Paid user acquisition an arms race, says Triple Town dev
DICE 2013 Video: Mobile devs increasingly need to buy their way into the best-seller charts, says Spry Fox CEO
The DICE Summit panel on disruption in the mobile game space featured representatives from Spry Fox, Halfbrick Games, and Backflip Studios, three companies that don't rely on the practice of paid user acquisition to turn their games into hits. But even though Spry Fox hasn't spent a dime on marketing its games or buying new users, CEO David Edery said it could become a fact of life in the industry.
"That's an arms race, and I don't want to be in an arms race. It's never fun," Edery said. However, he added, "At the end of the day, I can't ignore the fact that the odds of me getting a game in the top 20 on any of these mobile charts is very near to zero if I don't do paid user acquisition."
To this point, SpryFox has relied on other ways of getting noticed. The company has used its contacts within Amazon, Google, and Apple to get their products featured placement on their storefronts, and the way the company makes games has also helped. Edery said SpryFox focuses on making a fun and unusual game for a niche market, as there are so many mobile devices on the market, even a niche audience could be hugely profitable.
"If a developer is making just taking the 10th clone or the 1000th clone of a popular game, the only way to beat those guys is to spend a little more on user acquisition," Edery said, "but that's not what gets me out of bed in the morning."

This is an aspect of mobile game marketing that I really don't like.
Basically there are a number of mechanics by which you can buy individual players.
Then if your cost of acquisition is 0.00000001p less than your ARPU then you are in the money. Just open the taps and throw lots of budget at the mechanics.
The thing about these mechanics is that they are bought by auction, like Google ad words. And the cost has been creeping up. Worse, at key times the big publishers muscle in and pay silly prices just to block their competition. You get an escalating bidding war that bears no relationship to the value of the players thus bought.
Far better to make a game which is fundamentally compelling then to build a community and a brand. This way you get a higher quality of player. You get stickiness and virality. But it takes skill and hard work.
Paying for players still has uses. Populating a new social game so arriving players have opponents, for instance. Or buying chart position in a small country that will the spill over into other countries.
The fundamental problem is visibility on the Apple App Store. It was never designed for three quarters of a million apps. There is much that could be done to make this work better, something that Apple are obviously well aware of.
Posted:3 months ago