Fortnite: A Case Study on Increasing Complexity
Hey everyone!
A little life update:
As I’m sure you’ve noticed, no content has come out from me in some time. There is, in fact, a reason for that. I recently began work as a Talent Coordinator at Night, a talent management firm that manages digital talent from MrBeast to Matt Stonie to Unspeakable. It’s work that is very much in-line with the content I put out here. I’m incredibly thankful to work with people I’ve always admired and for creators I watched growing up. So while you may have wondered where I was, I can assure you that I’m back and that this is only the beginning for me. I would love to connect with all of you about anything creator-related, and if you’re on the marketing side of things, maybe work with you on behalf of our creators (my Night email is bryant.jefferson@nightmedia.co). Either way, I’ll be putting out content semi-frequently starting now on creator strategy, digital media, and talent management. But where I’ll begin is by reposting an older piece I wrote on Fortnite and the inevitability of product complexity. I hope you enjoy!
When Fortnite Battle Royale launched in 2017, no one was prepared for the cultural wave that was emerging not only in gaming but in the broader media landscape. From innovative monetization techniques to their using the game’s popularity to make cross-platform play the norm, Fortnite was as revolutionary of a game as we’ve seen in quite some time, made by a company that is revolutionary in its own right in Epic Games. Despite this, the game itself has still had to endure the typical roadblocks that any and all products face.
Products endure a lifecycle that’s inevitable to some degree. You start with a niche product that has basic functionalities. The idea is to do a few things very well to gain a loyal base of users. It isn’t called a minimum viable product because it’s complex, after all. As the product ages, those early adopters look for new functionalities, either organically or because a competitor added it. This creates an expectation that the product will add that functionality, and this cycle continues on and on.
What happens when this occurs is an isolation of your user base. Those who were early adopters are happy to have increased functionality, but it makes it more difficult for new customers to use the product. The friction required to use the product effectively grows, and therefore user growth stagnates. The stagnation isn’t a reflection of the quality of the product, rather, it’s a reflection of its successful growth and added versatility. What seems like a lack of intentional design by new users is simply growth to early adopters.
Fortnite is an interesting case for added complexity. When it launched in 2017, the game was barebones. Sure, there was an added building mechanic that stood out, but it was used sparingly. Fast-forward to today, and building is central to the game. If you can’t build at an insanely high-level, the game is far less enjoyable. The floor has been raised for new users.
It’s important to follow this journey from its simple roots to the high skill ceiling game it is today. It isn’t a reflection of the functionality of the product itself (although competitive server performance hasn’t had a great track record), but simply of the headwinds that all products that find product-market fit face over the medium-to-long term.
When the game was released, there were very few unique strategies that weren’t seen in other BR titles. Rotating early into zone and capturing the high ground were still essential components of being successful, with the added utility of ramping up to height being possible. Building wasn’t used offensively, and therefore any person who had played a game involving gunplay could adjust relatively quickly.
Soon, however, building began to be used as a tool to outmaneuver an opponent when fighting. You could ramp over them, you could edit a window into a wall to get a shot off, etc. There were few counters to this style of play, and the friction continued to grow, all while seasoned Fortnite players asked for new content and ways to polish their skill. The game was becoming an esport, and an esport with unique mechanics at that.
This trend continued, with items that reduced the skill gap bothering competitive players (MECH’s anyone?), and items that aided competitive players bothering new ones (syphon). This continued ebb and flow of new items and mechanics was begrudgingly dealt with, and it was fair to say that Fortnite was able to toe the line between catering to power users and attracting/retaining new users.
The mistake that was made happened more recently, a choice that killed the game for many well-known creators was skill-based matchmaking. The reason this choice matters so much is because it’s a perfect encapsulation of making decisions to the detriment of loyal users in an attempt to expand their user base. This was meant to reduce the initial friction a new user gets in attempting to be comfortable with the game, but it also detracted from the experience of those who had taken the time to understand and master the mechanics of the game. Whether it be adding new items and mechanics which make the game more difficult to learn, or changes to matchmaking that hurt the power users, it was clear that Fortnite was hearing complaints from both sides of the aisle.
The question then is, is there an ideal functionality level where you stop adding complexity, or should you cater to your power users by adding new features while making it increasingly difficult for new users to onboard? There doesn’t seem to be a defined answer to this question, and founders and PM’s will have to grapple with this question consistently as they scale.
Part of the answer will have to do with setting standards for quality, much like Apple has done. Apple isn’t going to make a truly budget phone or computer, because their culture of high-level design and high-margin products doesn’t jibe with the notion of budget products. Being intentional about the type of products and/or experiences you plan on offering is useful in mitigating some of the effects of added complexity, but even then you may have your power users get frustrated when desired functionality isn’t added.
A final topic of conversation is the relationship between a product’s roadmap and TAM. Epic Games is well-known for building its entire business model around an ever-growing TAM (for more, check out Patrick O’Shaughnessy’s podcast episode with Matthew Ball here), and that’s mostly because their core product is built to have a wide range of use cases. But for most companies, being niche means your TAM is capped to some degree, and knowing when you’re addressing your particular target customer’s needs is important. You don’t want to build features for users that you aren’t targeting. It’s a waste of resources, and will quite possibly alienate the ones you truly care about.
Ultimately, there’s a constant battle with product complexity. It’s inevitable. What will help deal with that is understanding what your design principles are, what quality of products you want to offer, and who you’re trying to get to use your product. If you do that, you’ll be able to more efficiently scale, all while still making the product accessible to new users. It’s a balancing act, and you’ll never do it perfectly, but understanding mindful scale is what separates hot startups from enduring businesses.