|
|
|
|
|
by mattmanser
2257 days ago
|
|
Sounds more like it simply doesn't work very well, rather than any of the reasons you listed. It's often the case, I remember when that stupid Amazon infographic was going around about decreased load times meaning big upswings in conversions. A client paid for a significant project to reduce load times, which we succeeded in to a huge degree with most of the pages going from 1.5-3 seconds secs down to 250-500 ms. Absolutely no meaningful swing in conversions at all. I've done this a few times since, but never seen conversion move at all when I've done performance improvements. Nada, zilch. I honestly think it's absolute bullshit. I've always suspected since that it was someone massaging figures in Amazon to justify their job. |
|
People played it mostly during breaks: lunch breaks (our peak load was during lunch hours in the US), "smoke breaks", etc. So they didn't have a goal, they just had time to spend doing something. Each gameplay took anywhere from 1-5 minutes. Users averaged to 5 plays per day. Our guess was the extra load time caused people to hit some exactly poor threshhold where they were able to play 1 less game during their time allotment.
Edit: we were curious and A/B tested it and saw the effect too. We didn't run it for too long, but a 15% difference is quick to verify when you're measuring something that happens 35 million times per day.