Is any mobile game "casual"?

Previously we talked about one of the common ways mobile games make money. They create a problem and sell you the solution.

Often the knee-jerk reaction is "that's not fair" or "that's a paywall", etcetera etcetera. Mostly these stances demonize making money and accuse it of being predatory.

I'm not going to get into that can of worms.

I do want to observe that often mobile games that create problems also offer inefficient but free solutions. Solutions that basically control your time, and the consequences of this.

Let's look again at Harry Potter Hogwarts Mystery and the example I showed earlier about mobile game monetization.

In Slide 1 you see that I am currently in a task "Question the Suspects". I have 4h 42m 28s left to complete this task; if the timer runs out and I haven't done so, the task will fail and I have to start all over again. I have made partial progress but there's still quite a ways to go.

This task requires "Energy" to complete and I am currently out of that resource. I can wait for it to replenish, or I can buy more right now.

Previously we talked about how that purchase would cost just over $2 for a one-time bump in progress. Value is a subjective thing, so I'm not going to debate whether that is fair value or not. I would contend however that most people would at least try to avoid paying anything repeatedly or even one-time, especially for a consumable product -- even if, for example, they might think nothing of repeatedly buying other consumable products that cost about the same, such as a specialty coffee.

The big difference in perspective probably stems from the fact that Tim Hortons isn't going to let you have a specialty coffee for free simply because you stand around idle in their store for two hours. Where as in Hogwarts Mystery, if I come back in two hours, I'll have 30 Energy -- as stated, I get 1 Energy every 4 minutes for free.

But of course, it is not in fact "free". That 30 Energy cost me 2 hours. If I spent that 2 hours productively doing other things, then in fact it could feel free, but the game can create other sorts of time related problems to pressure me to buy their solution:

• For example, I might end up going to sleep or I might be busy at work. The remaining time of 4h 42m 28s might expire before I can complete the task.
• Or I might be able to check in only after 4 hours because of real life concerns.
• The timer wouldn't have run out yet, but I only have 37 Energy because there's a limit to how much Energy I can hold (yet another "problem" that is disguised as a game mechanic) and any that might have been generated over time would be lost. And 37 Energy plus what can be generated over the remaining 42 minutes won't be enough to complete the task. I'd have to start all over again.

Simply put, whatever you come up with, there's generally another problem that they can create as a game mechanic to inconvenience you.

This said, the free solution of waiting for Energy can theoretically work and save you from spending money. That too is part of the careful design so as to avoid condemnation of putting up paywalls or too-aggressive monetization. However, you have to schedule your life around playing the game.

And here finally, is what I want to call your attention to: Players are starting to let games control their time.

And they do so for the most basic motivations of human behavior: To pursue pleasure or to avoid pain.

You want what the game offers -- maybe it's fun gameplay, a compelling story, feelings of competence, acknowledgement of their peers, etcetera -- and you are willing to put in the time.

However positive feelings like this rarely cause compulsive behavior such as letting the game control your time. Rather, I contend that it is wanting to avoid pain that is the stronger motivator.

For example, the "pain" of having to spend money (for various problems created by the game design) is circumvented by being careful with your time or committing more time to the game, and in return you not only get the pleasure the game gives you, but also the satisfaction of having "thwarted" the game's attempt to get you to spend money.

And so while free-to-play mobile games often advertise themselves as "casual", they are in fact designed to be the opposite by designing various ways to commit your time (or money). And while the symptoms are created by developers and their game design, players are also responsible because of what they desire out of the game and what they are willing to do to get it.

But surely there is an easier way to avoid pain: Just stop playing the game. Why is that not a solution?

Because you want that particular type of pleasure and beggars can't be choosers. There are many clones of games that you can instead try, but they also clone the monetization methods, so it can feel like you don't have any choice.

Or you could buy a game and generally avoid all these monetization schemes which are a staple of free-to-play games, but you risk being dissatisfied with your purchase and wasting your money, whereas with a free-to-play game, you can get quite a bit of play for free.

Further, games paid up front have little reason to constantly update, so there's no promise of future content once the game is played to the end. In contrast, free-to-play games constantly put out content to bring players back and compel them to play. The promise of always having something new is very much a feature of the free-to-play model.

Is there another option? A free-to-play game that still feels casual? That doesn't make you pay for problems they create and instead pay for the value it adds? Can such a game be commercially successful?