Improving the Length of Customer Relationships on the Mobile Computer Game Business

Creating computer games is not only a decision of selecting the right technologies and drawing fancy user interfaces with characters, it also requires other areas of expertise such as design and marketing. The software development side of games has been studied, for example, from the viewpoints of information systems, psychology, management, computer science and sociology [1]. In general, the computer games are a mixture of storytelling, community management and software application, with the same life cycles and success models than any other information system [1]. When developing such an application, the suitable technologies are only one part of the entire system. If the game application aims for long-lasting customer relationships, the developers need to think also business models [2] and social interactions.

Not many games are played ten years after their release. However, there are success stories which defy the expected life cycles; for example the World of Warcraft (WoW, released 2005) has managed to maintain a constant customer base, especially if compared to the Final Fantasy XI (released 2002), or to the Lord of the Rings Online (released 2007) which are comparable products. Constantly updating the content and the players’ ability to build identity in WoW is different from the others, and they either have been financially appalling, or have declined in the user numbers.

In this research we studied five computer game companies and what their CEOs and game designers think about the role of their customer in their business and in their mobile games. We also wanted to study how customers’ game experience is compared to the real-life experiences. To achieve this we used Existence, Relatedness and Growth (ERG) theory [3] to map the game environment to the real-life environment.

The research questions are “How is the role of customers understood in a mobile game business?” and “How do customers build their identities in the mobile games?”. This work is also a continuance study on our previous work [2], which studied the business and revenue models of the game companies. The computer and console gaming industry has 30–40 years of history and customer experiences, but the mobile game business is less than 15 year old, especially if considering only the ability to sell third party products for the mobile devices, while discounting the purpose-built handheld consoles. During this time, the high growth rate has made the game industry both economically relevant, and interesting for the scientific research.

In the field of information systems and software engineering it is considerably easy to benefit from the customers in the product development, especially when compared to shipbuilding or construction business. This can be achieved, for example, by having continuous discussion with the customer (e.g. feedback in app stores) or by building analytical tools inside the product that can report, for example, how the customers use the product and what are the design problems with the product.

Computer games and customer relationships are not a very thoroughly studied topic, since only a handful of articles discussing the related areas were discovered, and they all were written after the year 2000. Although the topic is new, Henfridsson and Holmström [4] reported already in 2002 a study where one computer game company included customers in their development process before the release of a product. They built community for the players and received ideas, bug reports and votes for different new features. In addition, Desouza et al. [5] argue that software industries are moving from the customer-focused innovation to the customer-driven innovation. They use a case of a computer game company as an example on how innovations are gathered from their customers. In a literature review conducted by Bogers et al. [6] the users utilized as innovators was studied. Besides being the sources of innovation and design, they can also act as innovators. Von Hippel [7] continued this concept by describing how innovative users are often the ones who are early adopters of new things. He also argues how these early adopters may value the process of innovation, just because of the enjoyment it brings to them.

Jung et al. [8] present a study on how the intention to play is dependent on the user-centric design, technological capability and product capability. Fang and Zhao [9] had a similar study, where they argue that the player, game technology, social influence and the perceived ease of use affect the intention to play. Finally, Lewis et al. [10] analyzed how Zynga’s ‘Ville-game family (e.g. FarmVille) engage and retain customers. They study these games from the viewpoints of behavioral economics and behavioral psychology, and found out how these games use many motivational techniques such as progress bars, several in-game resources, bonuses and “altruistic” social actions to engage the customers and gain concrete income from them.

Although the computer games are built with technological solutions, the technology itself does not provide entertaining experience for the players nor does it provide income for the developers [11, 12]. In general, the game development work is somewhat different from the conventional software development as it includes parts such as graphical aspects, story design and sound work which are closer to the domain of movie business rather than software. Also, the computer game industry business models have changed significantly over the years: the business has moved from pay-to-play to free-to-play, where the revenues are not directly related to the units sold, but instead are based on the advertising and in-app-purchases from the product [13].

Extensive research has been carried out on how people interact and develop their presence in the online communities [14–16], and Hsiao and Chiou [17] argue that communities generated by computer games also fulfil the definition of an online community. Different sized communities work with different methods and goals, and it is important to design the communal and social aspects from the beginning.

In some cases, when the purpose is strong enough, the computer game does not necessarily have to have a special techniques for building identity. This can happen, for example, in a game that focuses on very narrow field like very realistic war simulations. Some players and their input is respected more than others, and they might become the rule policy makers in their community. Niche games can also grow to become widely played, when the community around the game is dynamic and has the necessary tools. This happened with Minecraft, where the developer allowed the users to do modifications and build communities, videos, tools and other things [18].

Part of the process is also getting recognition. Studies [19, 20] have indications on how members find the recognition as an important part of being in an online community. These communities build their online presence and even do self-marketing. Recognition in this environment can even increase member’s own self-esteem, as getting recognition builds one’s role and helps in the process of building online identity.

In our previous study [2] we discovered how the role of customer is defined in the computer game organizations. All the elements of the business models are not directly related to customers, but the elements like customer relationship and customer segment are parts that include customers. These elements were not considered the most important ones but in the end, the customers fund the games and validate the results of the innovation process. Usually the aim is not to serve everyone as it is not economically feasible, but to concentrate on strengths such as own niche, understanding the markets [21] and trying to engage more potential users. Still, a game surpassing the intended target audience or gathering customers from every demographic is not unheard of; some famous digital games such as the Angry Birds or FarmVille are basically played by everyone. The concept of business model combines all these elements and provides the company a view on how the business is run, what value is provided by whom, and what is got in return [22].

This study follows the multiple case study method based on frameworks presented by Gable [23] and Eisenhardt [24]. We followed seven steps: defining the strategy, reviewing the literature, developing the case study protocol, conducting a pilot case study, conducting a multiple case study, developing a conceptual model and interpreting the findings. Our research questions, presented in the Sect. 1, determined the overall strategy. Section 2 shed light on the related literature. This case study was based on two interview rounds, where the first discussed general topics of the computer game business and the second focused deeply on the role of a customer. Data was collected through series of interview rounds where one or two researchers interviewed company representatives such as lead designers, owners, and developers. The companies for these interviews were selected from our pool of existing research partners, and supplemented with contacts from business conferences and trade fairs. The amount of interviewees fluctuated between one to three people based on who the company decided to send, based on the given outline of topics that would be covered in the interview. Typically one interview lasted one hour, and included approximately 20–25 semi-structured questions which allowed also open discussions. The questionnaires are available at http://www2.it.lut.fi/GRIP

The transcriptions were then coded and analyzed following the principles of Straussian Grounded Theory analysis [25] with open, axial and selective coding. Based on this work, the conceptual models presented in the Sects. 4 and 5 were defined. Principles derived from [23, 26, 27] were utilized to guarantee the validity. Our choices included selection of interviews as the data collection method, coding as the data analysis method and utilizing several researcher in the interview, analysis and writing process to avoid bias.

To analyze human needs, motivations and satisfaction, science has developed a variety of methods. There are Maslow’s hierarchy of needs [28], Herzberg’s two-way theory [29], Alderfer’s ERG (existence, relatedness and growth) theory [3] and technology acceptance model (TAM) from Davis [30] – to name a few. Although all these are used in research, we decided to concentrate on ERG theory, as it is simpler than Maslow’s hierarchy of needs and considered reliable [3].

In the ERG theory three categories of human needs are used [3]: Existence is the lowest level and it includes the basic physiological and material desires. Relatedness, the second level, includes relationships and sharing of thoughts. The second level cannot be achieved without mutuality. Growth is the highest level and includes desires to be creative and productive. The model is built in a simple format so that it can be straightforwardly adapted to other environments, for example to be used by companies improving their customer relationship. We selected ERG so that it would be the most beneficial also to computer game industry.

3.1 ERG in Digital Environment

Kim [31] described the hierarchy of needs in both offline and online environments, into which our work defined the computer game context. It is worth noting that in the online or in the game environment the needs are not the same as offline, but work on the same principle. For example, offline we do not need system access, but online and in games it is the first requirement. Similarly, in online context the food as a physical concept is not needed, but in offline the nutrition is important. After the essential components are working, it is possible to start developing of relatedness and growth features to the computer games. As ERG theory has only three different parts, its application does not require large changes, just the fulfillment of the hierarchy levels: the lower level needs have to be fulfilled before advancing to the higher levels. For example, when the criteria for the existence level have been met, the developers can start to think how they can give players a way to express relatedness inside the game. The model is summarized in the Table 1.

3.2 Case Organizations

Our study had five participating game organizations. Some of these organizations have a catalogue of games, some are developing their first product. The priority platform indicates the focus platforms, for which the companies design and develop their products. The products may be later migrated to other platforms if the product is successful or commercially interesting in another platform. Based on this definition, Case A is a PC and game console company, cases B, D and E mobile game developers and Case C browser-game developer, although every organization has launched at least one product on a mobile platform. Table 2 illustrates some key figures.

The identity building inside game is not a new concept. Even old games like Quake (1996) let players to customize their game character in the multiplayer sessions and thus build their identity. Newer games, such as StarCraft II (2010), engage their users more via online multiplayer options and give active players badges, which are used to open new modification options. The growth level has been achieved in many games through modability. With the modern games the modding tools provide ways to develop whole new content, providing the players a method to grow their presence in the game community. The mobile games are still a new and rapidly growing industry, and these relatedness and growth issues have not been implemented in most of the games – although exceptions like Clash of Clans (2012) or Candy Crush Soda Saga (2013), which utilize players combined effort, exists.

4.1 Who is the Customer?

As the revenue models, especially in mobile gaming, have changed from the direct sales to the free-to-play concept [13], where the revenue is gained from in-app-purchasing and advertising while the game itself is provided for free. This introduces the dilemma if the customer of the game company is the player of the game, or the advertiser who generates the company’s income?

The general view in this study was that the players are the real customers although not all of them are generating revenue. For example, the Case C identifies game players as their customers and describe how they focus their game development on ideas from this audience. For Case C it is the key point of their business to have a working relationship with the customers, which in practice means that the organization listens and actively collects input from their customers. For Case C there exists two kinds of players: those who use the in-app-purchases, and those who just play with the free features.

“We live from the masses. We are doing multiplayer games. Players need to have other players as enemies; whether they are paying players or not. Thus it is very important for us that we have a lot of players. The paying customer is important, but non-paying are also crucial.” -CEO, Case C.

Case B sees the players as their customers and they have created an online presence where players can communicate their thought concerning the game. They have found it difficult to respond to the feedback when it is written in a system that gives no possibility for an answer. It creates frustration among the developers as they would like to reply, but are unable.

“The <platform’s> appstore system is a bit nasty in sense that we cannot give feedback through it. If someone asks a question there we have no way to answer.” -CEO, Case B.

Most of the case organizations consider the players as their customers – with the exception of Case D, which lists the health-care providers as their customers. All the players were seen as important whether they are paying or not. Mainly the reason is that the games require sufficient player base, and it can only be reached when the non-paying gamers are also treated as importantly as the paying ones. In other business models, such as the pay-to-play-model for the console games, this consideration is not as relevant; everybody pays to use the software, so all players are also customers.

4.2 Customers Role in Game Development

Our earlier study illustrated the role of the customer relationship as it was described as one of the elements the computer game business model is built on [2]. All of the cases have thought the data collecting process, and have built ways to collect data from the players. Reviews in the app stores and gaming websites are important sources of feedback. Also direct feedback in the social media is considered useful, and Case C has even build its own channel to get direct feedback. As Case D is doing serious games their data collection process is different. They get memos and photos from the customers and can have meetings with them. This is not widely available with the other cases, who make games for global markets.

“We have a feedback system where a patient can give daily feedback on how the exercise has been and they can give oral or written feedback or take a pic and ask help. But no real content creation exists.” -CEO, Case D

“We have our own feedback channel where gamers can put their reports to. Our game has link to that. Then of course the reviews in app stores where we cannot answer but we get feedback from the comments. We have <social media> pages and game pages from where we get some comments.” -Lead designer, Case C.

Besides the direct feedback from players, cases have ways to collect analytical data from the games. They get data to show for example how much the different levels are played, what brings the game to an end and how long the game sessions last. Case A did not have any analytical modules installed, but they were planning to do so in the future. Case D could only get data through their health-care organizations.

The collected data was mainly used to improve the game and the gaming experience to be more entertaining. This can be done for example by removing too difficult places from the game levels or adjusting parameters like health bars or points.

Virtually all the cases used statistical analysis on the collected metrics to understand how the players behave, where they get stuck and what features they mostly used. The Case B had dialogue with players and they also spent resources to analyze their own games to identify how players feel towards the newly introduced features, whether or not they used them, or if some parts were too difficult or easy.

“We have used <analytics tool>. We follow where players die in different levels and thus we can analyze whether some sector is too hard if too much players have difficulties” -CEO, Case B.

“Statistics tell us how the game is played. Whether players get stuck, do they like the game, how long they play… The collected data leads the game design – especially in free-to-play world.” -CEO, Case E.

Our cases report to value the players and their feedback. Still, the actual player contribution to the game development is narrow. None of the case companies supported user-generated content (e.g. levels, characters, items). The only reported cases were Case A, which allowed players to make their own maps in their previous games, and Case C, which used graphics drawn by one of the fans of their game. It seems that the players cannot take active role in the development process, but their current role is to give feedback and ideas. We can argue that customers are taken into account in the innovation process, but the criteria for the customer-driven innovation is not met. From all the cases only A and C could be categorized in customer-centric innovation, and the rest are still working in the customer-focused innovation.

Additionally, there is a difference between the single player and multiplayer games. In a single player game it is easier to let players create content, but in the multiplayer games the game content, for example levels, need to be well balanced and cannot include cheats that would benefit one gamer over others.

“In single player game it is ok to do mods and share them to other players but in our case it is not possible as the players could create a cheat mode and gain benefit over other players.” -Lead designer, Case C.

4.2.1 Existence

The existence level is easy to achieve, as the game industry is moving towards the digital distribution models. This makes games available for everyone who has a device that can run the game. When talking about the mobile games, many of them are made with the technical solutions that allow cross-platform development options, which promotes the concept of developing the same game for different operating systems. The revenue model can be different between platforms, even if the game itself remains the same, like in Case B:

“Both of our first two games started as pay-to-play and they had also in-app-purchases options from the beginning. Now the both are also pay-to-play – the first game was free in the middle - but we put it back to paid one when we released the second game. In few weeks we will offer the games with free-to-play model. … 60–70 percent of revenue comes from in-app-purchases.” -CEO, Case B.

For both the Cases B and C the problem is not the access to the game, but the knowledge of the game. In our previous study, marketing was ranked as the second most important element in the business model amongst the start-up computer game companies [2]. When a game is released in the mobile application store, it is just one app within thousands of rivals, and making the potential players aware of the new game is hard. To raise awareness of a game among the players is not easy, and it seems that the computer game start-ups are aware of this problem [2].

“<Platform’s> promotion is very important. If you get your game to ‘New and noteworthy” it raises revenues and after that it will take it high for a while. Or if you get Editor’s Choice it is even better.” -CEO, Case B.

“We have been going with the idea that we are unknown – invisible – and we don’t have marketing know-how. The first games are exported to different countries via a publisher, who then gives us the coverage” -CEO, Case C.

To have the protection of the personal information is difficult, but as the mobile games are targeted towards casual gamers, personal information is not always required. The privacy issues are getting more and more important and that was why the case organizations had also thought about it, although it was not a major problem. None of the case organizations was acutely worried that their systems might leak data. Third party services are used to handle money transactions, and no meaningful personal information is collected by the developer themselves.

“We do not store credit card information but use well-known third party service providers, such as PayPal.” -Lead designer, Case C.

“Of course we need to have some kind of disclaimer to tell what data is collected but we are not interested on individual players. We have no way to identify a specific player. … Individuals are not important but the mass data. … Advertisers would not even benefit from our data. No one but us is interested in how 14 % of gamers get stuck on level 18.” -CEO, Case E.

We also considered localization to be on the existence level as players are unable to play the game if they do not understand the language. All our case organizations localized their games to various languages, usually at least English, German, French, Russian, (Brazilian) Portuguese and Korean. Interviewees commented that although English is widely spoken, the situation is not the same in every country.

“It can be noted when we haven’t made localization to some appstore description and when the localization is done later there is a spike [in downloads].” -CEO, Case B.

4.2.2 Relatedness

After the foundation of existence has been reached and the players have access to the game and they feel secure, the developers can start to work on providing features that give the feeling of relatedness. Our case organizations use achievements and grades, which give the player one to three stars from each level they pass based on the certain criteria. If these achievements and grades can be shared, then the feature supports relatedness amongst the players. For Case D, the achievements were themed around exercising so that health-care professionals could see how patients are doing.

“In a way we have achievements as the game will tell how many training exercises you have done in a row and applauds the person.” -CEO, Case D.

Cases A and B use integration to social media instances so that the players can build profiles for example in the Facebook and communicate it with their friends. Case A also lets players to chat with each other inside the game. This is different from for example Case C, which sees that the in-game chat could be misused, so they only plan to build emotion based chat, that would not need any form of moderating.

“At the moment we do not have chat in our games. We have thought about it but not implemented as it will bring the problem of moderation. Players could shout obscenities that could bring problems. We are probably not implementing any clear chat.” -Lead designer, Case C.

Building an identity inside the game could be started by letting the players customize their game character. Only Case C has implemented this feature, and even it was completed in a small scale. Case E had the idea to utilize this feature in the future, and Case B argued that it did not fit to their games, which were story based around the existing characters. They also mentioned that a game under development will include characters that will allow customization.

“Player can do some customization. They can for example select what kind of armor the game character has. It has both the action aspect and the visual aspect.” -CEO, Case B.

In computer games, one form of interaction is the players competing against each other. Cases A and C have been building multiplayer games where the players are against other real individuals. When the game requires gamers to be online at the same time, it means that there needs to be large number of players to play the game. This has been challenging to Case C.

“Our philosophy has been that player will get an opponent in quick response. If no human player is available an AI will play against the player. Now we are actually implementing system where AI will play actual player account when real player has not logged in lately.” -Lead designer, Case C.

Case E is concentrating on the single player games, and Case B has also been building single player game, but is now developing in parallel a game including interaction and competition between gamers.

“[This new game] has been developed based on social interaction. It is more social than Clash of Clans. The aim has been that player stay in the game if they feel like being part of a community. We aim that everyone does one’s bit.” -CEO, Case B.

4.2.3 Growth

After achieving the feeling of relatedness, the players aim for growth. On one hand, the short mobile games do not necessary have features for supporting this kind of behavior, but on the other hand larger games, such as StarCraft II, have features enabling players to engage themselves with other players; to build teams and arrange tournaments. Some mobile games, like Clash of Clans, have introduced these team building concepts also to the games where playing session is shorter.

Cases D and E had no real plans to provide features that would enable players to grow their presence in the games. Especially CEO of Case D did not see it happening in the near future, as the main aim for their product was to heal patients. Case E had some ideas which could be provided at some point, but as they were just releasing their first product, they did not have resources to implement anything non-critical.

“[User generated levels and map editor] have been thought but we would need someone to program it, develop the UI and we would need to have server backend to provide all the content. Right now we don’t have the resources. We need to concentrate on what we have.” -CEO, Case E.

CEO of Case B described how their forthcoming mobile game will rely heavily on the social aspect and require players to co-operate to achieve success in the game. Instead of playing as an individuals, players build a role in the community, and can lead the group if chosen so.

“On regular intervals there will be decision on whether the group will continue with the old leader or is there going to be new one on the lead” -CEO, Case B.

Similar ideas were presented by Case C, as they wanted to extend their mobile game to include clans and four-level leader-hierarchy in them.

“We are designing a system to fit multiplayer concept where individuals in clan could exchange objects. The clan could also work together and play against another clan.” -Lead designer, Case C.

4.3 Summary of Findings

The observations lead us to consider that the mobile games are gaining features from the bigger games to support growth of players’ identities. The first mobile games 15–20 years ago were just simple games designed to fit the small screen, but today mobile games are as important market segment as the dedicated game consoles. This has also created a need for improved methods to immerse the players in the game. However, as identified in the previous study analyzing business models and factors in the business activities [2], the role of a customer – player – is still not one of the main concerns driving the business decisions. The customer concerns are not considered important in the game development process, but inside the game product, players have some ways to build identity and get recognized. Example of this is that several games from our case organizations include various features that can be categorized with the ERG theory. Table 3 describes these features.

In the interviews, the game company representatives described how they value players and want to be in touch with them. Yet, it seems that they are not letting their customers to contribute to the actual game development process. This behavior differs from the “open source spirit” which can be characterized as the “customer-driven development”, meaning that our case organizations are mostly customer-focused, not customer-driven. Players’ feedback is valued and it can change the game design over some time, and statistics from games are used to improve games, but it in general the players have quite passive role with the product.

All our case organizations have found a way to meet the existence level with the access, localization and security, but the knowledge has been more problematic. As a solution for this, all the organizations mention marketing and advertising, which increases the awareness of potential players. It seems that especially the designers of young organizations do not see it important to build features to support growth, or even relatedness. This is partly explained by the haste of getting the products to the market, since when the business starts to get in shape, the designers can also put more effort to design the features for the growth. Yet we still argue that mobile games are just getting the features of social interaction that the console, PC and Internet games have had for years. One of the biggest difference is the time spend with the game session, as the mobile games can be played when waiting for coffee, but the console games require more time spend with the product. This makes it easier for the console game developers to build features for support relatedness and growth. The new first person shooters have in-game voice-chats, which can be used when playing. The designers of short mobile games have to develop a method of communication that can be used in seconds with just few thump swipes. Still, in the end we believe that mobile games are gaining these features and play sessions are also getting longer.

Currently, the mobile games are basically played by everyone. This is a big difference from the 80’s, when games were limited mostly to the special interest hobby groups. Current game designers have to take into account both casual gamers who are not very invested in the product, and the hard-core players, who spend hours per day in the game and learn all the details of the game mechanics.

5.1 ERG and Customers

The customers are seen as a part of the business model [2], but to be able to generate revenue from the players, there needs to exist some form of working game and the business logic, which transform users to profit. This is especially important when the free-to-play model is utilized, since there are business reports (e.g. [32]) which indicate that only less than three percent of the player population actually pays for the product, and less than half a percent of the players actually generate serious income. At the same time, almost half of the users open it less than five times.

Even if majority of the players are just free-riders, maintaining the player population is the strategy which is critical to the free-2-play games. In this article we have presented how ERG theory can be utilized to help the design to support long customer relationship within the game, and thus improve the possibility to generate more revenue from retaining the players and providing them with more meaningful tasks.

As we utilized three level ERG theory, it is also noteworthy how it has similarities to the customer-focused, customer-centric and customer-driven development of computer games. We argue that moving from the existence to the relatedness and growth requires also moving from the customer-focused design to the customer-centric, and even to the customer-driven design. To engage players in games it is important to let them fulfil their objectives, and allow them to build their identities and generate content. By providing techniques for the players to grow their online identity, developers also provide a way to build lasting customer relationships as the user has personal interest to stay with the game. This should be addressed when the business decisions are made in design, and the business model is being build. When games include online identity for the players, it binds them deeper into the game, possibly increasing the retention rate of players. Besides business model, these issues need to be designed into game and business logic.

5.2 Limitations of the Study

Qualitative studies are not without their threats and limitations. For example, Robson [33] in his classification and explanation identified three main types of threats: researcher bias, observational bias and reactivity. The researcher bias is considered to be the most dangerous as it represents a situation where researchers aim to enforce their own ideas and opinions. In this study, the researcher bias was taken into account by conducting the data collection in cooperation with another research group and the initial data analysis included three researchers, so that no one could push their own agenda. The data collection setups and instruments were also designed by at least two researchers. The interviewed organizations represent different sizes, release platforms and maturities of organizations, and interview sessions included several different stakeholders in the companies thus decreasing the interviewee bias. Although all the case organizations are located in Finland, they work in the global markets and represent a wide scale of industry practitioners. However, there might be some underlying peculiarities imposed by the business culture, education system or local authorities. Additionally, the results presented here present the viewpoint of the game developers on the customer roles and participation. Because of privacy issues, the actual customers were not used in this study. Qualitative studies also have their own limitations in the applicability of the results. Whittemore et al. [34] argue how the objective of qualitative studies is to describe chain-of-evidence what the studied phenomenon represents. In any case, the observations perceived are only applicable in the context of the observed phenomenon. If these results are interpreted outside the original scope they should only be applied as recommendations or suggestions.

This study presented how different sized and aged game developers focus on their customers in the development of new product combining information systems and software engineering. The results indicate that the mobile game development is not providing as much possibilities to the players to build their virtual identity as games that are played with dedicated consoles or PCs. The ERG (existence, relatedness and growth) theory provides a way to analyze how the customers can build their virtual identity. As the lower level needs has to be fulfilled first, it provides the game developers a framework or roadmap to consider when moving from the customer-focused development to the customer-driven development should be considered. This aims to build longer customer relationships, which provides more revenue. This would also benefit the mobile developers directly, since the current business model of free-2-play heavily depends on the acquisition of player population, and better retention means achieving meaningful volume with smaller population of players, also requiring smaller advertisement budget for visibility.

This study raises questions and recommendations on how to design mobile games in the future, when the markets are saturated and the players expect more options. However, more research is required to compare the growth of mobile games to the conventional PC and console games before making any strong suggestions.