In 2020, we were approached by a developer with a game prototype where users were supposed to match numbered cubes by swiping. One publisher had already run their tests on it and immediately abandoned the project, because the metrics were inconsistent – good retention, but low playtime, high CPI and plummeting ratings. Revenue-wise, that wasn’t a good combination.
To change the situation, me and Chain Cube developer Ignat Bykov had to completely reimagine monetization, polish the game design, and conduct dozens of other experiments (which weren’t always a success). Here the iterations the project went through to get to the top of the stores, bring in $500,000 in the first months of scaling and stay profitable so far. We hope that other developers will find this information useful as well.
First impressions, or the “it could’ve been better” stage
When I first saw the project and its metrics, it was abundantly clear why many publishers would turn it down: CPI > $1, 2-star rating, annoying monetization, and the list kept on going. But, in my opinion, the prototype had all the aspects of an ideal hypercasual game:
meditative;
lacks annoying features (except for monetization at the time);
virtually endless gameplay;
as challenging as the player wants it to be.
All these factors combined make for a nearly perfect time killer game.
<iframe title="Embedded content" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/DcdDhXwBki0?enablejsapi=1&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.gamedeveloper.com" height="360px" width="100%" data-testid="iframe" loading="lazy" scrolling="auto" class="optanon-category-C0004 " data-gtm-yt-inspected-91172384_163="true" id="589595037" data-gtm-yt-inspected-91172384_165="true" data-gtm-yt-inspected-113="true"></iframe>Besides, the developer was a fan of mobile games and was very passionate about game development.
Ignat Bykov, Chain Cube developer: “I became fascinated with the hypercasual genre when mobile games just started getting popular. It was a good excuse for a solo developer to learn Unity. I worked on prototypes at night and tried sending them to publishers, but my attempts weren’t very successful. Here’s how it happened: you send a prototype to a large publisher, and the robot responds with test metrics. If the metrics aren’t good enough, you try to figure out what to fix on your own, or you start a new project. As a result, none of my games were acquired by publishers.
Then I wrote a prototype for Chain Cube over the Christmas weekend and it seemed very playable. Someone told me about a publisher from Europe, and I sent them the build to run tests on. The retention turned out to be good, around 39%, but the CPI was quite high and the playtime was questionable. Finalizing the project was possible, but they flatly refused. Then I was introduced to Azur Games".
First tests. People like it, but it gets annoying
We tested the game on iOS, and the metrics looked like this:
CPI > $1.
R1 39.3% (which isn’t bad).
2 star rating.
Playtime for day 1 – 16 minutes.
Playtime for day 30 – 7.5 minutes.
At this stage, the main problem immediately revealed itself: long-term retention suffered greatly because of Interstitial ads that were basically forced on the users. An ad popped up every 45 seconds, it was annoying and very predictable.
The players weren’t getting any rewards for succeeding, there were no leaderboards or boosters to help the players who don’t want unnecessary complexity. From that moment on, we worked on improving gameplay and metrics.
The development process was pretty standard overall:
First test.
First iterations until we’re certain it’s safe to buy traffic. Game design > Implementation > Testing.
Scaling marketing campaigns.
Updates, tests and improvements for game design, gameplay, visuals, marketing campaigns (creatives in particular) and ASO.
Jumping ahead, it took us six months from the first tests to the launch of a full-scale ad campaign. We introduced more than 50 gameplay updates over this time: got rid of forced advertising, added boosters, reward placement, new cubes with larger numbers, different starting locations, and worked on the overall look of the game.
Now, let’s talk about each step, including the unsuccessful ones, in more detail.
First iterations. The biggest boost
The most dramatic growth in metrics happened when we changed the monetization system. Previously, a coin popped up every 45 seconds. By tapping it, the player launched an Interstitial. As a result, the App Store rating dropped below two stars.
Right off the bat, we improved the integration for Interstitials and made them less frequent. In parallel to that, we added incentive windows. They appeared after some achievements to motivate the players to stay in the game and achieve better results. For example, one of the windows popped up when players created cubes with large numbers.
Leaderboards also helped. They were added as a way to cater to the players who were looking for a challenge without affecting those who wanted to play just for fun. We also experimented with the game visuals – as a result, the background became softer and nicer-looking, because the initial bright colors blended in with the cubes and interfered with the gameplay.
The goal was to implement every improvement possible at this point in time and launch a large-scale ad campaign. Everything worked out according to plan, user acquisition scaled rapidly, and the project quickly reached real profits after the acquisition.
All changes were tested on traffic. Development, testing and implementing one change took about a week on average. If the metrics got better, the changes were greenlit, if they got worse, the changes were rolled back.
Other successful changes we made:
Added the ability to save progress, which wasn’t an option initially.
Tweaked the vibration feedback to the player's actions to make it less intrusive and less frequent. As a result, it became softer and was triggered only by cube rolls and merges.
Made the New Cube Created window less persistent (initially, they popped up after every merge) and didn’t even lose a dime in monetization.
Put a delay on the Refuse button when the game offers to double the reward. There were no negative reactions from the players, since it was already implemented in many games. On the contrary, it increased the number of ad views by several percent.
Naturally, it’s impossible for every theory to work, and we had unsuccessful iterations as well. We rolled them back, but they helped us understand our audience better.
Failed experiments
We’ve experimented with difficulty levels a lot, and we have a long way to go because users are very sensitive to any changes in this department.
We got caught in a paradox: in the reviews, some people said that the game was too easy for them, but the increase in difficulty caused the metrics to decrease. We explored a lot of options – made the cubes get bigger as the numbers on them grew, leaving the player less room for maneuvers; added earthquakes that shuffled the field; added more cubes to make it harder to hit the right one. Yet, most users weren’t having none of it, and the metrics immediately got worse.
That’s when we realized that our target audience doesn’t want to be challenged – they’re just looking for something nice to pass time and relax. To verify this, we ran three iterations with difficulty upgrades and none of them worked.
Changing the
