Candy Crush's Success - Why People Can't Get Enough Candy Crush - Extra Credits
Vložit
- čas přidán 22. 04. 2014
- Match three games like Bejeweled have spawned many clones, but none as successful as Candy Crush. Love it or hate it, it's helpful to understand why so many people play it.
Subscribe for new episodes every Wednesday! bit.ly/SubToEC (---More below)
_______
Get your Extra Credits gear at the store! bit.ly/ExtraStore
Play games with us on Extra Play! bit.ly/WatchEXP
Watch more episodes from this season of Extra Credits! bit.ly/2ssxjla
Contribute community subtitles to Extra Credits: czcams.com/users/timedtext_cs_p...
Talk to us on Twitter (@ExtraCreditz): bit.ly/ECTweet
Follow us on Facebook: bit.ly/ECFBPage
Get our list of recommended games on Steam: bit.ly/ECCurator
_________
Would you like James to speak at your school or organization? For info, contact us at: contact@extra-credits.net
_________
♪ Intro Music: "Penguin Cap" by CarboHydroM
bit.ly/1eIHTDS
♪ Outro Music: "Super Hipster Land" by Blen
bit.ly/1mDeBhT - Hry
Grrr...my fault. I've been flying all over for Games for Good and in one of the edit passes the word "trademark" got replaced by "copyright" and I totally missed it. Sorry everyone, that last line should be "trademark law" not "copyright law". Mea culpa.
-JP
I want a show focusing the difference in a copy, a clone , and a parody. Where do we draw the line?! What's the point of making a good game when it can be copied with slight improvements and have all your revenue go to the wrong person??? Is it about who makes the better clone now-a-days?
As someone who understands the difference, I've grown use to hearing people blanket the word "copyright" to include trademarks and even patents.
curtis bostick
That's mainly because the majority of modern people will run up against issues regarding copyright owners when those owners abuse their appearance of authority by bullying consumers and critics into silence.
The intimidation of competitors out of the market is only a side benefit. The majority of these companies' resources go into intimidating consumers into not criticizing their products. The CEOs and Board members in the media industry are increasingly seeing ideas as property. Naturally, when someone has an opposing idea, they'll pounce on it like De Beers on a person sneaking into one of their warehouses.
The problem is that they stopped differentiating between "intellectual property ideas" and "human thought" many years ago. It's gotten to the point that many consumers are so afraid of getting attacked that they'll literally change their way of thinking just so that they no longer appear to be a threat.
luis2626 When it comes to "parody" at least, the law is a mess. Often it comes down to Fair Use laws, and that is up to the opinion of a judge.
FortWhenTeaThyme
And it's bad enough that most judges don't understand modern media technology or its culture. Alot of lawyers don't, either. Electronic Frontier Foundation's lead lawyer, Dr. Lessig, still struggles with how to achieve modern civil rights on the Internet. And the ACLU has become totally and completely out of touch with the practicalities of modern Free Speech issues.
The whole "every level is random thing" is actually what made me delete Candy Crush, it didn't feel like I was trying to solve a puzzle or challenging my wits, it just seemed like I was waiting for RNGesus to let me move to the next stage.
DaS Guardians I think the more common nickname is the Random Number God, but yeah, I do agree victory can feel closer to luck than strategy.
K1naku5ana3R1ka I disagree. I’ve heard RNGesus many times in different contexts, but I’ve never heard Random Number God before.
i thing that what differ us from casual audiences, casual player didn't put much thought into a game, they just do anything to kill time. but non casual have an urge to finish thing as fast as posible
All Hail RNGesus! Lots of games do that btw, and it's crappy design. Do well? Watch while you can't roll what you need to progress due to failure is the only option.
_“It takes 9003289561891 years to clear a cake, and even getting ONE is a miracle. But then you need to make stripes to clear the pathways for cherries.”_ - Alessandra, complaining level 1247
One thing not mentioned in this video is that Candy Crush seems to lower the bar/score/difficulty once you've been stuck on certain levels for long or when you're coming back to the game after a long time since your last play session. This results in players getting hooked back in when they come back or makes them feel like they actually won on their own when they "succeed" after being stuck for a while.
An article on this:
www.overthinkingit.com/2013/09/05/candy-crush/
Also, a good part of the game's success resides in the fact that players give each others lives and level unlocks which only spreads awareness of the game and at the same time makes players feel like they can play forever without paying. Essentially, it turns the community into marketing people for the product.
The one thing that made me quit playing this game was ESPECIALLY the randomness factor you are talking about and the fact that it doesn't seem so random in the end. While King denied it I think, it seems the game manipulates luck in the sense that the candies you get when you destroy some seem to never be the ones you need when the game needs to get you stuck on a level for a while (To prevent you from consuming all the content fast); and gives you the good ones when it's been a while since you've progressed or if you haven't played in a while (To get you hooked again).
There is no way to strategize with such randomness. It is just made to get you to spend real money. The strategy is an illusion. It's like a slot machine giving you small amounts from time to time when it sees you haven't won anything in a while but lets you decide which row of symbols will be the winning one.
*****
I think it plays a big part in making sure players come back and keep playing because it makes sure that they don't burn through the content too fast while at the same time throwing them a bone once in a while so that they come back when they were just on the verge of quitting. Holding back their victory like that makes it even more intense when they do "succeed".
It gives them the illusion that they did accomplish something (Because most people don't realize such a thing is happening) or at least that they were lucky (which is a huge part of the addiction factor of casinos and gambling.).
Also, it's completely possible that the game creates the "I was just a couple of moves away from winning" situation by purposefully not spawning the proper candies for the whole level and then when you are like, 10 moves away from winning, starts spawning them so that you can "almost make it". Kinda like a rigged slot machine.
Hi Extra Credits , you can actually see the most popular in-app purchases in the app store for each app. Your guess was right, Extra Moves is No.1.
Well, good to know! Thanks for the info. -Soraya
LOL YES. With split-screen cams recording the EC crew on the pads and the game simultaneously.
I don't know who would be best at that, but I have a sneaking suspicion it'd be Carrie. Not sure why.
From a design standpoint, the game is brilliant. I think part of the addictive quality of the game also comes from the mandatory wait times. A player that thinks, "I was so close! I bet I can do it on my next try!" may also think, "Darn, out of lives! I'll try again once I have the lives. This game won't beat me!" This way, even a player that never spends money on the game, will keep giving King ad revenue instead of trying the game once and then never playing it again.
Yes, the game is designed well, but honestly, I think it's a dumb game. I played for a while, and I don't really see what the big deal is. I don't know, is there something wrong with me, that I didn't get hooked like everyone else?
They're probably fed up with the billions of candy crush clones, despite being a bejeweled clone themselves
I think what they do is similar to sell drugs. "Oh what a shame, you where so close! But dont worry, do you want to feel that you acomplished something? Do you want to feel good with yourself? Pay for some extra turns! You wont regret it."
Which is why it's so successful. A lot of F2P games can learn from this and adapt accordingly.
Nr4747 yes, learn from a practice that preys on people with addictive personalities, so that all F2P games act like Vegas and no one has to leave their house to gamble all their money away, they can now do it rotting in their living room in the dark
OtakuUnitedStudio So... are you saying this should be illegal?
Because I agree.
i think it should be seen for what it is; manipulative.
It's basically a slot machine. And just like gambling casino the reason it does well is because how addictive it is.
That slap to the face at the end of the video was an amazing way to counter the positive things you had to say about their game design. Well played :)
As soon as the game hit me with a pay wall to continue playing, I was out never to be seen again.
I don't touch that game just because of the whole copyright bullshit
The copyright stuff wasn't all their fault, its the way the US copyright system works. If they don't act like they are protecting their claim, when a legit claim comes up its hard to counter it. Example, if they don't make a claim against Saga (one they said they didn't intend to actually sue for or stop, merely they are showing that they are defending their claim. Otherwise if a game called "Sweet Crash Saga" comes out with the same mechanic, they are protected in court, but if they didn't defend their copyright (and that means just filing some legal mumbo jumbo, it doesn't even mean suing or forcing a name change) they have more legal ground later. It wasn't Kings fault the copyright system sucks. Now their game does suck, and does free to play wrong in my opinion, but different comment.
Matt T they still decided to abuse the system and bully small devs
Matt T
And yet I've heard no rumblings from Sega about filing a lawsuit against King for their clear use of Saga, originally from the beloved Sega game Panzer Dragoon Saga. Yes this is an issue with copyright laws in general, King should never have been able to copyright the word 'Saga' in the first place, and the whole thing about needing to defend your copyright to keep it, but it still is ridiculous. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. A relatively large and wealthy company with a lot of power assuring us that it will only use it for good and never abuse it? I'm unconvinced.
Trademarks guys, Not Copyrights. Two completely different sets of IP protection laws.
James Purcell They used both
I can proudly say that I never played Candy Crush and never will.
I thought I was the only one that could do that.
I have to wonder - without games like Candy Crush to ignore, how would people like you get that rush of smug superiority you get from belittling filthy casuals?
Taylor Bennett Of course! There is still Cawaduty!
Taylor Bennett Correcting comments on CZcams!
Is that really an accomplishment? was candy crush really *that* hard to avoid ?
Having friends that play Candy Crush daily is like watching lab mice get experimented on. Somewhat hilarious, most of the time depressing.
While I do try to keep a company's decisions from painting my perception of their product, King's actions against The Banner Saga (an excellent game), to say nothing of their copyright of the word candy and shameless cloning, has made it impossible for me to even touch any of their products, let alone support them as a developer. They really should be called "Jesters", for too many reasons to count.
I agree.I dont play any of King games.And they also did a very douchebag move by copyrigthing the word Saga,wich dosent represent the game at all,and the word candy,wich is very common word.
Agreed. I refuse to even try any of their games solely on the basis that the company has been horrific monsters in everything they've done.
I never cared to much for the game. But after all the controversy, I'm just avoiding king games. Candy crush saga actually copied another candy game created before it copying the logo and everything. The guy made it to support himself and his family and had it dedicated to someone close to him who died. And now king is trying to take down the game. Great. I dislike king on a very great level. Not going to support them at all.
LAngel2 You're thingking of Candy Swipe. But that got "Resolved" now. Look it up.
Also, i really agree with the main post.
Trademark, people. Trademark.
Yeah, I'm going to say that's actually kind of evil...
It's brilliant, but evil.
modulus365 So is dealing drugs.
ErebosGR That's wrong on both counts. Selling drugs is not "brilliant", it's basically the same as selling food, but with a higher risk/reward. A vending machine could sell drugs effectively.
It isn't "evil" either. Dealers simply supply a product to consumers who specifically ask for said product. They know that their product may harm some of the clients, but so do fast food places, gun stores, car dealers, allergy medicine companies, etc. Contrary to popular belief, most people can handle certain drugs without addicting. For example, I have had doctors give me both nitrous and amphetamines legally. I would have climbed a mountain to get more of that nitrous, but the amphetamines held little interest for me, aside from helping me concentrate. I simply don't addict to stimulants; I've dropped coffee, tobacco, and amphetamines cold turkey at various points for months at a time. It's the same with games. I played WoW for almost a year, and then just stopped. I never got addicted to it, like so many do. On the other hand, sometimes I won't be able to fall asleep because I'm so obsessed with a puzzle I'm working on. Everyone reacts differently to everything.
The difference between Candy Crush and dealers is that Candy Crush *manufacturers* the addiction before supplying the drug. You don't download Candy Crush thinking "Boy, I can't wait to pay for some level skips!" You download it thinking "I can't wait to play some puzzles!", and then it tricks you by distorting your desires.
Never was big on Candy Crush. After the little incident with Banner Saga, King has successfully made sure that I never play any of their games.
Ya whenever wannabe money hogging lol mobile game company messes with an actually good game developer like Stoic... they're gonna lose a lot of respect..
There was some granny sitting on the bus next to me playing Candy Crush. Every time she ran out of lives, she would close the app, open settings, move the system clock forward, then reopen Candy Crush with more lives.
I usually 360 and moonwalk away from any game that makes me pull out my wallet to keep playing.
I need a moment to appreciate that the work "grokkable" was used in plain speech. I love EC for this exact reason.
Bejeweled 3 seems like a far better game to me, and there are a ton of ways to play it that are unique and fun.
Have you ever played a game of video poker at a casino, and noticed that every time you fold or decide that your hand isn't worth playing, then when the game reveals the face down cards it turns out that you would have won big time? And that this happens almost every single time you fold, too often, in fact, and it becomes obvious that this is only a trick to keep you playing?
That's what it feels like to play Candy Crush. It's soulless, manipulative, and genius, in a nefarious type of way. Some people legitimately enjoy the game, but for many it can be a literal addiction, and that's because it was designed to be more addictive than skooma mixed with heroin.
Also, has King's copyright shenanigans actually hurt its public image and sales all that much? I know how their actions have affected me and my perception of them, but they're still raking in millions and people will still play their games regardless.
Yep. It's interesting how ExtraCredits used to point out such reliance on compulsion as a poor design (the whole argument about skinner box), but here they praise Candy Crush when the entire game is about creating this compulsive itch that can be scratched better through microtransaction.
ExtraCredits stop contradicting yourselves and decide whether you like these purely compulsion-driven games or not.
Or maybe you only like their designs if they pay out?
As someone who has played about one level of candy crush i may not be able to weigh in properly, but it seems like unlike your example, it uses a far more randomized system. I doubt they just drop the winning combination after you lose. They may have figured out the average number of turns and abused it that way, however. I don't really like any form of micro-transactions, but the same way any mmorpg can offer you extra lives for money, this seems to be the same concept. You and I may dislike this form of micro-transaction, but in no way was it badly designed (cause it clearly works), and it doesn't force you to pay to continue (as it is optional).
Grayfirre I never said it was not designed for financial success so suggesting that design is good because of its financial success to me seems like we are talking about different subject here.
In purely financial view, making predatory games that preys on most basic psychological urges is genius. But I'm not looking at this in that purely financial sense (and neither was ExtraCredits until recently).
Gaizokubanou
Well, I think the point is not so much that they weren't looking at it. I think the point was that they were saying how it is used is normally done badly. If by preying on people willing to spend there money like that, i want to say most games already do that. It's the equivalent of putting another quarter in the machine to get an extra life. I think they are just pointing out that it influenced part of Candy Crush's success. Most of the video did talk about the other things that the game did that made it so successful, and they merely pointed out that the micro-transaction was also done well. Micro-transaction have and will always "prey" on people, even the money bomb they mentioned in their previous video does this.
Grayfirre Obviously it doesn't perform that specific psychological trick to keep people playing since the entire board is revealed; I was just using the video poker machine as an example. But it does do many kinds of tricks like that to keep people playing, one of which being the 'so close' trick mentioned in the video.
It's actually kind of scary how well it is designed. You can find people online who have disected this game's design much more deeply than in this video who show exactly what Candy Crush does to keep people playing and paying. No where was its design about fun. It's too complicated to go into in a CZcams comment, and I honestly don't remember all of it, so I'll just say this: You may want to reconsider the notion that it doesn't force you to pay to advance
Candy Crush is a lot like Stuxnet. You can appreciate how masterfully designed it is and how good it is at doing what it does, and yet you can be scared and horrified by what it can do..
Except that the randomness in each level changes the late levels of the game from "a new exciting experience" into "lets restart the game forever until I get good pieces".
...until you encounter a level with odds of passing is *14632218493979* to 1.
While I respect the cleverness King used while creating Candy Crush.. I have but one question. Are they *STILL* doing that damn lawsuit against "The Banner Saga" because King thinks it owns the words "Saga" and "Candy"? If the answer is yes, everything you just listed gains a negative value.
No they let go of that lawsuit a month ago
kyle rodriguez
And are very likely to have been "advised" to protect their copyright (I think Extra Credits did an episode on why, if you don't defend your intellectual property, that precedent can be used to make your copyright void)
I think it's likely a mix of hubris from success, advice from people that *really* don't give a shit or know much about "gaming culture" and general universal business practice.
They really need to not put that albatross around their necks.
How does good game design become something bad because the designer did a stupid lawsuit?
@@KnakuanaRka Same reason a good food or beauty product becomes "bad" if the company/producer is found to be abusing the law. It's not the product - it's that we, as a society, recognize that companies prioritize profit above all else, and the only way to encourage ethical business practices is to refuse to buy products that are made with unethical business practices, no matter how good the product is.
A friend and I had a chat about this just yesterday. We couldn't come to a consensus on this game, but neither of us really played it. Thanks for shedding some light on this guys, perfect timing as always!
Awesome ending song and great drawings! there were mostly drawings for the whole video and one better than the other! my congrats to the drawer and to EC! Keep up the terrific work!
I have never liked match three games apart from Puzzle Quest, and that was only because of the RPG bits and spell system.
That and the story made it alot deeper than most puzzle games.
The randomness in Candy Crush is what killed it for me. I LIKE having the same pieces in the same places on each of the levels, because then I feel like I have a problem to solve, and can work towards solving it through multiple failures. With the randomness of the pieces on the levels, sometimes (or quite often, as is the case for later levels) the random pieces you get leave you no chance of victory no matter what you do. I always thought it was just a poor design decision on their part, but after watching this I realize it's actually a way for them to milk their customers.
Then encounter with boards with trillions-to-one odds of winning, and even then glitches prevented them from taking the win.
I greatly appreciate that even in a discussion on how it was successful you still were willing to draw out and remind people that good behavior and business practices can still make or break an otherwise great idea.
It's popular because it extorts the uninformed, the weak willed and the stupid. It's quite plainly a cruel game that makes you feel dirty just playing.
I never felt dirty for playing it, I also never spent any money on the game.
You gotta respect the skill it takes to design your game like that. Many try and fail, but King did it. It's brilliant. Evil, but brilliant.
That said, they ARE gonna go down in a ball of fire. They are toe-to-toe with EA in terms of being outright awful companies. That said, at least EA (sorta) learned their lesson and is now (trying) to change their image.
I never actually saw EA trying to copyright everyday words. Even they never stooped that low.
MrNagagon Well... This comment didn't age well.
Filip Andersson really how so? Obviously they dropped the lawsuit but what else?
Why King succeed and the rest failed? Well, King employees read through thousands and thousands of papers about human psychology over decades of studies to create a masterpiece we call 'Candy Crush'. CC is not created just like that, CC is engineered and fine-tuned to exploit human psychology to generate maximum possible revenue (read: fine-tuned).
well, this aged badly.
Candy Crush is the epitome of everything that is evil about free to play games.
I'll find you and I'll marry you.
No I think Star Trek: Trexels is the king of that hill.
Guys, Dungeon Keeper mobile. Seriously, look it up. It's actually baffling how EA expected to get away with that one.
Yup, but it's very hard to not admire how ingenious the design is and how cleverly it manipulates your frustration and emotions and traps you into paying. I mean, it's very clear A LOT of effort and thought was put into these games, and the don't even get me started on the whole bonus wheel thing...
PhyreI3ird Careful with using the k-word, you might get sued!
I am no game designer but its really interesting to know how games work, etc.
You, like as with games, keep me interested with your new ideas and topics. Keep it up!
Perfect final thoughts! When people are on top they usually do anything to stay there and sometimes they are not good things!
The only genius that game holds it they used England's copyright law to twist the arm of the original developer of a candy themed bejeweled game- Candy Swipe (one that was released back in 2010).
And I find it funny how the developers, if you can call them that, go out of all their ways to sue games with any titles similar or with similar designs and layout... basically this company doesn't the game industry to succeed, and that Jim Sterling is right- for most game developers, they rather have no money if they can't have all the money
(And this show is too clean for me to show the custom made hangtag I made for this game and its company)
Me playing Candy Crush for the first time: hmm...this really isn't as fun as people make it out to be, but it's a little fun
Me five levels in: okay I sort of see the allure, but I'm also starting to get tired of it already
Me beating level 10: I think I'm done with this game...hmm maybe one more level
Me losing level 11 three times in a row: hmm...a challenge? Lemme try it a few more times
Me after losing level 11 fifteen times: well it's virtually impossible to win without paying money, but too easy if you do pay. Pay to win, boring game, got tired of it a while ago. What am I doing with my life? *sets it down never to pick it up again*
Seriously though, I can't understand why people like the game, and I did give it a try.
GamerGirlsNetwork
I didn't really find it fun though. Even if the powerups dropped randomly and in sufficient quantities while playing, I would still enjoy Faeries more. That's a game in a similar style yet simpler, by Humongous. It has way better graphics and music and is great to zone out to when I'm bored.
+TheReaverOfDarkness It's because the game is targetted to the most casual gaming audience imaginable, these people most of the time no idea what is considered a good game and just play what is popular. Of course when I'm saying popular I mean popular on the gaming device they have, simply put: all people nowadays have a mobil phone and when they see this is the no. 1 most played game they immediately press download to look if it's fun. And then they fall into the trap.
It also doesn't help that this the game is "free" and that it's easily accessible.
Mitchell Boot
That doesn't explain why 75% of people who play it find it highly addictive. People might try it just because it's the most popular, but they will only become addicted to it through actually liking it. People don't become addicted through peer pressure.
+TheReaverOfDarkness no it perfectly explains why people find it additive. think children. what is mundane to most gamers is a thrilling new experience for someone who's never experienced this before.
Dejawolfs
but it doesn't explain why middle-aged women play it. They are the largest demographic of Candy Crush players.
Man, I love your videos, they are very interesting. You have covered a lot of topics, put I kind of miss some episode about DLC & that stuff. Could I suggest that you make some next new video about that?
I think it's also the Facebook integration. Being able to see where your friends are at and have that level of competition, even if you aren't competing with them it still ranks your score and shows your level which drives the motivation to keep playing this one level.
I actually had the opposite reaction to their ranomized puzzles. I always felt like they were cheating me. Whenever I lost, I couldn't help but think "Of course I lost, I only had one or two moves that I could do at any given time, and the last 15 moves were completely scripted for me: I couldn't win." This was especially the case on the levels where they limited the size of any individual play space so much that the actual number of moves that you could do dropped drastically.
I felt like the game was more of a cash grab than anything. They made levels that were virtually impossible to complete without some absurd luck within the move limit, so that you were basically forced to either pay to finish the level or keep doing the same level over, and over, and over again.
My mother beat those levels and is having a blast beating other levels and taking the crown. Blaming the game is not the answer to learning how to beat it. No one is perfect.
Another reason for these games doing so well could be all the TV ad spots they throw at the average TV watcher making them aware the games even exist. I do appreciate the mention of their horrible tactics at the end though as I was so hoping you would bring that up. If not for what they've done trying to "crush" any competition (and even non competition) this video might have had me wanting to try it but as such I want nothing to do with anything King does because of all the crap they've done to ruin their reputation. It makes me sick when I see their ads on TV now.
I totally agree. I believe that candy crushes real ability to gain success is from their marketing. They put so much money into marketing this game. I remember building an app and using Google ad-sense and the only ad that popped up was Candy Crush!
Has anyone else ever played Four Elements?
It’s a lot like Candy Crush, but you match tiles to break though dirt, and guide watery stuff to the end of the level. The maps are cool to experience, and every fourth level unlocks a page with a picture and some text. Each page starts out scrambled, at first, and then gradually unscrambles as you play. The picture decodes itself, too.
S'ALL 'BOUT THE MONEY NOW, BOYS.
0:01 Wait for it...
2:32 wait for it...
3:11 wait for it...
5:02 ZING
The main reason that Candy Crush does so well, is that it's essentially a slot machine with the bejewel game play tacked on.
As you said, the game let's you see how close you where to winning and encourages you to purchase replay tokens so you can have one one try, the same way a slot machine shows you how close you where to hitting that jackpot line and encourages you to try one more time.
The game has random elements so that each time you restart you are delt a different hand, just like a slot machine and how the way the reels line up is randomized.
Most importantly when you win a level the game rewards you with a flurry of light and sounds that are exactly like a slot machine going off when you hit a jackpot.
The game is a glorified slot machine, and it makes it money for the same reasons that casinos do.
Great, informative video as always. Are you guys ever gonna do an episode on modding? Keep up the good work. :)
Never stop giving us awesome remixed outro music!
Candy crush is disgusting to look at and makes me feel sick watching it.
But that’s just me.
Yeah... aside from all their other poor behaviour, monetising extra turns like that is fairly insidious if you stop and think about it, clever to be sure when used in concert with the rest of their game's design, but still nickel-and-diming you for all they can wring out of you.
I know, that was running through my head through the whole second half of the video. Balancing your game so the player often comes up two or three moves short must take an incredible amount of work, so by my usual definition (is the game fun? did the dev team put in actual work to create the experience or are they just letting their mechanics do the work for them?) they've earned whatever money they make from it, but I can't shake the feeling that it's just the worst kind of evil psychological warfare.
My mom plays the dang out of Candy Crush, and I took a swing at it once when she was stuck on a level. Maybe I'm just not good enough at it to see how this isn't the case, but it felt like skill almost didn't matter. With any given board state (for my level, at least), there were only 2, maybe 3 possible moves. Each possible move introduced new, completely random pieces that often altered the board state even further once they appeared. This made planning ahead like you might do in Tetris impossible, and so the choice of which move to take was arbitrary - there was no way to tell which would benefit you most. This makes the game feel like an elaborate slot machine pretending to be a puzzle. All you can do is pick one of the available moves at random and hope luck smiles.
Timefliesbye
Just what the hell do you think any games company makes games for? Certainly many of the creative people would create on the side if they couldn't make money off of it, but the fact of the matter is that all triple-A games and the vast majority of indie games were made primarily for the reason of making money.
And that's not a bad thing, because the only way to sustainably make money (excepting the use of unfair contra-economic influences- that is, theft, extortion, and taxation) is to give people what they want. People want to win at Candy Crush, so they pay for it. It makes them happy.
It's a little manipulative, sure, but no-one is deceiving you about what you're paying for, and no-one is forcing you into a situation where you have to pay- you choose of your own free will to play the game, and you choose of your own free will to spend some money to maximize your enjoyment of the game.
TOASTEngineer
See... there's a difference between having your end goal be making money, and having the creation of entertaining media come a distant second to that goal.
Honestly, I'd rather just pay a set amount of money up front rather than have psychological warfare continue to be waged on me every time I play to try and repeatedly draw out as much money as possible from me ad infinitum.
I think the Free to Play monetization system has some level of worth, but the first concern must always be providing a worthwhile experience, if the players value that experience, they'll gladly kick more money your way, but if you try to condition them into being money-dispensers for your convenience, then you've lost your way and will sooner or later burn more bridges than you build.
And as we've seen, the morality of this game's creators has never occupied the high ground, so it hardly makes sense to give their manipulative tactics in the game itself a free pass.
leviadragon99
I see your point, but the very fact that they are financially successful is proof that they're doing something right.
And I'm definitely with you on the idea that I'd rather just pay up front.
2:03 LOL !
I love that little "GAME" rectangle.
Man... That is just dead-on. If anyone knows analysis, It's these people. I haven't regretted subscribing to this for even a minute for the past months.
You forgot dopamine releasers. Dopamine releasers..... This game is designed to release dopamine, which is another reason it makes so much cash.
alegamer2004 uhhhh haha what are you talking about
alegamer2004 hehe......
It's 2020 and Candy Crush is still automatically installed on all Windows 10 Home devices
🤦♂️🤦♂️
Once again Extra Credits stands up for the little guy. You will always have my support EC!
Oh! That finishing line! That's some intensly burnt candy right there.
And here I was with my torch and pitchfork all ready....And it's all about the game design.
Oh well, that's what I really tune into this channel for anyway. :D (puts down torch and pitchforks for a few minutes)
dat Xpecial pun xD
I gotta say...that burn at the end was so satisfying.
I really love these videos that look at a single game. Thanks!
Just goes to show how out of the Facebook scene I am, I'd never even heard of Candy Crush till this video!
Also, who were you guys naming at the end there?
Candy Crush creator King.com tried to get the rights to the words Candy and Saga, which meant that two indie developers who made Candy Swipe and the Banner Saga got in trouble. I believe they got their head on straight, stopped, stopped trying to copyright the words and dropped all charges
shajita
They already had 'Candy' in Europe, and it was another developer who tried to trademark 'Saga' then King filed against them.
I am however fascinated at all the bad PR, it is interesting how something that usually flys under the radar like this every once in a while gets noticed and becomes a big deal. What was unusual was not what King was doing, but that the internet noticed or cared.
neeneko Well, two things there.
Banner Saga didn't want exclusivity on the word Saga. They simply wanted to include the word Saga in the name of their game. So King went after Banner Saga, and then denied it, and then admitted it.
Second, it's not at all surprising that the internet blew up over this. CCS is a mobile game for /teh filthy casuals/, whereas Banner Saga is an indie game with a lot of positive hype. Plus, it was a pretty absurd story, considering Candy Crush does not qualify as a "saga" in any sense of the word, and the "saga" part has no real name recognition even among fans. It's just "Candy Crush".
Also, this wasn't the only shitty thing King has done. They have a bad reputation.
I thought candy crush was on mobile.
Planken, it is on mobile, it is just that Candy Crush is being shared on Facebook.
R.I.P. Candy Crush
And Then You See POKEMON GO Dancing On Its Grave
Your movies are very smart and insightful, keep it up !
+Spingebub Squerepents Movie: A recording of moving images that tells a story and that people watch on a screen or television
+Spingebub Squerepents A video is a movie if we're going to use actual definitions
In my group of friends, what stood out about candy crush was how they used interaction with other players to gently build a network of customers encouraging each other to come back to the application. A lot of free to play games punish lack of use, but CCS uses a social network to create interest.
Wow, these guys are good at not hating Candy Crush.
I was almost thinking that you guys weren't going to mention how they went utter ham-hands with that stupid copyright claim that they made. Between that and the fact that almost every game King has released since then has been a clone of Candy Crush (seriously, ripping off your own game?!?), I couldn't do anything but just sigh in shame.
On the game itself, I really don't think I can condone their monetization strategies. They do the same thing that Zynga did with the 'pay money or bring in friends to keep playing' that E.C. called out in microtransactions. And the fact that there's no free play mode is annoying. There are times when I would have liked to just play the game to see how high of a score I could get before running out of moves, but instead I have to play every game trying to beat that level's challenge. Plus, charging a life if you fail a level you've already beaten is ridiculous. You shouldn't have to worry about that stuff if you're just going back to improve a score. I don't mind if they offer a way to buy more turns, but offering lives for sale makes it feel like too much of a cash-grab.
extra credits i have been with you ever sence the walking dead season 1 4 part episodes, but with cave story music on the end, i have found a new reason to give you ever more praise
super mario land, sorry bout that
The end credits song was AMAZING!
I was just unimpressed with it. I played the first couple levels and just saw it as a Bejeweled clone.
I heard a lot about the bad business practices of Candy Crush but finally I can understand why it is successful/what it does do right.
Great Episode,
thank you
MAAAAAN!!! I just LOVED that Xpecial reference at 4:00 :D !!
Dat Xpecial cameo
You forgot to point out the most obvious one: how is it fun?
Well that's more of an opinion thing. It's a Puzzle game...so if you like Puzzles, then you think it's fun. If you don't enjoy puzzles as much, then you won't think it's fun. And even with multiple people who like Puzzle games, some may like Candy Crush, while some would prefer others, but figuring out the REASON behind someones individual taste isn't really easy to do lol. It's like "Oh, you like Cherry Flavor more than Watermelon flavor...why?" "Uhhh....because my tongue says so? idk?"
Actually, one of the most noticeable reasons I played Candy Crush is mix & matching the power-ups.
I was always trying to see the satisfying effects combining these powers together.
It's even MORE satisfying when I get to combine powers that are REALLY difficult to get, & watch the pretty effects on the board.
Ex: Color Bomb + Stripe Candy
[4:00] Xpecial! I feel special too now.
Interesting episode, as always.
3:59
oh, xpecial showing on the screen when he says "special"
i see what you did there.
Yeah! They're worth nowhere near the $7 Billion they value themselves at! Only $5.9 Billion...
Candy Crush is definitely doing something right because here in 2022 it still has one of the largest active playerbases averaging over 10 million players daily.
I like this episode because it shows that mobile or casual games that combine well known mechanics still can be a success, I would like to see you guys doing similar analysis and decostructing more killer games in your show. Regards.
Its because candy crush compliments you constantly
"And prove to the world that you're worth nowhere near the $7 billion you value yourself at."
I find that line to be very tragic in the light of the recent Activision acquisition of King, over a year and a half after this episode was published. Sigh.
Omg the spiffing brit reference! 😂😂😂 perfectly balanced
I started playing it. I do like Bejeweled but I was surprised to see that this has a different feel to it, just like a Cave shoot-em-up has a different feel than Galaga. I like the different stage goals, the graphics and sounds, the different power ups.
You can buy extra turns? So it's pay to win? I hate how so many people support bullshit like that. Considering how popular Candy Crush is, it just goes to show you how many idiots there are. Sega's Columns is the original and it's a much better game.
No, it is entirely possible to beat every level without buying a powerup or extra moves once, source, I'm broke and I love these sorts of games. You just have to be really really good at the art of patience, and match three puzzles.
in theory it's pay to win in the sense that you get a edge by paying, but it's not like you play versus anyone so it's not really unfair, you simply play versus the game itself to come as far as possible.
Banarok Lionrage
Well put, it's only a real issue when pay to win puts those who don't pay at a disadvantage. Also I'd venture to say that when people choose to purchase extra moves, they do it for themselves, not King... And speaking of idiots... looks like karma is coming back to knock on your door :P Inazuma65
TheKrigeron Oh, it's possible to have played the game and not know about that.
I've messed with it a bit myself, but I tend to not notice or just utterly ignore anything that's trying to suck money out of me for bad IAPs, which this game does. So despite some hours with the game, I still wasnt really aware of this.
...granted I'm also kinda spacey and airheaded, but there you go.
....not to mention that, really, if you've played one match-3 game, you've played them all, from the standpoint of basic concepts. And I'll agree with him on Columns... it is a better game. By my view, anyway.
Still can't understand how this crappy Bejeweled copy got so popular
Lee Brandon mee too
"Grockable" I just started reading stranger in a strange land and I love this reference.
That Super Mario Land ending slammed me with a nostalgia blast the likes of which have never before been seen on this Earth
HAHA THAT XPECIAL REFERENCE.
But yeah, Candy Crush is a great game to learn some design from. A game all my parent's friends play well? That has to mean something.
Me trying out Candy Crush: Okay, what's the fuss over this...
(a few levels later)
Umm... kinda fun... but... meh....
(after hitting the pay-to-win)
Fuck this shit... I'm going to buy some REAL games on Steam...
Well warthunder is better than candy crush
Addam Iskandar Yeah...
Yeah
Candy crush the only thing is it is not a game that includes tanks planes guns military fps rts etc.
+DeadXRevolution Buy a sega genesis with the 32x with Sonic 3 & Knuckles
Nice to see improvement
-from 2019
that last burn priceless
with the whole buying turns thing, wouldnt that just become pay to win? (even though its not multiplayer)
***** It's "exquisitely balanced" from the point of view of the developers in that it makes a shitfuckton of money and doesn't alienate people while doing it. It's truly the most bone-chillingly evil F2P game ever created.
you dont have to buy the turns though.
brianrawks123 i've noticed that games of this style that provide "lives" are basically like the arcade games of old, except instead of outright stonewalling your session if you don't have money, they just increase the pressure to pay in a fashion that SEEMS fair until you start thinking about how the odds can be rigged by design.
It avoids the pay to win territory because it's not specifically forced. There's no absolute wall forcing you to pay, or even a beneficial incentive. Instead the payment works based solely on your emotions, and frustrations at the moment knowing how close you were. It psychologically compels you to pay, but by no means does it force. And that's why the designers of Candy Crush are mad geniuses O.o...
It sort of gets a bit stronger than just a whisper the farther you get, because the levels are more skewed in favor of you losing close to the end of the level, most if not all life based match games are designed this way now
I just thought of something: how would the level design concepts of Candy Crush work in a Tetris like game. Just a thought but I think it could be enjoyable if executed properly.
+GNABC There are already tetris games with this model. It's a bad model for any game though. You don't achieve anything, you literally pay to win. The levels are designed so really anyone without a brain can progress IF they pay.
The Xpecial throw-in made me smile
You should talk about 4 elements, The story telling is a little butchered in but it's a match 3 game with a purpose, sending the flowing energy to the objective, avoiding obstacles with traps and power ups. I loved it.
My sister used to play it... I don't get it. I rather pay Puyo Pop on my Megadrive. lol
Why isn’t this. Video called, why people can’t crush enough candy.
Lol that last second jab
5 years later i still havent playyed it for more than a day
Great video. Make one about why Blizzard is so successful.
+Falconoffury That's easy to answer, they made the first MMO in the whole world. If they didn't then they sure as hell monopolized the market for it.
+president madman WoW wasn't the first mmo here are a few that came before it EvE online, Everquest, Ultima Online, Star Wars Galaxies, ect.
But isn't that exploitative monetization? I found out that I can't progress through the game for free, and just gave up.
+zoob m i played it without paying a single cent
it's possible to play it without paying, it can just be insanely difficult, in an other game this year (called UnKilled) in order to keepup with people paying lots of money, i had to invest 23+ hours every day for weeks, and still had to find the time to make free gold offers (gold is the premium currency, it's buyable for real cash) cause without gold being top 10 in the leaderboard is impossible, you can't be even top 100 without the premium currency
j1a2y3m4y5 sounds like rubbish, why would you even play that?
***** I hated the candy crush. It seemed way to exploitive to me.
***** if a game rellies on being habit forming, it will just cause me to quit and not come back TBH.
Thank you for pointing out that they stole it from a smaller developer :)
You guys always make seriously good point about the monetization and marketing strategy.
Ok first off I love your series. Second you guys are geniuses. I heard Grok and immediately got thrown back into Robert A Heinlein's Man from Mars. What an awesome reference! Probably a ton shooting over my head, but catching references like that makes watching a lot more entertaining. I grok.
The fact this sort of monetization model works is just fucking bizzare to me. You're literally paying money so you can SKIP through a singleplayer game instead of learning how to beat it. It's like if you died in Dark Souls, you could pay money to get through a really hard part instead. You're paying money to not get to experience the game to its fullest. It just doesn't make any goddamn sense, but somehow this utter trash makes billions. It's not like it's not hard to see that this "game" is designed to make sure you just *barely* miss the mark. Whenever I see BS like in a "F2P" game I just instantly uninstall the game because it's cancerous, apparently most people don't share the same sentiment.