The hyper-casual segment is the fastest growing in the mobile game industry. However, by the end of 2021, it started to show signs of stagnation. Despite the constant increase in the number of games published on the market and new teams trying their luck, the number of successful games did not correlate with the effort.
The dominating approach to hyper-casual production was always the assembly line type: make as many prototypes as you can in hopes of finding a good one. There is, however, an alternative approach that can produce a better outcome, especially in view of the market situation. At FreePlay (AIBY Group), our approach—which helped us to create successful games like Join Clash, Count Masters, and Fidget Toys Trading—is to pick games carefully and polish them well.
The hyper-casual race and the competition
From Q1 2019 and by Q4 2021, the hyper-casual segment had almost tripled. Yet, the growth in downloads did not correlate with the number of hyper-casual prototypes produced—it grew from 300 to almost 4400 in April 2021, the biggest number so far.
What’s even more interesting, the number of successful games stayed about the same. In February 2020, when only about 350 prototypes were tested, 17 of them became hits, giving us a fairly good chance of 4.8% when it comes to making a successful game. While at the same time, only 20 out of 4400 prototypes in April 2021 became hits, which gives us a faint 0.45% chance.
Naturally, when the growth in numbers of prototypes failed to produce the desired result, many got disappointed, and a moderate decline followed. Nowadays, the number of prototypes tested and hits produced stays around the same—3000 and 20 per month respectively.
Playing the lottery—what’s the alternative?
Hyper-casual development was (and still is) very much like a lottery game. You come up with an idea, make a prototype (an early version of the game), and test it. What happens next is widely believed to be a matter of luck—for instance, if your idea is good, it might become a hit (generate a big number of downloads).
For many publishers on the market, the dominating approach is to test all ideas (eliminating only the most obvious misfits) with a relatively low production quality filter. However, an alternative approach exists Filter as many as you can, focus on a few, and make them good.
Despite being the complete opposite, this approach managed to produce significant results. Superhits like Join Clash (350М+ downloads), Count Masters (200M+ downloads), and Fidget Toys Trading (90М+ downloads) are among the games developed by FreePlay, whose narrative has always been quality over quantity.
The alternative: An overview of the quality approach
Our approach to development begins at the earliest stage possible—ideation. The experts try to eliminate as many concepts as possible based on their knowledge of the market, marketability, and game design. Trying to forecast CPI and retention just by reading a short design pitch requires a lot of knowledge and skill. And even the most experienced people can make mistakes; but in most cases, this approach works well. Most importantly, it allows a team to focus on the most potent ideas and spend more time on ideation itself, which is critical for success.
Another important factor is active participation in early production. When the team provides direct feedback way before the prototype is tested, it increases the game’s chances to pass CPI and retention benchmarks on the test. And while it takes more time to develop a game, fixing errors early will save time in the iteration stage. Using this method, about 50% of the games tested by FreePlay will pass to another iteration, showing the benefits of early polishing.
When the game is ready for testing, we follow our own protocol. The test usually runs in different countries for several days and often through various networks, most commonly—Unity. While networks like Facebook can provide a quick result, they rarely contribute to large-scale promotions, unlike the bidding networks such as Unity. On the other hand, testing on Unity requires a generous budget, time, and effort. But it shows a more accurate result. No publisher with a mass production model can afford to test on Unity unless it’s the monetization test stage.
Finally, we do not rush to publish the game as soon as the metrics are okay. While it might already earn a few hundred thousand, it might also be one step away from becoming a superhit, earning millions. But you shouldn’t “overcook” it either. Excessive polishing and feature production might result in your game becoming obsolete and out of trend before the scale stage. To iterate, and make decisions and predictions quickly, the team uses its own all-in-one SDK solution. Paired with a powerful analytic tool and prediction model, this makes project management smoother.
Pros and cons of the quality approach
The biggest downside of this model for developers is that only a few can use it. Publishers using this model will try to focus their expertise on a few strong teams rather than trying to work with as many as possible. Also, you need to take into account the fact that the number of experts and teams on the market is limited. This way, you need to concentrate your resources and work closely on the chosen teams to make a hit. Another important point is it is hard to scale, both for a publisher (which needs strong experts) and for a team (which also requires strong experts), as this model requires both parties to keep their quality on a high level.
But the advantages of this model are far greater—the teams are getting the results faster; some even manage to turn their first game into a hit, like the developers of Ragdoll Ninja and Stone Grass, both recently published by FreePlay. Also, sufficient quality usually means better game metrics, allowing it to scale with higher efficiency and earn more. Finally, even if the team does not score a hit right away, the experience gained is far greater compared to standard prototype production.
Conclusion: Main takeaways of the quality approach
- The game’s success highly relies on starting with the ideation stage. At this stage, use your knowledge of the market, marketability, and game design to eliminate as many concepts as possible.
- To increase the chances your game has to pass CPI and retention benchmarks on the test, make sure you participate in early production and provide feedback before the prototype testing.
- Testing on Unity is worth it because a much more accurate result justifies great expenses, the amount of time spent on it, and the effort put into it.
- To apply this model successfully, concentrate your efforts on a few strong teams instead of overreaching yourself.
