Creating a Multi-Player Game? Watch the Money

Ironfell-Thumbnail

Based in Auckland, New Zealand, indie developer David Colquohun started running his MMORTS game Ironfell in 2012. In August 2013, he had to close it down because it was losing too much money. The game had accumulated losses of $17,300, and that’s before calculating in payment for his time.

Ironfell LogoJust one month later, in September 2013, Ironfell restarted. The new version had a number of changes to make it more active and reduce the number of empty realms.

He’s also published a log of his profit & loss as an income of $7,000 and outgoings of $23,000. It’s a bit suggestive of the old joke: “How do you make a small fortune on the internet? Answer: Start with a large fortune.”

In this article, we’ll take a close look at the finances. Examples of published figures like this are rare, so it’s good information for anyone considering running their own game.

The Game

Ironfell is a beautiful looking, multiplayer, real-time strategy game that currently has 120 realms and 582 players. It can be played either as a Flash browser-game, or downloaded for Windows, Android or Mac OS X. There will also be a fully native iOS version, though it’s not ready yet. Its graphics are pixel graphics on a hex grid and they look really nice.

Ironfell Screenshot

The game starts by throwing the player back in time to the age of dinosaurs, from which he or she must carve out an empire. Its genre is a mixture of explore and encounter, resource-gathering and real time strategy. It’s a little like the original Warcraft PC game except there are 140 different unit types in Ironfell, plus time machines and dinosaurs.

Losing Money

So why did the game lose so much money? Well, on the numbers page Colquohun shows fixed costs (ads of $4,450, artwork at $9,751, and servers). The Las Vegas-based servers are listed at almost $8,900 — I’m not sure if those are a one-off fixed cost or an ongoing variable figure that includes bandwidth. The same page also shows the daily income, which comes from donations or players buying in-game resources.

In the first eight days after the game restarted, the Daily Average Users (DAU) shot up from zero to just over 100, and exceeded 150 on three occasions. Colquohun’s revenue at that time averaged just under $200 per day. So in theory he should have been moving into profitability in less than three months. The big questions surround the churn rate and whether this revenue level is sustainable.

Calculating the Churn Rate

Churn rate is a measure of attrition. It’s a useful indication of how many players are happy with the game. The lower the churn rate, the fewer players are leaving and the greater the profitability will be. There’s an old adage that it costs five times as much to attract new customers as it does to retain them. While it probably varies by sector and industry and five times may seem arbitrary, the principle remains sound. Happy customers tell others and bring in new players.

In the first eight days after the game restarted Colquohun gained 504 players, but only an average of 130 players were in action each day. In this type of game, where you need to play and then come back again after the resources (trees) have regrown, missing a day suggests that you’ve dropped out.

On the first day, Sept. 20, Colquohun had 49 new players and 49 DAU. On the second day, there were 122 new players, giving a total player base of 171, but there were 156 DAU, suggesting that 15 had dropped out. In the first eight days there were 504 new players, but only 128 were playing on the eighth day. That means only one in four was still playing — that’s an excessively high churn rate by any account.

Further complicating its profitability, the game is based on the freemium model, meaning playing the game is completely free, but players can buy resources to improve their position. In the case of Ironfell, resources range from $1 bundles up to the $50 Queen’s ransom. So the real question is, what percentage of players are spending money? In most games it’s a small percentage, maybe 5 percent. In all cases, more players equal more revenue.

Conclusions

Americas MapLooking at the game’s blog, the developer is putting in a lot of time bug fixing, tweaking the game parameters and working on a series of very ambitious extensions (flight, space!). The game is already pretty massive, which might help explain the high churn rate — It’s not easy to grasp how big it is or how exactly you fit in, leaving too much uncertainty and a lack of foreseeable goals.

My suggestion would be start asking players about their initial impressions of the game to find out what they dislike or don’t understand about it and address those issues first. Hopefully, that could put a stop to the 75 percent hemorrhage rate and improve the bottom line.

Monetization

In addition to the resource buy-ins, some players have suggested vanity purchases such as titles, displayable coats of arms, etc. And what about the merchandising? It not only brings in revenue, it’s also good advertising. And I’d bet those pixel graphics would look great on a T-Shirt or mug.

Comments

3 Responses to “Creating a Multi-Player Game? Watch the Money”

November 10, 2013 at 6:06 pm, RobS said:

Seems to me that the game is a been-there-done-that game, so why would anyone go back (or even go there in the first place)? Based on your description, there’s not a lot that’s compelling enough to return.
And why did he spend $10K on artwork? A better choice might have been shares in the success (like 5% of revenue for 2 years.)
Also, this is a lesson in starting smaller and working your way up unless you have deep pockets. Prove your concept first with a “town-sized” game rather than an expensive “continent-sized” game. If you build it right, it will be pretty easy to expand it to new realms and you build up player-base.

Reply

January 07, 2014 at 6:11 am, Classic PC Game in USA said:

I think they should give importance on designing part rather than coding part. Because it’s color, sound, background moving object everything should be highly synchronized and well placed. Otherwise nobody has interest to play the same variety game because everyone loves to play adventurous game. Nice post

Reply

May 03, 2015 at 12:53 pm, Skymes said:

Both comments about this game are so stupid, honestly i cant believe any of you have even given a thought about the game.
I have been looking for a game exactly like that one or in a way similar, this game was so unlike every other strategy games iv’e ever played. In this game you were able to conquer other players online and expand and expand, the more you took the stronger you became by the income of resources hourly. Honestly if it was up to me i would have sold the game $4.99 and made a single player, so players can get smart in attacking. But my point is there has not been any other game like this one, and i would love to find it like that. Basicly its a 2D version of age of empires but when you get destroyed you get to respawn, and start from scratch and try to get to the top. There was NO END!!!!!!

Reply

Post a Comment

Your email address will not be published.