CoC Real World Economics:
The following is a detailed root analysis of Clash of Clans. The purpose of this analysis is to explain the nature of this game so that players may come to their own conclusion about its model, good or bad.
The game system as a reflection of a business model :
What do I mean by this? First, let's think of a game that is not a reflection of a business model to give us a comparison. Think of a console game - an old one for NES, such as those two plumbers that early gamers grew to adore. That game had marketing in order to sell it, but once purchased, there was nothing about the game that enticed the consumer to spend more money. You can't just throw money at that game to get more lives, more levels, or more features. All that the game has to offer is right in front of you.
Think of this from an artistic perspective. Creating a video game is certainly an artistic endeavor, and that game about those two plumbers was a pure piece of art in that sense. The game developers just wanted to make a game that was fun and equally challenging for everyone that plays. Business marketing came after the fact - they were certainly concerned with selling copies of the game, but nothing inside of the game itself indicated a business model. I'd like to point out that this model of business did very well for nearly 20 years and allowed for a steady flow of development for awesome games without players spending outrageous amounts of money.
Compare this to clash of clans. Contrary to that popular NES game, the business model is apparent within the coding of CoC itself. This can be said for any game that uses in-app purchases, but CoC is a prime example of what is killing not just the fun, but the art and equal challenge ethics, in every game that uses this model.
I'm sure there was some element of an artistic thought process that went into creating CoC, but artistic ideas come second to the business model. The first thought was likely, "what model can we use that will make the most money?" We can see that clearly in CoC. The game starts out extremely easy. The player even starts with 500 free gems and feels no pressure to spend any real money on the game. As the player progresses, it becomes exponentially more difficult. Upgrades go from taking less than an hour to eventually taking 2 weeks for the same structure on a higher level. Only after the player has already spent a few months playing will they feel the real pressure and benefit of purchasing gems. This is a key point because there's a psychological barrier that prevents people from simply quitting the game at this point. If you quit, it's as if you've wasted all that time playing the game so you may as well spend money and continue to progress, even if you are not satisfied, which brings the next topic.
The psychological satisfaction of accomplishment :
Bringing back the model comparison to that famous NES game. In that game, there was no progression. You played it to pass the time, and the reward was the fun you had in the present moment playing the game. CoC takes you out of the present moment and instead of making the "present moment" game play rewarding in and of itself, it makes the thought of future rewards the driving factor that keeps people coming back.
CoC is heavily focused on achievement rather than simply having fun game play. Think of this - if everything about the game were the exact same, including being able to chat with clan mates, but all the bases you were raiding were "bot...non-player character bases and there were no way to view other real players bases & accomplishments without being next to them in real life and looking at their gaming device, would any of it be nearly as fun? Even assuming that your own village still would be raided by "goblins/bots..etc." would you get any satisfaction out of playing for hours a day just to get better walls? No... You'd get bored very quickly. You'd probably think, "why am I doing the same thing over and over again just to defend against... a bot?"
You see, it's rather obvious that players of CoC value accomplishment rather than simply having fun. It's never implicated that this is the case, but it is rather implied. In threads like, "My base is maxed now!", "Just reached masters!", I have maxed (you fill this in...dragon, cc, th etc.), the comments are usually admiration for the person with the accomplishment. "Wow, that must have taken a long time!" At the same time, we see countless threads complaining about the loot. I don't think I need to go into detail explaining what these threads are like. These threads make it obvious that people look at farming as a boring grind, and the only thing they have to look forward to is the sense of accomplishment and praise they receive from other players.
A common argument against the loot problem is "If it were easier that wouldn't be any fun! You think you deserve a maxed base while putting in minimum effort?" This does nothing but prove the valid point. Players who have spent a lot of time and & or money on CoC want the reputation that it brings them, and if others are able to achieve the same reputation with less work, they get defensive and offended. If this game were designed to actually be fun and rewarding in and of itself without acknowledgement from others, loot would not even exist. I can think of countless ways that a multi-player defense buildings game could operate without loot and/or progress involved, and it would be a lot more fun and rewarding simply to play. The problem is, those models would not be netting SuperCell millions of dollars in revenue.
A factor that makes proves out that accomplishment matters more than fun is the recent debates, high level players somehow think they are less of a noob(new, inexperienced person) than low level players. The reality is that I've seen just as immature remarks from high level players as low level players. This is why there will never be level restricted chat. It's part of a rubbish, egocentric, elitist attitude that is no real indication of a player's maturity level or actual in game ability to play the game. SuperCell hires a few flunkies to constantly post Utube videos of perfected usages of troops and perfected use of the game in general as an advertising ploy to keep the upgrade income flowing and people being "hooked" into the psychological aspects follow like sheep.
Apologies for getting off topic in those last few statements, they are just my personal feelings upon it. So, continuing...to tie the loot point statements back to the first point of CoC being a reflection of a business model rather than a game let us proceed to the following point.
Why loot exists and why the loot problem will never be solved.
You can call me whatever you want when I say this (it's speculation, but it's my belief and I have good reason to suspect): SuperCell purposely nerfed the loot to make it harder to progress and they will never listen to the players calling for better loot. They've hit the sweet spot in their loot structure - enough players claim the loot is fine, which keeps everyone else hopeful enough to keep playing. I honestly sometimes wonder if 1) those players are paid SuperCell employees under the guise of a player account or 2) They have enough time to play 6 hours + per day and want praise from others for "accomplishing" something that other players are unable to do (they want to maintain their position as being better than other people... childish and immature IMO).
Following is a type of tower defense game which didn't involve progress or loot. I'll explain what a tower defense game would look like without a business model attached to it.
This type of game would be based on ranking or trophies because everyone would actually be playing on fair terms. The leader board would not consist of people who simply have the most money to spend, which violates the ethics of fair play. The leader board instead would actually indicate who are the most skilled players. Base setup would be similar to CoC (except without having to spend 2 years progressing to a maxed base). Offense and defense would be much more balanced, and probably an entirely new system would be in place for determining wins. It would be much more likely to win a defense (and lose an attack) because there would only be an incentive to make the game as fair as possible. The only reason offense is better than defense in CoC is because offense generates additional revenue from using gems & boosting troops, which practically all players do. Defense does not...so you see the advantage from a monetary point of view. In the ideal tower defense game, there would still need to be some sort of system to regulate troops being used, a timer to limit the amount of attacks for example, but it would not be impacted by who can spend the most money. This is the only way to create a fair leader board. I honestly don't even know why people pay attention or care about the top players in CoC at all when the money spenders have an unfair advantage because of the game economics structure, which mimics real life in the saddest way - the rich get ahead and stay ahead. CoC leader board literally has nothing to do will skill. It distills to time and money. This is not my subjective opinion, it is fact. The leader board in CoC is a sad pathetic joke...look at the leader boards peoples statistics, doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out.
Even if you don't agree with everything stated about in this ideal version of tower defense game, the important point to note is the inherent structure and principles involved.
Ideal - Fair for everyone. Money doesn't give you an advantage. The incentive is for the experience itself and not for the accomplishment. If you get bored with the game, you don't feel like you've wasted your time if you quit.
CoC is anything and far from fair. CoC blatantly uses a system which is designed to coerce players in spending money which promotes unfair game play. The psychological incentive is in the aspect of accomplishment from upgrading your village instead of being an inherently fun game to play, which causes the player to feel as though they've wasted their time if they quit.
Bringing back the model comparison to that famous NES game. In that game, there was no progression. You played it to pass the time, and the reward was the fun you had in the present moment playing the game. CoC takes you out of the present moment and instead of making the "present moment" game play rewarding in and of itself, it makes the thought of future rewards the driving factor that keeps people coming back.
CoC is heavily focused on achievement rather than simply having fun game play. Think of this - if everything about the game were the exact same, including being able to chat with clan mates, but all the bases you were raiding were "bot...non-player character bases and there were no way to view other real players bases & accomplishments without being next to them in real life and looking at their gaming device, would any of it be nearly as fun? Even assuming that your own village still would be raided by "goblins/bots..etc." would you get any satisfaction out of playing for hours a day just to get better walls? No... You'd get bored very quickly. You'd probably think, "why am I doing the same thing over and over again just to defend against... a bot?"
You see, it's rather obvious that players of CoC value accomplishment rather than simply having fun. It's never implicated that this is the case, but it is rather implied. In threads like, "My base is maxed now!", "Just reached masters!", I have maxed (you fill this in...dragon, cc, th etc.), the comments are usually admiration for the person with the accomplishment. "Wow, that must have taken a long time!" At the same time, we see countless threads complaining about the loot. I don't think I need to go into detail explaining what these threads are like. These threads make it obvious that people look at farming as a boring grind, and the only thing they have to look forward to is the sense of accomplishment and praise they receive from other players.
A common argument against the loot problem is "If it were easier that wouldn't be any fun! You think you deserve a maxed base while putting in minimum effort?" This does nothing but prove the valid point. Players who have spent a lot of time and & or money on CoC want the reputation that it brings them, and if others are able to achieve the same reputation with less work, they get defensive and offended. If this game were designed to actually be fun and rewarding in and of itself without acknowledgement from others, loot would not even exist. I can think of countless ways that a multi-player defense buildings game could operate without loot and/or progress involved, and it would be a lot more fun and rewarding simply to play. The problem is, those models would not be netting SuperCell millions of dollars in revenue.
A factor that makes proves out that accomplishment matters more than fun is the recent debates, high level players somehow think they are less of a noob(new, inexperienced person) than low level players. The reality is that I've seen just as immature remarks from high level players as low level players. This is why there will never be level restricted chat. It's part of a rubbish, egocentric, elitist attitude that is no real indication of a player's maturity level or actual in game ability to play the game. SuperCell hires a few flunkies to constantly post Utube videos of perfected usages of troops and perfected use of the game in general as an advertising ploy to keep the upgrade income flowing and people being "hooked" into the psychological aspects follow like sheep.
Apologies for getting off topic in those last few statements, they are just my personal feelings upon it. So, continuing...to tie the loot point statements back to the first point of CoC being a reflection of a business model rather than a game let us proceed to the following point.
Why loot exists and why the loot problem will never be solved.
You can call me whatever you want when I say this (it's speculation, but it's my belief and I have good reason to suspect): SuperCell purposely nerfed the loot to make it harder to progress and they will never listen to the players calling for better loot. They've hit the sweet spot in their loot structure - enough players claim the loot is fine, which keeps everyone else hopeful enough to keep playing. I honestly sometimes wonder if 1) those players are paid SuperCell employees under the guise of a player account or 2) They have enough time to play 6 hours + per day and want praise from others for "accomplishing" something that other players are unable to do (they want to maintain their position as being better than other people... childish and immature IMO).
Following is a type of tower defense game which didn't involve progress or loot. I'll explain what a tower defense game would look like without a business model attached to it.
This type of game would be based on ranking or trophies because everyone would actually be playing on fair terms. The leader board would not consist of people who simply have the most money to spend, which violates the ethics of fair play. The leader board instead would actually indicate who are the most skilled players. Base setup would be similar to CoC (except without having to spend 2 years progressing to a maxed base). Offense and defense would be much more balanced, and probably an entirely new system would be in place for determining wins. It would be much more likely to win a defense (and lose an attack) because there would only be an incentive to make the game as fair as possible. The only reason offense is better than defense in CoC is because offense generates additional revenue from using gems & boosting troops, which practically all players do. Defense does not...so you see the advantage from a monetary point of view. In the ideal tower defense game, there would still need to be some sort of system to regulate troops being used, a timer to limit the amount of attacks for example, but it would not be impacted by who can spend the most money. This is the only way to create a fair leader board. I honestly don't even know why people pay attention or care about the top players in CoC at all when the money spenders have an unfair advantage because of the game economics structure, which mimics real life in the saddest way - the rich get ahead and stay ahead. CoC leader board literally has nothing to do will skill. It distills to time and money. This is not my subjective opinion, it is fact. The leader board in CoC is a sad pathetic joke...look at the leader boards peoples statistics, doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out.
Even if you don't agree with everything stated about in this ideal version of tower defense game, the important point to note is the inherent structure and principles involved.
Ideal - Fair for everyone. Money doesn't give you an advantage. The incentive is for the experience itself and not for the accomplishment. If you get bored with the game, you don't feel like you've wasted your time if you quit.
CoC is anything and far from fair. CoC blatantly uses a system which is designed to coerce players in spending money which promotes unfair game play. The psychological incentive is in the aspect of accomplishment from upgrading your village instead of being an inherently fun game to play, which causes the player to feel as though they've wasted their time if they quit.
Just ask yourself...honestly...
do you feel like all the time you have spent playing CoC would be a waste if you just quit today?
If you answered yes, you prove the psychological point.
This is the addictive nature
of CoC, which is inherent in the structure of the game itself rather
than the people who play the game. If you aren't enjoying your time
playing and keep grinding on and on to get better walls to impress your
friends, why are you playing at all?
Supercell has absolute 100% control over HOW MUCH the gems are worth IN-GAME:
Supercell could make an easy change to CoC, making gems worth twice what they are now. Assuming that would cut their profits down by 1/2, each emplyee would still be receiving $5000/day (again, with my generous numbers. They probably earn a lot more in actuality).
If SC wanted all their employees to make a livable, generous, and honest income (let's just say $150,000/year, which is plenty for anyone to be very comfortable with).
Now follow me. If SC is currently making $2,000,000 per day, they are making $730,000,000 per year. That's $730 MILLION! Each emplyee making $150,000/year would mean SC would need $150,000 x 200 employees = $30,000,000 to pay their employees.
730 mil / 30 mil = 24.3. This means that Supercell could make the choice to make gems 24.3 TIMES MORE EFFECTIVE for the players and still have really a nice income at $150,000 per year. Or, they could make upgrades 24.3 times cheaper. Or, 24.3 times faster. This may have an impact on the actual ammount of gems purchased, but that would simply be speculation and there is not a single factor to indicate that gem purchasing would decrease as a whole. The majority of revenue comes from a lot of players spending $10 - $15. Those people spending $100-$1000+ are outliers and are not the main source of revenue for supercell.
Again, these numbers are scewed and rounded IN SUPERCELL'S FAVOR to make them look less greedy. The real numbers would reveal an even larger gap.
Supercell could make an easy change to CoC, making gems worth twice what they are now. Assuming that would cut their profits down by 1/2, each emplyee would still be receiving $5000/day (again, with my generous numbers. They probably earn a lot more in actuality).
If SC wanted all their employees to make a livable, generous, and honest income (let's just say $150,000/year, which is plenty for anyone to be very comfortable with).
Now follow me. If SC is currently making $2,000,000 per day, they are making $730,000,000 per year. That's $730 MILLION! Each emplyee making $150,000/year would mean SC would need $150,000 x 200 employees = $30,000,000 to pay their employees.
730 mil / 30 mil = 24.3. This means that Supercell could make the choice to make gems 24.3 TIMES MORE EFFECTIVE for the players and still have really a nice income at $150,000 per year. Or, they could make upgrades 24.3 times cheaper. Or, 24.3 times faster. This may have an impact on the actual ammount of gems purchased, but that would simply be speculation and there is not a single factor to indicate that gem purchasing would decrease as a whole. The majority of revenue comes from a lot of players spending $10 - $15. Those people spending $100-$1000+ are outliers and are not the main source of revenue for supercell.
Again, these numbers are scewed and rounded IN SUPERCELL'S FAVOR to make them look less greedy. The real numbers would reveal an even larger gap.
The Hog Nerf :
Hogs have not been nerfed twice. Nerfing involves actually... I dunno, changing a stat while they are actually being used. SC's choice to raise the cost of hogs is only a reflection of the fact that they know hogs are a popular choice and they know people will simply start to gem more hogs if they raise the price. This is not a nerf. And the hog problem will never be fixed as long as it's generating revenue.
Hogs have not been nerfed twice. Nerfing involves actually... I dunno, changing a stat while they are actually being used. SC's choice to raise the cost of hogs is only a reflection of the fact that they know hogs are a popular choice and they know people will simply start to gem more hogs if they raise the price. This is not a nerf. And the hog problem will never be fixed as long as it's generating revenue.
No comments:
Post a Comment