The Decline and Fall of Angry Birds

[ptdebate1]

I came across a Business Insider article talking about the resignation of Rovio (Angry Birds) CEO Mikael Hed. Basically, the company is tanking because they bet it all on one franchise which they thought would spawn multimedia success with movie tie-ins, merchandise, etc. to rival Disney's best mascot-promotion efforts. As it turns out, this particular bubble has burst magnificently. BI's diagnosis of the situation is, in short, that  

"The mobile games business is notoriously difficult: Games are essentially fads, and the Angry Birds fad is long over — eclipsed in part by Supercell's Clash of Clans and King's Candy Crush Saga."

So the mobile games industry is singularly flighty. Nothing we don't already know. What's particularly troubling about the widespread penetration of this sector of the gaming industry is the values it represents: slavish imitation, pandering, and, most importantly, manipulation. 

1. Imitation 

Every time I see a child with an Angry Birds t-shirt or lunchbox, a series of questions comes to mind. If I could approach that child and ask him about his Angry Birds merchandise without looking like a creeper, I'd ask "what does that mean?" I wonder what his or her reply would be. An incredulous look followed by confused silence, I'd wager. 

What exactly do these characters represent? There was a time when cartoon mascots existed as part of a fictional narrative. You wanted a Road Runner tshirt because he was a hilarious trickster--you would root for him every time he outsmarted Wily Coyote. You had a connection to this character because he exemplified effortless guile, a character trait much-desired but seldom seen. You carried a Thomas the Tank Engine lunch box because he was a likable character who exemplified hard work, candor, and loyalty--he's the kind of friend anyone would want to have.

Nowadays, young girls are pushed to idolize Disney princesses wholly divorced from the fiction they are a part of. My nieces know Jasmine, Pocahontas, Tinkerbell, etc. by name as well as the color of each character's hair and dress. If I ask them to describe their personalities, however, all I get are blank stares. It's as if looking pretty and waiting for a handsome prince to come sweep you off your feet is all life is about.

I think what has happened with Angry Birds is that a corporation in the most cynical, opportunistic sector of the entertainment industry, mobile gaming, has decided to test out Disney's tried-and-true approach to merchandising fictional mascots. The only problem is that they forgot the key ingredient!--infusing their mascots with something, anything of meaning whatsoever! I may despise the way Disney treats its IPs these days, but at least they were able to successfully tap into something that (unfortunately) resonates with young girls in our society. What the heck is distinctive about Angry Birds? That they're angry? That they hate pigs for some reason? 

2. Pandering

I'm convinced that the reason behind Candy Crush's success is the satisfying visuals and sound effects, the sparkles and flying numbers--essentially, the trappings of play that serve to stimulate repeated play. You'll notice that fad mobile games all share a few key similarities: repetition, short risk-reward cycles (although the risk itself is based on incentivizing purchases), and mechanical conservatism (imitation of past successes). Candy Crush, therefore, is just a reskinned Bejeweled, while Angry Birds is every physics-based 3rd-person shooter (Worms, Pocket Tanks). If I could develop a theory for the way the mobile games industry works it would look remarkably similar to the fashion industry.

3. Manipulation

My girlfriend showed me a dot-based puzzle game that she was playing on her iPhone the other day and I gave it a spin. It was superficially free to play (but allowed in-app purchases of extra lives). As I played, I began to notice an insidious pattern. The first attempt of every level was always impossible to win. After each failure, the game prompts you to purchase extra lives for a buck (!). If you deny it twice, the level then becomes extremely easy. Like--first level of Tetris easy. The game was manipulating me into buying extra lives rather than starting over from the beginning, but when it found out that I wasn't the paying type, it scaled the difficulty down so far as to not even be fun anymore. It did give me a congratulatory display of fireworks when I succeeded, though! It was quite aesthetically pleasing!

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/rovio-new-ceo-pekka-rantala-succeeds-mikael-hed-2014-8#ixzz3BoTPeMAy

[ptdebate1]

Sorry about the random font change--not sure why that happened. Could have been due to the quote at the top.

[Sut1]

Excellent post there ptdebate.
Completely agree I enjoy Angry Birds but I always failed to understand how it got so massive. Your third part on manipulation certainly resonated with me and a recent post about the otherwise excellent Infinity Blade. I still enjoy gaming on mobile but the best games are definitely the higher priced games without the in app purchases eg Final Fantasy Series. Dragons Lair, 7th Guest, Myst, Alive 4 Ever, Final Freeway.

I just hope this practice doesn't come to console.

[Vexer1]

Normally I don't take pleasure in the fall of a franchise, but in this case i'm honestly quite happy that the bubble burst as they went WAY overboard with Angry Birds, it just got so tiring seeing that crap everywhere(they even had freaking condoms! now that's a definite sign of going too far) and the TV show and movie sounded like terrible ideas, Candy Crush by comparison isn't nearly as oversaturated.

[VideoGameCritic]

I couldn't get over hearing that a huge company was going public on the strength of one game, Angry Birds!  It didn't make any sense but you see this all the time in the Internet generation.  Something gets hot and all the investors want to throw their money at it.

I like Angry Birds just fine, but it was at the right place at the right time.  It was released just as smart phones were really taking off, and every one needed an obligatory game to play at the doctors office.  On top of that, it employed the "free to play" approach before people turned sour to that scam.

Anyway, the fact that people thought this "company" was going to just pump out hit games shows you that Wall Street doesn't know much about video games.  And now it's the same thing with Candy Crush.  I haven't played the game but I'm sure it's perfectly good.  But you can't build a company around one game.  People will eventually move on to something else.

[HardcoreSadism1]

It kind of sucks when a game franchise that had its own theme starts thriving off cross licences as if it ever ended well most of the time in the gaming industry, like ever.

[scotland171]

I was thinking the market is more like the music than fashion industry. Lots of wannabes, one hit wonders, one album wonders, and so on up a pyramid to the very few who have lengthy stays in the public eye. To be fair, Angry Birds became pop culture, and has had a five year run. Impressive, and I think Minecraft has become its successor. How long was Titanfall in the public eye? Most games that are not mmos have short lives before becoming just background noise. Angry Birds was kinda the pac man of its day in its wide appeal, easy gameplay, and penetration to a wide mass pop culture audience. If those birds were real, they woulda been on TMZ and the VMAs.

Also,their revenues are still impressive, its just they grown to 800 people with an animation division. Flappy Bird was one guy, and here Angry Birds is 800 people.

[Segatarious1]

[QUOTE=scotland17]I was thinking the market is more like the music than fashion industry. Lots of wannabes, one hit wonders, one album wonders, and so on up a pyramid to the very few who have lengthy stays in the public eye. To be fair, Angry Birds became pop culture, and has had a five year run. Impressive, and I think Minecraft has become its successor. How long was Titanfall in the public eye? Most games that are not mmos have short lives before becoming just background noise. Angry Birds was kinda the pac man of its day in its wide appeal, easy gameplay, and penetration to a wide mass pop culture audience. If those birds were real, they woulda been on TMZ and the VMAs. Also,their revenues are still impressive, its just they grown to 800 people with an animation division. Flappy Bird was one guy, and here Angry Birds is 800 people. [/QUOTE]

I agree

[mbd361]

Merchandising "Angry Birds" is like merchandising "Pac-Man" or "Donkey Kong". They're characters from a popular _game_ and not really comparable to cartoon characters (even though there is an "Angry Birds" TV series). I mean, what does Pac-Man represent? Gluttony?