The article paints Angry Birds 2 as a paid app losing out to freemium apps, but when I downloaded it, it was a free app with way too many freemium parts. I deleted it shortly after, as I'm not interested in freemium mobile apps.
Not really, the article quite clearly says "... and its freemium model doesn’t seem to be working great."
At the end the article mentions the game wasn't designed with the current freemium model in mind (since the first iteration was pay-to-install), maybe that threw you off?
The important chart missed is the Grossing rank for Angry Birds 2, which has been hovering at about #50 grossing since launch. It was not going to be a megasuccess like the first Angry Birds, or even a low-tier modern freemium title. (for reference, Fallout Shelter, a game that was highly experimental for Bethesda, is currently at #32 overall Grossing)
It probably doesn't help that there have been more than 5 Angry Birds games already and people are sick of the gameplay. I'll give Rovio credit for trying to diversify from physics based games (Fight, Epic, Stella, Rovio Stars, etc.).
This is very important. I would also argue that Rovio never really achieved the "Freemium ideal" in the way that top grossing games: Clash of Clans, Game of War, and Candy Crush has.
Now are other examples in the reverse, where the game is far too expensive to attract a large userbase.
But Rovio hasn't been able to "toe the line" between an attractive "free-to-wait" game that is fun enough to draw in massive amounts of paying users - like other developers have - _despite_ having a brand marketable enough to make a movie off of.
Angry Birds was the franchise that a) first proved that you could make a media empire from a single app and b) you can sell apps for $0.99 and still get mega-rich.
Relevancy is a relative quality. We don't say that something simply is or is not "relevant." It needs to be relevant in relation to something else. Usually some standard or topic.
Recency and popular culture are common guideposts to which we peg relevancy. If we choose to peg relevancy to 'current pop culture,' then we could say Angry Birds is less relevant today than it used to be in its prime. And we'd probably say that Angry Birds was quite relevant in its prime, being the premiere game in the breakthrough period of mainstream mobile gaming.
If we choose to peg relevancy to an industry standard -- say, 'current best practices in the gaming business' -- then we reach a similar conclusion. Angry Birds was hyperrelevant in its heyday, but less so today.
> Lots of boy bands are popular, but very few are relevant.
Relevant to what? Relevant to their fans? Obviously. Relevant to the economy? Probably, since popular boy bands would have a great deal of influence over a lot of spenders. Relevant to culture? Definitely. A popular anything impacts culture.
Popularity pretty much implies some sort of relevance.
Rovio seemed to be building a content distribution network within their apps (toons.tv). I was somewhat surprised they didn't move further into that direction.
They had the brand and merchandising, just not enough personality to create a Loony Toons-like experience.
I'm not surprised, they have been cranking out the same game over and over again, re-branded and/or adding slightly different abilities without changing the basic game. After playing the Star Wars version for a little while I deleted it because the concept (while initially fun and interesting) had gotten old. They did release something called "Bad Piggies" too which I thought was a fun different game but along the same theme but that didn't seem to take off.
They also tried publishing different games, Amazing Alex for example. The truth is, for such simple things and for this definition of "success" (i.e. being the global hit of the moment) there is no formula.
For a comparison, look at King, what success do they have outside of candy crush? And it's not for the lack of games as they have quite a few.
BoomBeach is the same genre as CoC but it's not a clone - it has quite a few changes in it (maybe an appropriate analogy would be C&C compared to Dune2, or Quake compared to Doom).
Interesting that you mention Star Wars, because it's one of the few franchises that has been able to continually reinvent itself over the years, while raking it in from various video games, comic books, furniture etc.
Angry Birds tried to do the same. A few years ago you couldn't walk past a park or school without seeing a kid in an Angry Birds shirt or carrying one of those goody stuffed pigs. Only problem is that they milked the franchise without letting it evolve, or invest the profits in other opportunities (they tried, but how can you go from mega-hit to fresh start and hit the same lightning rod twice?). Just like that tacky wall-mounted singing fish, Angry Birds had a typical product lifetime, and Rovio should have expected their one trick pony to obey the currents of time.
Except Star Wars is a universe and a huge story, and one which many people connect to. AB is just a dumb game for casuals. I don't think its remotely possible to turn AB into a Star Wars-like franchise. Its amazing to me they've lasted this long or got as big as they got. The casual spending of the lowest common denominator always kinda surprises me.
Who is buying all this stupid swag? Where is it now? I guess its all in landfills after wearing an AB t-shirt or a backpack a few times and getting tired of the novelty. I wish society could have a conversation about novelty and waste. I don't think future generations will judge us kindly.
Meanwhile, I have so much Star Wars stuff in my home, much of it decades old. Comics, old toys in boxes, etc. I think there's a difference between things we value and things that just have a temporary novelty. Sure, I'll die and it'll end up in a landfill also, but it lasted much longer than all the AB t-shirts I saw for sale, pretty much everywhere. Hell, there was an AB vendor outside the Colosseum in Rome a few years ago. This shit is completely out of control.
Angry Birds did not have a heroic epic to hang everything on. Here's its story: pigs steal eggs, then birds get angry and fight back. In the very short period of time that I was paying attention to it, I am not even aware of an effort to name the various birds, much less develop a backstory or personality for them.
Gaming, and particularly mobile gaming, is a hits-based industry. Angry Birds 2 is actually Angry Birds 15. They lasted 6 years, which in the mobile gaming world is a success probably comparable with one show lasting 12 years on television. It was a very good run.
Unfortunately, to achieve real staying power, you have to develop your franchise story, usually across multiple platforms. When people become bored with it, your franchise dies. You have to keep it fresh and at least recognizable in the popular culture for decades, in order to become a permanent fixture. Otherwise, you simply have to make do with the occasional nostalgic revivals.
WoW is a good example of this. It was huge, but so many of us got tired of the expansions and having to do the normal gameplay to get a new character up to a good level. I think they finally redesigned the starting areas, but i think it was a little to late.
For all the intents and purposes, I agree with you re your evaluation of Angry Birds. AB is definitely not on par with Star Wars. Heck, it's not even on equal footing with Super Mario or Pac Man but I am inclined to have a different take on AB merchandise or paraphernalia in general. I think that certain items in that may have collectible qualities and could fetch a good amount of cash some 30 - 50 years down the road from now when they will be sold for future generations who would appreciate the nostalgic appeal of these items derived from this once successful game from late 2000s.
| because it's one of the few franchises that has been able to continually reinvent itself over the years.
There are literally hundreds of such franchises. Just look at this summer's blockbuster lists. And in video games, there are plenty of examples of franchises that have lasted 15+ years (CoD, Madden, etc).
It's just very difficult to know if a franchise will have staying power. Many sequels are tried, only some succeed.
Even so, Angry Birds 2 has a level of polish that makes the original look like some indie side project. If there's such thing as a AAA casual game, this is it.
Which really shows how sad this business is -- a true sequel to a smash hit that goes way beyond the original sells so poorly that it leads to mass layoffs.
It's probably because it was too late for a true sequel to arrive. When the market was ready to receive another Angry Birds they threw 2 or 3 other games that where exactly like the first one. If the second was Angry Birds 2, it would be better received.
Even so, Angry Birds 2 has a level of polish that makes the original look like some indie side project. If there's such thing as a AAA casual game, this is it.
This is absolutely true, but for me it just drives home the message that indie gaming is far more interesting than the latest AAA titles. The sequel is just the same game without any of the originality of the first one, and it was that originality, that joy you get from finding something new and exciting, that made the first game worth playing.
> Angry Birds 2 has a level of polish that makes the original look like some indie side project.
The game's quality isn't the problem. It's the forced in-app purchases (or wait massive amounts of time) they made with this new version that makes it horrible.
They went overkill on the IAP and the reviews reflect that.
It's the exact opposite of what Nintendo does with Mario. Mario is used to brand a wide variety of different games. If Nintendo isn't sure whether a game will be successful, they slap Mario and his friend on it and call it a Mario game. Golf, racing, party games, pinball, platformers, EVERYTHING has had the mario label used to pull in potential audience.
Rovio has done precisely the opposite, and tried to rebrand the same game with different themes, like Star Wars. There's nothing new under the aesthetic changes.
My favorite Rovio spin-off of the Angry Birds franchise was Bad Piggies, sort of an Incredible Machines take on the physics game, where you had to build a contraption to complete the level objectives. So yeah, they certainly tried.
I think they did try that - I loved the Rovio game Retry, which was a tiny plane flying through a Sonic-The-Hedgehog-like world, with a Flappy Bird mechanic and a retro 80s synthpop aesthetic:
Levels were split into checkpoints (ala Sonic), and you could save your place at a checkpoint by either watching a video ad, spending a coin (collected in game or bought with real money), or you could fly on and get a bonus for completing a level without any saved checkpoints. I'm not much of a gamer, but I've apparently spent nearly 15 hours playing Retry (yikes).
I can't find the quote anymore but I remember their CEO, while the company was still very new, saying that they'll never need to move away from Angry Birds and people won't get tired of it because they'll keep releasing new Angry Birds stuff. Or something to that effect.
So I can't say I'm surprised. In fact I would have thought this would have happened a long time ago. They should look into creating some new IP. In my opinion anyway. That way they could become a gaming company instead of an Angry Birds company.
When I saw that The LEGO Movie had not even been nominated for the Academy Award for best animated picture, I immediately stopped the recording of the awards show, and deleted it from my DVR.
The decision to buy the DVD was absolutely effortless.
With respect to the team behind the Angry Birds movie, they're using Sony Pictures. On the one hand, they have a couple Aardman releases and Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs. But on the other, they have The Smurfs.
If game shops operate as movie studios, why don't they simply hire people temporarily. Movie studios cut their staff to marketing, sales, and licensing once their work is completed and released.
Game shop operators have wanted to do that for a long time. The challenge has been that ramping up at a game studio has been a much longer process than ramping up on a movie project. The tools, skills and processes are a lot more consistent between movies than they are between games. It often takes working through a whole game to figure out how to be really effective at a particular studio. In practice, game shops that grow and shrink rapidly have found it to be more expensive than just holding on to the staff. This also has made outsourcing difficult and limited in games.
The situation is changing slowly as the industry converges on a small number of standardized game engines. Knowing Unity or Unreal makes you easy to hire at a lot of places. But, if everyone knows Unity or Unreal, it also makes you easy to replace.
It's also very bad for employees when there are not many other companies around. It works for the movie industry because they have hubs (ie. Hollywood) where you have loads of studios so you can jump between productions without having to move. It's not the same in the games industry.
Even when using Unity and Unreal the ramp up time is still significant since we all use different source control, bug tracking and project management software. We also build large complicated systems on top of the game engine which come with their own terminology and best practises. Then there's the different back end and external APIs and libraries. I agree the situation is better now and getting better.
Already happening. Firms like Compucom and Blindlight specifically handle the outsourcing/temporary hiring of QA and other staff. Some studios like Behavior Interactive exist as consultants/infill for game development. Experience with Unity/Unreal and even Blender are something a lot of creative and technical staffing agencies are hiring for.
The key lesson here is that entertainment companies are closer to gambling than outsiders realize. That is, to turn an entertainment company into a viable long term business you need to diversify and reduce risk of new title launches. That's why we see the large game companies producing sequels as opposed to launching new IP or game concepts.
A mobile company that understands this model is tell tale games.
Well, from a game perspective, Angry Birds 2 is pretty good. It gets rid of a lot of the annoyances in the first series of games. It's much easier to knock down small parts of buildings now.
Well, from a game perspective, Angry Birds 2 is pretty good. It gets rid of a lot of the annoyances in the first series of games. It's much easier to knock down small parts of buildings now.
Brings up an interesting thought exercise. Let's say you do start a small mobile game company and your game blows up into a cultural phenomena like Angry Birds.
And like all of these things, you know that one day in the indeterminate future, that phenomena will fade, much like Angry Birds has.
How do you best handle this? Do you sell early and get out quickly? Do you try to build something larger out of the resources you now have?
I'd be tempted to cash out early and just enjoy the fruits of my success.
The thing that indie devs don't recognize about gaming is that it's a hits business, just like film and music. _Success of your franchise is not an endorsement_. People consume hits and toss them away for the next big thing all the time. The reasons independent game companies make these mistakes is that they conflate the mass appeal of their creation with a personal endorsement and assume anything they do in the future will be well-received. That's rarely the case.
To be a successful player in the hits business, you have to be putting out new, formulaic stuff constantly, aware that some percentage of it will never make back its money, some may break even, and some will make a lot of money. This is what movie studios, record companies, and the successful game conglomerates do. As much as it may get tiresome to see the bi-annual CoD release break records, it matches the expected behavior perfectly.
But I digress. The direct answer to your question is pretty similar to what it always is: don't grow too fast, don't let it go to your head, and diversify. Personally, if I was in that situation, I think selling out to Activision or EA, who already have a functional hits apparatus, would be a path warranting serious consideration. A lot of game developers are eventually forced into that position anyway after they make the erroneous assumptions discussed in this comment and become financially distressed.
What do you mean, indie devs don't recognize this? Maybe some (or many!) of them do, but aren't interested in "putting out new, formulaic stuff constantly".
Some indie devs may be trying to get acquired by Activision or EA, the kind of indies who would grow to have 800 employees, and some may just be trying to do their thing in an environment that allows them to explore different gameplay and/or artistic choices. Not everyone's goal must be necessarily to sell thousands of copies at whatever personal cost.
>What do you mean, indie devs don't recognize this?
I mean hiring hundreds of people because one game became popular is a bad decision. It happens a lot, and the result is almost always layoffs and eventual bankruptcy, when a conglomerate like EA takes the opportunity to snatch them up.
If indie devs want to keep plugging away for personal fulfillment regardless of the popularity, that's great, but don't drag 300+ people into it unless you're going to be serious about making a successful business, which, in games, means churning out a lot of formulaic content.
Absolutely cash out. Internet fame and popularity is fleeting. Building up 800 employees because of one hit is a huge gamble. You could get another hit... but better odds are that you are just throwing money down the drain. Be happy for what you have, monetize the crap out of it, sell it at the peak if possible, and let it go.
It has been one of the criticism that gets brought up about the Blizzard CEO - the fact that he won't invest unless the game is exploitable over long periods of time:
I am at a loss why does one even need hundreds of employees for a company that produces a simple arcade game. I mean, you are not supposed to scale an arcade game, are you?
There are a lot of non-engineering jobs there. You've seen plush angry birds in stores, backpacks with angry birds pictures, etc, haven't you? Someone has to design, market them, negotiate with suppliers/retailers, etc.
I think Notch is one of the few to handle this well. He supports other indie devs that look promising rather than trying to bottle the lightning a second time.
The thing I don't understand about making something larger is that you're ruining the circumstances of your original success. Not say that you were definitely successful because you had a small team, but I don't see any evidence that having a bigger team makes you more likely to produce a hit.
As other have said, I'd cash out and get to working on the next game. Of course, that's all very well for me, Mr. Fictional Founder - my employees might have other opinions.
Depends on what you want in life, personally I'm a big fan of develop enough capital to give yourself infinite 'runway' as an engineer (basically enough of an endowment to provide for your living expenses, your family obligations, and stuff to develop new things.) But that is me, I'd be happy spending my time building and programming gizmos while looking for commercial opportunities for the same. Ultimately its a fairly selfish target since in that model I'm not changing the world for the betterment of mankind and my social impact is limited to people I help along the way. And it has a safety aspect to it which is "make sure me and mine will be ok, then look to improving the rest of the world." but it is actionable and fairly straight forward to define as a target.
So then you have people like Elon Musk who have pretty much everything they could ever want, and they risk it all to start an electric car company. I have a huge amount of respect for his willingness to do that, I don't believe I would be able to. Of course in the 'excess success' category I would be putting that excess capital to work in things.
Stay small enough that you can use those resources to maintain an indefinite runway.
To me a windfall like that means you get to remove poisonous elements from the game development process. Namely marketing and business concerns, which tend to warp game design. For example, you would never introduce an artificial energy mechanic in a game that you made for yourself.
Now you can focus purely on making a great GAME. Everything that goes into it can be in service of making it a better experience. Which I believe also happens to be the best strategy to making a successful game.
Games is a hit driven industry and it is incredibly hard to predict what will become a hit. Incredibly great games can underperform for a variety of reasons. Even a bad release date could really hurt a title.
If one were to attempt to build a larger game company out of a single hit, one would have to create a company that would have a lot of variety of projects and that would be able to weather certain titles bombing. In practice it seems that this is incredibly difficult, as over the years the number of big game studios has steadily shrunk.
You would almost have to copy how YC incubates startups - fund small teams to build prototypes, expand and profit on the hits. The individual teams take on the risk, while you are diversified enough to make money on the big picture.
I'd suggest a Hollywood movie studio model. One parent company that can groom and produce multiple games in different genres. Each game gets its own company with money invested in development and profits over a limited lifetime in sales. No one expects Titanic to make the same amount of revenue in year 2 as the year it gets released. Expect a huge spike in revenue for popular games early on with a long tail of diminishing returns. If you can capitalize on the intellectual property like Disney does you can create a merchandising revenue stream that may last a long time.
I think it requires awareness about how deep the value of your product goes. E.g. I knew the creators of a very popular cable show (Queer Eye for the Straight Guy) and despite surprising overnight mainstream success they were remarkably clear-eyed about how long the phenomenon was likely to last and how to exploit it over that time period. Other shows in related genres like Top Chef or Project Runway were capable of a longer life because their premises inherently support a richer variety of stories. Both kinds of properties can be valuable.
Angry Birds is predicated on a great, clever irony: fuzzy, harmless-looking creatures with facial expressions and behavior of furious vengeance. But it doesn't seem like there's a lot of deeper/substantive places to go with that: a single emotional register is quite limiting for storytelling.
The odd thing is that Rovio's actions are a mix of rapid exploitation (all the brand-sapping tie-ins, not embedding the birds in a bigger 'universe') and enterprise building (huge headcount, freemium model).
It always surprised me that these people treat their mobile game studio as a going concern when this business has all the features of the lottery where you enter repeatedly till you win big and when you do you get the cash and take off with no more time and money spent on buying lottery tickets and "optimizing" your chances to win.
I guess this could be attributable to the gambler mentality where they believe that the fact of past winnings is indicative of more and bigger winnings in the future but I think that AB were rather prudent albeit rather late that they cut their losses and laid off people to buy them some time.
Will they get out before it's too late? This remains to be seen.
Look at it this way - the guys making this decision probably end up with more money than they could possibly hope to spend either way (just stash away a couple dozen $MM).
Might as well take the risk of trying to build an empire?
This is such an assumptive title. Angry Birds is still very popular with children. This is like saying that Mario is no longer relevant because Super Mario Galaxy sold less than New Super Mario Bros. Wii.
It makes me wonder if TechCrunch has a stake in seeing Rovio fail when I read clickbaity headlines like this.
I tried Angry Birds 2 and was super impressed by the production quality and butter smooth graphics.
Too bad the entire gameplay is a 100% miss: You have to wait or pay to retry levels after a while. This goes completely against everything that defines angry birds gameplay, which for me is to instantly re-start the level if I'm not satisfied with the first bird shoot.
Absolutely ruins it.
I'd much rather pay $X upfront for unlimited gameplay. Now it just feels like they're trying to cheat me out of real money every 15 minutes feeding some kind of virtual slot machine. :(
I have a number of friends who play candy crush and before that I had number of friends who play farmville. If you ask them they will say they having fun playing those games.
> I have a number of friends who play candy crush and before that I had number of friends who play farmville. If you ask them they will say they having fun playing those games.
I know several people who smoke. If you ask them, they will say that they enjoy cigars and cigarettes.
I mean, they probably do? Cigarettes and cigars contain nicotine, which is very pleasurable to consume. Now, yes, it also contains a ton of carcinogens and tar, but those don't actually make cigarettes not enjoyable, just not healthy.
Unfortunately the market doesn't support selling a premium game at prices that allow anyone other than a small studio to keep the lights on.
We've been in the game since the beginning so I've seen the transition from selling a game at $4.99, then $2.99, then $0.99, and finally free with IAP. Despite being very successful we didn't enjoy that trend, but instead just adapted to it.
It's purely a response to the mobile consumer's spending habits and their complete unwillingness to psychologically accept the "risk" that the $5 or $2 game they bought might not be as fun as they hoped.
In the early days of the App Store, people solved this problem by publishing two apps, a free "lite" edition and a for-pay "full" edition. Not sure why this isn't used more. Maybe because it's a hassle to migrate data (game progress, saves, etc) between apps, but I thought at least in modern iOS versions, multiple apps can share a common bundle ID prefix.
Part of the problem with that is that nobody wants to pay for the full edition, which goes back to the classic problem with demos of freeloaders who just keep playing the demo.
The solution that Nintendo stumbled on is to limit the number of uses to a demo, after which the demo is no longer playable. Unfortunately, this would require absolute cooperation from the app store, be decried as a terrible practice by many, and be moot on rooted phones.
I've always been happy to pay for the full edition. Unfortunately, most phone games are absolutely terrible. I think that's why the trials fail: it's really, really hard to make a great game. It's the same problem with trying to turn any creative pursuit into a predictable business.
I really think it's more than that for many people. The game Jetpack (Joyride) for instance, offers a paid version. I do not know a single person who purchased it, but I know lots of people who were extremely into the free one. Same with Fruit Ninja, and Peggle.
If nobody wants to pay for the full edition after trying a demo version, I would assume the game is not engaging enough to warrant desire to spend a few dollars on it..?
There's a lot of games out there, and most of them are just cranked out rehashes or predictable and dull.
Conversion on anything trial-like, is going to be very small, and likely worse than even an upfront purchase because you will hit some people who are satiated with a small amount of trial gameplay or people who decide not to buy after playing.
Keep in mind that the best premium apps have lifetime revenues in the low tens of millions, and the best F2P are in the billions.
Do you have a source for those numbers? I'm curious about what % of the top-grossing apps are considered "the best"
i.e. if 1% of apps are making billions but the other 99% are complete flops, it seems ludicrous that anybody would try to enter the market as this stage.
This reminds me of some reading/watching I've done in the past about how video game demos can actually hurt sales in the long run[1] which sounds very similar to what you've stated.
I hear this argument so often that trials hurt sales because people decide not to buy after playing. This is the benefit of the trial to the end user; I can see if I like the game before I put money on the table. Even if the game is stellar, it's not going to be everyone's cup of tea.
The inverse of this is likely just as true, sales are not made due to there being no free trial so someone just doesn't bother with it at all.
This is basically what a number of episodic games do - for example, the Ace Attorney iOS ports and the iOS versions of the assorted Telltale Games series. You can download the app for free and access the first 1/5th or so of the game, and an in-app purchase unlocks the rest of the content.
That's a shame. If I have a trial version and like the game, I'm happy to pay $3 or $5. If it's a comprehensive, open-ended game, I've paid up to $10 (haven't seen anything priced higher).
In my opinion, this whole paradigm shift is partly the result of a lack of trust in customer reviews. If customer reviews could be trusted to be authentic, people could look and see that the game is rated five stars and make their decision based on t trusted to be authentic, a lot of people would make their decision based on a game's rating. Instead, app developers have gamed the system by paying for reviews (e.g., the infamous 2008 case of one developer earning hundreds of thousands in a single month after paying Amazon Mechanical Turk users to download his app and rate it 5 stars, among many others), etc.
The result is an unwillingness from many consumers to risk more than a single dollar for a game. I, for one, used to pay up to $10 for good games (e.g., I've purchased all 3 N.O.V.A. editions for $7.99 or so), but these days I am reluctant to even spend a dollar on an app.
It also has to do with how people value their time. On the PC, I'm willing to do some research before I plop down 60 bucks on a game. On mobile it would be the same amount of work for me to research, but I'm only looking at spending 2-4 dollars. In that scenario just going with the free option and deleting it if I don't like it makes more sense.
Ugh. Greedy idiots are ruining mobile gaming. There are virtually no good games anymore as they all are designed to require in app purchases, they are not designed to be great games, just to con stupid people out of money. Gaming on mobile is dead because of this, yet continues to make money due to such scams.
so you're deliberately feeding the parents fruitless casino games that manipulate children into becoming psychologically addicted, just to keep them occupied selecting from that pile of trash what is acceptable and what is not, right ?
One hit like Angry Birds and you can keep the lights on virtually forever. Assuming you don't get so greedy in the first place and immediately bloat the company.
The few fun games I've found, games like 80 Days, and a few others I can't think of right now I luckily stumbled across thankfully. It's a mixture of an absolutely terrible Appstore and all these IAP games on the top lists that makes them so hard to track down. I'd love it if Steam became an app store for mobile devices.
Angry Birds 2 felt like the exact same game to me with new birds and scenery maybe. I couldn't figure out how they could pull this IAP nonsense - especially when so many other versions of their games are out there for free, most of which I haven't finished 10%.
If I feel the need to sling a bird, I'm sure there are plenty of levels I haven't tried yet that I can still play for free in other versions.
I couldn't wrap my brain around what their strategy might be for this new game.
I too would prefer that, but games like that just don't sell. Selling mobile games are hard enough in the first place (unless you can get into the top 10) because you are forced to sell at 0.99, which barely covers your expenses, but you also have to fight all the free games out there (only so much attention is available).
Essentially this is the only way to have a shot at making money in the mobile games market.
My 5yo son still plays some of the Angry Birds games on iPad (we have them all) and I was impressed with the production values of Angry Birds 2. 800 employees and offices in 9 countries sounds like a lot though, hopefully slimming down and releasing some new games will keep them going.
Movie - remains to be seen, but I've watched countless AB cartoons with my son and I'm not sure there is enough depth/meat in the characters, they don't really have personalities or even names you remember. Rovio has ambitions to be the next Disney but you really need memorable/interesting characters for that.
We need Uber for software developers. The gaming industry is looking more and more like the movie industry. Long term contracts no longer make sense. The industry needs to adapt.
Ummm what? Part of the whole point of making companies is because individuals can't risk going bankrupt to make a game, while a corporation that takes investments from people who understand that they may lose money on the deal shifts the risk to those more able to take that risk on.
Uber works because the number of cab fares is large enough that over non-tiny durations the risk averages out and makes the situation tenable for the drivers. When you deal with programmers.
Or were you thinking of something like freelancing sites like rentacoder? The internet means that those basically provide work to people with spare time or in developing countries, not first-world countries.
Maybe using the Uber analogy was a mistake. I used the analogy because I wasn't exactly thinking exactly about rentacoder kind of place, I was referring to something more curated, where work is somewhat commoditized.
But I was also thinking of the relationships that actors and crew have with movies, or private contractors with projects. In my view, which admittedly is not that well informed, hiring and firing people à la Rovio or Zynga, based on market trends is a very inefficient way to manage your workfoce. If Rovio stumbles upon another hit, they will probably need all those workers back.
I never understood the appeal of the original game; it was just not interesting for me to fire birds to destroy ever more elaborate pigs' structures. I found Tiny Wings to be a much more pleasant game about birds: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiny_Wings
Maybe I am just less angry than most people? It would be nice to not lose touch with the other people if I hope to make something with mass appeal some day.
When the first game came out, it was written in Lua and they had embedded a runtime in the iOS application - interesting that Apple at first forbade that practice, to the point of scanning libraries for interpreters. It then became the #1 iOS game - goes to show, allowing companies to bring their own language to the platform allows for unexpected successes.
Hopefully Apple learned from that lesson.
All the same, 800 employees for a game seems excessive, but then we have 5000 employees at Facebook for a website..
That might be the greatest understatement I've seen for a while.
It's technically true but it really doesn't paint any kind of picture.
Facebook is a website in the same way that the Library of Congress is a 'place that stores stuff'.
I'm not a huge fan of Facebook as a company but I admire the engineering talent that goes into dealing with 1.5 billion active monthly users, the incredible problems of adding even tiny features at that kind of scale.
130 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 210 ms ] threadAt the end the article mentions the game wasn't designed with the current freemium model in mind (since the first iteration was pay-to-install), maybe that threw you off?
It probably doesn't help that there have been more than 5 Angry Birds games already and people are sick of the gameplay. I'll give Rovio credit for trying to diversify from physics based games (Fight, Epic, Stella, Rovio Stars, etc.).
Now are other examples in the reverse, where the game is far too expensive to attract a large userbase.
But Rovio hasn't been able to "toe the line" between an attractive "free-to-wait" game that is fun enough to draw in massive amounts of paying users - like other developers have - _despite_ having a brand marketable enough to make a movie off of.
Incidentally, b) is no longer the case.
Relevancy is a relative quality. We don't say that something simply is or is not "relevant." It needs to be relevant in relation to something else. Usually some standard or topic.
Recency and popular culture are common guideposts to which we peg relevancy. If we choose to peg relevancy to 'current pop culture,' then we could say Angry Birds is less relevant today than it used to be in its prime. And we'd probably say that Angry Birds was quite relevant in its prime, being the premiere game in the breakthrough period of mainstream mobile gaming.
If we choose to peg relevancy to an industry standard -- say, 'current best practices in the gaming business' -- then we reach a similar conclusion. Angry Birds was hyperrelevant in its heyday, but less so today.
I’m not saying that Angry Birds is or isn’t relevant, but there is a distinction between the two ideas that is fairly easy to observe in the wild.
Relevant to what? Relevant to their fans? Obviously. Relevant to the economy? Probably, since popular boy bands would have a great deal of influence over a lot of spenders. Relevant to culture? Definitely. A popular anything impacts culture.
Popularity pretty much implies some sort of relevance.
For a comparison, look at King, what success do they have outside of candy crush? And it's not for the lack of games as they have quite a few.
Maybe it isn't all just luck.
And I may be being unfair not having played their games, but they follow the same mechanic, just being different themed, right?
It is too early to be sure, but I'd bet they're still riding their particular wave.
Angry Birds tried to do the same. A few years ago you couldn't walk past a park or school without seeing a kid in an Angry Birds shirt or carrying one of those goody stuffed pigs. Only problem is that they milked the franchise without letting it evolve, or invest the profits in other opportunities (they tried, but how can you go from mega-hit to fresh start and hit the same lightning rod twice?). Just like that tacky wall-mounted singing fish, Angry Birds had a typical product lifetime, and Rovio should have expected their one trick pony to obey the currents of time.
Who is buying all this stupid swag? Where is it now? I guess its all in landfills after wearing an AB t-shirt or a backpack a few times and getting tired of the novelty. I wish society could have a conversation about novelty and waste. I don't think future generations will judge us kindly.
Meanwhile, I have so much Star Wars stuff in my home, much of it decades old. Comics, old toys in boxes, etc. I think there's a difference between things we value and things that just have a temporary novelty. Sure, I'll die and it'll end up in a landfill also, but it lasted much longer than all the AB t-shirts I saw for sale, pretty much everywhere. Hell, there was an AB vendor outside the Colosseum in Rome a few years ago. This shit is completely out of control.
Gaming, and particularly mobile gaming, is a hits-based industry. Angry Birds 2 is actually Angry Birds 15. They lasted 6 years, which in the mobile gaming world is a success probably comparable with one show lasting 12 years on television. It was a very good run.
Unfortunately, to achieve real staying power, you have to develop your franchise story, usually across multiple platforms. When people become bored with it, your franchise dies. You have to keep it fresh and at least recognizable in the popular culture for decades, in order to become a permanent fixture. Otherwise, you simply have to make do with the occasional nostalgic revivals.
There are literally hundreds of such franchises. Just look at this summer's blockbuster lists. And in video games, there are plenty of examples of franchises that have lasted 15+ years (CoD, Madden, etc).
It's just very difficult to know if a franchise will have staying power. Many sequels are tried, only some succeed.
Which really shows how sad this business is -- a true sequel to a smash hit that goes way beyond the original sells so poorly that it leads to mass layoffs.
This is absolutely true, but for me it just drives home the message that indie gaming is far more interesting than the latest AAA titles. The sequel is just the same game without any of the originality of the first one, and it was that originality, that joy you get from finding something new and exciting, that made the first game worth playing.
The game's quality isn't the problem. It's the forced in-app purchases (or wait massive amounts of time) they made with this new version that makes it horrible.
They went overkill on the IAP and the reviews reflect that.
Rovio has done precisely the opposite, and tried to rebrand the same game with different themes, like Star Wars. There's nothing new under the aesthetic changes.
The press release (http://rovio.fi/en/news/press-releases/696/rovio-sharpens-fo...) explicitly says it's a cash flow issue.
A few of the more recent physics games had strong freemium mechanics, like Angry Birds Transformers (https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/angry-birds-transformers/id8...) as well.
http://www.rovio.com/en/our-work/games/view/71/retry
Levels were split into checkpoints (ala Sonic), and you could save your place at a checkpoint by either watching a video ad, spending a coin (collected in game or bought with real money), or you could fly on and get a bonus for completing a level without any saved checkpoints. I'm not much of a gamer, but I've apparently spent nearly 15 hours playing Retry (yikes).
So I can't say I'm surprised. In fact I would have thought this would have happened a long time ago. They should look into creating some new IP. In my opinion anyway. That way they could become a gaming company instead of an Angry Birds company.
Dear god why?
The decision to buy the DVD was absolutely effortless.
With respect to the team behind the Angry Birds movie, they're using Sony Pictures. On the one hand, they have a couple Aardman releases and Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs. But on the other, they have The Smurfs.
The situation is changing slowly as the industry converges on a small number of standardized game engines. Knowing Unity or Unreal makes you easy to hire at a lot of places. But, if everyone knows Unity or Unreal, it also makes you easy to replace.
A mobile company that understands this model is tell tale games.
And like all of these things, you know that one day in the indeterminate future, that phenomena will fade, much like Angry Birds has.
How do you best handle this? Do you sell early and get out quickly? Do you try to build something larger out of the resources you now have?
I'd be tempted to cash out early and just enjoy the fruits of my success.
To be a successful player in the hits business, you have to be putting out new, formulaic stuff constantly, aware that some percentage of it will never make back its money, some may break even, and some will make a lot of money. This is what movie studios, record companies, and the successful game conglomerates do. As much as it may get tiresome to see the bi-annual CoD release break records, it matches the expected behavior perfectly.
But I digress. The direct answer to your question is pretty similar to what it always is: don't grow too fast, don't let it go to your head, and diversify. Personally, if I was in that situation, I think selling out to Activision or EA, who already have a functional hits apparatus, would be a path warranting serious consideration. A lot of game developers are eventually forced into that position anyway after they make the erroneous assumptions discussed in this comment and become financially distressed.
Some indie devs may be trying to get acquired by Activision or EA, the kind of indies who would grow to have 800 employees, and some may just be trying to do their thing in an environment that allows them to explore different gameplay and/or artistic choices. Not everyone's goal must be necessarily to sell thousands of copies at whatever personal cost.
I mean hiring hundreds of people because one game became popular is a bad decision. It happens a lot, and the result is almost always layoffs and eventual bankruptcy, when a conglomerate like EA takes the opportunity to snatch them up.
If indie devs want to keep plugging away for personal fulfillment regardless of the popularity, that's great, but don't drag 300+ people into it unless you're going to be serious about making a successful business, which, in games, means churning out a lot of formulaic content.
... or you do what Rovio did and try to branch out beyond games and build a larger brand out of it.
That's probably easier than trying to find the next hit (see how that went for Zynga or how its currently going for King)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Kotick#Gaming_controver...
However when looking at Rovio and Angry Birds right now, it looks like a really sound strategy.
One is an insanely complicated 3-d cad physics rendering simulator.
The other, the one with 20x the number of employees, is 2-d sprite based bowling with gravity.
As other have said, I'd cash out and get to working on the next game. Of course, that's all very well for me, Mr. Fictional Founder - my employees might have other opinions.
So then you have people like Elon Musk who have pretty much everything they could ever want, and they risk it all to start an electric car company. I have a huge amount of respect for his willingness to do that, I don't believe I would be able to. Of course in the 'excess success' category I would be putting that excess capital to work in things.
To me a windfall like that means you get to remove poisonous elements from the game development process. Namely marketing and business concerns, which tend to warp game design. For example, you would never introduce an artificial energy mechanic in a game that you made for yourself.
Now you can focus purely on making a great GAME. Everything that goes into it can be in service of making it a better experience. Which I believe also happens to be the best strategy to making a successful game.
If one were to attempt to build a larger game company out of a single hit, one would have to create a company that would have a lot of variety of projects and that would be able to weather certain titles bombing. In practice it seems that this is incredibly difficult, as over the years the number of big game studios has steadily shrunk.
Angry Birds is predicated on a great, clever irony: fuzzy, harmless-looking creatures with facial expressions and behavior of furious vengeance. But it doesn't seem like there's a lot of deeper/substantive places to go with that: a single emotional register is quite limiting for storytelling.
The odd thing is that Rovio's actions are a mix of rapid exploitation (all the brand-sapping tie-ins, not embedding the birds in a bigger 'universe') and enterprise building (huge headcount, freemium model).
I guess this could be attributable to the gambler mentality where they believe that the fact of past winnings is indicative of more and bigger winnings in the future but I think that AB were rather prudent albeit rather late that they cut their losses and laid off people to buy them some time.
Will they get out before it's too late? This remains to be seen.
Might as well take the risk of trying to build an empire?
It makes me wonder if TechCrunch has a stake in seeing Rovio fail when I read clickbaity headlines like this.
Too bad the entire gameplay is a 100% miss: You have to wait or pay to retry levels after a while. This goes completely against everything that defines angry birds gameplay, which for me is to instantly re-start the level if I'm not satisfied with the first bird shoot.
Absolutely ruins it.
I'd much rather pay $X upfront for unlimited gameplay. Now it just feels like they're trying to cheat me out of real money every 15 minutes feeding some kind of virtual slot machine. :(
After all, this is how the app stores started. Nobody would have switched to Freemium if Gamers preferred the Paid Games.
I know several people who smoke. If you ask them, they will say that they enjoy cigars and cigarettes.
We've been in the game since the beginning so I've seen the transition from selling a game at $4.99, then $2.99, then $0.99, and finally free with IAP. Despite being very successful we didn't enjoy that trend, but instead just adapted to it.
It's purely a response to the mobile consumer's spending habits and their complete unwillingness to psychologically accept the "risk" that the $5 or $2 game they bought might not be as fun as they hoped.
The solution that Nintendo stumbled on is to limit the number of uses to a demo, after which the demo is no longer playable. Unfortunately, this would require absolute cooperation from the app store, be decried as a terrible practice by many, and be moot on rooted phones.
There's a lot of games out there, and most of them are just cranked out rehashes or predictable and dull.
The problem with strategy is that your whales only pay once, even if they would be happy by paying thousands of times.
Keep in mind that the best premium apps have lifetime revenues in the low tens of millions, and the best F2P are in the billions.
i.e. if 1% of apps are making billions but the other 99% are complete flops, it seems ludicrous that anybody would try to enter the market as this stage.
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=us6OPbYtKBM
The inverse of this is likely just as true, sales are not made due to there being no free trial so someone just doesn't bother with it at all.
In the race to the bottom, everyone loses.
The result is an unwillingness from many consumers to risk more than a single dollar for a game. I, for one, used to pay up to $10 for good games (e.g., I've purchased all 3 N.O.V.A. editions for $7.99 or so), but these days I am reluctant to even spend a dollar on an app.
It's up to adults to contribute purposeful conscious decisions.
If I feel the need to sling a bird, I'm sure there are plenty of levels I haven't tried yet that I can still play for free in other versions.
I couldn't wrap my brain around what their strategy might be for this new game.
Essentially this is the only way to have a shot at making money in the mobile games market.
Movie - remains to be seen, but I've watched countless AB cartoons with my son and I'm not sure there is enough depth/meat in the characters, they don't really have personalities or even names you remember. Rovio has ambitions to be the next Disney but you really need memorable/interesting characters for that.
Uber works because the number of cab fares is large enough that over non-tiny durations the risk averages out and makes the situation tenable for the drivers. When you deal with programmers.
Or were you thinking of something like freelancing sites like rentacoder? The internet means that those basically provide work to people with spare time or in developing countries, not first-world countries.
But I was also thinking of the relationships that actors and crew have with movies, or private contractors with projects. In my view, which admittedly is not that well informed, hiring and firing people à la Rovio or Zynga, based on market trends is a very inefficient way to manage your workfoce. If Rovio stumbles upon another hit, they will probably need all those workers back.
Hiring contractors instead of employees isn't that uncommon, and now we're even seeing the startup studio become more popular as a business model.
Maybe I am just less angry than most people? It would be nice to not lose touch with the other people if I hope to make something with mass appeal some day.
Hopefully Apple learned from that lesson.
All the same, 800 employees for a game seems excessive, but then we have 5000 employees at Facebook for a website..
That might be the greatest understatement I've seen for a while.
It's technically true but it really doesn't paint any kind of picture.
Facebook is a website in the same way that the Library of Congress is a 'place that stores stuff'.
I'm not a huge fan of Facebook as a company but I admire the engineering talent that goes into dealing with 1.5 billion active monthly users, the incredible problems of adding even tiny features at that kind of scale.
Maybe we reached peak Angry Birds...