Beyond the Cost: Why Premium Games Struggle to Succeed on Mobile | Analysis

The widely held belief about launching high-cost games on mobile platforms can be summarized succinctly: avoid it.

Expanding on that, it's generally understood that mobile platforms predominantly cater to free-to-play models. Consequently, any premium game launched on these platforms is perceived as doomed from the start since the audience is so used to games being free that they're reluctant to pay anything, even if the value seems fair.

If this is how you view the mobile gaming market, the recent report indicating Resident Evil 7 has garnered less than $30,000 from iOS sales since its release earlier this month would reaffirm your perspective.

Data from AppMagic and MobileGamer.biz reveals that around 2,000 users have purchased the game, despite it being downloaded more than 80,000 times. This implies that almost 98% of potential buyers have decided against paying the $20 required to proceed beyond the demo.

Seeing a premium game underperform on mobile isn't surprising—it's a familiar story. However, the surprisingly low figures for a critically acclaimed game like Resident Evil 7 are noteworthy, even if they align with Capcom's past mobile releases in the series. For instance, MobileGamer.biz estimates that both Resident Evil 4 Remake and Resident Evil Village have also only sold a few thousand copies each on iOS.

These statistics could reinforce the notion that premium games struggle on mobile platforms. If a popular title like Resident Evil 7 can't achieve significant sales, it raises doubts about the viability for other games in this category.

However, it's essential to consider who the target audience for the mobile port might be. Resident Evil 7, released eight years ago, has been available on all major gaming platforms over the last two generations. Anyone interested has had plenty of opportunities to play it on those systems, including on streaming platforms that don't necessitate dedicated hardware purchases.

While many hold nostalgic feelings towards the game and might have shown interest when it appeared on the App Store, this nostalgia often suffices with exploring the demo section. Charging $20 should ideally target a new demographic that hasn't been reached by previous platforms.

It's clear that mobile platforms attract new markets and demographics not accessible via traditional gaming platforms—casual gamers, individuals without dedicated gaming hardware, and regions where smartphones are prevalent while consoles and PCs are less common.

These new markets are a significant reason to release games on mobile devices. However, these audiences are usually not drawn by established gaming franchises like Resident Evil.

There seems to be minimal overlap between the mobile audience and fans of the Resident Evil series. The market for this combination appears to be around $28,000 in size.

It's unlikely that Capcom is particularly worried about this outcome. Had the company been concerned about iOS sales of its Resident Evil ports, they would have ceased after the initial two. Of course, more revenue would have been welcomed, but these ports—like Death Stranding before them—serve more as promotional content for Apple, which likely compensated Capcom well for these projects, rather than serious commercial endeavors.

If Capcom was concerned about the sales of its iOS Resident Evil ports, it would have stopped after the previous two.

Apple occasionally aims to enhance its reputation within the gaming industry. At present, it is promoting features and modes in its latest operating systems to appeal to gamers.

From Apple's standpoint, the release of Resident Evil 7 is a success. The game runs well on modern Apple hardware and showcases the gaming capabilities of their devices. The significant number of trial downloads acts as advertising, even if those users don't turn into paying customers.

There are several possible reasons why these conversions didn't happen. One could argue that mobile users are hesitant to pay upfront costs—a notion with some validity, though not the entire story.

As noted earlier, the target audience for these games isn't clear, especially when considering the mechanics of playing an immersive horror game on a smartphone with touch controls. While it's possible to use a controller and connect the phone to a TV, this setup is even more niche. Who owns these peripherals but not a dedicated gaming system?

Many might argue that these factors are secondary to the pricing issue. Saturation of the game market or platform limitations pale in comparison to the reality that mobile audiences typically reject upfront costs. A $20 RE7 port might attract consumers on consoles but is untenable on mobile devices.

It's not just the dominance of free-to-play games on mobile that explains this failure. Premium games thrive alongside free-to-play titles on consoles and PCs, enhancing rather than detracting from each other.

I'm not convinced that there's a Venn diagram of uniquely mobile-addressable audiences, and people who are into the Resident Evil franchise, in which the overlapping area is big enough to see without squinting.

The main issue is that premium games come with expectations that do not align with how users interact with mobile devices. This is a deeper challenge than merely a business model problem.

Mobile gaming has evolved beyond simple, time-killing titles. Today’s players invest substantial time in complex games like Fortnite, Genshin Impact, and Dead by Daylight on their phones.

However, these popular games share a drop-in, drop-out gameplay style, enabling short, flexible play sessions. This design approach, which suits the mobile experience, contrasts sharply with the immersive demands of premium single-player titles.

Even if players can and do spend hours on end in Genshin or Fortnite, the fact that they can dip in and out is a key part of the appeal.

Though players might log extensive hours on games like Genshin or Fortnite, the ability to engage in brief sessions is essential. This flexibility and lower requirement for constant attention starkly differ from premium titles, which demand more continuous engagement.

The core issue isn't necessarily the $20 cost itself, but what it signifies. It tells players they're expected to invest significant time and focus, which doesn't align with the typical mobile gaming experience.

Premium-priced games signal to mobile users that they are designed with a PC or console gaming mentality. This expectation of immersive, undivided attention is not what the mobile audience generally seeks, making the premium price point unsuitable on mobile, regardless of the competition from free-to-play titles.

This is because premium games were not created with the mobile context in mind. These titles don't align with what mobile gamers want at any price point. The premium cost itself has become a deterrent, indicating a larger issue than mere price resistance.