Four years since Candy Crush King is still making the same game

<em>Farm Heroes Super Saga</em> hits app stores, but how long can the match-three boom last?

Read the whole story

 

[Haravikk]

The real question is why does this make so much money when games exactly like it have been available to play for free online for decades? Same with Angry Birds, which is just a rip-off of every physics puzzler that came before it, yet is the one that has merchandise and a terrible-looking movie.

 

[Askduds]

"how long can the match-three boom last?"

About -2 years according to their profit figures.

 

[King_DuckZ]

I'm really glad I didn't pass my interview with them, 3 years ago...

 

[Vorador]

They will go the way of Zinga. Relying on constantly rehashing the same formula does not provide results. All of their games rely on the same formula of match three combined with skinner boxes.

Once something appears that take their userbase of Candy Crush away for something newer, they will be finished.

 

[Faustus Scaevola]

Can this horrible trademark troll die already?

 

[caerphoto]

Haravikk[/url]":v1m8n93j]The real question is why does this make so much money when games exactly like it have been available to play for free online for decades? Same with Angry Birds, which is just a rip-off of every physics puzzler that came before it, yet is the one that has merchandise and a terrible-looking movie.

I suspect it's some combination of luck, appealing graphical/audio style, and clever psychological manipulation.

 

[neodorian]

And it's not like excellent mobile games can't be made. Peggle remains a classic, while Monument Valley shows what can be done with modern devices.

Aw, too soon! Peggle was recently remade into another video arcade/IAP treadmill game in its latest incarnation. Thankfully I was able to find the .apk for the original Peggle HD that used to be available (just a regular mobile version of Peggle without the "energy" timers and constant appeals to connect your Facebook) but it made me sadder than I would've expected to see what had been done with the IP.

 

[WhyNotZoidberg]

caerphoto[/url]":3ftwsdaw]

Haravikk[/url]":3ftwsdaw]The real question is why does this make so much money when games exactly like it have been available to play for free online for decades? Same with Angry Birds, which is just a rip-off of every physics puzzler that came before it, yet is the one that has merchandise and a terrible-looking movie.

I suspect it's some combination of luck, appealing graphical/audio style, and clever psychological manipulation.

I would add accessibility.

True games like these have been around for a long time. I remember playing Flash games like these back in the day on PC. Back then I had to be physically with my computer in order to play. On top of that, not everybody had a PC or an internet connection then. Now I can access their games from pretty much anywhere and play them whenever I want. Which then turns into ad revenue for them.

If you were to compare the usage of Candy Crush Saga on Desktop vs. Mobile platforms I am sure the numbers would be in favor of Mobile by a very very large margin.

 

[charleski]

It's IPO back in 2014

This grocer's apostrophe alert was brought to you by the Stannis Baratheon Memorial Trust.

 

[mrseb]

charleski[/url]":3gnx6hfl]

It's IPO back in 2014

This grocer's apostrophe alert was brought to you by the Stannis Baratheon Memorial Trust.

Urgh, thank's.

 

[Carewolf]

Haravikk[/url]":1vh2s6ws]The real question is why does this make so much money when games exactly like it have been available to play for free online for decades? Same with Angry Birds, which is just a rip-off of every physics puzzler that came before it, yet is the one that has merchandise and a terrible-looking movie.

Network effect. It is basically random what comes out ahead, but whatever comes out ahead, will continue to get further ahead because it gets all the media attention and more recommendations for friends. All you need is: To be good enough and to be REALLY lucky (or bribe the right people).

 

[jaziniho]

Saying it's all the same seems a little unjust. What about Paradise Bay, for example?

That seems a fundamentally very different kind of game from King, and looks to have been pretty successful, if not as big a hit as the 'match-three' games.

It's No. 60 on the Android top grossing games list.

Whether it's a *good* game or not is I suppose a different question, but it appears successful?

 

[Futurix]

I think games like Candy Crush must be regulated under gambling laws...

There's no possibility of winning money, of course - but the psychological manipulations (and possible damage) are rather scarily similar.

 

[DriveBy]

Can't we argue this about any long-running genre? How long can Call of Duty games be popular? Or The Witcher? Or any "run around and shot stuff" game?

It might be one company in this instance, but there's no reason the same (tired) genre can't be continually rehashed.

 

[darkxale]

Can't we argue this about any long-running genre? How long can Call of Duty games be popular? Or The Witcher?

Not sure I'd qualify the Witcher. The first was more of a niche game - 2nd and 3rd were the only ones with broader appeal.

 

[AlexisR200X]

One of the main reasons Candy crush saga and pretty much any other King game is addictive despite being pretty much the same is the focus on the psychological aspect of gaming rather than making them fun. They probably have tapped into every little manipulation trick there is to keep people from realizing that its a match 3 game carefully stacked against you so you pay money to "give yourself a bit of an edge". From bright and colorful color palettes to overly celebrating anything you do with special effects and celebratory sounds.

You could literally lose on purpose and the games will still pat you on the back telling you how close you were to winning and that you will surely do better next time. Who doesn't like winning, right? Its an always constant and deliberate amount of sensory stimulus designed to keep you playing and more importantly spending/watching ads. Take a stroll into a casino and compare those games with the flashy slot machines there. The influence of gambling folks in the mobile gaming industry is subtle but pervasive.


Edit: Added "is addictive despite being pretty much the same" at the beginning, somehow I thought I had written it in the first place but didn't

 

[Vincent294]

You know, I would almost like EA if they sued King's worthless asses out of existence. I mean they'd have a better case than King had (though still admittedly a bit bull****), and it would do the gaming industry a service.

 

[Vincent294]

AlexisR200X[/url]"4su007t]One of the main reasons Candy crush saga and pretty much any other King game is the focus on the psychological aspect of gaming rather than making them fun. They probably have tapped into every little manipulation trick there is to keep people from realizing that its a match 3 game carefully stacked against you so you pay money to "give yourself a bit of an edge". From bright and colorful color palettes to overly celebrating anything you do with special effects and celebratory sounds.

You could literally lose on purpose and the games will still pat you on the back telling you how close you were to winning and that you will surely do better next time. Who doesn't like winning, right? Its an always constant and deliberate amount of sensory stimulus designed to keep you playing and more importantly spending/watching ads. Take a stroll into a casino and compare those games with the flashy slot machines there. The influence of gambling folks in the mobile gaming industry is subtle but pervasive.

Someone should make a satirical edutainment game that does that when you save your money. "Congratulations, you didn't throw what little money you have at a douchey corporation! You still haven't done anything good in life, but at least you didn't **** up! : D : D ; D"

 

[Vincent294]

Carewolf[/url]":3v5wcjet]

Haravikk[/url]":3v5wcjet]The real question is why does this make so much money when games exactly like it have been available to play for free online for decades? Same with Angry Birds, which is just a rip-off of every physics puzzler that came before it, yet is the one that has merchandise and a terrible-looking movie.

Network effect. It is basically random what comes out ahead, but whatever comes out ahead, will continue to get further ahead because it gets all the media attention and more recommendations for friends. All you need is: To be good enough and to be REALLY lucky (or bribe the right people).

Once you grab an idiot's attention they don't think about how much money they throw at you. If you gave me a HUD with the amount of money I wasted on those iPod machines as a kid, the total profit margin, and a video of an asshole CEO doing an evil laugh, I never would have been so stupid. It doesn't help that stores put them in the front. I remember the first thing I did when I installed Windows 10 was dismiss an error code and uninstall Candy Crush Saga. Microsoft and WinCo let me down.

 

[reuben.mathew]

money-ranking behemoth[\quote]

Perhaps you mean "money-raking"?

 

[Aelinsaar]

These games represent an entry-point for new gamers, new mobile customers. They also include a fairly steep learning curve in regards to how they jerk you around, unless you're predisposed to be jerked around.

So, how long? I'd say, when pretty much everyone on Earth is a "gamer" in the way they are "TV watchers" or "Readers".

 

[Tom West]

The makers of Angry Birds, Zynga, and Candy Crush all have the same problem. They've essentially won the lottery. Sure, you need to have a well-designed and built game to start with (no denying them that), but after that, you then need the 1 in 10,000 chance that this just happened to be the thing that the consumers focused on to have it become the "it" game of it's time.

If there was a formula that guaranteed winning that lottery, then people would do so every time. But all they can do is buy a ticket by creating a decent game, and the cost of those tickets is greater than the expected return.

So, you have the builders faced with a truth too terrible to accept: They weren't the sole authors (or even the most significant element) of their success.

And in the end, they will lose almost every penny they made in their tremendous success rather than go with the logical path: keep the company small, put a few games out to capitalize on the name recognition while it's still profitable and understand that no matter what you do, your company is in a trajectory that inevitably leads it into the ground.

In other words, they won a lottery, not founded a long-term successful game company.

 

[Vartul]

As a recent law graduate with too much time on his hands, I'd like to give King some free legal advice- STOP SUING GAMES THAT HAVE NOTHING IN COMMON WITH YOUR PISS POOR PACHINKO FART EXCUSE OF A GAME. IT DOES NOT LEAD TO IP DILUTION YOU LUNKHEADS.

 

[Goofball_Jones]

I would play this if they just had it for sale. For like $1.99 to play unlimited times and not have some artificial "limit" on the number of times you play...unless you pay for extra time or whatever. That's how they make their money, I know. But I will never spend a dime on this game. Like I said, give me the option of buying it outright and play forever, or buh bye.

 

[emphy]

and that's what makes Activision's purchase of the company last year all the more confusing.

You missed Overwatch's obvious adaptations of mobile f2p models to PC fee2pay. I rather suspect it's not king's creativity in game creation but its experience in extracting money from its costumer base which interest ActivisionBlizzard.

 

[Aelinsaar]

emphy[/url]":2i2f5go0]

and that's what makes Activision's purchase of the company last year all the more confusing.

You missed Overwatch's obvious adaptations of mobile f2p models to PC fee2pay. I rather suspect it's not king's creativity in game creation but its experience in extracting money from its costumer base which interest ActivisionBlizzard.

Maybe, but those techniques weren't pioneered by King, were they?

 

[robert.walter]

Part of their early success seemed to come from manipulating ad networks with clickjacking and other shady practices.

Maybe 3 years ago, before Apple or others found a way to block it, CC and its ilk were popping up full screen ad spam regardless of ones attempts to avoid it. Either automatically, or upon attempts to dismiss the screen, one found themselves being hijacked to the App Store. (I saw Apple as complicit in this because it went in for much too long and seemed that there was no enforcement due to a vested interest in earning the 30% cut of CCS revenue.)

Later, after ad blocking was introduced, one saw even less of this crap. But a couple of days ago was using Speedtest on a friends phone (I paid to avoid ads on mine before it went to a subscription opt out model) and I nearly had PTSD flashbacks upon seeing the CCS full page ad pop open.

 

[robert.walter]

Tom West[/url]":19oi8v8z]The makers of Angry Birds, Zynga, and Candy Crush all have the same problem. They've essentially won the lottery. Sure, you need to have a well-designed and built game to start with (no denying them that), but after that, you then need the 1 in 10,000 chance that this just happened to be the thing that the consumers focused on to have it become the "it" game of it's time.

If there was a formula that guaranteed winning that lottery, then people would do so every time. But all they can do is buy a ticket by creating a decent game, and the cost of those tickets is greater than the expected return.

So, you have the builders faced with a truth too terrible to accept: They weren't the sole authors (or even the most significant element) of their success.

And in the end, they will lose almost every penny they made in their tremendous success rather than go with the logical path: keep the company small, put a few games out to capitalize on the name recognition while it's still profitable and understand that no matter what you do, your company is in a trajectory that inevitably leads it into the ground.

In other words, they won a lottery, not founded a long-term successful game company.

Before they were sold, or maybe just after being acquired, idk, I seem to remember one of their principals blathering about having a repeatable creative process. (Kinda like M. Night Shalyhan ((so?)) making the claim that he had an endlessly repeatable formula for making blockbuster movies.)

 

[panckage]

Haravikk[/url]":1kc6tzbu]The real question is why does this make so much money when games exactly like it have been available to play for free online for decades?

For me it was a couple things
- hundreds upon hundreds of levels
- forced short play times (u can only lose 3 times a day or something) which caused me to never overplay and get sick of the game

I eventually stopped playing because I got a new phone and there was a hassle hooking it up to my fake facebook account. F' em!

 

[Mitlov]

Faustus Scaevola[/url]":3n8p0cnq]Can this horrible trademark troll die already?

They will never ever ever live down suing The Banner Saga devs over the word "saga" in my mind. Penny Arcade said it best:

 

[Aelinsaar]

Mitlov[/url]":2a0512sz]

Faustus Scaevola[/url]":2a0512sz]Can this horrible trademark troll die already?

They will never ever ever live down suing The Banner Saga devs over the word "saga" in my mind. Penny Arcade said it best:

You know the worst part about word-jail?

The dickwolves.

 

[q5ajzvtd]

Haravikk[/url]":3byr03hn]The real question is why does this make so much money when games exactly like it have been available to play for free online for decades? Same with Angry Birds, which is just a rip-off of every physics puzzler that came before it, yet is the one that has merchandise and a terrible-looking movie.

The "innovation" in Candy Crush over Bejeweled and other old match three games is that they implemented the social network tie-in and deliberately engineered the new games to be addictive. That's why these games make so much money -- they're basically unregulated casino games that give the illusion of benefiting from skill and the reward of random success and status.

 

[Megabeard]

They truly represent the dark side of gaming. However, they appeal to the base desires of an uncultivated humanity, which are timeless aspects of our species. You can understand their success at churning out the same game as you can understand McDonald's success at churning out the same "cartilage & vein" burgers for years- http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18995204

 

[flunk]

Futurix[/url]":2c3h8vfk]I think games like Candy Crush must be regulated under gambling laws...

There's no possibility of winning money, of course - but the psychological manipulations (and possible damage) are rather scarily similar.

I'm still playing the first Candy Crush, I've never beaten it or given them a single dime. I don't think the psychological stuff works on everyone.

 

[dlux]

Aelinsaar[/url]":iuopuq72]You know the worst part about word-jail?

The dickwolves.

I thought it was the grammar nazis who run the place.

 

[rosstex]

I'll stick with Bejeweled 2!

 

[foxyshadis]

Haravikk[/url]":1bkx2okj]The real question is why does this make so much money when games exactly like it have been available to play for free online for decades?

Pretty much what I wonder. How the heck? Polish and occasional updates only goes so far for what really has been done thousands of times, from Newgrounds games to thousands of freemium apps before it.

Haravikk[/url]":1bkx2okj]Same with Angry Birds, which is just a rip-off of every physics puzzler that came before it, yet is the one that has merchandise and a terrible-looking movie.

Now here I vehemently disagree. There's one or maybe two (depending on how you look at it) direct ancestors of Angry Birds, but Angry Birds was more much more polished in every way, from graphics to audio to physics to evolving gameplay to story (as thin as it was) to sequels, that it was instantly obvious how they could capture audiences better than Crush the Castle. Going back further, it's at best an amalgamation of the style and humor of Worms with the gameplay of Crush the Castle, not really a rip-off of either. (And Worms itself is a stylish perfection of the artillery genre that's as old as computing.)

After Angry Birds, there were literally millions of imitators, but you can't honestly count any of those as progenitors. If anything, Angry Birds was the ship that launched a million rip-offs, not Crush the Castle, and I'm amazed that people still beat this drum.

 

[gigaplex]

We saw strongly from the player community that if we don't provide this then they will come up with something themselves, so we might as well provide that experience for them.

So they actively decided to remove player imagination from the mix?

 

[Mitlov]

q5ajzvtd[/url]":9lnsqc2j]

Haravikk[/url]":9lnsqc2j]The real question is why does this make so much money when games exactly like it have been available to play for free online for decades? Same with Angry Birds, which is just a rip-off of every physics puzzler that came before it, yet is the one that has merchandise and a terrible-looking movie.

The "innovation" in Candy Crush over Bejeweled and other old match three games is that they implemented the social network tie-in and deliberately engineered the new games to be addictive. That's why these games make so much money -- they're basically unregulated casino games that give the illusion of benefiting from skill and the reward of random success and status.

Exactly. I'll admit to liking match-three games from time to time, but the Bejeweled franchise are vastly superior games. And I'd rather pay a few bucks up front than play a game where the balance is ruined to give you an incentive to keep pumping in microtransactions.