Angry Birds creator says short-termism stops mobile games for campaigns enduring
The creator of one of the most shared games of all time Angry Birds has accused advertising agencies of failing to take a long-term approach when they develop mobile games as part of campaigns.
Speaking with Mumbrella Asia, Peter Vesterbacka, the CMO of Rovio Entertainment, said the group had several more Angry Birds games in development including a role playing version of the game.
On agencies getting into gaming he said: “Everyone wants to get into mobile gaming, but games without a lifespan do nothing for a brand. Of course, marketing people will always say that you need to think for the long term, but that thinking is not being seen in practice with branded games.
” I’d say we have about the same brand awareness as Coke, globally”. – Really?
Call me cynical, but I don’t believe that to be the case.
I think he raises some valid points. Branded games have usually only been “campaign” based and very rarely tied to just the brand. Once the campaign ends so does the context for the games existence.
I’ve seen some brands in Aus and over seas take longer term plans but the games are always “marketing first, then game second” so there’s always a challenge to balance “let’s make the most addictive game” vs “we need to convey X message about our brand”.
I also dont think a brand ever says “mobile games are easy”
Nabisco sold off “Candystand.com” a while back which was their successful games platform. Recently their new incarnation mondelez lamented the fact that Candy Crush did $1B in revenue and sells virtual games for more than the real life candy bars. But games of this scale require a large dedicated team and their own marketing budgets. And this would mean new hires for the brands and a different business model. So the barrier to entry for a proper successful mobile game is much higher.
Interesting note that Angry Birds has gone the other way though. Started as a game and is now a consumer brand. As he said almost half the business (and I’d say more in the future) will come from licencing. However Rovio’s revenue has flat compared to pure play games companies like King & Supercell and they havent even ventured into licencing properly yet.
http://online.wsj.com/news/art.....4260347832
The TL/DR version of this is that what he says is right but it’s more complicated than simply not having a long term vision. Plus it’s easy to say when you’re a company who’s 53rd game was a success. No brand would attempt something 52 different times.
Mobile development and social games will be the savior for the local Aussie games development industry:
http://au.ign.com/articles/201.....enaissance
So you’ve got a TV show. So f*cking what?
Want to actually make money? Add in app purchases.