Close
Report Comment to a Moderator Our Moderators review all comments for abusive and offensive language, and ensure comments are from Verified Users only.
Please report a comment only if you feel it requires our urgent attention.
I understand, report it. Cancel

Gamers rule: Only 10% of the industry's $50 billion comes from casuals

Gamers rule: Only 10% of the industry's $50 billion comes from casuals

Wed 12 Dec 2012 4:00pm GMT / 11:00am EST / 8:00am PST
MobileOnlineFree-to-Play

The Game Monetization Summit offered some crucial advice from key players and discussed the secrets of whales

The Digital Game Monetization Summit in San Francisco had a number of speakers and panels that not only presented opinions and analysis, but also refreshingly presented us with some specific numbers and examples. Since digital distribution is generally opaque, getting some insight into the amount of money being made, and how, is vitally important. The following overview hits some of the high points of the varied array of presentations.

4

Paul Thelen, CEO of Big Fish, offered a look at the lessons Big Fish has learned from the business of casual games. Big Fish has been profitable all through its 11-year life span, and continues to grow at “healthy” double-digits. Thelen noted that while the PC is not considered a growth platform, Big Fish is still adding audience for its PC games - so it's a growth platform for them. According to Thelen, Big Fish is making money with a variety of business models, from premium casual games sold for $19.99 to free-to-play games. Thelen's key advice is to try and continually reinvent yourself. “Just because we made money doing this last year doesn't mean we will make money doing this again next year,” he noted.

“You need to match the game mechanic to the business model, and the monetization needs to match the business model of the game,” Thelen said. “If you have a game that has 6 to 8 hours of linear gameplay and when you finish it, you're done, there are very limited ways you can monetize that game. What we've done is a simple transaction; you buy it, just like you would buy a book. It's very hard to monetize a book with free-to-play.” Big Fish provides a variety of price points for its games, ranging from a $19.95 'collector's edition' to a standard edition at $6.99 or $9.99, as well as subscriptions and free-to-play.

1

Kongregate's big spenders

Big Fish is planning to launch some 250 games in 2013, and Thelen said that almost all will have a positive return on the PC. Big Fish now is in the process of bringing many games to mobile; Thelen points out that a high production value game for Big Fish, which would cost about $500,000 to produce, can be ported to the iPad for about $20,000. “Now you have a half-million dollar game on a hyper growth platform, and that game has already returned a profit to the developer,” Thelen said.

Thelen provided some eye-opening numbers about the state of the business. “Free-to-play is a huge market, and there are people making crazy amounts of money,” Thelen said. “Supercell came from nowhere after a lot of mistakes, and they are now making $300 million on two games on iOS alone.” Thelen also noted that free-to-play games reach 1.2 billion PC users, and that 14 million gamers are visiting Big Fish each month, so there's plenty of room for growth.

"Just because we made money doing this last year doesn't mean we will make money doing this again next year"

Paul Thelen, Big Fish

The next session featured panelists talking about the business of games, and they noted some astonishing statistics. For example, mobile hit Temple Run quintupled its revenue when it switched to a freemium model. While many have focused on creating casual games for the greatly expanded demographics available through social, online, and mobile platforms, some of the panelists felt the opportunity lies elsewhere.

“If you look at what people successfully did on Facebook or the early days of mobile, a lot of it was about cheap user acquisition through the spammy virality that Facebook allowed for a while, or manipulations of the terms of service from Apple or Google on the mobile side. That's gone away,” said Greg Richardson, CEO of Rumble Entertainment. “Of the $50 billion that was spent worldwide last year on games, less than 10 percent was spent on casual content. These companies were really smart around analytics and monetization and very light in terms of product and content creation. I'm not sure any of those things are particularly sustainable. The future lies in going into the larger part of the market which is people that self-identify as gamers, and where the user acquisition and long-term value creation comes from making great games.”

2

Kongregate's monetization varies wildly

The following panel talked about stickiness, or game mechanics that keep players playing, and Mark Long, CEO of Meteor Entertainment (creators of Hawken) outlined how Meteor made some key changes to its game. “In our closed beta exit survey, we saw a lot of players play one session and leave, and this concerned us,” said Long. “We came up with the idea of what we call Newbie Island; your first five sessions you're only playing new players, so there's a safe place for them to not get their asses handed to them and hopefully get the them to come back after that first session.” Long also pointed out a game that does a great job of getting new users into the game. “CSR Racing, I've never seen onboarding that's so flawless.”

Another panel took on the subject of online gambling, or “real-money gaming” as it is more politely termed, and what that market will offer in the future. At the moment it's already a $35 billion market, so it's no wonder that companies like Zynga are very interested in moving into it. The legal status is changing, as states are moving to allow real-money gaming. Delaware already allows most anything, according to the panelists, and Nevada is next up. Putting the games online means easy access for anyone. Will this open up the demographics to new players? George Zaloom, CEO of GoPlay, was blunt. “They have to. The typical Vegas operator is concerned about their traditional customer base, which ranges between the ages of 50 and 75. They see the traditional social gamer as this young mom who's sophisticated, who's technology savvy, and likes to play games. If they can migrate that customer from being a free-to-play player and bring them into their real-money space, that's a new way to save their business.” The difficulty ahead for Zynga is that large, well-funded casinos and operators like IGT are aiming for this market, and they're not about to just hand it over to Zynga without a fight.

"The first harsh reality is: CPIs [Cost Per Install] are only going to go up"

Nick Bhardwaj, Natural Motion

The next talk saw Mark Long of Meteor Entertainment return to the podium to talk about Hawken's transmedia approach to marketing. Long showed a picture from Hawken, and asked the audience “How many of you know what that is?” Most of the audience raised their hands. “That's amazing to me, since we spent zero dollars on advertising,” Long said. He then proceeded to talk about how they had achieved high awareness through a mostly viral approach. “For a company that has raised $28.5 million we are still perceived to be an indie Cinderella story,” said Long.

Hawken has been a success at gathering attention (and signups) because of the transmedia approach, Long said. This means creating a coherent story across multiple media, told out of order; The Matrix is a good example of this, with comics, games, animation as well as the movies driving multiple impressions and connecting the stories in a larger universe. Long discussed the creation of a 20,000 word story bible to seed the game, a feature film now in production, a graphic novel, prose novels, and anime, all being rolled out over the next few years. Crucially, all of the media is optimized for search engines, embedded with analytics, and driving all traffic to one web site: playhawken.com.

5

Nick Bhardwaj, the VP of monetization for Natural Motion, took to the stage to talk about the acquisition costs for CSR Racing. The title is the #1 app in 75 countries, and brought in $12 million in revenue during its first month - while spending precisely nothing on acquisition costs. Bhardwaj explained the importance of K-factor, the viral coefficient; that's the number of new users brought in by each user. Bhardwaj discussed the basic loop for games: Do a thing, get a thing, and expand your things, then repeat. For instance, that might be running a race, getting an award for that race, and using that award to purchase more components for your car. His basic advice was to look for ways to get people to share content; pictures of their tricked out car, for instance, shared on Facebook or Twitter will lead to more people trying out the game. Such natural customer acquisition is best, Bhardwaj said, because as he put it:

“I was in mobile advertising, I understood user acquisition, I understand all the price points, and the truth is, it's a shitty industry,” Bhardwaj said. “It really is. The first harsh reality is: CPIs [Cost Per Install] are only going to go up. You think they're high now? It's going to be just like gas prices. Right now, average CPIs in the industry on the weekends are over $2, $3. There have been previous weekends where I've seen major players bid upwards of $10 per install. This will only go up for two reasons: new entrants, and cash influx from Asia. There are a lot of great companies in Asia who've been doing great games in Japan, China, and Korea, who now want entry into the US. Next you're going to see the influx of real-money gambling apps. The LTVs [Life Time Value} of those customers are hundreds and hundreds of dollars, 10x, 20x higher than anything you see in even the greatest mobile games. I would assume by the end of Q2 next year you're going to see average CPIs above $5.”

It's going to be a tougher market, and Bhardwaj advises careful management of K-factor to help succeed in it. Track where your game installs come from, figure out what gets people to recommend your game, and strive to build the best game you can that naturally encourages people to share it with their friends.

"The other thing that's really important, besides big spenders, is commitment really matters"

Emily Greer, Kongregate

The next panelists talked about monetization strategies for emerging regions, and had some interesting data to present. According to NPD's Anita Frazier, one-third of gamers in the US have played free-to-play games. About 15 percent are aware of free-to-play games but have never played, and about 8 percent of the players have paid for items in free-to-play games. The first month is crucial to paying; if a player hasn't paid in that time, they are unlikely to spend money later on. Localizing your strategies for different countries is important; one example given was the $60 tank in World of Tanks. When the game was brought to China, local advisers suggested making the tank gold, and charging $100 for it; the result was that sales were even higher for that tank than in Russia. Generally, there seems to be strong growth in Eastern Europe and Latin America, and developers are looking for ways to take advantage of that. Working with local experts is crucial to success, the panelists advised, so find people who really understand local markets to help maximize your game's potential.

6

DFC Intelligence analyst David Cole moderated a panel on in-game advertising, wondering if the time is right for advertising to make serious inroads into providing revenue for developers. Many free-to-play games monetize just a few percent of their players; can ads help monetize the rest? While there has been some success with video ads, especially when players are given a choice to opt-in in order to gain access to a game or rewards, it's not a universal solution. For one thing, there's not a huge inventory of ads available; advertisers have yet to fully embrace the medium of games. Mobile games are even more problematic. Still, panelists felt that we're likely to see more ads in and around games, especially as companies like Zynga and King.com work to generate more revenue from the huge numbers of players. Greg Mills, VP of marketing for Goko, said “I do think Zynga will soon start doing pre-roll ads for users who virally don't invite a lot of new people,” Mills said. “If you look at the number of impressions that would generate, it would be huge. It's going to start with the large companies that have a massive audience, then it will trickle down.”

Finally, Emily Greer, COO and co-founder of Kongregate, provided a look at some of Kongregate's top games. Greer noted that while many developers think of consumables as being the best type of virtual item, consumables only account for some 10-30 percent of sales. The best items from a developer's standpoint - that is, the ones that generate the most revenue - offer some permanent capability, Greer said.

Kongregate's data shows the importance of the steady player. “The other thing that's really important, besides big spenders, is commitment really matters,” Greer said. “We divide our player base on a game into four categories: Non-repeats, players who come into a game once and bail; repeats who play a game between 2 and 9 times; regulars who play between 10 and 49 times, and the committed players who play 50 or more times. For the top ten games, the 7 percent who are committed are 87 percent of the revenue.”

3

Kongregate's revenue depends on committed players

Sales may spike revenue, but Greer cautions that it's just moving the revenue forward, not actually increasing it. “When games have problems, they are either not getting players deep enough into the game or they don't maximize what they can get from players,” said Greer. It's important to get players committed to a game, and when you do, to make sure there are good reasons for them to continue to spend money later in the game.

Most whales spend less than $1,000 or $2,000 in a game, but there are some who have spent “in the tens of thousands,” according to Greer. “The average buyer on Kongregate has spent on about 3 games, but the whales are a little higher at about 4.5, but their spending tends to be extremely concentrated on one favorite game. Most of the big spenders have about 90 percent of their spend on one individual game.”

16 Comments

More confirmation of what those of us with an ounce of sense already knew...

that trying to squeeze blood from a stone is no way to fund an industry.

Posted:A year ago

#1

James Berg Games User Researcher, EA Canada

178 227 1.3
Of the $50 billion that was spent worldwide last year on games, less than 10 percent was spent on casual content
Disappointing that there's no research being shown to back that up - it's quite the claim, particularly given how opaque a lot of digital spending is.

Posted:A year ago

#2

Kieren Bloomfield Software Engineer, EA Sports

93 79 0.8
Popular Comment
I still find it quite disappointing that the state of play is such that we have summits on how to make money out of video games rather than how to make our entertainment better and of more value to the consumer. The AAA market is crumbling because consumers don't see the $60 value in the product (they have no idea what it costs to produce).

Posted:A year ago

#3

Andrew Ihegbu Studying Bsc Commercial Music, University of Westminster

464 173 0.4
1 million buyers of a $1 sounds like quite a figure until you realize that's only worth 20,000 buyers of a $50 AAA console game.

Sure the investment is higher, but so are the potential gains, even with the credit crunch and the shutting down of many big studios I can easily believe that the casual industry doesn't represent 20% of the money in the industry, not sure about 10% though. The opacity of digital spending may be the one thing that makes this so hard as it makes the casual content easier to measure but relies on F2P and ad supported games as well as B&M posting thier figures. Brick and Mortar already do but as for ad supported, which represent a large portion of casual games, I think a lot of the market is missed there.

Posted:A year ago

#4

Greg Wilcox Creator, Destroy All Fanboys!

2,193 1,170 0.5
Off topic (slightly): You know, I'd LOVE to see the actual sales figures for all the Angry Birds games on mobile versus the sales of the retail compilations for consoles and portable systems. That might lend some perspective into how popular the most popular game of that time was/is among the more dedicated console users out there.

I'd gather the physical versions aren't selling anywhere near what the cheaper mobile versions have done, but the question here would be is it because of over saturation, the higher price point for the physical versions, some "core" users not wanting this sort of game or a combination of all three?

Posted:A year ago

#5

Bruce Everiss Marketing Consultant

1,692 594 0.4
Gree approx $2 billion PA. DeNA approx $2 billion PA. Rovio approx $1 billion. So that is his 10% of $50 million with just 3 companies.
Then there are Zynga, Popcap, Gamesloft, Gamevil, Com2uS, Spil etc etc.
Also there are all these people: http://www.shabugames.com/developer/index.html

And the reach is immense, Zynga alone with a DAU of 72 million are reaching more than 1% of the total population of the planet. Every day.
And casual gaming is still growing rapidly whilst boxed console product is in steep decline with studios closing regularly.

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Bruce Everiss on 13th December 2012 8:20am

Posted:A year ago

#6

Bruce Everiss Marketing Consultant

1,692 594 0.4
@Tom Pickard

re Rovio. My fail. Decimal point problem.
However my point is still valid that casual gaming in the world is worth vastly more than just $5 billion.

Posted:A year ago

#7

Vinicius De Nadai Andrade Technology Business Analyst

8 7 0.9
Dear Kieren,

I understand your concern, but this studies are very important to make developers aware of what is "important" to consumers.

With this kind of analysis, the industry gets the knowledge of in what consumers SEE THE VALUE, then developers and publishers are able to EXTRACT THIS VALUE from them.

Maximizing costumer satisfaction and companies profits.

Posted:A year ago

#8

Nicholas Lovell Founder, Gamesbrief

196 198 1.0
Tom,

It is disappointing how much in your post you conflate "what consumers like" with "what I like".

The business model of F2P games is fundamentally different to that of AAA boxed or digitally distributed games. In that model, players get all of their games for free. For the ones that they love, they spend tens, hundreds, thousands and occasionally tens of thousand dollars on them.

Imagine a music fan in the 80s, buying an album a week. That's £500 a year. Now they can get all that music, on demand, for free (whether legally or illegally). They are still music fans though, and that £500 is burning a hole in their pocket. It will just be allocated differently: to special editions. To T-shirts which say "I bought the Mos Def Album". To gigs and events and other things that declare their "fandom".

F2P is not about psychological manipulation (although it can be). It is not about lowest common denominator (although it can be). It is about widening the funnel of potential players, of earning the right to get their money after they have played your game and on allowing people who love what you do to spend lots of money on things they truly value.

It is a shame you find this idea so threatening, when I think it is the best thing to happen to our industry for nearly 20 years.

Posted:A year ago

#9

Nicholas Lovell Founder, Gamesbrief

196 198 1.0
@Kieren I agree it is said that conferences spend so little time talking about fun (my first rule of F2P design is "make it fun).

however, I don't agree that consumers need to be aware of how much a AAA game costs to produce, and hence games are "worth" $60. I think consumers are showing that we need to find ways to squeeze down budgets, because we are definitely not going to be able to push up boxed product prices, and for all except the very biggest titles, unit sales are going to fall too.

Posted:A year ago

#10

Kieren Bloomfield Software Engineer, EA Sports

93 79 0.8
Vinicius & Nicholas,

I appreciate the need for these studies from a business standpoint. In many ways it shows an industry maturing as it figures out how to make a profit from entertainment. I guess even after more than 10 years of working in the industry I'm still clinging on the the ideal that people can make the games they want and do so to entertain people. I can't argue about making money doing it, after all I still want a roof over my head but revenue driven design just rubs me up the wrong way.

That's not to say that traditional up front payment games are immune to this, of course they're not. The reason we have so many similar shooters is because that's what the marketing teams have figured sells. But by this method it's out there in the open. In the F2P model you put something out there that is free but isn't really enjoyable in its free state, there's no incentive for you to do so. But now you're actively designing play mechanics to get players to spend. To me personally it feels a bit underhanded and more so for children's games. To me it's that morality that divides up front payment models vs F2P and even if I become the last of a dying breed, I know which side of the fence I sit.

Posted:A year ago

#11

Steve Peterson West Coast Editor, GamesIndustry.biz

109 73 0.7
It was heartening to hear many people talking about the importance of good games and good design at this conference, compared to the Mobile Game Summit earlier in the year where not once in two days did I hear someone talk about design. That conference was all about analytics, monetization, data... they could have been talking about any kind of app.

I think good game design will ultimately prevail. Sure, we'll see games that find a great psychological trick that gets people to spend, and that aren't really a compelling game. Then competitors will try that same mechanic in a games that has better mechanics, and they will take the market share lead.

It's still very early days in free-to-play design, and there remains plenty of room for innovation. I see League of Legends and World of Tanks as great examples of fun, hardcore free-to-play games that monetize amazingly well, and they have very different ways of doing that. They won't be the last ones, either.

It's also great to see the game industry reaching the broadest possible demographic. Not all games have to be for hardcore gamers, just as not all movies have to be action titles aimed at teenage boys. It's an exciting time for the business, though a scary one if you cling to traditional business models and game designs.

Posted:A year ago

#12

Curt Sampson Sofware Developer

596 360 0.6
Kieren writes, In the F2P model you put something out there that is free but isn't really enjoyable in its free state, there's no incentive for you to do so.

I think you're tarring things with an over-broad brush there.

I've been playing World of Tanks extensively for the last month or so, and have (somewhat reluctantly) started spending more than trivial amounts of money on it. I play because it's a great game, even when played entirely for free. I pay now in part to support the developers and in part because it gets me novel items (new tanks, new equipment) a bit faster than I would otherwise. The latter is nice, but not entirely rational (I'm paying so that i can spend less time playing!).

There certainly are F2P games out there where the primary design is to suck money out of people even if this hurts gameplay, but that's not true of all of them. And I suspect, especially if this "90% of revenue is from core gamers, not casuals" figure is true, that the successful ones will be the ones that prioritize good gameplay.

That figure does make sense to me in fact, if I look at the behaviour of my friends and myself. I spend somewhere between $500 and $1000/year on gaming, and this is typical of my gaming friends as well. This is not likely ever to change. My non-gaming friends spend anywhere from a few tens of dollars per year to nothing on games, and I've not seen any change there over the last few years, nor do I expect to. Were I developing a game, I would find it easier and less risky to make a game for a small audience of core gamers than a larger audience of casual gamers because I understand better what they want and can cater to their needs better. Making a huge casual hit seems more a matter of luck than of skill; I don't see something that truly distinguishes Angry Birds from a thousand other casual games out there, whereas it's much easier to see what makes a game like Red Dead Redemption or Bioshock work better than something like Blood Stone or Medal of Honor: Warfighter. In short, in the core gamer space doing a better job of buildling your game helps a lot; in the casual space, it helps very little.

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Curt Sampson on 14th December 2012 12:23am

Posted:A year ago

#13

Shane Sweeney Academic

398 413 1.0
I really hope a second video games crash isn't coming.

Why spend $15 on a good game when you can buy the knock off for $1. Why would a parent spend $100 on a single game when they could buy 100 games for that price?

Surely the fact that the average gamer is older prevents this from happening as we are more able to recognize quality, and surely good curation of app stores will also prevent this..... but their is a real risk of a second collapse if the audience burns out.

Posted:A year ago

#14

Rick Lopez Illustrator, Graphic Designer

1,269 942 0.7
All this talk about mobile gaming, yet there are so many games and very few offer the depth and expirience of a AAA console title, simply because the production value to make a triple AAA title on a console, is not worth investing on a mobile platform. First is hardware limitations such as a 4 inch screen doesnt warrent that type of production. Plus most mobile games simply offer small moments of gameplay. The nature of a mobile game, is to be easy to pick up go and get out of. I doubt id have the patience to play mass effect on an iPhone, which requires hours of attention. Mobile games in nature offer simply a quick fix, while dedicated game machines are made for the dedicated gamer who spends ours and days on a single game.

Mobile games to me can be compared to what a fanfilm is on youtube to a multimillion doller hollywood movie. Mobile gaming is the youtube of gaming. As a very heavy gamer, i find my expirience satisfied on dedicated home consoles and computer. i am willing to spend 60$ on one good game than 60$ on 30 mobile games.

Posted:A year ago

#15

Curt Sampson Sofware Developer

596 360 0.6
While I personally find a 4" phone screen to small for extended use of any kind, beyond perhaps reading books with limited formatting, I can happily spend multi-hour sessions on my 7" tablet. In fact, I did just yesterday, reading a technical book that's basically unreadable on my phone (due to formatting issues). I'd imagine that a full-size (10") tablet reduces the barrier even further.

The lack of memory and horsepower will cease to become a problem over the next few years.

The control situation is not looking so rosy, though, for reasons we all know. We're basically stuck with touch-screen if we're going to make a game that's going to work well for a lot of people. But while that limits things, it doesn't make it impossible to make a AAA game. I suspect I miight find an isometric action RPG easier to control with a multi-touch screen than with a mouse. Games such as Fallout 3 / New Vegas are already pretty close as well, with combat that would be well suited to a touch-screen if VATS mode was used exclusively, and inventory management and the like that begs for a touch-screen. The key is what to do about the first-person view/movement; can that be changed to work better with a touch-screen while still maintaining the immersiveness?

And after all, first person shooters thrive on consoles, though the controller is clearly and substantially inferior to a mouse for such games.

Posted:A year ago

#16

Login or register to post

Take part in the GamesIndustry community

Register now