I think you're being too harsh here. It's way too easy to sit here and armchair quarterback about how "clearly no thought went into this strategy" but you just don't know that and frankly that just sounds like a cheap shot.

It only takes about 10 seconds to complete a level so when you take that into account 100 levels seems alright. Also, if we're talking about a mobile game with hundreds of levels then it's not tough to infer that the levels must go by quickly with the challenge increasing slowly and it also tells me that it's likely that this is one of those games that is hoping to retain users by being highly addictive. Now I know all games want to be addictive but there's a difference between puzzle solving type games (or so,etching like Kitten Jump even) and say a car racing game. They're addictive on different levels in different ways. This is all stuff that can be inferred by reading the post and much of it proven by playing the game.

So considering this I think it's really unfair to say no thought went into the strategy. After reading the post I think it's clear they thought quite a bit about the strategy. A lack of thought isn't the problem here. The problem was making the wrong assumptions based on their research. This could have happened to anyone and I don't think you're giving the developers enough credit. I think anyone who is able to code a game for an app store is certainly smart enough to think through a half decent monetization strategy.

In the end it's just a live-and-learn experience. They thought they'd get X in-app purchases because of Y but didn't. Their assumptions were wrong and I can't fault them. The mobile space is in its infancy (i heard it called a zygot here the other day even) and yeah, there's some published data to help app developers make informed decisions about monetization but in the end, when you step out of the tech bubble/echo chamber, it's really not a lot to go on and a lot of it is exactly what this article was; a breakdown of personal experience. The developer took a good shot, failed, and now we have some more information that'll hopefully help someone else make a decision as to their monetization strategy. The more information like this that gets out there from a wide variety of app "types" the better it'll be for others going down the same path later.

Thanks, bpatrianakos.

We're indeed just treating this as a useful experiment. Games are just hard to compete in. We're not committed yet to staying in games, and hopefully the design/monetization/marketing lessons will give us a significant edge in smaller niches where the competition seems much less savvy, at least for now.

Sorry, I didn't realise you were looking for sugar coated feedback. If 15 levels isn't enough to hook your customer into paying a few bucks, then you're doing it wrong.

If you still think giving away 100 levels made any logical sense, then I won't waste time trying to help you out with clear cut advice based on 3 years of app store experience.

We're not doing bad with the hint packs, actually. I figured more engagement is always good, but a drip-feed 'free level of the day' would have been a better idea than a 100 levels all at once. Still learning.