Hearthstone makes $20m a month - SuperData
Blizzard title easily leading the digital card game market, which SuperData forecasts will hit $1.3 billion this year
According to a new report from SuperData, the worldwide market for digital collectible card games (CCGs), led by Blizzard's Hearthstone, should hit an all-time high of $1.3 billion this year. The research firm noted that Hearthstone "transformed the landscape after earning more last year than its three closest competitors combined."
Mobile has had a sizable impact on the digital CCG market and on Hearthstone. After Blizzard launched the game on smartphones this April, the game's revenue and player base jumped up significantly. SuperData said that Hearthstone is now generating $20 million every month, with more players on mobile than PC (9 million vs. 8 million).
"In the same way that World of Warcraft became the dominant MMO when it was launched, Hearthstone is now the digital card game to beat. Blizzard made a game that is more accessible than long-running CCGs like Magic: The Gathering without sacrificing deep and engaging game play for hardcore fans," SuperData CEO Joost van Dreunen said. "Publishers like EA and Bethesda are developing new CCGs as a direct result of Hearthstone's success, and Wizards of the Coast revamped its Magic video game series as well."
SuperData estimates that smartphones will continue to lead the digital CCG market with roughly $532 million generated next year; while smartphone players tend to spend less than PC or tablet users, SuperData notes that smartphones remain the fastest growing audience for digital CCGs. It's not necessarily an either/or scenario, though, as almost half of digital card gamers play on more than one major platform. Typically, multi-platform CCG players will play on either a PC or tablet at home and then use a smartphone while on the go. It's also worth noting that the digital CCG genre is one of the most male-dominated genres, as the adult audience is 80 percent male with an average player age of 31.
"Previously, smartphones were the realm of relatively simple card games like Rage of Bahamut and Marvel: War of Heroes. Highly-complex digital CCGs modeled after tabletop games tended to exclusively target PC and tablet players," van Dreunen added. "The success of Hearthstone on smartphones shows that the most dedicated CCG players want to play their games on the go too. As digital card gamers grow to expect seamless play across devices, publishers will need to rethink their game designs to account for players' diverse tastes and different play habits across PCs, smartphones and tablets."
Combat Monsters has a higher player review rating than both Hearthstone and Solforge, yet gets no coverage at all from anybody. Our last expansion that came with a big PR "push" had 1,200 extra cards in it. Hearthstone released a patch at a similar time with 132. Which got the goodies?
Because talking about the games people prefer is not as important as talking about games that get the most ad clicks. Which means for me that games industry journalism is dead in the water.
*Deleted even-more-contentious content, life too short error*
Edited 4 times. Last edit by Paul Johnson on 13th August 2015 8:05am
As for the gaming press as a mechanism to steer consumer attention to more worthwhile games.... ....wait, 2015 you say, ahhh forget it. just give me something people will click on because PR has already seeded interest and we sure as hell gonna ride that coat-tail all the way to rapture and beyond.
Media across all subjects spend 90% of their time writing about the things that they think people will most want to read about, and have for hundreds of years.
No, not really, an average rating is an average rating. How do you think more players equates to a better overall appreciation of the game? I can't think of even a tiny correlation tbh. but I'm all ears...
Edited 1 times. Last edit by Paul Johnson on 13th August 2015 10:52am
I think most would agree that it's a sad fact, but to say that games journalism is dead in the water because they keep writing about what is popular is wide of the mark IMO.
If all the games media is about is making another admob friendly piece about crossy road or minecraft then indeed what's the point of it. In the news press there is the Guardian alongside the Sun. Where's our Guardian?
The point of writing about them now is to maintain an audience, whilst other articles and mentions push other, smaller, as yet undiscovered stuff.
I agree that it's very hard to get people to take notice, but I don't think it's any worse now than it has ever been, or any other industry.
Some sites I could point at but won't have at least been honest about the switch to shilling as a means to prosper.
Edited 1 times. Last edit by Jamie Firth on 13th August 2015 1:21pm
The more concerning issue about people consuming video games media is their attitude. In my experience people do not want to be told what to like, they want to be reaffirmed that what they like really is as good as they made themselves believe. And if you believe all videogames suck, then there is even a few people to reaffirm that believe as well. Which is a natural thing, when many games are free to play, or are on the same level as buying a pack of cigarettes or case of beer.
Top Gear is the prime example of a show that was tongue in cheek consumer advocating for a segment of the market where advocating consumers had become pointless.
http://tradingcardgames.com/review/combat-monsters/
The take home for me is this quote: "For a game to be this fun, yet relatively unheard of is a rare thing"
And you know what? It's just not a rare thing at all. We manage it every time we write a friggin game and it's just getting old now. Really, really old.
I mean, imagine 500 million 1/5 reviews! By the logic of just looking at the largest numbers, you'd be saying that that poorly rated game is liked more. Think about it.
If you are not backed by a big company is very hard to get noticed. I don't think that beautiful game that is "Unravel" (for example) would have been know to most of us if CoolWood Interactive didn't have EA Game's support.
This is our third year now for Monsters and it doesn't even qualify for a metacritic score.
Edited 1 times. Last edit by Paul Johnson on 14th August 2015 8:45am
With my best intentions and with my humble experience in EA Game Evaluations department: I think that maybe you should redo the trailer for the game again in higher quality. I feel that you loose a chunk of the potential players there since a video in that low quality makes the game look cheap when this is absolutely not the case at all (all those positive reviews in Steam pretty much proves this). I would keep that "Saturday morning cartoon vibe" (to call it somehow) that I think fits the game quite ok. But I would definitely redo that trailer.
I'll play a bit more when I have a chance. I know I tried Combat Monsters before, but it was some time ago and barely remember.
Edited 2 times. Last edit by Alfonso Sexto on 14th August 2015 9:10am
(Sure that might be subjective but there are many other more obvious cases of this)
I've recently been hooked to Infinity Wars, another free to play card game. I like how you get a lot of strategic options from the start! I tried Hearthstone but it felt kinda bland in the gameplay department. Top notch production values but that's all for me.
Paul, I'm downloading Combat Monsters as we speak! :) I'm liking the grid. Not just the cards but also the positioning matter, really cool.
Stay positive! I'm sure if you've got a great game you can go out there and snatch those players!
And hopefully get enough money to expand your game or develop the next one.
(On a side note: Platinum Games will make money someday right?...Right?!)
Edited 1 times. Last edit by Michael Vandendriessche on 19th August 2015 9:33pm