Vainglory vs. Clash Royale, and the future of “hardcore” games on mobile(andreaspapathanasis.blogspot.com)
andreaspapathanasis.blogspot.com
Vainglory vs. Clash Royale, and the future of “hardcore” games on mobile
http://andreaspapathanasis.blogspot.com/2016/01/vainglory-vs-clash-royale-and-future-of.html
42 comments
Video games have caught up with the rest of the common media in terms of publishing for profit. Most TV and movies (not even counting adult films) are completely garbage. They are built around formulas that are known to work so people make money. The indie games movement railed against this, but most of them were on par with art student films quality wise.
That's not to say that they are no good games or TV anymore. But they are few and far between. They take vision, risk, and a bit of money. Also right now they are harder to find. I think if game producers used their names like movie directors it may help. But right now its often just the studio name. Which leads to situations where a studio makes a great game, people learn their name, a publisher injects a lot of cash/people, the core team leaves, and their next game is a bloated mess. If people knew the core team's name, or even just their leader's name, it would help the general populace follow the person to their next project.
That's not to say that they are no good games or TV anymore. But they are few and far between. They take vision, risk, and a bit of money. Also right now they are harder to find. I think if game producers used their names like movie directors it may help. But right now its often just the studio name. Which leads to situations where a studio makes a great game, people learn their name, a publisher injects a lot of cash/people, the core team leaves, and their next game is a bloated mess. If people knew the core team's name, or even just their leader's name, it would help the general populace follow the person to their next project.
No free to play game makes money if it is not fun.
Free to play cannot rely on promises of classical marketing.
Hence, the game needs to be fun or people stop paying.
Free to play cannot rely on promises of classical marketing.
Hence, the game needs to be fun or people stop paying.
We're in a TV golden age, man. There are more good TV series on than probably any other time in history.
There is a lot of good TV. But there is also 1000 channels of crap.
> Nintendo's been doing it for decades with their portable devices (Zelda, Mario, Pokemon, Metroid), and it's clearly a successful approach
IMO, part of this is due to low-level technical issues. The DS does a really, really, really good job at letting players choose when and where they play. Games start up instantly, pausing and resuming is seamless. I don't know how much work developers need to do to support suspend/resume, but I've never seen it not work.
In my experience on Android, very few games deal well with getting killed in the background. Yes, this is different than what happens in the DS, but the user experience should be the same. From what I can tell, there is more burden on an Android developer to deliver a seamless resume experience than there is on the DS.
Because of that, you can't trust that your game state will be preserved if you do something as simple as lock your phone while your game is running. If you resume, will your game be where you left off? Who knows. Add on functionality that requires online access, and you end up with a platform where people prefer games that load quicker and where you can finish a session in the time it takes to stand in line, if only for the simple reason that anything more complicated usually ends in frustration.
IMO, part of this is due to low-level technical issues. The DS does a really, really, really good job at letting players choose when and where they play. Games start up instantly, pausing and resuming is seamless. I don't know how much work developers need to do to support suspend/resume, but I've never seen it not work.
In my experience on Android, very few games deal well with getting killed in the background. Yes, this is different than what happens in the DS, but the user experience should be the same. From what I can tell, there is more burden on an Android developer to deliver a seamless resume experience than there is on the DS.
Because of that, you can't trust that your game state will be preserved if you do something as simple as lock your phone while your game is running. If you resume, will your game be where you left off? Who knows. Add on functionality that requires online access, and you end up with a platform where people prefer games that load quicker and where you can finish a session in the time it takes to stand in line, if only for the simple reason that anything more complicated usually ends in frustration.
Another game that is "hardcore" on mobile is Hearthstone. While that may not necessarily qualify for comparison to Vainglory/Clash Royale since it's both desktop and mobile, the UI ("physical" board) and game design (short turn limits, automatic resource allocation, RNG vs. manual card selection) are both highly optimized for playing on mobile devices.
Although as a counterpoint, Blizzard is taking atypical monetization strategies with Hearthstone that may be causing problems. It is freemium as most games are nowadays, but very expensive to make a competitive deck with required cards, with zero catchup mechanics (a new feature with freemium games to provide retention). Blizzard is also refusing to balance cards which promote stagnant gameplay, which makes the game incredibly stale. (https://www.reddit.com/r/hearthstone/comments/4207ye/the_we_...)
And let's not get started over the 9 deck slots issue.
Although as a counterpoint, Blizzard is taking atypical monetization strategies with Hearthstone that may be causing problems. It is freemium as most games are nowadays, but very expensive to make a competitive deck with required cards, with zero catchup mechanics (a new feature with freemium games to provide retention). Blizzard is also refusing to balance cards which promote stagnant gameplay, which makes the game incredibly stale. (https://www.reddit.com/r/hearthstone/comments/4207ye/the_we_...)
And let's not get started over the 9 deck slots issue.
Blizzard is taking marks from WotC and MTG about devaluing older cards. Catch-up mechanisms would make the game only focus on the newest cards. The playerbase often feels cheated when their existing collection's value decreases and new content is pushed. You find the same feelings with MMO expansions. "My top tier raid gear just got replaced 10 minutes into this new content? Then why did I spend all this time." While this sentiment may be illogical, game design often touches on player psychology.
Also it allows casual players who may take a several month break to return. The top tier decks may change, but a deck that was good a year ago would still be relevant for casual play.
The comparison isn't exactly fair since MTG cards have a dollar value, but HS cards only have a perceived time-sink value. Also the out right refusal to rebalance existing cards does make the game stagnant. But that feeds back to the casual play argument. If cards were completely rebalanced it would be prohibitive to returning players. I would be interested to see numbers on casual v hardcore players. Reddit has a skewed perspective, and it seems like everyone has a full set. But almost none of the people I know irl that play HS have anything close to a T1 deck, yet they still sink 5-10 hours a week into the game.
Also it allows casual players who may take a several month break to return. The top tier decks may change, but a deck that was good a year ago would still be relevant for casual play.
The comparison isn't exactly fair since MTG cards have a dollar value, but HS cards only have a perceived time-sink value. Also the out right refusal to rebalance existing cards does make the game stagnant. But that feeds back to the casual play argument. If cards were completely rebalanced it would be prohibitive to returning players. I would be interested to see numbers on casual v hardcore players. Reddit has a skewed perspective, and it seems like everyone has a full set. But almost none of the people I know irl that play HS have anything close to a T1 deck, yet they still sink 5-10 hours a week into the game.
They aren't rebalancing cards because the game is currently quite well balanced. Constantly making arbitrary changes so that things are different for the sake of being different is exactly what you don't do in a "hardcore" competitive activity.
You don't see the NBA declaring that this week 3 pointers are worth 5 points because casual fans find it "stale" to see the same rules and strategies week after week.
You don't see the NBA declaring that this week 3 pointers are worth 5 points because casual fans find it "stale" to see the same rules and strategies week after week.
At the least, cards that are unused and make no sense to use would be more interesting with buffs. (The latest expansion marks the first instance where a card [Magma Rager] was made strictly inferior)
Blizzard has done this approach with Diablo III patches (giving new functionality to underused builds) and it has breathed new life into the game.
Blizzard has done this approach with Diablo III patches (giving new functionality to underused builds) and it has breathed new life into the game.
Cards which "make no sense" in the current decks often end up seeing play a few months later as the meta shifts. For example, Twisting Nether and Lava Shock are currently run in competitive decks (without having been buffed), even though they were considered unplayable and badly in need of buffs not that long ago.
If they take the worst cards and give them a small buff, they will still see no constructed play and everyone's time is wasted. If they aim for actually making them constructed quality, they need to do as much balancing and testing work as they would do for new cards to avoid them being overpowered, in which case they might as well spend that time developing new cards.
FWIW, "strictly better" cards existed before Magma Rager, for example Dr Boom is very popular and is strictly better than War Golem.
If they take the worst cards and give them a small buff, they will still see no constructed play and everyone's time is wasted. If they aim for actually making them constructed quality, they need to do as much balancing and testing work as they would do for new cards to avoid them being overpowered, in which case they might as well spend that time developing new cards.
FWIW, "strictly better" cards existed before Magma Rager, for example Dr Boom is very popular and is strictly better than War Golem.
The Hearthstone community seems to be particularly thick about this. They constantly conflate "I'm bad against that card" or "I don't like that card" with "That card is overpowered."
As a big PC gamer I've basically abandoned mobile gaming as it feels like everything out there is trying to get my money by means ranging from insidious to annoying. This is compounded by the fact that browsing the google play games store is a showcase of shamelessness where different developers are releasing essentially identical clones of whatever's popular, it's kind of depressing.
The only mobile games I can bring myself to recommend are Andoku Sudoku, The little crane that could, and crossy road (which even includes monetisation schemes without feeling intensely annoying).
Suggestions for others would be appreciated
The only mobile games I can bring myself to recommend are Andoku Sudoku, The little crane that could, and crossy road (which even includes monetisation schemes without feeling intensely annoying).
Suggestions for others would be appreciated
Here's a list of good mobile games off the top of my head. None of these require in-app purchases if they even have them:
You Must Build a Boat, The Executive, Out There, Monument Valley, Hitman GO, Lara Croft GO, DEVICE 6, The Room (and sequels), Prune, Lifeline (this one's great because it would only work in mobile), Threes!
If you're looking for good mobile recommendations, I'd point you at http://toucharcade.com. They do iOS reviews, but a good chunk of the games also release for Android these days.
You Must Build a Boat, The Executive, Out There, Monument Valley, Hitman GO, Lara Croft GO, DEVICE 6, The Room (and sequels), Prune, Lifeline (this one's great because it would only work in mobile), Threes!
If you're looking for good mobile recommendations, I'd point you at http://toucharcade.com. They do iOS reviews, but a good chunk of the games also release for Android these days.
I'm going to add Twenty to this list. Small amount of money to unlock all the modes, but the free mode is amazing anyway.
I know it seems hopeless but there really are some great mobile games out there which do not try to trick you or screw you around to get your money.
If you like puzzle games (I assume you do, since you mention Andoku Sudoku), you should check out games by Pyrosphere[0]. Especially look at Lazors[1] and The Weaver[2]. Also fun to play is Hoplite[3] and the training mode in Lichess[4]. All of these games are free, though Hoplite lets you pay to unlock an extended endgame, it isn't necessary at all.
[0] http://pyrosphere.net/
[1] https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=net.pyrosphere...
[2] https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=net.pyrosphere...
[3] https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.magmafortr...
[4] https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.lichess.mo...
If you like puzzle games (I assume you do, since you mention Andoku Sudoku), you should check out games by Pyrosphere[0]. Especially look at Lazors[1] and The Weaver[2]. Also fun to play is Hoplite[3] and the training mode in Lichess[4]. All of these games are free, though Hoplite lets you pay to unlock an extended endgame, it isn't necessary at all.
[0] http://pyrosphere.net/
[1] https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=net.pyrosphere...
[2] https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=net.pyrosphere...
[3] https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.magmafortr...
[4] https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.lichess.mo...
Speaking of clones of whatever's popular, which came first The Weaver or Strata[1]
[1] https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.graveck.st...
[1] https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.graveck.st...
I picked up a PS Vita and it's fantastic. So far through various sales I've picked up 35 physical and digital games, so, quite the backlog to last a long while. I don't play any games on my phone anymore. I heartily recommend Persona 4 Golden, Superbeat XONIC, Sparkle Unleashed, OlliOlli, Lumines Electric Symphony, and Mortal Kombat (basically the PS3 version with scaled-down graphics).
Spaceteam!
Is anyone else a person who loves games but is disgusted by Clash of Clans (and anything else that uses any business model invented by Farmville)?
I like games, dislike CoC, but have seen a CoC-style game that does it right.
It's a 2D sidescrolling platform game, with one-button controls; this keeps skill involved. Traps consist of a three-trap set; you can upgrade them for damage (and buy a dev-made "optimal" setup), but you can't grind for 50000 level 1 walls (or level 99 walls, for that matter). Scoring is separate from currency; the gemswhich contribute to your score can be sold for game currency, but never bought. There's a Farmville-style gem mine tmechanic, but unless your traps are perfect, you'll get more from stealing other players' gems.
TL;DR: Clash of Clans is much better when grinding is nerfed.
It's a 2D sidescrolling platform game, with one-button controls; this keeps skill involved. Traps consist of a three-trap set; you can upgrade them for damage (and buy a dev-made "optimal" setup), but you can't grind for 50000 level 1 walls (or level 99 walls, for that matter). Scoring is separate from currency; the gemswhich contribute to your score can be sold for game currency, but never bought. There's a Farmville-style gem mine tmechanic, but unless your traps are perfect, you'll get more from stealing other players' gems.
TL;DR: Clash of Clans is much better when grinding is nerfed.
No, you are not the only one, and that's why freemium is starting to show real problems in terms of monetization.
The goal of freemium games is to A) keep people playing your game only and B) get them to buy IAP. Problem A is solved by giving them copious amounts of free in-game items/currency...which makes solving Problem B harder as players have less reason to buy. Oops!
Developers have split the difference by offering the players exploding one-time bundles, but usually those bundles are still disproportionately priced.
The goal of freemium games is to A) keep people playing your game only and B) get them to buy IAP. Problem A is solved by giving them copious amounts of free in-game items/currency...which makes solving Problem B harder as players have less reason to buy. Oops!
Developers have split the difference by offering the players exploding one-time bundles, but usually those bundles are still disproportionately priced.
I actually quite like Boom Beach, and to a lesser extent, Clash. Without having spent a dollar, I've easily spent more time and gotten more enjoyment out of them than Fallout 4, Just Cause 3, and Dragon Age Inquisition, the 3 AAA titles I've bought in the past year. Sure you can pay to get ahead, but the games stand alone well enough for midlevel players without doing so.
Might I recommend Witcher 3 (amazing!) and Metal Gear Solid: The Phantom Pain, both of which I enjoyed (slightly) more than FO4 (sadly) and DA:I. They are both also more "mature" games (and TPP is set in 1980's Afghanistan and allows you to collect just-off-chart hits from the 80's to play on your in-game Walkman, which I found rather cool). (I haven't tried JC3 yet, I got halfway through JC2 and then kinda dropped it.)
Now I'm afraid to try Boom Beach lol
Now I'm afraid to try Boom Beach lol
I'm waiting on a Steam sale for The Witcher 3, although I was never really able to get into the first one. I'll look into TPP. JC3 I only bought recently, but it feels as fun as the second one. You've really just got to treat it like a pretty sandbox where you can smash vehicles and explosives together.
I think the reason I've not put as much time into games the past year is that it's just hard to find a ~3 hour chunk to play through a questline. Versus Boom Beach where I can pop on, smack talk my group of friends, attack the daily boss a couple of times, and be done in 15 minutes.
I think the reason I've not put as much time into games the past year is that it's just hard to find a ~3 hour chunk to play through a questline. Versus Boom Beach where I can pop on, smack talk my group of friends, attack the daily boss a couple of times, and be done in 15 minutes.
I could not get into Witcher 1 OR 2.
Witcher 3 is as different from 1 and 2 as Assassins' Creed 2 was different from Assassins' Creed 1. I recommend it
Witcher 3 is as different from 1 and 2 as Assassins' Creed 2 was different from Assassins' Creed 1. I recommend it
I'm not disgusted, but rather more disappointed.
I'm happy that more people are experiencing games, but I'm disappointed that the most visible games in app stores are those that nickle and dime you to death.
There are still games that offer you better value and don't participate in IAP shenanigans, but I'm worried that the number of developers that find success in this business model is very small.
I'm happy that more people are experiencing games, but I'm disappointed that the most visible games in app stores are those that nickle and dime you to death.
There are still games that offer you better value and don't participate in IAP shenanigans, but I'm worried that the number of developers that find success in this business model is very small.
Conflicted. I'm a gamer and I'd love me some more good games like starbase orion, but eventually if I have more than five minutes of time to kill or need some stress relief I'm usually within reach of a computer.
I'd like more serious games, but anything that's not consumable in tiny bits (say, like Out There or Grand Prix Story) I'm not gonna play, not because I don't want to, but because I've so much better gaming platform to play on games and those games will never have a chance to work on mobile because complexity (From The Depths) scale (War Thunder) or user interface (Kerbal Space Program, any builder like StarMade really)
I'd like more serious games, but anything that's not consumable in tiny bits (say, like Out There or Grand Prix Story) I'm not gonna play, not because I don't want to, but because I've so much better gaming platform to play on games and those games will never have a chance to work on mobile because complexity (From The Depths) scale (War Thunder) or user interface (Kerbal Space Program, any builder like StarMade really)
I feel the same way. The only game I play regularly on my phone is a racing game where I can open it up, race a few laps and shut it does in the span of 5 minutes. I did so last night waiting for my PS3 to update.
If I've got 30 minutes and feel like playing a game I will probably end up walking over to my office and playing JC3 for a bit.
If I've got 30 minutes and feel like playing a game I will probably end up walking over to my office and playing JC3 for a bit.
I think there are various definitions of "mobile".
Mobile, for me (as a Vainglory player since the launch in the US), means I can play anywhere. Not that I need to be able to play a game in 5 minutes while taking a dump.
Mobile, for me (as a Vainglory player since the launch in the US), means I can play anywhere. Not that I need to be able to play a game in 5 minutes while taking a dump.
(also, article author works on Clash of Clans)
What an odd analysis, and I basically entirely disagree.
I picked up Vainglory when I got my iPad Air 2 and have absolutely fallen in love with the game for almost ALL of the reasons that the author dismisses it.
Background: I'm nowhere near a hardcore gamer and I never played LoL or DoTA, so I'm a newbie to MOBAs.
But I think Vainglory is fantastic. When I gush about it to friends, the two things I bring up are:
1) The game adapts to touch beautifully. I've always found that wildly clicking the mouse while scrolling with your other hand is awkward in these sorts of games. Being able to physically direct your character with your fingers gives the game a much more intimate feel. You feel connected to the match.
2) The 20-30 minute play time is perfect! So many PC games require this multi-hour-long commitment that I was never really able to give. But knowing I can sit down and play a full (exciting) Vainglory match in 20 minutes is easy. The pacing is perfect - you get to experience all stages of hero development from weak to strong in what I think most people would consider to be a very reasonable amount of time.
Anyway, I just think this guy is off-base.
(And if any HNers want to play some Vainglory with me / form a team / start a guild, let me know! :)
I picked up Vainglory when I got my iPad Air 2 and have absolutely fallen in love with the game for almost ALL of the reasons that the author dismisses it.
Background: I'm nowhere near a hardcore gamer and I never played LoL or DoTA, so I'm a newbie to MOBAs.
But I think Vainglory is fantastic. When I gush about it to friends, the two things I bring up are:
1) The game adapts to touch beautifully. I've always found that wildly clicking the mouse while scrolling with your other hand is awkward in these sorts of games. Being able to physically direct your character with your fingers gives the game a much more intimate feel. You feel connected to the match.
2) The 20-30 minute play time is perfect! So many PC games require this multi-hour-long commitment that I was never really able to give. But knowing I can sit down and play a full (exciting) Vainglory match in 20 minutes is easy. The pacing is perfect - you get to experience all stages of hero development from weak to strong in what I think most people would consider to be a very reasonable amount of time.
Anyway, I just think this guy is off-base.
(And if any HNers want to play some Vainglory with me / form a team / start a guild, let me know! :)
i play, usually a game or two a night. osi42 in game.
On your point #2, I disagree that a 20+ minute playtime is perfect for mobile devices. That just seems like too big a time commitment for me if I'm interacting with my phone; perhaps it is different with a tablet, but at that point it just feels like a PC game on your counter. I also don't know which PC games you're playing that require multi-hour commitments, but the only one that comes to mind for me is Civ5. Everything else I play, I play small chunks, and a given "match" requires no more than 30 minutes at the most. I don't play LoL or Starcraft II, but do play SMiTE and Company of Heroes II.
Never had the 50-min CoH2 game? I loved that game, but I don't think I can take the stress anymore, ha.
OT, but Supercell's business model is certainly interesting. They make a lot of games in independent teams, and 'soft-launch' only the best of them. If the games don't meet the goals (whatever they are), they are canceled. There are now a handful of games that have been canceled after soft-launch. I think Clash Royale will pass the test (having played it), and will easily hit top 10 in global most grossing list.
I'm confused. The author is talking about "hardcore" gaming, but then comments about the time commitment being too high.
By definition, isn't extended time commitments part and parcel with hardcore gaming? A hardcore MMO player is one who spends quite a bit of time raiding or PVPing - not one that logs on for a few minutes a day to do their daily quests or maybe level an alt.
By definition, isn't extended time commitments part and parcel with hardcore gaming? A hardcore MMO player is one who spends quite a bit of time raiding or PVPing - not one that logs on for a few minutes a day to do their daily quests or maybe level an alt.
[deleted]
To me big problem with Vainglory is not that the matches are long, its that your locked into the matches.
Quite often within minutes of starting match you find out your team-mates have no interest in playing strategically or are actively trolling you. At that point you can be pretty sure the match won't be fun and you'll lose.
However the game expects you to keep playing for the next 20-30 minutes till your team inevitably loses. I know eventually you can trigger a surrender vote but it didn't seem like they were ever successful.
Quite often within minutes of starting match you find out your team-mates have no interest in playing strategically or are actively trolling you. At that point you can be pretty sure the match won't be fun and you'll lose.
However the game expects you to keep playing for the next 20-30 minutes till your team inevitably loses. I know eventually you can trigger a surrender vote but it didn't seem like they were ever successful.
In terms of single player games, I don't think the same logic applies, and in my opinion we've gone way too far in the "short attention span" direction. As long as a game makes it easy to save and resume, immersive hours-long experiences with detailed graphics can be really fun to consume in bite-sized pieces. Nintendo's been doing it for decades with their portable devices (Zelda, Mario, Pokemon, Metroid), and it's clearly a successful approach.
It's a shame that smartphones are orders of magnitude more powerful than the Game Boy, yet mobile app stores are overflowing with single-level "infinite churn" games that amount to Tetris with micropayments.