I worked on Crush the Castle for Armor Games in the late 2000s. Angry Birds took the same game concept, added much cuter characters and art, and blew us out of the water with it. (No offense: we took it from someone else.) Now I feel kinda sad, kinda smug that their glory is fading a bit. Rovio seems to have forgotten the lesson that the greater your success, the more likely you are not to be able to repeat it. People tend to assume their best days are ahead, and thus expansion proves to be overexpansion when the best days turn out to be behind.
> Angry Birds took the same game concept, added much cuter characters and art, and blew us out of the water with it.
Those were certainly factors, but don't underestimate Angry Birds' better controls and better interface.
I eventually gave Angry Birds a try, well past the initial hype, played the free version for a while and then bought the paid version to get more levels.
I then gave Crush the Castle a try. Yes, the characters and art were not as cute (although personally I actually prefer leaving crushed bloody corpses behind instead of merely displaced living pigs...), but it took me just a few minutes to completely forget about that. When playing either game, I'm not spending my time admiring the art...I'm looking at how the structure reacts to my shot and figuring out what I have to do next to complete the destruction.
What stopped me from buying CtC was aiming. Angry Birds uses a slingshot, so I can pretty easily set the angle of my shot. CtC uses a trebuchet where the player selects the release point after the trebuchet is in motion. Getting a specific angle becomes a test of figuring out the right release point, and then getting the timing right to tap at just the right time.
Worse, with Angry Birds I can zoom out if I want so that I can see the slingshot and the target at the same time, which helps in figuring out the angle I need and the force I need. With CtC, you cannot see the trebuchet and the castle at the same time. Making that even more annoying, when the shot is in flight the camera uses a close up on the shot so you cannot see the in flight shot and the castle at the same time. You don't see them together until near the time of impact. This makes it harder to decide what correction you need to your timing.
The result is that Angry Birds for me is the more cerebral game. I want to concentrate on the physics problem of determining the weaknesses of the structure and where to apply force and how much to achieve that. The gameplay does not get in the way of the structural physics game. With CtC, there is this annoying reaction time game (timing the release tap) that gets in the way of the physics puzzle at the castle, and the annoying camera adds needless difficulty, and so although I enjoyed it enough to play all the way through the free version, I did not open my wallet to continue.
I wonder what they could have done differently? They sure licensed enough IP to create Star Wars, Rio, etc variants. They tried expanding into freemium racing games. I wonder if there was a way forward for them that they missed?
Angry Birds had excellent design (Visually), something that has made both Rovio and King stand out.
I think Rovio just tried to monetize (and merchandize) too hard, in a way not fitting the mobile model. They should have tried to focus on growing horizontally and making the Rovio brand bigger than the Angry Birds brand.
Probably they just grew too much. The Angry Birds franchise does well for itself, but there's a finite number of employees you can support off of a handful of good mobile games.
Still, thankful they made Amazing Alex. The Incredible Machine needed a re-make, and theirs is great.
This post was an opportunity to discover that Rovio had much more employee than what I expected.
Angry bird looks so much like one of those flash games you can create with a single coder and a single designer I never imagined they had more than 800 people now. I would have guessed a small dozen max...
I worked on a clone of Angry Birds a few years ago and you're right with one of your figures: about a dozen people were required to pull it off in about 9 months. Definitely not doable by a single coder and artist/designer though. There's a perhaps underappreciated but quite insane level of polish that went into Angry Birds, especially with the level design.
I like how they never even gave money to the guy that built the physics engine powering their whole schtick. He only asked for a shirt--when they finally sent him one, it wasn't the one he'd asked for. Stay classy Rovio!
Rovio does much more than just games. Videos and content delivery platforms, both promotional deals (NASA, movies etc.) and merchandizing deals need business dev people to make them happen. 800 is still a lot, but the difference in operations is obvious compared to your standard game studio.
I was wondering why they would need employee negotiations until I realized this was in Finland. In the US, you would come in one day to work and you badge would no longer work!
2.10.2014 Rovio started employee co-operation negotiations because the growth hasn't been what was expected. The negotiations resulted to reduce the workforce by 110 people.
This procedure is required by Finlands law and this might seem abit strange to people from other countries where firing someone is not a case of 2 months.
In their words: "lower than expected growth". As Angry Birds were getting more and more popular, hundreds of people were hired to work on expanding the brand, but revenue levels did not increase in the same manner.
putzdown|11 years ago
munificent|11 years ago
Well said.
Another way to look at it is if your company can grow very quickly from almost nothing, it's vulnerable to shrinking almost as quickly too.
tzs|11 years ago
Those were certainly factors, but don't underestimate Angry Birds' better controls and better interface.
I eventually gave Angry Birds a try, well past the initial hype, played the free version for a while and then bought the paid version to get more levels.
I then gave Crush the Castle a try. Yes, the characters and art were not as cute (although personally I actually prefer leaving crushed bloody corpses behind instead of merely displaced living pigs...), but it took me just a few minutes to completely forget about that. When playing either game, I'm not spending my time admiring the art...I'm looking at how the structure reacts to my shot and figuring out what I have to do next to complete the destruction.
What stopped me from buying CtC was aiming. Angry Birds uses a slingshot, so I can pretty easily set the angle of my shot. CtC uses a trebuchet where the player selects the release point after the trebuchet is in motion. Getting a specific angle becomes a test of figuring out the right release point, and then getting the timing right to tap at just the right time.
Worse, with Angry Birds I can zoom out if I want so that I can see the slingshot and the target at the same time, which helps in figuring out the angle I need and the force I need. With CtC, you cannot see the trebuchet and the castle at the same time. Making that even more annoying, when the shot is in flight the camera uses a close up on the shot so you cannot see the in flight shot and the castle at the same time. You don't see them together until near the time of impact. This makes it harder to decide what correction you need to your timing.
The result is that Angry Birds for me is the more cerebral game. I want to concentrate on the physics problem of determining the weaknesses of the structure and where to apply force and how much to achieve that. The gameplay does not get in the way of the structural physics game. With CtC, there is this annoying reaction time game (timing the release tap) that gets in the way of the physics puzzle at the castle, and the annoying camera adds needless difficulty, and so although I enjoyed it enough to play all the way through the free version, I did not open my wallet to continue.
kubiiii|11 years ago
bhouston|11 years ago
Details:
http://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=angry%20birds%2C%20mi...
I wonder what they could have done differently? They sure licensed enough IP to create Star Wars, Rio, etc variants. They tried expanding into freemium racing games. I wonder if there was a way forward for them that they missed?
Q: How does this affect the Angry Birds movie expected in July 2016? https://www.pehub.com/2014/08/angry-birds-creator-rovio-ceo-...
debacle|11 years ago
I think Rovio just tried to monetize (and merchandize) too hard, in a way not fitting the mobile model. They should have tried to focus on growing horizontally and making the Rovio brand bigger than the Angry Birds brand.
Zigurd|11 years ago
Pxtl|11 years ago
Still, thankful they made Amazing Alex. The Incredible Machine needed a re-make, and theirs is great.
zeograd|11 years ago
Angry bird looks so much like one of those flash games you can create with a single coder and a single designer I never imagined they had more than 800 people now. I would have guessed a small dozen max...
dougk16|11 years ago
angersock|11 years ago
Igglyboo|11 years ago
Kiro|11 years ago
dirtyaura|11 years ago
pkaye|11 years ago
chii|11 years ago
Lennu|11 years ago
This procedure is required by Finlands law and this might seem abit strange to people from other countries where firing someone is not a case of 2 months.
kristianc|11 years ago
balazsdavid987|11 years ago