Freemium Regret on the App Store(noisytyping.com)
noisytyping.com
Freemium Regret on the App Store
http://noisytyping.com/freemium-regret/?version=1.1
14 comments
Certainly by eyeballing the graph I'd say that ten is about right and 100 as way too high. However, I wonder if there aren't other considerations. For example, '10 Free Levels!!!' doesn't sound so hot.
The other thing is, if you lower it at all at this point you're going to get at least a few whines in the comments.
Another approach would be to come up with a different kind of level and sell those in a pack.
The other thing is, if you lower it at all at this point you're going to get at least a few whines in the comments.
Another approach would be to come up with a different kind of level and sell those in a pack.
I've saved the version number in NSUserDefaults, so anyone upgrading to the next version will be able to keep their 100 levels (unless they deleted the app in the interim).
That should help a little with the 1-star gang.
That should help a little with the 1-star gang.
Thanks. I wrote this post in a bit of a midnight frenzy so perhaps the writing could have been clearer. I meant we hadn't put in ads but that we now recognize this as a mistake, and that we do plan to use ads and reminders-to-upgrade in future games.
This game is a clone of "Flow", which has about the same amount of free content, yet has generated several million dollars in revenue from in app purchases.
I don't think this was a strategy error. 100 free levels is not too much when each level only takes 10 seconds.
I don't think this was a strategy error. 100 free levels is not too much when each level only takes 10 seconds.
Do you have a link to any flow free revenue discussion? Google came up with nothing.
This game may also just be suffering from not being interesting enough to convince people to buy. Setting the amount of free content lower may move the 'buy or not' decision earlier, and reduce dropoff, but it's still likely that some percentage of your players just aren't engaged enough to pay after already having played the game for a while.
This particular class of design problem mostly affects games, so it can be kind of strange if you're used to developing software. A good way to think of it is by looking at a program like a ringtone creator or icon editor: Very often, you grab a ringtone creator or icon editor just to create one or two ringtones or one or two icons. After that, you literally never want to use it again (or at best, maybe you want to use it again 6 months later). The group of people who use an app like that every day is vanishingly small. So, if you build one of those apps and you give away a fully-featured version, most downloads will never convert into purchases.
This particular class of design problem mostly affects games, so it can be kind of strange if you're used to developing software. A good way to think of it is by looking at a program like a ringtone creator or icon editor: Very often, you grab a ringtone creator or icon editor just to create one or two ringtones or one or two icons. After that, you literally never want to use it again (or at best, maybe you want to use it again 6 months later). The group of people who use an app like that every day is vanishingly small. So, if you build one of those apps and you give away a fully-featured version, most downloads will never convert into purchases.
Wait. Are you really doing that badly? You are converting, I'd guess based on your data, about 5% of your download base, which is actually very reasonable. But you are losing like 25% immediately, so your conversion of active users is actually quite higher, maybe 7.5-10%. You may be focusing on the wrong metric. I would consider instead focusing on getting downloads higher.
Additionally, I wouldn't offer the bundle packs but instead sell everything individually. I read a great article a few weeks ago on making in app purchase work for games. (I write productivity apps.) One of the things they said was have lots of ways for people to spend money. Only a small percentage of people spend so you need them to spend a lot. The comment was that the best performing games are generating upwards of $50/spending user, all via in app purchase, all from like 1-2% of the download base.
Additionally, I wouldn't offer the bundle packs but instead sell everything individually. I read a great article a few weeks ago on making in app purchase work for games. (I write productivity apps.) One of the things they said was have lots of ways for people to spend money. Only a small percentage of people spend so you need them to spend a lot. The comment was that the best performing games are generating upwards of $50/spending user, all via in app purchase, all from like 1-2% of the download base.
Thanks, that's encouraging.
I'm not sure about offering individual packs. That bundle is the largest-selling SKU right now. Consider that warning message that the IAP system pops up ('you are about to spend $2.99') everytime one makes an IAP purchase. With a single $3 purchase, we only have to risk the user making it past one such warning. With individual packs, it'll be one warning per pack; I think there will be a significant fall-off on the second and subsequent warnings. That's just intuition of course.
I believe 'CSR Racing' is one of the current how-to-monetize favourites. We just don't have the story and content to be in that league, sadly.
I'm not sure about offering individual packs. That bundle is the largest-selling SKU right now. Consider that warning message that the IAP system pops up ('you are about to spend $2.99') everytime one makes an IAP purchase. With a single $3 purchase, we only have to risk the user making it past one such warning. With individual packs, it'll be one warning per pack; I think there will be a significant fall-off on the second and subsequent warnings. That's just intuition of course.
I believe 'CSR Racing' is one of the current how-to-monetize favourites. We just don't have the story and content to be in that league, sadly.
Wait. Are you really doing that badly?
Understood. They are 1/5 to the way of what most apps make though. :-)
I meant there are multiple variables here and they are focused on conversion rate. I'm not certain they are doing that badly there. If they had a million downloads instead of 6000, the story would be different given the same conversion rates. 6000 downloads is nothing.
I meant there are multiple variables here and they are focused on conversion rate. I'm not certain they are doing that badly there. If they had a million downloads instead of 6000, the story would be different given the same conversion rates. 6000 downloads is nothing.
This is a common rookie mistake unfortunately. My company has been in the business for over three years and making level content the basis of a freemium strategy has never been anything but a failure for us. The prevailing consumer attitude seems to be be a sense of entitlement, e.g. I downloaded this app or paid a pittance for it, I should get everything without having to pay more. The irony is that once they decide they like it, they are more than willing to blow lots of money on items that allow them to cheat or customize their experience.
Edit: I would also add that this is not unique to a platform like iOS. Riot, the company who makes League of Legends, makes lots of money primarily selling skins for heroes you can play in the game.
Edit: I would also add that this is not unique to a platform like iOS. Riot, the company who makes League of Legends, makes lots of money primarily selling skins for heroes you can play in the game.
Good point, we're just beginning to realize this.
In this version, users get only one hint per level because we didn't want to spoil the game. But this of course hurts the sales of the hint packs as we've just found out. So we're moving to allow multiple hints starting from the next version.
In this version, users get only one hint per level because we didn't want to spoil the game. But this of course hurts the sales of the hint packs as we've just found out. So we're moving to allow multiple hints starting from the next version.
I could be wrong, but I don't think that goes with what hesdeadjim is saying. The point seems to be that player's expect core features to be included but once hooked will gladly pay for more superficial features.
It might be hard to come up with that sort of feature for your game as it doesn't feature tiny people running around and is rather abstract.
I guess hints are slightly less core than levels, but not by much, IMO.
Any ideas for a slightly different kind of level/game play? You could sell that as a pack.
It might be hard to come up with that sort of feature for your game as it doesn't feature tiny people running around and is rather abstract.
I guess hints are slightly less core than levels, but not by much, IMO.
Any ideas for a slightly different kind of level/game play? You could sell that as a pack.
Other than a time-trial mode (which seems to be a 'Flow Free' innovation, so I'm disinclined to copy that outright) and sprite-themes ('halloween pack' instead of letters from the alphabet), I can't think of much at the moment.
I don't know about hints being a core feature though. Flow Free includes as many as 600 free levels but only 3 free hints. It could be that they are monetizing poorly on level packs, relative to downloads, and hoping to catch up with hints.
I don't know about hints being a core feature though. Flow Free includes as many as 600 free levels but only 3 free hints. It could be that they are monetizing poorly on level packs, relative to downloads, and hoping to catch up with hints.
After downloading your game, your prompt of "try one more" is an invitation for me to quit playing and do something else. I think something like "next" would be better but even better would be to just directly dump people into the next puzzle.
That's a great idea, thanks. I'll try "Next" but going straight into the next level would be a bit abrupt. Some people are spending over an hour per puzzle (as I did myself with Nikoli's hand-made levels six months ago), and it seems appropriate to give them a small celebratory moment.
Freemium is really hard to get right, but Apple is really pushing everyone that direction. The changes in the search results over the last few months have heavily favored free apps.
I just tried a free promotion in one of my apps, and sadly didn't take enough advantage of it. I just added ads, and didn't worry about adding an IAP to get rid of them as I was planning on going right back to paid (only showing ads to free users). Sadly I got quite few bad reviews for the ads being "too intrusive" (only 2 ads in the whole app, 1 popup and 1 interstitial, i think they were just too close together in the workflow). I think if I had the IAP there would have been less excuse to give a bad review. Don't like ads, then you should give me money.
That being said, I made more money both yesterday and today each than I did in the last month of it being paid. It's also showing up significantly higher in the rankings after 11k downloads instead of a couple paid downloads.
I just tried a free promotion in one of my apps, and sadly didn't take enough advantage of it. I just added ads, and didn't worry about adding an IAP to get rid of them as I was planning on going right back to paid (only showing ads to free users). Sadly I got quite few bad reviews for the ads being "too intrusive" (only 2 ads in the whole app, 1 popup and 1 interstitial, i think they were just too close together in the workflow). I think if I had the IAP there would have been less excuse to give a bad review. Don't like ads, then you should give me money.
That being said, I made more money both yesterday and today each than I did in the last month of it being paid. It's also showing up significantly higher in the rankings after 11k downloads instead of a couple paid downloads.
Seriously, 100 levels, how many people (% of userbase) are going to finish all 100 and still want more? Clearly no thought whatsoever went into this strategy.
Even 30 is too much, 15 max.
Even 30 is too much, 15 max.
I think you're being too harsh here. It's way too easy to sit here and armchair quarterback about how "clearly no thought went into this strategy" but you just don't know that and frankly that just sounds like a cheap shot.
It only takes about 10 seconds to complete a level so when you take that into account 100 levels seems alright. Also, if we're talking about a mobile game with hundreds of levels then it's not tough to infer that the levels must go by quickly with the challenge increasing slowly and it also tells me that it's likely that this is one of those games that is hoping to retain users by being highly addictive. Now I know all games want to be addictive but there's a difference between puzzle solving type games (or so,etching like Kitten Jump even) and say a car racing game. They're addictive on different levels in different ways. This is all stuff that can be inferred by reading the post and much of it proven by playing the game.
So considering this I think it's really unfair to say no thought went into the strategy. After reading the post I think it's clear they thought quite a bit about the strategy. A lack of thought isn't the problem here. The problem was making the wrong assumptions based on their research. This could have happened to anyone and I don't think you're giving the developers enough credit. I think anyone who is able to code a game for an app store is certainly smart enough to think through a half decent monetization strategy.
In the end it's just a live-and-learn experience. They thought they'd get X in-app purchases because of Y but didn't. Their assumptions were wrong and I can't fault them. The mobile space is in its infancy (i heard it called a zygot here the other day even) and yeah, there's some published data to help app developers make informed decisions about monetization but in the end, when you step out of the tech bubble/echo chamber, it's really not a lot to go on and a lot of it is exactly what this article was; a breakdown of personal experience. The developer took a good shot, failed, and now we have some more information that'll hopefully help someone else make a decision as to their monetization strategy. The more information like this that gets out there from a wide variety of app "types" the better it'll be for others going down the same path later.
It only takes about 10 seconds to complete a level so when you take that into account 100 levels seems alright. Also, if we're talking about a mobile game with hundreds of levels then it's not tough to infer that the levels must go by quickly with the challenge increasing slowly and it also tells me that it's likely that this is one of those games that is hoping to retain users by being highly addictive. Now I know all games want to be addictive but there's a difference between puzzle solving type games (or so,etching like Kitten Jump even) and say a car racing game. They're addictive on different levels in different ways. This is all stuff that can be inferred by reading the post and much of it proven by playing the game.
So considering this I think it's really unfair to say no thought went into the strategy. After reading the post I think it's clear they thought quite a bit about the strategy. A lack of thought isn't the problem here. The problem was making the wrong assumptions based on their research. This could have happened to anyone and I don't think you're giving the developers enough credit. I think anyone who is able to code a game for an app store is certainly smart enough to think through a half decent monetization strategy.
In the end it's just a live-and-learn experience. They thought they'd get X in-app purchases because of Y but didn't. Their assumptions were wrong and I can't fault them. The mobile space is in its infancy (i heard it called a zygot here the other day even) and yeah, there's some published data to help app developers make informed decisions about monetization but in the end, when you step out of the tech bubble/echo chamber, it's really not a lot to go on and a lot of it is exactly what this article was; a breakdown of personal experience. The developer took a good shot, failed, and now we have some more information that'll hopefully help someone else make a decision as to their monetization strategy. The more information like this that gets out there from a wide variety of app "types" the better it'll be for others going down the same path later.
Thanks, bpatrianakos.
We're indeed just treating this as a useful experiment. Games are just hard to compete in. We're not committed yet to staying in games, and hopefully the design/monetization/marketing lessons will give us a significant edge in smaller niches where the competition seems much less savvy, at least for now.
We're indeed just treating this as a useful experiment. Games are just hard to compete in. We're not committed yet to staying in games, and hopefully the design/monetization/marketing lessons will give us a significant edge in smaller niches where the competition seems much less savvy, at least for now.
Sorry, I didn't realise you were looking for sugar coated feedback. If 15 levels isn't enough to hook your customer into paying a few bucks, then you're doing it wrong.
If you still think giving away 100 levels made any logical sense, then I won't waste time trying to help you out with clear cut advice based on 3 years of app store experience.
If you still think giving away 100 levels made any logical sense, then I won't waste time trying to help you out with clear cut advice based on 3 years of app store experience.
We're not doing bad with the hint packs, actually. I figured more engagement is always good, but a drip-feed 'free level of the day' would have been a better idea than a 100 levels all at once. Still learning.
Games that I really like and have purchased, I would be hard-pressed to complete 100 levels before growing a bit tired of the game. I can only think of perhaps two games that I have gone that far.
Perhaps I'm not a loyal gamer or a super-fan of any game. But I do buy games, probably 1 or 2 per month. With 100 free levels it's most likely that people like myself would never even get to the stage where purchasing this game was necessary - even if I loved it. And if there was no reminder, I may not even really think about it.
It's wonderful to be a nice company and to give away something really fun for people to play. But, there's no need to be so nice that you can't stay in business. Especially with games at $0.99 or whatever, it really is not asking much for people to pay a little to help support the game that they enjoy.
Perhaps I'm not a loyal gamer or a super-fan of any game. But I do buy games, probably 1 or 2 per month. With 100 free levels it's most likely that people like myself would never even get to the stage where purchasing this game was necessary - even if I loved it. And if there was no reminder, I may not even really think about it.
It's wonderful to be a nice company and to give away something really fun for people to play. But, there's no need to be so nice that you can't stay in business. Especially with games at $0.99 or whatever, it really is not asking much for people to pay a little to help support the game that they enjoy.
I think it will be nice move to restrict free level's to a max 10 level's,and then may be few more level's unlocked on the basis of his timing's or point's collected while playing free level's,for.e.g if his avg timing come's out to 2-3 sec he will get additional of 5-10 level's..
A 25% immediate bounce out rate is to be expected for a free, no-expectations, no-commitments download. Meanwhile, 50% of users making it to level 20 is really good! Work on levels 20-25 to reduce their steep drop-offs then move the pay point from level 100 to level 20.
You should test the level cutoff concurrently. Try 5, 30, 100 in a multivariate test. Spend enough ad dollars to get a comfortable level of significance within a week. Roll up the test for everyone. Make sure you don't tell anyone how many free levels they'll get until they hit the wall. Repeat. :)
When they sign up, just set their limit as rand(20)+5
30? Try 5.
And I think you are right, you are being nice. It's strange that you don't want to use standard monetization techniques, yet you complain when you don't make any money. It's sort of like the "nice guy" who gives everything to the hot chick in class, and then when he asks her out, he's shocked when she declines, saying that she wants to be friends.
There has to be a give-and-take between producer and consumer, and the best producers know how to balance that properly.
If you give your users a good experience, then they should pay to support your development costs. Saying you don't like pop-ups or you don't like ads is frankly nonsensical for someone who is trying to make money. There are ways to do both tastefully, and at this point, people realize that in-game ads are a necessity of life for a free product.