Gamasutra: The Art & Business of Making Gamesspacer
Supercell's Secret Sauce
View All     RSS
October 2, 2014
arrowPress Releases
October 2, 2014
PR Newswire
View All





If you enjoy reading this site, you might also want to check out these UBM Tech sites:


 
Supercell's Secret Sauce

December 7, 2012 Article Start Previous Page 2 of 4 Next
 

Supercell's vision wasn't always so crystal clear. When the company launched at the start of 2011, it had a very familiar idea of how to make it big in the games industry.

"Our first thought was, 'Hey, we're going to create these cross-platform games that you can access both from a web browser and from mobile devices,'" says Paananen. Was Gunshine a false start, then? "Yeah, I guess you could say that," he admits. "We thought web was a huge platform, so why don't we start with that? But when we started to dig into the tablet and smartphone versions of Gunshine, we started to confound ourselves. We realized, 'Hey, we want to make the best possible games we can for this platform. So we started to experiment with all kinds of things on this platform, and I guess we kind of found ourselves, and we tightened our focus, which I think is the best decision we've ever made."

It was around a year ago that Supercell came upon its "tablet-first" strategy -- a sharpening initiative that has no doubt played a huge part in the company's raging 2012 success.

"We think that tablet is the ultimate game platform," says the CEO. "It combines the best of all the possible worlds. It has a console-like performance; With Retina display, the screen is really as good as it gets; It's the first device that three to four year old kids can use and get started on -- that wouldn't be possible with PCs or laptops, or even gaming consoles."

What Paananen and his team realized ever so quickly was that if you don't build your games from the ground-up for a specific platform, you're not going to build the best games.

"I know from experience, because that's what we tried!" he laughs. "We started from this online web product, and how we actually discovered tablet was when we started to create a version of the game for the tablet, and we realized, 'Hey, it's not going to be a good game!' Unless we actually start from the tablet, we've never going to create the best games for this platform."

Focusing on a single platform seems to go against the grain of what works in our industry -- it especially seems absurd given that there are far more iPhones out there than iPads. Yet Paananen notes of Supercell's tablet-focused development, "I think it results in better games and, ironically, results in better games for the iPhone. When you design for a highly fidelity platform and a bigger screen and so on, you need to put even more emphasis on the quality. And honestly, we think that the tablet is the ultimate game platform. We think that in three to five years ahead, it's going to be the device that most people consume entertainment from."

In fact, the company's iPad revenue already equals its iPhone revenue -- proof, if any was needed, that Supercell's approach is definitely working.

So is this tablet-orientated development the sole ingredient in Supercell's secret sauce? It would appear not. In fact, it's far from this simple, as I slowly but surely gathered that the company's success is part experience, part focus, part culture, and a splash of happy accident.

"We think that the biggest advantage we have in this company is culture," offers the industry veteran. "We want to build a very different type of company. At the center of it is this idea of small -- if you think around the console industry, or even if you look at newer platforms like Facebook, what happens is that somebody comes in, and they have this small and very passionate team, and they make a great game, and consumers pick it up."

He continues, "That company then becomes financially very successful, and investors come onboard, and there are growth targets you need to hit. What happens is you end up growing really, really quickly with employees, and you start to build these bigger and more expensive products and so on, and at some point the company grows to hundreds of people in size, and the products become more and more expensive. And then you don't want to take risks anymore -- you can see that evidence by all the sequels that are being built. Nobody wants to take any risks anymore."

"Quite frankly, it's not fun to work in those sorts of companies. They're run by process, and top-down management," he says. Paananen is keen to avoid such a situation this time around, promising himself that no matter how success Supercell gets, the idea of keeping small will always be a core part of the company's ideology.

"I have this thing about becoming too big," he notes. "Zynga is an example of that kind of threat. The original FarmVille was built by five or six guys, and 84 million people played it on a monthly basis. Clearly people really loved the game. But since then what has happened is, Mark Pincus was quite proud that their latest product was made in 18 months by 100 people, and they are getting to this triple-A scale, blah blah blah.

"Okay, but what did the users think? Did they love the game? Well, maybe not. It really hasn't done that well. It's unbelievable that time after time after time, this industry falls into this same trap. You get bigger, you get slower, you build more expensive products, but they might not be the best products for the consumers."

Say Paananen, what really clicks with him about Supercell's "small is big" approach is the possibility of building a company he's always dreamed of -- a company built on passion rather than metrics.

"We don't hire people and say 'Okay, your job is to code this part of the game', 'you are responsible for these art assets', etcetera," he adds. "We don't have dedicated game designers as such -- it's the team that is going to build the game, and they are all responsible for the end-user experience."

It's an approach to management that has worked well for Valve, and Supercell is further evidence that it can result in huge success. "People really step up and take more responsibilities," adds Paananen. "It's a lot more motivating to do that, and a lot more passion gets thrown into the product. And the beauty of all of this is this is a model that really makes sense -- you don't need 100 people to build a game for this device, and we're not going to fall into this trap of hiring 100 people to build the best 3D experience, high-fidelity graphics, this massive storyline and loads of content. We just want to build games that are really fun to play, where the focus is on gameplay."


Article Start Previous Page 2 of 4 Next

Related Jobs

Vicarious Visions / Activision
Vicarious Visions / Activision — Albany, New York, United States
[10.02.14]

Character Artist-Vicarious Visions
Nuclear Division
Nuclear Division — Sherman Oaks, California, United States
[10.01.14]

Director of Product Management
Nuclear Division
Nuclear Division — Sherman Oaks, California, United States
[10.01.14]

Art Director
Whow Games GmbH
Whow Games GmbH — Hamburg, Germany
[10.01.14]

Games Developer






Comments


Robert Green
profile image
That's all good and well, but when Wired wanted to do a story about whales, they chose to use Clash of Clans as their example.
http://www.wired.com/gamelife/2012/11/meet-the-whales/all/
Hard to imagine that a game needs a $99.99 'chest of gems' unless it's largely just the same game as all the other social games with a different coat of paint. Try to argue this with anyone invested in this business model though, and they'll likely get into a circular argument that goes something along the lines of "it must be a really good game, because a lot of people are playing it and spending a lot of money, and nobody is putting a gun to their heads, so they must be really enjoying it and spending all that money voluntarily". Which is all true on a literal level of course, but in situations like these you always have to stop yourself and ask if the same arguments aren't just as true for slot machines.

Kevin Nolan
profile image
Clash Of Clans is a pretty good strategy game. There are winning and losing conditions both for defending your settlement and attacking other people's. There are no premium items (or at least none when I last played it) - all your real money can do is purchase ordinary items early and speed the rate your village grows, so the usual "buy your way to victory" complaint is moot, because there's always higher level players around.

I'm not sure in what way you define Clash Of Clans being the same as all other social games, but most complaints I've heard about them is that they are all never-fail, strategyless, pay-to-win cow clickers. In those areas Clash Of Clans is indeed different.

Robert Green
profile image
See Michael's comment below. It's good that they've expanded out into something that can actually be described as strategy, but when you say "all your real money can do is purchase ordinary items early and speed the rate your village grows", know that a lot of people will think "just like farmville, right?" It's still a business model based on impatience isn't it?

Jeremie Sinic
profile image
@Kevin
I like Clash of Clans for not trying to shove In-App Purchases in your face all the time. That's a definite plus. Actually I believe DragonVale worked for the same reason.
However, as I level up (currently level 27), I realize money is more and more important to continue progressing steadily.
Since I get attacked regularly, even though my defense "wins" most of the time, I still lose resources and now I feel like the only way to make significant progress is to speed up the construction of everything with Gems, which I don't want to do because it's against my principles to pay to win.
But with construction times that take sometimes 3 days or more, and resources that take forever to refill due to the constant attacks, I can feel the more and more pressing urge to cave in and open my purse.
And note that the game, unlike some others in that genre, litterally allows players to buy AND speed up EVERYTHING in the game, which means that with the necessary cash, you might go from level 1 to 99 in a single day (I don't even want to imagine the insane amount of money that would take, though).
So basically, I found the game fun for one and a half week, but now I am almost ready to give up.

Michael Neel
profile image
Clash of Clans is a textbook example of Skinner Box design. It's successful yes, not because of game play but because it triggers the right addiction responses in players. I hope Supercell is saving up the revenue from the game because it will likely implode as fast as it grew. One only has to look as far as the game's Facebook page to see scores of angry players, and many of them are reporting successful refunds of $100's of dollars from Apple (it seems Apple is more willing to refund players these days if these posts are true).

Stephe Rosenshein
profile image
I'm sorry, but let me clarify: you think that negative comments on the game's Facebook page indicate a pending collapse of their recent run-away success? Have you ever looked at a Facebook page for any product, game, company, etc.? When you open yourself up to customer feedback, you tend to receive some negativity. To point to a few comments about refunds (I can't find a single one) as an indicator of some kind of impending doom for a game seems more like grasping at straws of negativity and a jealous attempt to belittle either this article, the company it's about, or both. You tell me.

Bob Charone
profile image
Negative comments or not there is something Zynga-ish about a game that has $100 in-app purchases!

Jason Bentley
profile image
@Bob Charone

I suggest playing CoC before declaring it "Zynga-ish".

Yes, it does have $100 purchases, but that's just an example of not limiting their income by someone else's expected top end purchase.

In my opinion, CoC differers from the typical -ville game in that it provides a clearly enjoyable mechanic of attacking and defending villages. Is this a new concept? Nope; I've seen a couple games do it before, but just like Blizzard and Rovio they took something unpolished and reworked it to create an enjoyable experience.

Bob Charone
profile image
@Jason Bentley
What in the Hell makes you think I didn't at least try a free game? I would suggest not attempting to read peoples minds before responding.

To me its a free-to-download pay-to-win/advance cow clicker along the lines of most of Zynga's games. Perhaps they would be different if they had an in-app purchase that lets you buy the game for $1/5/10 and make other purchase for decorative purposes only!

Samuel Green
profile image
As Jeremie Sinic said above, it eventually becomes a pay-to-win game or the experience develops into something so slow that it's no longer fun. And, if you're being attacked by a friend that pays then you're going to get owned.

It's not a typical -Ville game, but it's essentially a polished and streamlined clone of Kixeye's Backyard Monsters (and all their own clones of that game), which is along the same lines as the whole Kabam Kingdom's of Camelot MMO Strategy games.

Those games aren't exactly Zynga-ish, they're their own brand of 'evil'. I work in social games, so I'm not one to really use 'Zynga-ish' as an insult... but the argument people are making here in defense of Clash of Clans is a bit nonsensical.

These games don't make more money than Zynga games because they're awesome. They make more money than Zynga games because their monetization and design (around that monetization) is more 'awesome'. It's up to you to conclude whether they're really making the F2P environment a better place or an even MORE exploitative space.

At least in a Zynga game, I can't be killed by a guy who spends loads of money...

Jason Bentley
profile image
@Bob Charone

Bring the anger down a notch, please. From your one sentence response it sounded like you hadn't played it.

You may not see the difference between pay-to-advance-faster and pay-to-win, but I assure you that many people do. Yes; they have all the skinner-box trappings that bring people in. They also have an actual game mechanic that people enjoy playing and are never required to pay money to use. Will they ever reach the top of the game and gain fame, fortune and free gems? Nope; but they're perfectly happy with that trade off.

Jason Bentley
profile image
@Samuel Green
"At least in a Zynga game, I can't be killed by a guy who spends loads of money..."

In CoC you can be attacked by anyone who has the same (approx) number of 'trophies' as yourself. You can easily be attacked by someone who has gamed the system a bit to attack lower level players.

That gaming of the system is easy to do whether you pay or not. Advance far without paying and you can crush many smaller players; it's not dependent on how much you spent.

Wether that's a GOOD mechanic or not is another question entirely.

Jonathan Chan
profile image
Really? any developer that includes a $99.99 item is considered "Zynga-ish"? ... What about VALVe and TF2? You guys keep drawing ridiculous definitions like this. You'll be in great company of each other in the unemployment line.

And your jealousy or hatred of these monetizations isn't going to make them go away. Supercell has built a clever and brilliantly planned game does scratch all the right itches, but how is that different than Call of Duty, or Halo, or Starcraft? Building games is about scratching the right itches. If you can't appreciated their games' mechanics and calling foul based on silly comparisons, you shouldn't be making games.

Brandon Van Every
profile image
Why do we have to laud conspicuous consumption? There's more to life than gawking at the biggest gold watch on someone's wrist.

Joseph Willmon
profile image
@Jonathon Chan

I understand where they're coming from, even if I don't agree with the sentiment. Responses like that come from a place of pain, and it's obvious that Free-to-play is great source of pain for designers right now. Most of us joined the game industry to create the sort of games we love and which inspired us, but Free-to-play, with its ability to command significant revenues, and thus the attention from the sort of people who fund the Making of Games, of forces you to get on board with it or become irrelevant. In a sense, Free-to-play is a more intense form of the "widgetification" of the game industry that's been happening for a while now, and it's hard to not see how that would bother designers. We started making games because we're passionate about them, not investment banking.

For what it's worth, to those designers I offer that designing for Free2Play can be even more fun if you don't allow your thinking to be constrained simply by the existing models that are out there. I can guarantee that the "optimal" Free-to-play design, the one that perfectly merges player happiness and agency with profit generation, hasn't yet been found. The ideal espoused to players is that Free-to-play allows you to pay what you want when you want it, and while I hate being confronted with purchasing decisions in my leisure time, I was disappointed in enough $60 AAA releases this year that that ideal is starting to sound pretty good to me.

Bob Charone
profile image
Those are not pay to win games! As far as profit is concerned, the biggest game companies and the biggest indie hits are not pay-to-win. It wasn't that long ago when Zynga was worth as much as EA.

Robert Green
profile image
@Joseph Willmon

Regarding your comment that "Free-to-play allows you to pay what you want when you want it", I understand that this is the industry's latest catchphrase, but when you think on it for even a short moment, you realise that it's fundamentally absurd. Our entire understanding of economics and commerce is based on a foundational principle that a person offered the same product at two different prices will always prefer the cheaper of the two.

The very idea then, that anybody "wants" to pay anything, at any time, is patently ridiculous. That's why when you read the comments and reviews about a freemium game, it is always considered a positive if the user never felt compelled to pay anything. Contrast initial reviews for CSR Racing with Punch Quest for example.

Beyond that, the idea that any freemium game allows me to pay "what I want" is also somewhat misleading. The humble indie bundle, by contrast, allows me to pay whatever I want (greater than 1c), while still giving me the same product. If a freemium game wants to sell me a chest of gems though, I can't choose what I want to pay for it, I can only choose to go without if I don't like their price.

Kevin Corti
profile image
To take the discussion off piste a tad (away from F2P at least), there are two other factors to Supercell's success that I believe deserve respect namely:

[1] Their games are super-slick (beautiful art assets, well-crafted UI, excellent technical performance) - which is pretty rare still in iOS/Android-land
[2] They design their games to truly work on mobile devices; that's with regard to how people play games on mobile, not so much about the technology itself e.g. form factor, touch screen capabilities etc.

There are still far too many devs/publishers approaching mobile and tablet games with a PC/console mindset, eg with virtual thumb controllers/D pads that just don't work on a tablet device and just because an iPad3 has pretty good 3D capabilities doesn't mean it is the best platform for a FPS, car racer or 3rd person RPG. Games like Horn (published but not developed by Zynga) look great in screenshots but is horrible to use.

Putting down games like CofC because you have an aversion to F2P is to ignore the other factors - around game craft - that also make them successful at what they do.

Andrew Levie
profile image
I have played clash of clans for going on 5 months now, I have spend a fair amount of money to upgrade my items, not because I had to, in order to win, but because I wanted to sped the money I did on Clash Of Clans. It would not have changed the future outcome of my village if I had not used gems, but simply sped up the future outcome, regardless of whether or not I spent money had nothing to do with the items I upgraded becoming maxed, it was inevitable. There are players who I know who spend way more than I spent and still can't reach the top 50 players list. You can not "buy" your way to the top, thats part of what makes the game so entertaining and keeps me returning every day.


none
 
Comment: