Candy Crush Saga is earning $200m+ a year | Hacker News Reader

Candy Crush Saga is earning $200m+ a year

download-free-games.com

18 pointsjmacd27 comments

This is perhaps the most depressing article I've seen posted on HN in a few months. I have to believe that the vast majority of that $200mm is a function of coercive revenue strategy as illuminated so well here: http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/RaminShokrizade/20130626/1949...

These games prey on those least equipped to understand how their fears/desires are being exploited, and it's a shame to see they are being rewarded so well in doing so.

You mean the same way that fashion and automobile companies prey on those who want cars and clothes to combat their own desires or fears (e.g. lack of self-esteem)?

Shameful.

It's all relative, including everyone's perception of ethics.

This 'game' sounds more like a fruit/slot machine, but much more sophisticated and accessible.

Gambling and addictive drugs are regulated because, ultimately, they rely on a clear failure mode in cognition. Collapse the action-reward feedback loop and you run the risk of losing a productive member of society. It passes from internally negative to a proper externality. Governments are interested in the latter.

No, there isn't a clear categorisation rule to say what's exploitative and what's just people who need to take responsibility for their own actions. That's because the world is fuzzy and isn't made of syllogisms.

Gambling and addictive drugs are regulated because, ultimately, they rely on a clear failure mode in cognition.

This is the official line; it's not the real reason. The real reason has a lot more to do with racism (in the case of drugs), cronyism, pork-barrel politics and protectionism.

You're injecting a parochial view of political history. The path dependency varies from country to country. That there is convergence to me suggests that it's an attractor in the space of policy settings.

Hence the official line comment. Obviously, the issue is a lot more complex than we've described here because it involves so many competing interests and all opinions are shaped by the whims of a vast cultural-political machine.

Have you actually played Candy Crush? It's a well designed game that is a lot of fun to play. At no time do you actually have to pay for anything. People voluntarily pay because they want to keep playing at that moment or because they want to get more levels. Even then it's far cheaper than going to an arcade.

I've spent several hours playing Candy Crush. Interesting enough, it wasn't until I read the coercive monetary strategy document that I recognized that it was actually a cash-game masquerading as a skill game.

And, btw, I have no problem with InApp purchases properly done. Paper by FiftyThree (extra tools), Build-A-Lot (extra levels), and Pioneer Lands (Extra Levels + Extra Game Mechanics + Careful balancing) - are just three examples where this is done really, really well. I have 401 Apps purchased/downloaded, I've spent north of $2K on the AppStore, and I don't begrudge game developers (Indy or otherwise), making $200mm on their games - I just don't like to see them preying on vulnerable emotions to do so, or making money by resetting a "Just need 5 more moves" counter - that's just lame.

I used to play bejeweled, the free online version, quite content in the knowledge that it was effectively a Skinner box. I was seriously in the zone of compulsive behaviour there - could play it for hours. But then they started really optimising the visual and aural feedback mechanisms and heavily pushing the money side with bought boosts and such like. At that point it just became a game of how much money are you prepared to waste. Haven't played since.

I'm assuming candy crush is the latest in this line of game?

Candy Crush takes this to the extreme. There is no long-running purchase options, everything you buy are one-off boosts or (I'm serious here), 5 more turns on your current level. And none of these guarantee that you will actually pass the current level. In fact, you learn quickly that most levels will be deemed "winnable" within the first few moves, whereas the rest are exercises in frustration and randomness.

Candy Crush is the epitome of Pay 2 Win when you remove all scruples from the equation. Candy Crush is a literal slot machine but without the chance of winning anything.

In the exact article linked it is explained that Candy Crush starts as a skill game and then makes a subtle shift to being a money game.

If a casino was changing a game from skill to luck in the middle of play they would be shut down.

Criticisms of these games always include references to casino games, but aren't they more just like arcade games? Most arcade games you have to keep paying to stay alive, also.

As a side note, I'm not sure how seriously one should take an article that is a giant jpeg hosted on download-free-games.com.

Arcade machines never took credit cards. If they had, our parallels would be drawn differently.

Casino games don't take credit cards, either.

Because they're banned from doing so.

How is that any different from the freemium business model? They offer a lot of playing time for free and if you really enjoy the game, then you're willing to pay for more.

so tired of "Infographics" that are just text articles with an excessive number of pictures inserted. Makes for a worse article and never actually uses graphics to represent information.

Now let's have 10 seconds of silence for all the newly computer science graduates that, after reading that article, will try to launch their own games on app stores in the hope of replicating that business model. Only to realize after a while that they're statistically about as likely to succeed as winning at the lottery.

However, like most app games that potential revenue isn't sustainable. Users stop downloading, stop playing, stop paying. Some new app game comes along and users move on.

That's a nice problem to have.

After my company gets our "$200m+ a year", I would think of something else to sell. Or not.

Two other options are selling the company or an IPO.

This is one thing that bothers me about Zynga et al. The entertainment business has always been like this, you can't have a movie run in the theaters for years on end. I don't think why they think a game will work differently if the put enough analytics in it.

You can't have the same movie run for years (well, unless it's Rocky Horror), but you can have the same premise. In the same way you can have the same kind of game (Farmville -> Cityville, etc etc) but with a different setting, look, etc.

Especially considering the game has been available on smartphones for less than a year

Consider pornography: + Huge industry + An illusionary experience which brings joy + Prays on man's desires and drives and the inclination of man to give in to them

Pornography's not (in general) dishonest or manipulative in the same way that games like Candy Crush Saga are; customers know what they're paying for up-front and get it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com