, but most of them were on par with art student films quality wise.

That's not to say that they are no good games or TV anymore. But they are few and far between. They take vision, risk, and a bit of money. Also right now they are harder to find. I think if game producers used their names like movie directors it may help. But right now its often just the studio name. Which leads to situations where a studio makes a great game, people learn their name, a publisher injects a lot of cash/people, the core team leaves, and their next game is a bloated mess. If people knew the core team's name, or even just their leader's name, it would help the general populace follow the person to their next project.

> Nintendo's been doing it for decades with their portable devices (Zelda, Mario, Pokemon, Metroid), and it's clearly a successful approach

IMO, part of this is due to low-level technical issues. The DS does a really, really, really good job at letting players choose when and where they play. Games start up instantly, pausing and resuming is seamless. I don't know how much work developers need to do to support suspend/resume, but I've never seen it not work.

In my experience on Android, very few games deal well with getting killed in the background. Yes, this is different than what happens in the DS, but the user experience should be the same. From what I can tell, there is more burden on an Android developer to deliver a seamless resume experience than there is on the DS.

Because of that, you can't trust that your game state will be preserved if you do something as simple as lock your phone while your game is running. If you resume, will your game be where you left off? Who knows. Add on functionality that requires online access, and you end up with a platform where people prefer games that load quicker and where you can finish a session in the time it takes to stand in line, if only for the simple reason that anything more complicated usually ends in frustration.

Blizzard is taking marks from WotC and MTG about devaluing older cards. Catch-up mechanisms would make the game only focus on the newest cards. The playerbase often feels cheated when their existing collection's value decreases and new content is pushed. You find the same feelings with MMO expansions. "My top tier raid gear just got replaced 10 minutes into this new content? Then why did I spend all this time." While this sentiment may be illogical, game design often touches on player psychology.

Also it allows casual players who may take a several month break to return. The top tier decks may change, but a deck that was good a year ago would still be relevant for casual play.

The comparison isn't exactly fair since MTG cards have a dollar value, but HS cards only have a perceived time-sink value. Also the out right refusal to rebalance existing cards does make the game stagnant. But that feeds back to the casual play argument. If cards were completely rebalanced it would be prohibitive to returning players. I would be interested to see numbers on casual v hardcore players. Reddit has a skewed perspective, and it seems like everyone has a full set. But almost none of the people I know irl that play HS have anything close to a T1 deck, yet they still sink 5-10 hours a week into the game.

They aren't rebalancing cards because the game is currently quite well balanced. Constantly making arbitrary changes so that things are different for the sake of being different is exactly what you don't do in a "hardcore" competitive activity.

You don't see the NBA declaring that this week 3 pointers are worth 5 points because casual fans find it "stale" to see the same rules and strategies week after week.

Here's a list of good mobile games off the top of my head. None of these require in-app purchases if they even have them:

You Must Build a Boat, The Executive, Out There, Monument Valley, Hitman GO, Lara Croft GO, DEVICE 6, The Room (and sequels), Prune, Lifeline (this one's great because it would only work in mobile), Threes!

If you're looking for good mobile recommendations, I'd point you at http://toucharcade.com. They do iOS reviews, but a good chunk of the games also release for Android these days.

I picked up a PS Vita and it's fantastic. So far through various sales I've picked up 35 physical and digital games, so, quite the backlog to last a long while. I don't play any games on my phone anymore. I heartily recommend Persona 4 Golden, Superbeat XONIC, Sparkle Unleashed, OlliOlli, Lumines Electric Symphony, and Mortal Kombat (basically the PS3 version with scaled-down graphics).

Spaceteam!

I know it seems hopeless but there really are some great mobile games out there which do not try to trick you or screw you around to get your money.

If you like puzzle games (I assume you do, since you mention Andoku Sudoku), you should check out games by Pyrosphere[0]. Especially look at Lazors[1] and The Weaver[2]. Also fun to play is Hoplite[3] and the training mode in Lichess[4]. All of these games are free, though Hoplite lets you pay to unlock an extended endgame, it isn't necessary at all.

[0] http://pyrosphere.net/

[1] https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=net.pyrosphere...

[2] https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=net.pyrosphere...

[3] https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.magmafortr...

[4] https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.lichess.mo...

No, you are not the only one, and that's why freemium is starting to show real problems in terms of monetization.

The goal of freemium games is to A) keep people playing your game only and B) get them to buy IAP. Problem A is solved by giving them copious amounts of free in-game items/currency...which makes solving Problem B harder as players have less reason to buy. Oops!

Developers have split the difference by offering the players exploding one-time bundles, but usually those bundles are still disproportionately priced.

I actually quite like Boom Beach, and to a lesser extent, Clash. Without having spent a dollar, I've easily spent more time and gotten more enjoyment out of them than Fallout 4, Just Cause 3, and Dragon Age Inquisition, the 3 AAA titles I've bought in the past year. Sure you can pay to get ahead, but the games stand alone well enough for midlevel players without doing so.

I'm not disgusted, but rather more disappointed.

I'm happy that more people are experiencing games, but I'm disappointed that the most visible games in app stores are those that nickle and dime you to death.

There are still games that offer you better value and don't participate in IAP shenanigans, but I'm worried that the number of developers that find success in this business model is very small.

I like games, dislike CoC, but have seen a CoC-style game that does it right.

It's a 2D sidescrolling platform game, with one-button controls; this keeps skill involved. Traps consist of a three-trap set; you can upgrade them for damage (and buy a dev-made "optimal" setup), but you can't grind for 50000 level 1 walls (or level 99 walls, for that matter). Scoring is separate from currency; the gemswhich contribute to your score can be sold for game currency, but never bought. There's a Farmville-style gem mine tmechanic, but unless your traps are perfect, you'll get more from stealing other players' gems.

TL;DR: Clash of Clans is much better when grinding is nerfed.

I feel the same way. The only game I play regularly on my phone is a racing game where I can open it up, race a few laps and shut it does in the span of 5 minutes. I did so last night waiting for my PS3 to update.

If I've got 30 minutes and feel like playing a game I will probably end up walking over to my office and playing JC3 for a bit.

Used to. https://twitter.com/aPapathanasis

i play, usually a game or two a night. osi42 in game.

On your point #2, I disagree that a 20+ minute playtime is perfect for mobile devices. That just seems like too big a time commitment for me if I'm interacting with my phone; perhaps it is different with a tablet, but at that point it just feels like a PC game on your counter. I also don't know which PC games you're playing that require multi-hour commitments, but the only one that comes to mind for me is Civ5. Everything else I play, I play small chunks, and a given "match" requires no more than 30 minutes at the most. I don't play LoL or Starcraft II, but do play SMiTE and Company of Heroes II.