this post was submitted on 04 Feb 2024
537 points (97.7% liked)

Asklemmy

42523 readers
1263 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy πŸ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

It seems like if what you're showing is what you understand they find appealing and fun, then surely that's what should be in the game. You give them that.

But instead, you give them something else that is unrelated to what they've seen on the ad? A gem matching candy crush clone they've seen a thousand times?

How is that model working? How is that holding up as a marketing technique???

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Ottomateeverything 410 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (37 children)

Some of the responses here dance around the truth, but none of them hit the nail on the head. This is a bit of an artifact of how the mobile industry works and the success rate vs profitability vs the way ads work on mobile.

Yes, hands down, this is not an effective advertising strategy. Many of these game companies are very successful so it's not because they're stupid. It's because these ads aren't advertising campaigns.

These ads are market research. The point isn't to get you to download their game. At all. The point is to figure out what people will engage with.

These ads are all game ideas. Mobile game ideas are a dime a dozen million. They're easy to come up with, cost a lot to build, and many don't monetize well and therefore aren't profitable. Because of that, it's very expensive and unsustainable to build games and test them and see what succeeds.

Instead, companies come up with ideas, build a simple video demonstrating the idea, and put up ads with those videos. They then see how many people engage with the ads to determine how many people would even visit the download page for that game. Building a quick video is much much much cheaper than building a game. This is the first step in fast failing their ideas and weeding out bad ones.

Essentially the companies have lots of ideas, build lots of simple videos, advertise them all, and see which ones get enough engagement to be worth pursuing further, while the rest get dropped entirely.

But those ads need to link somewhere. So they link to the companies existing games. Because they're already paying for it. So why not.

But building a whole new game is also expensive. Dynamics in mobile gaming are very odd because of the way "the algorithm" works. It is actually extremely expensive to get advertising in front of enough people that enough download it that you have any meaningfully large player base to analyze at all.

So the next trick is these companies will take the successful videos, build "mini games" of those ads as a prototype, and then put that in their existing game. This means they can leverage their existing user base to test how much people will engage with the game, and more importantly, eventually test how well it monetizes. Their existing users have already accepted permissions, likely already get push notifications, and often already have their payment info linked to the app. It also means they don't have to pay for and build up a new store presence to get eyeballs on it. Many of the hurdles of the mobile space have already been crossed by their existing players, and the new ones who clicked the ads have demonstrated interest in the test subject. This is why many of the ads link to seemingly different games that have a small snippet of what you actually clicked on.

If these mini games then become successful enough, they will be made into their own standalone game. But this is extremely rare in mobile. The way the store algorithms and ads work make it pretty fucking expensive to get new games moving, so they really have to prove it to be worthwhile in the long run.

So yeah, most people look at this the wrong way - it does actually go against common sense advertising, but that's because it's not actually advertising. It's essentially the cheapest way for companies to get feedback from people that actually play mobile games about what kinds of games they would play.

It's not advertising. It's market analysis.

[–] [email protected] 64 points 5 months ago (1 children)

This is brilliant for them. They basically take the elevator pitches from the concept phase of design and toss them at players to see what sticks. Don't even have to get to the point of a vertical slice to playtest, just a conceptual animation of gameplay.

[–] Ottomateeverything 48 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, this makes me so fucking mad as a player but like.... It actually works super well so I can't blame them.

Mobile gaming is full of shitty elevator pitches and super high failure rates so it just kinda.... Makes sense.

But I still hate it.

[–] [email protected] 27 points 5 months ago

Absolutely, I hate it, too. It's like how the more I learn about advertising, the more disgusted I become as I discover that it's all just malicious psychology to push the buttons in your brain to get you to do what they want, but it's still brilliant psychology that they've honed after more than a century of practice. I hate it, but I can't deny it works.

[–] [email protected] 42 points 5 months ago (1 children)

This is a great answer but do you have a source for it? I'm not doubting you; I've just never heard this explanation before so I'm really curious about it.

[–] Ottomateeverything 11 points 5 months ago (1 children)

As I mentioned in other comments, I'm a software dev that's worked with companies that were doing this, that were talking to other mobile game companies that were doing this. I hate to say "trust me bro" but, this stuff isn't something they're like happy to publicly advertise so it's not like it's written up somewhere, AFAIK.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 24 points 5 months ago (7 children)

As an old game dev, this is so depressing. All hooked up dopamine addicts needed to be bled their money as fast as possible.

Nice writeup though!

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] [email protected] 22 points 5 months ago (1 children)

this makes so much sense, how do you know all this?

[–] Ottomateeverything 79 points 5 months ago (7 children)

I'm a software dev and have worked with some of these companies. It's kind of sad because I liked the idea of mobile games and working with them was a bit like seeing the devil behind the curtains. I dreamt of making cool little games based on fun and unique ideas and quickly learned it's all a huge well oiled machine chugging through market data to find the most effective money extracting methods they can come up with.

For every bit you think these companies are grimey money chasers, I promise you it's at least 5 times worse.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 5 months ago (3 children)

ooph, I just started trying to make a mobile game in Jan 😬

[–] MojoMcJojo 25 points 5 months ago

Make it a good one. Then tell me about it, because I know I'll never find it on the play store.

[–] Ottomateeverything 16 points 5 months ago (3 children)

I hate to be discouraging. I wanted to do the same up until these interactions. Depending on what is a livable wage for you, or if you're doing it on the side, it could still be possible. But I'm in high cost of living areas in the US and it seems totally unfathomable to me. I watched companies spend literal millions of dollars on just advertising to gauge interest in games they then shut down because they couldn't make the game profitable enough to pay for the ads and their bills etc.

There are definitely success stories, and you can definitely get games released and get players. But I just want to point out that many of the games are simple and just have absolutely astronomical amounts of money behind them. Mobile is fucking crazy and I feel like it's much harder for smaller devs to get their name out through typical advertising channels.

IMO, which is mostly just guessing based off what I've seen, I'd think your time is better spent finding small communities that may be interested in your game and posting about them, as opposed to buying ads etc. Indie dev subreddits and other gaming communities have propped up successful games before, and it may cost you more time and effort, but it just looks extremely hard to compete on the mobile ads playing fields against these huge companies these days.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 5 months ago (4 children)

As somebody who almost got a degree in animation to go work at the big AAA companies, everything you've said in this thread about the industry has been right on the money to the view I got that made me bail out in college. There's plenty more that can be said about working in the industry, but suffice to say they play in their own cesspool, and unless you've got serious financial backing, it's not worth trying to compete.

Even speaking of just the indie scene, don't go in expecting to make anything on a game. Many of the indie studios you see on Steam will never go on to make a second game because their first never became profitable and the company went bankrupt. Even plenty of the more popular indie games will never make back what they cost. There's those one in a million games like Lethal Company, but you should do it because you like making games, not because you expect to quit your day job.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 13 points 5 months ago (2 children)

You're only about a month in, aim to release on somewhere like itch.io instead of a mobile store. Join some dev communities and game jams and the like. Building up a following like that is a million times easier than trying to get noticed in the sea of SEO games in an app store.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] Leviathan 19 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (3 children)

If true it's kind of a dumb idea. I downloaded one of these that looked good many years ago, didn't end up being the game, I deleted it immediately and haven't clicked on a single one of these since. A few of them even looked like fun concepts but fuck it, it's probably not real. Seems like their market research is going to be heavily skewed by people once bitten, twice (or forever) shy.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 5 months ago (2 children)

That's just the thing they want. You know that 99% of the ads are fake, but if you enjoy one enough to click it anyway, on the off chance it's real, that data is extra valuable because you've watched a thousand ads and clicked on one so that's the one they know to focus on.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 14 points 5 months ago (2 children)

The real question for me is: where is the money coming from?

It seems like mobile ads are extremely incestuous. Game A advertises games B to M, which in turn advertise all the others. So ad revenue can hardly be a significant source of income for the industry as a whole.

The games themselves probably all work on a freemium model, but even given the whale dynamics there, it seems unlikely that the games produce enough revenue to offset literally billions of ads.

Also, how exactly does your analysis square with the fact that I've seen the exact same game ads for years? It doesn't really make sense to advertise 5 years for such throwaway products.

[–] Ottomateeverything 17 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

It seems like mobile ads are extremely incestuous. Game A advertises games B to M, which in turn advertise all the others.

In many ways, yes they are. Especially if you like inside individual genres. But mobile games also have so so many players and a rotating player base. Even old games can still attract new players etc. But yes, they are pretty incestuous.

But that's the market. It's unlikely to see massive growth like it has in the past. Mobile games have become so common that they've pretty much saturated the market and rotate players around. The same idea could kind of be said about things like movies or theaters, but the business still works.

The games themselves probably all work on a freemium model, but even given the whale dynamics there, it seems unlikely that the games produce enough revenue to offset literally billions of ads.

Whale dynamics are a huge part of this, and the spenders on these games absolutely do produce enough to pay for the ads. If they didn't, the companies wouldn't be running them.

Let me put it this way - I've seen companies run games all the way through the process from "fake ads" to a fully released game... And then shut it down because the players "only" end up spending 2-3x what it cost to acquire them through advertising. 3x their investment is seen as a failure because of the cost to build them. That's how important it is to them that they run these fake campaigns so they can bail on the failures early. And their targets for successful games land in 3-8x the advertising budge to be successful. Though exact ranges depend on genres and the "longevity" of a player and lots of other things.

I'll also add, as expensive as you might think running ads is, actual development is significantly higher. Ads will likely be run for a long time on a successful game, but the advertising for 6 months is way cheaper than spending 2 years with engineers, artists, designers, QA, and management all on the project. If they can spend 200k on advertising in 6 months to gauge interest, that's only costing the salary of like 2 engineers, so it's highly worthwhile. Most mobile game "success" rates are well below ten percent.

Also, how exactly does your analysis square with the fact that I've seen the exact same game ads for years? It doesn't really make sense to advertise 5 years for such throwaway products.

To be honest, I can't answer this one with confidence. I've seen multiple companies using the strategy I outlined, so I know it's pretty common. I also know that those companies were copying the strategy from other companies in the space. So I know it's prevalent. But that's not going to be every single ad you ever see.

I'll point out a couple things:

How exact is exact? Are you sure it's the exact same video down to a T? They may be floating multiple ideas at a time, and games can live in this "fake ad" state for multiple years while they iterate on it. Everything from different sound effects but the same video, different visual themes, running cuts of players doing well vs poorly, changing individual words in the messaging, etc. They then test these against each other to see which do better. I've seen some run for a while, but I've never felt confident it's actually exactly the same.

And if that's the case... Is it possible someone saw that and ad was fake but thought it was a good idea, and now a different company just literally copied and posted the same video?

Second, this may just be a "market analysis" learning vehicle. They may never intend on building the game. For example, if a company is thinking about game A, they may run ads, see it doesn't work, kill the project, and start considering game B. Now they already have data on how game As ads ran, and they can use their original ads as a "control" and try different variants to see what does better, and then use that data to determine how to best advertise game B. Or they may test game B against game A. Then they might see that it's doing worse than A, and try something else.

Third, some of this may be chasing measuring "seasonality". Game genres trend back and forth over time. They may use an old ad they put together to test the waters now to test the water again.

Fourth, I'm not totally convinced these are always studios running the ads. These might be publishers that never intend on building the game, but are trying to find info on what types of games are trending and what genres they should be invested in. Or they might be the advertising networks just running bullshit ads to gauge how much they should bid for ads in a particular genre. Or maybe it's some giant joint venture like Tencent who owns tons of studios and is gaging what they should be recommending their studios work on.

Data is extremely valuable. In many forms. And many people will pay for that data. And this type of data is such an accurate gauge of actual user behavior because it is literally actually current user data.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 12 points 5 months ago (2 children)

It's also illegal (False Advertising)

[–] Ottomateeverything 14 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Is it though? IANAL, but I feel like this is, at the very least, a gray area.

You can't purchase anything. The ad didn't say anything except maybe "play now", and there is a game and it may even contain a mini game of sorts that's kinda the ad.. The "harm" is like 3 seconds of your time. The "product" doesn't not do what it says because... It doesn't exist....

I dunno. Maybe it is. I feel like this is one of those things where "we all know it is" but "legally they probably wiggle their way out of the legal definition, and what are people going to do? Sue them for 5$?"

Not that I agree with it, don't get me wrong. I think we all know it's fucking scummy bullshit. But I'm not sure you'd win a court case over it and what harm you could argue it caused you etc.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 5 months ago

If it's not punished, is it really illegal?

[–] [email protected] 11 points 5 months ago (2 children)

But that game in the screenshot looks like it's a thing, I saw a video of it. Like somebody could make that in Unity in a week or so.

Why not release Bridge Blasters or whatever the fuck it's called, and then when it's a surprise hit, put a ton of resources and all your worst money grubbing microtransactions into Bridge Blasters 2 DX Extreme. Then when people see that advertised, they'll go "oh Bridge Blasters, I remember that, I'll give that a go", rather than going "huh, another scam game. fuck that".

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] DrMango 10 points 5 months ago

These guys are doing agile better than any team I've ever worked with...

load more comments (28 replies)
[–] [email protected] 87 points 5 months ago (9 children)

Just fucking get "Yeah You Want Those Games" on Steam.

Btw, I love the ones where they actively acknowledge that many of the ads are fake "Why does everyone say this game is fake? I'm playing it right now." or "See, we're going to walk through the game in order to prove it's real...." proceeds to make overly generic commentary that proves nothing

And I find it amusing this game Envoy: The King's Return has been a puzzle game and an RTS, and it seems the voice over keeps getting confused... because after the generic voice over for Envoy sometimes says "Let the battle begin!", after showing it as a puzzle game.

[–] [email protected] 40 points 5 months ago (6 children)

I forget the game but there was one ad that specifically said, "Don't you hate those fake ads? Well we'll show you what our game is really like!" I was so amazed that I downloaded the game even though it didn't appeal to me.... their ad was also fake.

I get that Google Play is "whatever goes" but it's fucking embarrassing that Apple doesn't police their store - they're certainly being paid more than enough money to do it.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

The most devious format is when they show a "clip" from a "totally real youtuber's very real games people say are fake, but aren't" series

Protip: The harder someone tries to convince you something isn't the case, the more likely that it is. Lemme put it like this. Would you trust a restaurant that felt the need to put up a sign saying "We do NOT jack off into the clam chowder!", no?

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
[–] [email protected] 55 points 5 months ago (4 children)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 54 points 5 months ago (2 children)

It's important to realize that this isn't a game, it's 20 seconds of animation that looks like a game. There would be a lot more work designing levels or an algorithm to send enemies etc.

The actual game is designed to be as addictive as possible so you become a whale spending money on it. The advertising is designed to get you to download the game. Two different jobs.

Also, easier A/B testing and targeting if you can just advertise different games to different people but funnel them all to the same end game.

If the math worked out that people who saw the real game downloaded it and ended up paying more money, they would advertise the real game. Guess the math doesn't work.

[–] [email protected] 46 points 5 months ago (1 children)

The ads also have obvious mistakes in the gameplay. That's to deliberately induce frustration in the viewer, who thinks they would be able to do better.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Can't cite sources, just want to reaffirm. Kept running into that concept when researching game design, advertising, psychology.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 5 months ago

Yeah, advertising is one of those things where it superficially looks awful. Then you study the details, and it only gets worse.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] sanguinepar 15 points 5 months ago (1 children)

There would be a lot more work designing levels or an algorithm to send enemies etc.

Here's a video of a guy doing just that: https://youtu.be/zRDhiN50Vo0?si=mMnc8ieKbCxcLcSY

TLDW: He manages to make a working game, but doesn't think it's all that much fun.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] beebarfbadger 52 points 5 months ago

Yeah, once you've given the app permission to snoop out all your data, they have what they came for and don't need you to keep it any longer.

[–] [email protected] 52 points 5 months ago (2 children)

iirc they actually started adding these as mini games after getting sued for false advertising

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 36 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (3 children)
[–] Sanctus 14 points 5 months ago (2 children)

That is insane. Makes me want to follow these trends and make the actual game. Put ads in it, charge a dollar or two to get rid of them. Give the people what they saw and want while also making myself not egregiously poor.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Ottomateeverything 13 points 5 months ago (2 children)

This is a >11 minute video, which winds around the truth, but ultimately the creator trying to reason about what's going on... But his conclusions end up being incorrect. Don't waste your time.

These videos are made to gauge interest in game ideas by making up ads, and the seeing what engagement is like. If people will click on an ad to download a game, they don't know if that game is real, but their clicking says they are interested. And if it's successful, the game may incorporate the idea as mini game, within their existing gams, and see how it pans out in actual game play.

This is idea testing, it's not deceit trying to hook you up into their existing game by baiting you with something else. That might be a secondary side effect but this is not the primary goal.

This creator is totally misreading this.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] JeeBaiChow 30 points 5 months ago (2 children)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 30 points 5 months ago

When I was pitching games to publishers, this was how they would test game ideas to see if there was interest. You essentially sent them a few minutes of gameplay or faked gameplay ideas and they would create these ads.

[–] [email protected] 25 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I play D&D with a guy who plays one of these games. It’s so strange. It’s clearly cheap junk, it has absolutely awful reviews everywhere but he just… plays it casually and talks about it like it’s any other major multiplayer game.

It’s weird but I guess he likes it so, who cares? I’m guessing that these studios spend an incredibly low amount of development, a good amount on misleading marketing, and coast by with a moderate playerbase of a maybe a couple thousand people

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 23 points 5 months ago

Does anyone understand the point of advertising a game doing something that, after downloading, it does not do?

They're called "lies."

[–] [email protected] 22 points 5 months ago

The ads are for testing game concepts, if an ad have enough engagement the game is made.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (7 children)

One of the more interesting things about how these games are advertised (I don't play mobile games but I suspect a lot of people that do are kids) are that it always shows someone playing the game poorly. It's supposed to make you go "huh. Well that looks easy. Wait wth is he doing? No! He could have gotten the powerup. Oh! Looks like he might get this one! What?! How do you mess that up?! I bet I could do that."

One thing that I've realized about this generation of kids and people who didn't grow up on tech but were forcibly introduced to it(millennials, gen x, boomers) is that they don't want the game to be challenging or to reward skill. They just need the game to be flashy and to pass the time. That's why these games are always made to look so easy and like the guy playing is a moron. A lot of people are attracted to games in a different way than "gamers" ... They are not attracted to the challenge or the mastery, they've attracted to the visuals and lack of difficulty.

I believe these types of games are akin to gambling. The last time I went to Dave and Busters, you wouldnt believe the amount of adults i saw playing games of chance (not skill) for tickets. Exactly like a casino.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 5 months ago

One thing that I've realized about this generation of kids and people who didn't grow up on tech but were forcibly introduced to it(millennials, gen x, boomers) is that they don't want the game to be challenging or to reward skill.

As a gen X who has been gaming for all my living memory, electronic gaming since I was 5, and gaming on computers since i was 10, I don't think you have any clear idea what those generations are like. Certainly, there are groups that vastly prefer games of chance to games of skill, whether they be electronic or not, but I've seen those in every generation, just like I've seen the opposite.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] [email protected] 19 points 5 months ago (4 children)

You installed their app on your phone, giving them access to some kind of array of data points on you, up to and including information stored on your device/keylogging you.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 16 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Don't know if the others are correct about the reasons, but here's what I felt to be a reason when I once installed such a scam. They do whatever they can to make you run the game and then try to hook you up by using every trick possible to increase engagement. Then they sell you worthless in-game resources for real money. The game I played didn't even have ads aside from ads of purchasing in-game stuff everywhere

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 13 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Anti-user features are a major thing. People are dumb enough with technology you can get away with openly screwing over your "customers". The antifeature in this case is "it's not actually the advertised game, it's a cheap pay to win thing".

Presumably, people download this thinking it's cool, and then end up playing it anyway and whaling for the "developers", who may literally be four people, one of which reskins existing games, while everyone else does sales and marketing.

load more comments
view more: next β€Ί