Hacker News Reader

Comment by Irregardless | Hacker News Reader

I'm not sure if this is more of a testament to their corporate strategy or the effectiveness of the freemium model for mobile games.

It's amazing how difficult it is to sell an iOS game for anything more than $1.99. But, if you give them the game for free and let them exchange real money for strategic advantages in-game, they'll fork over a small fortune. Supercell is essentially selling $2.5 million/day in "gems" for only 2 games, gems that people then trade for resources or the ability to do things faster (like building units or structures).

A user named 'Panda' on the Supercell forums claims to have spent over $6,000 on gems in Clash of Clans[1]. Based on the responses regarding how quickly he was able to reach the top of the rankings, it seems to be true. Many other players in the thread report having spent $20-$40 on gems.

[1] http://forum.supercell.net/showthread.php/827-How-much-money...

View on HN

Supercell is one of hundreds of developers on the App Store trying to make freemium mobile games.

They're doing well because they picked a winning business model for their games and then they went on to make great games. Clash of Clans was a breath of fresh air in an environment with tons of clones and uninspired crap. Also, entertainment is a hits driven business where if a product starts winning, it tends to dominate.

Picking a business model is crucial, but not sufficient, to be successful.

What's your thinking on this opinion that Clash of Clans is actually not a game

"Yet I look at these products and I don't see games. I see payment machines, made to look like entertainment."

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-04-13-saturday-soapbo...

Also, both of their games are very polished.

I'm willing to give them some credit for corporate strategy. Keep in mind Zynga is in the same business as they are and they are failing hard. Player count is dropping like a stone and layoffs abound.

The fact that Supercell has been able to succeed with the freemium model while many other mobile developers (both big and small) cannot, speaks to something unique about them.

Zynga was once insanely successful as well, making north of $2.3 million per day with a 47% profit margin: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870351550457614...

And then their profits dropped 95% year-over-year... But that's the nature of mobile gamers and mobile games. The players are extremely fickle, and the games lack the depth and complexity necessary to keep people engaged over long periods of time. People flock from one fad to the next.

So far, I don't think we've seen anything but a bunch of one hit wonders in the mobile gaming industry. Draw Something, Words with Friends, Fruit Ninja, etc. Maybe Supercell will be different, but it doesn't seem likely.

I hope this doesn't offend anyone, but:

A game that lets you top the leaderboards by paying buckets of cash is a game designed around exploiting their players. It's a kind of shallow and unethical game design that's basically the junk food and cigarettes of games. It's fine that it exists, and everyone should have the freedom to partake in it, but I hope no one looks up to it as a model of good game design. Sure, it's a good business model or whatever, but so is selling cigarettes.

While O haven't played their games in particular, it is my experience that this business model (while apparently very profitable) produces horrible games.

The games will try hard to create an addiction, so the player keeps on playing, while making the actual gameplay as boring as possible to make the players buy gems/berries/coins to bypass the actual gameplay.

I have played some games like this, and I noticed how i would keep on playing the same boring parts (with some fun threwn in occasionally to keep m interest up) over and over in the hope of finally getting to the fun part. But it never came. It made me feel exploited and violated.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com