Fatality and The Avengers

Freemium mobile developers rigorously study the success of games like Summoners War, Hay
Day, and Clash of Clans. In an intriguing analysis, Dimitar Draganov (of Flaregames) compared
the design of Supercells successful Clash of Clans and Boom Beach. On the other hand, these
authors overlook what unsuccessful mobile games can tell us. Rigorous analysis of failures can
give us as much, if not more, insight into success.
As the freemium market matures, and new firms enter the market, genres traditionally
untouched are indoctrinated into the model. The most recent example of this has been Kablams
Marvel: Conquest of Campions (CoC) which currently sits as the 7th top grossing game in the
Play Store. Interestingly, Warner Bro.s Mortal Combat X (MCX), launched 1 year prior, has
failed to enjoy anywhere near the same success. Despite both games being (1) fighting games,
(2) based on major franchises (3) and having a similar download figures (10 Million), one has
succeeded while the other has relatively languished. What explains the vast disparity and what
can we learn from it? I argue this disparity is largely driven by differences in (1) the core
gameplay loop and (2) monetization.
The Genre
Whereas, mobile strategy games like tower defense and base builders have been around since
the launch of Fieldrunners in 2008, its hard to point to a breakout mobile fighting game. Its
important here to understand the unique nature of the fighting genre. Even within gaming
communities, fighting games are a niche audience composing only 6% of overall video game
sales in 2014.1 The entire genre is largely driven by four franchises: Mortal Combat, Tekken,
Street Fighter, and less so, Soul Caliber. While it can be hard to get accurate numbers, no other
fighting franchise comes near 10 million lifetime unit sales. 2

Lifetime Franchise Sales

Tekken

45.6 Million Units

Mortal
Kombat

37 Million Units

Street
Fighter

Soul
Caliber

36 Million Units
13.83 Million

As an aside, the 10 million download figures for both MCX (which is not counted in the above
graph) and CoC underscore the power of the freemium model. Every franchise listed took over
a decade to rack up these figures, on mobile it took less than a year.

1
2

http://www.theesa.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/ESA-Essential-Facts-2015.pdf
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_video_game_franchises

The intensive following of the audience transferred over to e-sports where the Evolution
Championship Series has been the Super Bowl of the genre. Last year, the prize pooled totaled
over $300,000 (largely driven by
game companies) and streaming
topped 2 million viewers. Watching a
competitive match is completely
unlike anything the median player
can perform and underscores what
drives the fan base: depth. Reading
the moves list in fighting games rivals
the joy of a leisurely stroll through
Madam Websters Dictionary. On the
other hand, its a rush of euphoria to
string 30 moves in a row, achieving a
sense of flow. This presents a tickly
On the flip side Soul Caliber was spared a movie adaptation.

challenge to mobile game developers, and

helps explain why the genre was

untouched for so long.

How do you balance the depth of a fighting game with the limitations of mobile?
Leveraging Constraints
Freemium games have made significant progress in first time user experience (FTUE), a crucial
component in a space where the next game is just a couple taps away. Moreover, FTUE is
particularly amplified in the unexplored freemium fighting game genre.
MCX drops you straight into the action, no interaction with menus required. In addition, the initial
fight features franchise characters, Subzero and Scorpion. It shows off the basic gameplay
loop, along with some touch specific features like swiping to do a special attack. The initial fight
finishes with a franchise classic, the fatality move. Even better is the short length of the tutorial about 45 seconds to a minute.
Interestingly, CoC follows this design to a tee, but theres a crucial difference. After the first fight,
CoC introduces the game board, but then drops players into another tutorial fight. This second
fight is where so much of the title differentiation is found. After introducing players to the block,
soft hit, hard hit, and special attack, CoC introduces two new mechanics: the dodge and swipe.
These seemingly small mechanics represent gulfs in design.
Kablam succeeded in adapting depth to CoC by adding those elements: the dodge and swipe.
Not only do they add depth, but they solved the sluggish movement problem that will plagued
early App Store games adaptations. Thats not all, however. In addition, they introduce timing
mechanics to the heavy attack, that, if done properly, can dish out major damage. CoC proudly
displays my combo streak, and by mixing blocks, swipe attacks, dodges as well as special, soft,
and hard attacks I can extend it. The initial fights are incredibly easy, but the difficulty scales as
the game progresses. Its unfortunate that the difficulty never scales as much as it should.
Mobile game developers have been too afraid to challenge players premised on the fear that

challenge = churn, but research shows the relationship is far more intricate.3
Unlike CoC, MCX forgoes combos and simplifies combat. The simplification is so extreme
players are left with a bare minimum: attack, block and special move. The ability to swap in
additional fighters from your team (its 3v3) is a fascinating way to add depth, but forgoing the
combo system disincentives higher level play. Its a crucial misstep that makes advancement
primarily based on RPG elements obtained through grinding levels. The grind, however, is a
tapping chore and the rewards are not instep with the required chore. This simplicity prevents
players from achieving flow, an enormous flaw.
On the other hand, engaging game design is a necessary, but not sufficient condition in
monetization. While the gameplay loop might explain the difference in download success (rate
of downloads faster for CoC), it down not entirely explain the difference in top gross rankings.
When design meets economics..or doesnt?
Both games leave significant money on the table. I believe this comes from a fundamental
misunderstanding of game developers. The people who are great at monetizing your game are
not the MBAs, or even the data scientists its the game designers. The most effective
monetization strategies have come from ones embedded in the play of the game itself.
Consider the builder element in Clash of Clans: early into play, gamers find themselves with an
excess of gold and elixir with which to build structures. The building of structures, however, is
bottlenecked by the amount of builders they have, a mere two. The only way to smooth this
consumption curve is to use gems to purchase builders. The first builder is very cheap ($5), but
the marginal builder costs more. Dimitar refers to this as a high conversion item [citation]: a
proposition with such value that youd be silly not to purchase it. There are two other powerful
effects of high conversation items besides driving purchases. The first is that it induces an
endowment effect early in play. This is largely a result from behavioral economics, arguing
people place significant sentimental value on ownership.4 Incentivizing early purchases raises
the cost of moving to another game, a play on loss aversion and the sunk cost fallacy.5 Another
advantage of high conversation items is from an analytics perspective, but only if theyre
investment goods. To make a purchase such as the builder in Clash of Clans, the player must
effectively evaluate their time horizon. Why is it that people attend college in their 20s rather
then say their 30s or 40s? A possible explanation is the returns to scale from education are
greater earlier in life. The earnings from a bachelor degree now span from say 22 to 60, rather
then 30 to 60, with compounding interest. An early builder purchase signals a long time horizon
for that player, as the gains from a builder will compound over time. F2P specific research
supports the notion of players as rational planners, something overlooked in trying to capitalize
on impulse.6 Being able to identify high engagement users early on is a major advantage. To
create these items monetization and design must work in concert and its not clear in MCX or
3

Thomas Debeauvais, Christina V Lopes (2015). Gate me in you can: The Impact of Gating Mechanics
on Retnetion and Revenues in Jelly Splash.
4
Daniel Kahneman, Jack L. Knetsch and Richard H. Thaler (1990). "Experimental Tests of the
Endowment Effect and the Coase Theorem". Journal of Political Economy 98 (6): 13251348.
5
He, Xin and Mittal, Vikas, The Effect of Decision Risk and Project Stage on Escalation of Commitment
(March 1, 2007). ScienceDirect, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 103 (2007)
225237.
6

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2014-04-01-free-to-play-whales-more-rational-thanassumed

CoC they do so.

So what does CoC do right?
CoC designers spent a great deal of time differentiating characters, Wolverine has different
animations, movement speed, class type and special attacks from, say, Hulk. Character unlock
is a significant carrot of the fighting genre, any increase in the specialness of characters raises
the future expected benefit of obtaining them (where were the fatality moves for MCX?). Kablam
features characters on the login screen, a reminder of what players are fighting for literally.

CoC pushes a starter pack, but its mostly filled with consumables rather than high value items.
On the other hand, CoC features rotating deals ensuing players theyre getting their moneys
worth. Static, rather than dynamic pricing, is incredibly important for revenue as the parable of
J.C. Penny would remind us. 7 While we cant see the composition of sales, Id be willing to bet
daily specials constitute a significant portion of sales.
CoC, unfortunately, requires a great deal of scrolling to see all price points and packages. MCX
avoids this and displays all packages, but does so at such an extreme, price points and
packages are hard to see on smaller screens. They also miss out on deals, and stick to static
pricing.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/panosmourdoukoutas/2013/09/27/a-strategic-mistake-thathaunts-j-c-penney/