Chapter 10: High Praise

Daniel Cooper didn't mind and waited for the audience's laughter to die down before continuing, "The last question is about the ad bar on the game over screen."

"Many novice game designers have a problem: they don't consider the game's monetization strategy during the initial design phase."

"For example, 'Hunter Island,' the second-place game, is a relatively mature adventure game. However, its designer didn't consider its monetization strategy, which I see as a flaw."

"It's not enough to design a game; you also need to think about how to make money from it. Like a movie, it can have high ratings, but it can't be considered a success if it flops at the box office."

"If you don't think about monetization, your game will just sit on the app store with a standard price per download."

"Let's assume 'Hunter Island' is priced at ten dollars and has 330 recommendations. If 80% of those 330 people are willing to pay, which is a high percentage, 'Hunter Island' would make 2,640 dollars."

"Now, let's look at 'Flappy Bird.' If it also charged per download, it would be a failure."

"But the designer anticipated this and made 'Flappy Bird' free to download with ad revenue. This was very clever and suited the game's nature."

"With a total playtime of 349 hours and assuming a death every ten seconds, which is generous since most people can't last three seconds, players died 125,640 times in one hour."

"This means the game showed ads 125,640 times. And the ads targeted high-quality mobile game users who are patient enough to keep playing."

"If I were a mobile game designer, I'd buy this ad space. Let's say every 30 ads attract one player, and every ten players make one purchase. The ad on 'Flappy Bird' would result in 418.8 purchases."

"If each purchase is ten dollars, the ad would generate 4,188 dollars. I'd be willing to spend 3,000 dollars on this ad space—more than 'Hunter Island.'"

"And remember, 'Hunter Island' is a one-time purchase game with limited repeat buyers. Its long-term profit potential is weak."

"But 'Flappy Bird,' with its viral nature, could see explosive user growth. Ad spaces can be sold repeatedly, ensuring ongoing revenue."

"So, the monetization potential of 'Flappy Bird' far exceeds that of 'Hunter Island.'"

"These points make 'Flappy Bird' successful. The author integrated these elements seamlessly, making all the right decisions, which is impressive."

"Honestly, if I had 6MB of resources to make a more profitable game than 'Flappy Bird,' I couldn't do it."

"I'm done, host."

Daniel Cooper turned off the microphone, signalling the host to proceed.

The audience was speechless. Wasn't this too much praise?

He couldn't make a better game with 6MB? Did that mean the author was better than a B-level designer? Such praise seemed exaggerated.

However, Daniel Cooper's logical and thorough analysis convinced many. They realized "Flappy Bird" had many intricacies despite its simplicity.

It was clear the designer had planned every aspect of the game: moderate difficulty, online bragging, and ad revenue, making it a high-completion game that could indeed make money.

As the saying goes, experts see the subtleties. Daniel Cooper's comments made many in the audience appreciate the depth of "Flappy Bird."

Alex Parker took a sip of water, giving Daniel Cooper a second look.

Daniel Cooper had made some assumptions about ad revenue without detailed research, showing that this era's designers didn't focus on this aspect.

In the previous world, "Flappy Bird" had over 50 million downloads, and its creator, Nguyen Ha Dong, earned $50,000 daily from ads, nearly 300,000 dollars.

Based on the banner ad rates of the time, the income per thousand ad displays was about $0.15, or one dollars. This meant "Flappy Bird" showed over 300 million ads daily.

Calculating at one dollars per thousand ads, Alex Parker's "Flappy Bird" would earn about 120 dollars from 120,000 ad displays. Even with more expensive interstitial ads, it would only be 1,200 dollars, meaning Daniel Cooper overestimated.

However, Daniel Cooper was right about the game's viral spread. With online and ranking features, its growth rate would increase, ensuring profitability.

Alex Parker wouldn't correct Daniel Cooper's assumptions; he was thrilled with the praise.

With Daniel Cooper's strong support, Alex Parker felt confident about winning the design competition.

Moreover, Daniel Cooper's ability to analyze so thoroughly in an hour, even estimating revenue, impressed Alex Parker. Compared to the other judges, Daniel Cooper's level was far superior.

There were geniuses in this world, not just mediocre people like Steven Harris.

Steven Harris's face turned sour. Daniel Cooper's analysis was a slap in the face, making him feel awful.

One judge trashed "Flappy Bird," while another praised it to the skies. Clearly, only one could be correct, and most of the audience sided with Daniel Cooper.