How Basic UX faults may kill your F2P Revenue

  Don't want to read? Listen here instead.

With the new Minions movie coming out ~10th July, the IP is perhaps more valuable than ever. It
wasn't therfore a huge surprise, when EA teamed up with Illumination to create a F2P title based on same yellow creatures, presented at this years E3 - plus the game has been soft launched in Canada and Australia since late April - so theres that.

Huge IP, extensive soft launch, big studio - everything is lined up for a F2P success right?

The game uses the classic builder with a silly twist via the storyline and a well-known time gate mechanic to drive the retention and monetization, much like its competitors in the top grossing scene; Simpson's Tapped Out, Family Guy, Hay Day, Town ship etc etc.

But here is how faulty UX kicks players out of the engagement zone, and into a repetitive loop of unnecessary input mechanics.

*This is not meant as some bashing-crusade against Minion's Paradise and its design choices - this is rather used as an clear example of how you're UX faults may ultimately have your players leave your game out of frustration - and you might not even know why*

When interacting with a producing structure, the game smoothly zooms in and enables its UI. This is where your minions then produce collectable/ressource X that is then used to exchange for soft currency and basic level and game progression - easy enough - you know this. The zoom in itself is not an issue, the problem occurs after the interaction.

So, I'm done placing some minions at a collection of Bamboo stems, and I want to move on with the next structure to keep my Coconut per Minute up, racking up some tropical ressources before bed and I realise...

...it takes from my side to get away from the Bamboo collecting area. 

Players have to manually zoom out, pinching the screen of the phone, like someone picking up a coin off the floor wearing oven mittens. Not that easy. I zoom out and get the overview of my tropical island, press the needed structure, and we're back to the game zooming in for me. A very non-scientific experiment of several play sessions, I averaging the standard 2-3 minutes per sessions, had me count +100 pinch-to-zoom-out gestures.

For you non-mobile players, it would be like selecting one of your buildings in WarCraft 3, the game zooming all the way in on it, but forcing you to mouse-wheel zoom out, if you wanted to do anything else in the game.

This becomes very tedious, very fast - and it doesn't feel like a casual grind, it very much feels like a unnecessary interaction keeping me from enjoying the gameplay.

Throughout their soft launch, I expect Illumination and EA have gathered around the analytics, looking for reasons that Minion's Paradise is not performing as well as they had hoped - doing the needed meta systems changes, but the metrics causing the problem is probably not there. 

The game has seen one visit to the Top 50 downloads in Canada, and two 1-day visits to the Top 50 Grossing. Obviously User Acquisition kicks in after Global launch and the game will surely make a significant amount of revenue - but it will not make as much as it easily could.

The reason is not found within the conventional metrics. When setting up analytics, looking at metrics for our game, we get valuable information on how players do in the tutorial, the first few sessions after that, and the milestones where players are most likely to be converted into paying players, or at least staying players - and sometimes its the most obvious things that can cause that your game won't be launched another time.

Granted, it can be tough to spot these things, but take a step back, do what seem to be dumb tests sometimes. Make a chart of the amount of inputs from a tester - just count them. It might seem silly, but it all boils down to looking at your basic design and go...

No, I don't think 80% of the player's input 
should be pinch-to-zoom.

Think about what an interaction gives the player. Just for a second. A tap might give you access to a structure or a menu, or deploying an army that will feast on the bodies of your soon-to-be-dead enemies. Think about your input and see if its meaningful - could that mechanic be bypassed and still provide the player with the feeling of control. A pinch-to-zoom, in relations to Minion's Paradise, could easily be replaced by something meaningful. An X in the top corner of the UI, a tap outside the UI.

I cannot say how much the poor input mechanics will hurt EA and Illumination after global launch, but right off the bat, with the current interaction, I predict the game will not see long term revenue like its competitors, Simpson's Tapped Out, Family Guy, Hay Day. Minion's Paradise very intentionally want to see revenue, piggyback riding the launch of the movie, but the take away is that basic UX faults can kill your retention and your revenue.


Focus on Skill in F2P Games

Apple's Editor's choice this week is CastleStorm - Free to Siege, by Zen Studios and it got me thinking about the evolution of the mobile devices we play on today.  the first year on the App Store look vastly different from what we see today.

Naturally you might say, shit evolve, get on with it - and I will. In a minute. 'Cause while the devices we play on, increasingly enable more and more complex games, what should we really focus on when trying to make a game, players actually want to play - want to spend in? As always, I focus on the making of money, and why some more complex games today fail at doing so, because of just that, Complexity.

I would like to focus and discuss game design choices and their effect on the retention and revenue -When wanting to make players spend in your game, hopefully more than once, why should you focus on skill, and not the complexity of the game?

Before I dive in, I want to explain what I mean by the two expressions, Skill and Complexity. 

Skill in this post, is pretty much what you would expect. Mechanical or mental challenges, being it puzzles, button mashing or swipe-for-your-life mechanics.  

Complexity is a bit more tricky. The depth of the game, so to speak. Being it graphically or multiple types of game play, a game can be more or less complex. Vague explanation, but you hopefully get the point.  

Disclaimer: Social Features are not included in this post. Social features has proven to be one of the best retention and revenue factors, why its affect should be not discarded, but this post rather focuses on the actual game play to spawn that potential revenue and retention - I'll be social later. 

Enough excuses! Let me give you a few examples:

Flappy Bird, Subway Surfers, Tiny Wings and Threes are good examples of a F2P experience with very low complexity; the mechanics are fairly limited and the game sticks to one type of game play. Skill is the crucial factor here, and the reason for these games' success. Common for these games is that the mechanics do not change, though some of them introduce another layer, like mission, the player is still afforded to maintain the same type  of play. The game is limited to it. And yeah yeah, I realize Threes is not F2P, but didn't really feel the need to promote the other, and the price of those specific games, won't have an impact on the retention. 

Naturally, it is a balance. While these game have shown to be a more or less successful, a game should have some complexity to engage players that play the game to have an experience an not just display skills. Telling a story and creating ownership is not to be neglected. This is why we see all of Supercell's games high-five'n each other, at the top of the charts. The diversity in the game play, building, defending and attacking is creating a whole experience, but still focusing on the same gameplay just slightly altered. 

Even a game like Candy Crush manages to do this through various success criteria, being it points, nuts, gel, the game forces the player to change tactics and display skills in a different way, adding that needed portion of complexity. Even the recent Owl levels - complexity. If it was merely a match three survival game, I don't believe that game would have seen as much success, being solely focused on skill.

Last, and somewhat least, is the games that presents too much complexity to the player - and CastleStorm - Free to Siege is a great example. The game uses its tutorial to present 3-4 different game modes, and by the time it is done, the player is not completely sure what this game is about. 

I'm playing a Tower Defense, Angry Birds and Golden Axe at the same time, and none of them are very good. Three wrongs definitely don't make a right. There are a rise in the volume of games that does this. These crossbred games that unfortunately wants to do everything at once. I cannot tell if it is the possibilities then devices enable today or just unfortunate game design - but this is probably why the game is floating around in the mid 200s on the top grossing charts in the U.S. and U.K. (Source: AppAnnie)

You cannot simply make a list of top grossing games' best features, and shove them into one game and expect success. Independent of prior titles. Find the intrinsically fun mechanics in your game and focus on skill and simplifying those mechanics. Then you can use the technical possibilities to show the player the complexity of the game, don't ask them to engage in all of it.  

Developers need to keep in mind, the platform and the audience they are creating games for. You need to explorer the premise of which we play mobile games, and focus on that, when the goal is to increase the retention and revenue, especially long-term. 

A very important point to make is that complexity and skill is very bound by time. So don't look at Clash of Clans' level of skill and complexity and go; "If I just make this twice as fast, then I have a game twice as good." No! Wash those dollar signs out of your eyes and sit down - you're missing the point completely. 

The devices we make are increasing exponentially in power, but maybe the games we play don't need to be. So hold off on making that MMO-FPS-JRPG. Just for a little while, or you will be robbin' yourself of a whole lot-a-time and money.