Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Rovio to Cut 260 Jobs as the Angry Birds Franchise Becomes Irrelevant

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 131 posts

Re: Rovio to Cut 260 Jobs as the Angry Birds Franchise Becomes Irrelevant

#91

Post by serve_yay »

caligastia wrote: post #90

When the first game came out, it was written in Lua and they had embedded a runtime in the iOS application - interesting that Apple at first forbade that practice, to the point of scanning libraries for interpreters. It then became the #1 iOS game - goes to show, allowing companies to bring their own language to the platform allows for unexpected successes. Hopefully Apple learned from that lesson. All the same, 800…

The only lesson Apple seems to have learned is that the App Store is great, and everything they're doing is working gangbusters.

Re: Rovio to Cut 260 Jobs as the Angry Birds Franchise Becomes Irrelevant

#92

Post by bpicolo »

chkuendig wrote: post #83
bpicolo wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And? Do you think it would be less fun for them if microtransactions were absent? Doubt it.

I don't - apparently people prefer nagging screens in games subsidized by a minority of whales over games everybody has to pay to download. After all, this is how the app stores started. Nobody would have switched to Freemium if Gamers preferred the Paid Games.

They switch because freemium gets them more money. Nothing more than a business decision. It sure doesn't mean gamers inherently prefer micro tx.

Re: Rovio to Cut 260 Jobs as the Angry Birds Franchise Becomes Irrelevant

#93

Post by kedean »

0x0 wrote: post #88
icebraining wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about trial versions? Are they supported by the app stores already? Seems like they'd solve the psychological problem.

In the early days of the App Store, people solved this problem by publishing two apps, a free "lite" edition and a for-pay "full" edition. Not sure why this isn't used more. Maybe because it's a hassle to migrate data (game progress, saves, etc) between apps, but I thought at least in modern iOS versions, multiple apps can share a common bundle ID prefix.

Part of the problem with that is that nobody wants to pay for the full edition, which goes back to the classic problem with demos of freeloaders who just keep playing the demo.

The solution that Nintendo stumbled on is to limit the number of uses to a demo, after which the demo is no longer playable. Unfortunately, this would require absolute cooperation from the app store, be decried as a terrible practice by many, and be moot on rooted phones.

Re: Rovio to Cut 260 Jobs as the Angry Birds Franchise Becomes Irrelevant

#94

Post by smt88 »

kedean wrote: post #93
0x0 wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the early days of the App Store, people solved this problem by publishing two apps, a free "lite" edition and a for-pay "full" edition. Not sure why this isn't used more. Maybe because it's a hassle to migrate data (game progress, saves, etc) between apps, but I thought at least in modern iOS versions, multiple apps can share a common bundle ID prefix.

Part of the problem with that is that nobody wants to pay for the full edition, which goes back to the classic problem with demos of freeloaders who just keep playing the demo. The solution that Nintendo stumbled on is to limit the number of uses to a demo, after which the demo is no longer playable. Unfortunately, this would require absolute cooperation from the app store, be decried as a terrible practice by many,…

I've always been happy to pay for the full edition. Unfortunately, most phone games are absolutely terrible. I think that's why the trials fail: it's really, really hard to make a great game. It's the same problem with trying to turn any creative pursuit into a predictable business.

Re: Rovio to Cut 260 Jobs as the Angry Birds Franchise Becomes Irrelevant

#95

Post by onion2k »

nsxwolf wrote: post #27
tfandango wrote: post #6

I'm not surprised, they have been cranking out the same game over and over again, re-branded and/or adding slightly different abilities without changing the basic game. After playing the Star Wars version for a little while I deleted it because the concept (while initially fun and interesting) had gotten old. They did release something called "Bad Piggies" too which I thought was a fun different game but along the sa…

Even so, Angry Birds 2 has a level of polish that makes the original look like some indie side project. If there's such thing as a AAA casual game, this is it. Which really shows how sad this business is -- a true sequel to a smash hit that goes way beyond the original sells so poorly that it leads to mass layoffs.

Even so, Angry Birds 2 has a level of polish that makes the original look like some indie side project. If there's such thing as a AAA casual game, this is it.

This is absolutely true, but for me it just drives home the message that indie gaming is far more interesting than the latest AAA titles. The sequel is just the same game without any of the originality of the first one, and it was that originality, that joy you get from finding something new and exciting, that made the first game worth playing.

Re: Rovio to Cut 260 Jobs as the Angry Birds Franchise Becomes Irrelevant

#96

Post by kedean »

wvenable wrote: post #85
tfandango wrote: post #6

I'm not surprised, they have been cranking out the same game over and over again, re-branded and/or adding slightly different abilities without changing the basic game. After playing the Star Wars version for a little while I deleted it because the concept (while initially fun and interesting) had gotten old. They did release something called "Bad Piggies" too which I thought was a fun different game but along the sa…

It's the same thing Nintendo does with Mario.

It's the exact opposite of what Nintendo does with Mario. Mario is used to brand a wide variety of different games. If Nintendo isn't sure whether a game will be successful, they slap Mario and his friend on it and call it a Mario game. Golf, racing, party games, pinball, platformers, EVERYTHING has had the mario label used to pull in potential audience.

Rovio has done precisely the opposite, and tried to rebrand the same game with different themes, like Star Wars. There's nothing new under the aesthetic changes.

Re: Rovio to Cut 260 Jobs as the Angry Birds Franchise Becomes Irrelevant

#97

Post by extesy »

listic wrote: post #56
codingdave wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely cash out. Internet fame and popularity is fleeting. Building up 800 employees because of one hit is a huge gamble. You could get another hit... but better odds are that you are just throwing money down the drain. Be happy for what you have, monetize the crap out of it, sell it at the peak if possible, and let it go.

I am at a loss why does one even need hundreds of employees for a company that produces a simple arcade game. I mean, you are not supposed to scale an arcade game, are you?

There are a lot of non-engineering jobs there. You've seen plush angry birds in stores, backpacks with angry birds pictures, etc, haven't you? Someone has to design, market them, negotiate with suppliers/retailers, etc.

Re: Rovio to Cut 260 Jobs as the Angry Birds Franchise Becomes Irrelevant

#98

Post by TranquilMarmot »

fasteddie wrote: post #89
icebraining wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about trial versions? Are they supported by the app stores already? Seems like they'd solve the psychological problem.

Conversion on anything trial-like, is going to be very small, and likely worse than even an upfront purchase because you will hit some people who are satiated with a small amount of trial gameplay or people who decide not to buy after playing. Keep in mind that the best premium apps have lifetime revenues in the low tens of millions, and the best F2P are in the billions.

Do you have a source for those numbers? I'm curious about what % of the top-grossing apps are considered "the best"

i.e. if 1% of apps are making billions but the other 99% are complete flops, it seems ludicrous that anybody would try to enter the market as this stage.

Re: Rovio to Cut 260 Jobs as the Angry Birds Franchise Becomes Irrelevant

#99

Post by josu »

yuliyp wrote: post #87
josu wrote: post #63

We need Uber for software developers. The gaming industry is looking more and more like the movie industry. Long term contracts no longer make sense. The industry needs to adapt.

Ummm what? Part of the whole point of making companies is because individuals can't risk going bankrupt to make a game, while a corporation that takes investments from people who understand that they may lose money on the deal shifts the risk to those more able to take that risk on. Uber works because the number of cab fares is large enough that over non-tiny durations the risk averages out and makes the situation te…

Maybe using the Uber analogy was a mistake. I used the analogy because I wasn't exactly thinking exactly about rentacoder kind of place, I was referring to something more curated, where work is somewhat commoditized.

But I was also thinking of the relationships that actors and crew have with movies, or private contractors with projects. In my view, which admittedly is not that well informed, hiring and firing people à la Rovio or Zynga, based on market trends is a very inefficient way to manage your workfoce. If Rovio stumbles upon another hit, they will probably need all those workers back.

Re: Rovio to Cut 260 Jobs as the Angry Birds Franchise Becomes Irrelevant

#100

Post by sosborn »

ChildOfChaos wrote: post #77
0x0 wrote: post #46

I tried Angry Birds 2 and was super impressed by the production quality and butter smooth graphics. Too bad the entire gameplay is a 100% miss: You have to wait or pay to retry levels after a while. This goes completely against everything that defines angry birds gameplay, which for me is to instantly re-start the level if I'm not satisfied with the first bird shoot. Absolutely ruins it. I'd much rather pay $X upfron…

Ugh. Greedy idiots are ruining mobile gaming. There are virtually no good games anymore as they all are designed to require in app purchases, they are not designed to be great games, just to con stupid people out of money. Gaming on mobile is dead because of this, yet continues to make money due to such scams.

Is it greedy to want to keep the lights on?
Post reply on HN