Why Kim Kardashian Will Always Lose To Clash of Clans

Kim Kardashian, as you may have heard, is changing mobile gaming. Her free-to-play celebrity simulator Kim Kardashian: Hollywood shot up the charts on Apple and Android and reminded everyone just how much money there is in both the Kardashian brand and mobile gaming. This isn't the first celebrity-anchored social game, but it's arguably the best one, and so far, the most successful one. It's garnered the same breathless and zeitgeisty news coverage as most mobile hits: how, people ask, has this thing conquered the world?

And yet, one can't help but noticing something important about the app store's Top-Grossing chart, which measures how much money these games are actually taking in. Kardashian sits at #5, which is, by any measure, an impressive and profitable position. But Clash of Clans is sitting right there at the top. It's been the majority of the time Kardashian's app has been on the market, and it's been there for a huge chunk of time since its release in 2012. Clash of Clans tends to trade spaces with Candy Crush, right below it at the moment. Both of these titles have a gameplay foundation that Kim Kardashian: Hollywood lacks, and that's why they've had the sort of staying power I doubt Kim Kardashian will be able to muster.

I'm not one to criticize Kim Kardashian, or her game: I thought it was sort of a neat combination of a social game and an adventure game, with slick production values and enough assets and new content to keep people interested for more than a few minutes, which is in eternity in this world. It also, in its strange way, manages a sort of social commentary on celebrity in the age of social media. As I've said before, traditional games journalists are way too dismissive of these new-style games.

But both Clash of Clans and Candy Crush have fundamental gameplay mechanics that keep people coming back for more. They're challenging in a way that Kardashian's game is not, and that challenge allows the player to feel an a sense of progression and accomplishment. There are a basic set of rules that are easy to understand and grow more complex as the game continues. There's what game analysts call a 'core gameplay loop' that defines a play session, encourages real money purchases, and keeps the player engaged on a long-term basis.

Clash of Clans, even moreso than Candy Crush, borrows tried and true assets from traditional gaming. The game revolves around player vs. player combat, tapping into those primal competitive urges that convince us to spend just a few dollars to finally getting destroyed by all those dragons. It also takes the pressure off of developer Supercell. So long as they keep the game well tuned and release occasional new upgrades and units, the players will entertain each other far better than the developer ever could. The most durable games, in any part of the industry, are the ones that encourage community: World of Warcraft, EVE Online, Call of Duty, League of Legends, Chess, Football, etc.

Kim Kardashian: Hollywood, on the other hand, is more like an interactive story, and its success will always be limited by the developer's ability to produce content interesting enough to keep people engaged. Without the challenge and player-driven narrative of something like Clash of Clans, it remains fragile. Lose a player for a day, you'll probably lose them forever.

So, Kim deserves some Kongratulations for having made a hit game, and the fact that it won't stick around forever doesn't take away from that. But the mobile market is far from the capricious viral crapshoot that people imagine. There's some of that, sure. But there's always going to be some of that in entertainment. That doesn't mean it's random. If you want to see the long-term prospects of any mobile hit, you just have to think about what the game actually is, and whether or not it will keep people playing.

P.S. Still, don't invest in King. The fact that it made Papa Pear Saga alone should be enough to stay away from that company.

Follow me on Twitter and Facebook