No way she didn't spend thousands of dollars on that fucking game.
this post was submitted on 23 Jun 2024
701 points (96.5% liked)
memes
10636 readers
2663 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.
Sister communities
- !tenforward@lemmy.world : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- !lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world : Linux themed memes
- !comicstrips@lemmy.world : for those who love comic stories.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
If true they wouldn’t have pointed her to another game. Whales are the entire business strategy.
Adding thousands of levels for 1 whale is unlikely to be profitable. That's a lot of development cost for content that likely won't be seen. Pointing to other games by the same studio is a much better idea if you can get them to make the transition.
Candy Crush Saga now has nearly 17,000 levels in it, so you’d be very wrong about that. Your average player might get into the hundreds, above average maybe thousands, but 17,000? They’re fishing for whales and not even that many of them.
This problem is way worse than people think and most mobile games on the store have the sole entire purpose of only hooking a small handful of whales. Then once they do, they mold entire games around just a few people. These companies that run apps like Candy Crush actively change the price of lives per player and watch the statistics of what they’re buying and when. It’s so sinister and the entire industry survives off of gaming addictions and whaling.
I mean you're not entirely wrong, but you're a little wrong. Just because they added levels later doesn't mean you were correct... These games have road maps, and they don't quickly change gears. There's math and analytics that go into all of it.
I think you're stretching when you say "around a few people". There's more money in 10,000 people spending a bit than 10 spending a ton. It's a gradient. The top 10 spend a lot, but not enough to morph your road map for. Especially when the companies own multiple properties. Better to get them transitioned to a new game within your umbrella than disrupt the entire content road map.
There's also far worse stuff than that and way harsher criticisms. You're getting closer with the "changing the prices" bit, but it's even worse than that, imo.
It's the reason I left working at one of them as a data analyst. I'm not speaking in generalities or that interested in debating here... I know precisely how the calculations for these types of things are done because I used to be on the team that did them.
Not this game, but a different one. The whole industry operates very similarly.
I really wanted to prove myself wrong because you sound like you know what you’re talking about. So I went and looked it up, turns out I was right to say what I said. Most of the major games out there report that more than half of their revenue comes from whales and those whales make up around 5% of their paying playerbase, sometimes more sometimes less. And in some games, that revenue is 60-70% of the total.
So that’s why there are 17,000 levels which that vast majority of players wont ever see. It’s because they’re chasing 5% or less of their audience.
But when it comes to games that are much smaller, I wasn’t really exaggerating to say that a small handful of players can outspend everyone else. When you have a player base in the hundreds and there’s like 20 people spending 50% or more in revenue for you, it’s going to affect your road map. In a larger game though, that percent will still mean tens of thousands of whale players.
And maybe your experience was different, maybe the games you worked on didn’t operate that way. But the industry absolutely does. It doesn’t mean you can ignore the 50% of revenue coming from regular players by the way, I’m just saying that the percent that spends enormously has almost the same weight in changing the games road map as the majority of players sometimes. Which is crazy to me.
Here’s the relevant Reddit post that was one of the sources I found.
They would have recommended her to play other games they make with the same ad mechanics.
Talking through experience right? I've been playing for around 5 years and I'm only at level 3778. Never spent a single dollar on it.
I think I got to 400 and gave up. This post says all 4k in under a year. There's no way anyone can play free and do that. Unless they're literally a CC savant, and even then, I doubt it.
I don't think any amount of skill can get you there for free. The game is literally programmed to get harder and harder until you wait 24h or pay some money (after which point it will actually make itself easier than normal for a while to give you that dopamine hit and train you like pavlovs dog) The game does have impossible configurations and you'd run up against those regardless of skill.
I think you're right. Never really read the "in under a year" part.
Bragging that your mom spent $1000s of dollars on a mobile game.
Mom has expendable cash and is literally the best at something... Don't be too jelly now lol.
Vs half of Lemmy spending thousands of dollars on a rig that plays Stardew Valley...
Hey, it plays Crusader Kings III too
"spending thousands of dollars and millions of man hours installing and configuring Arch Linux on a rig that plays Stardew Valley…"
FIFY
I was ready to be insulted, but then I remembered that I bought a whole ass Steam Deck and I've pretty much used it as a Binding of Isaac machine.
I started playing might and magic 9 on my steam deck, shit so old it could run on a game boy, talk about overkill
My PC is purpose built for VR, I have a Quest 3 and what do I do most of the time?
Just sit in a cool looking room in VR chat and listen to music while browsing Lemmy or watching videos. Occasionally I'll play a flat space game in VR so I can have a huge screen. But I mean... I am using the VR technically.
That game isn't pay to win and filled with dark patterns though.
Candy crush is mobile cancer.
If it were a game that didn't use a pay to play/continue/win model, I'd agree that she was the best at it. Or at least played it the most. It's hard to say she's the best when you have to spend money to do it and you aren't playing against anyone.
If a better game comes out, we'll play that.
... then come back to SDV.
Hardware and software are not comparable.
Well it's great that they're compared, constantly and regularly.
I'm at level 3000ish and played on and off for 5 years. Never spent a dime on the game.
They said she did it in less than a year.
Well that's $1000 well spent if she found joy and entertainment and even something like success by being the number one worldwide in this game. I've seen much more stupider Guinness world records. And much more stupider ways to spend money.
Not necessarily. I've beat several thousand levels of a similar game (because I've trained my brain that playing it means it's sleep time and now it knocks me out) and haven't spent a dime.
load more comments
(4 replies)
Candy crush now has 15,000 levels. Good luck keeping up with that.
I hate that that's true. And that you know it.
To be fair I had to search how many levels. I would never have guessed it was that high.
I mean, considering she had finished 4k by 2018, that is totally doable
Yea, they will keep making more I'm sure.
as long as this mom keeps playing they must keep making levels
Could they not add some level generation?
Is there more variations to even generate past 4k levels??
(Disclaimer idk what the levels look like beyond matching gems)
There are six colors of standard candy. A 3*3 grid has over 10 million combinations.
Semi-related factoid: every time you shuffle a deck of cards, it is EXTREMELY LIKELY the deck has never in existence been arranged the same way.
a factoid is something that is commonly believed to be true but isn't, which I guess this kinda is because it's not just extremely likely. there is a 1/80658175170943878571660636856403766975289505440883277824000000000000 chance that it's been arranged that way before. 52!
Ahhhh I’ve been ignorant about the definition of factoid!
Also I read your post as if you had exclaimed at the end: FIFTY TWO
load more comments
(2 replies)
A factoid isn't inherently untrue, it just means it's a bit of trivia
"The term was coined in 1973 by American writer Norman Mailer to mean a piece of information that becomes accepted as a fact even though it is not actually true, or an invented fact believed to be true because it appears in print. Since the term's invention in 1973, it has become used to describe a brief or trivial item of news or information."
from Wikipedia, so I suppose the meaning of the word has shifted from its original meaning and my claiming otherwise was a Classic Factoid™️, if you will.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Well, not all of those combinations are playable
Unless you spent 1000s of dollars buying saucers and hammers and lollipops or something garbage that lets you finish without actually playing.
I hate these "gatcha" gaming nonsense where you pay-to-win.
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
There's a level limit? I assumed they were algorithmically created.
definitely pathological
This is a flex??? Lol
e.
Now do a speed run.
view more: next ›