In the process of seeking a moment of relaxation and decompression, we may not realize that being visited by the challenges of a game can actually add to life's stress. This forces one to ponder whether our attention is indeed more precious?

"No one can pass the second level of this game." Such provocations often attract a swarm of gamers, driven perhaps by the game's seemingly simple operations but challenging nature, which can instantly trigger the players' desire to win. There are many similar examples, whether it's "Sheep Gong Sheep", or its many variants that followed, such as "Brick Gong Brick", "Fat Goose Gym" and "Starting at the Nursery", all of which have set off a wave of popularity in the game market.

These games usually involve matching and eliminating identical items, among which "Catch the Goose" stands out. The first level of the game has been highly praised, while the second level, as difficult as "hell mode", has been controversial. When players experience failure in the game, they often receive the system's mocking tips, which undoubtedly further ignite the flame in the players' hearts, prompting them to keep trying.

"Catch the Goose" features a 3D game scene. In the game, players need to be very careful in selecting objects to prevent a shake of the hand from causing failure. Faced with such a challenge, if players can't find items to match, they may adopt the "pan-flip" strategy, shaking the phone in the hopes of reordering the items.

The interconnectedness of the game, not only spurs discussion on social media, but also obsesses many players to the point that they dream about it. Moreover, some players even experience discomfort in their eyes or hands from playing too long. Such phenomena show that the mini-game craze, continuing from "Sheep Gong Sheep" to today, has not subsided, but has attracted more and more developers to join in.

When evaluating mini-program games, one should perhaps not generalize. In fact, the audience for such games is not limited to a small group of people; many white-collar workers and university students are also immersed in them. Simple operations and the ability to play anytime make these games a refreshing force among busy workers, offering not only decompression and entertainment but also a satisfaction of the will to win.

"Catch the Goose", like other mini-games, is simple in play but the challenges interwoven within give the game a certain level of difficulty and appeal. Especially the second level in the game settings, which tests the player's determination and wisdom. If you can't find the matching items, players will have to utilize the "pan-flip" strategy provided in the game, and may even need to rely on other game props to strive for victory.

In the popular game "Catch the Goose", players, in order to snatch the items, have to learn to sway their phones back and forth in a selfie mode while quickly tapping the screen to acquire the desired objects. Is the game time always feeling insufficient? The solution to relieve players' anxiety is to watch ads in exchange for extra game time, to continue capturing that cunning goose.

Game developers seem to have completely mastered human weaknesses, employing cunning techniques to stimulate and reward players. When players struggle to find three matching items, a simple shake of the phone may uncover new matching opportunities, enhancing the excitement of the game. However, capturing the big goose appears simple on the surface but is actually full of traps. To avoid mishaps, players must upgrade their devices, using tablets and styluses for precise control.

While the game may seem minimalistic on the surface, after some play, it always brings new surprises, leading one to wonder, "How deep is this pot?" When players fail, the game's big goose mocks them in various ways. Though this is known to be reverse psychology, it doesn't stop them from feeling the urge to play another round.

"Grab the Goose" cleverly limits the number of times players can play, attracting them through collecting. After passing the second level, the system rewards a beautifully designed big goose. However, the system does not encourage continuous victories but informs players that they've exhausted their daily gaming opportunities, abruptly interrupting their joy of success, making them feel disappointed and eager to try again the next day.

What's even more compelling is that each day, players receive a unique "daily limited edition" goose. Many players who had given up on the game are unwittingly drawn back by the special edition vibrant goose, unable to resist the allure of "limited editions." Reflecting on the failure of "Crash Sheep," which destroyed its reputation due to excessive difficulty and potentially unsolvable tasks, "Grab the Goose" has learned and guarantees almost daily victories based on player feedback after one successful completion. Yet, there is still some price to be paid even for a successful completion.

Players combine their actual experience to come up with the ultimate strategy: "Share more, watch more ads, obtain more items," hoping to capture the goose next time. However, various social anecdotes have emerged in the sharing process. Some accidentally sent their shares to work groups; others sent them to public accounts focusing on postgraduate entrance exams, which in turn urged them to stop gaming and study hard.

Obliged by the system to share, players repeatedly do so. If they always share with the same person, or cancel when sharing, the system prompts them to share with more groups. These tactics may not always be popular, but they indeed drive action. By cleverly exploiting the desire to win, the sense of achievement, and collectibles, players continue to participate energetically in this strategy of social fission, all to win a big goose.

The active choice of watching ads gives a sense of joy, just as enthusiasm for minigames, where players immerse themselves in simple but engaging games. Interestingly, even when the only cost of the game is time, seemingly insignificant ads can lead to unexpected financial growth for developers. For example, players struggling to pass levels are shocked and dismayed to hear of developers like "Crash Sheep" buying houses through game earnings. For developers, as long as players are willing to invest their time and happily watch ads, it's a potential point for profit growth.

It is a very common model to obtain in-game items through watching ads in mini-games. According to the news revealed at the WeChat Open Class in April this year, the daily active users of mini-games in the first quarter of 2024 increased by 20% compared to the same period last year, reaching 500 million monthly active users, with the total annual commercial volume estimated to exceed 10 billion yuan. And that's just the data from WeChat—TikTok's mini-game market size for the same year reached an astonishing 60 billion yuan. These IAA (In App Advertising) mini-games do not rely on user payment but generate revenue through user ad viewership, seeming to achieve a "win-win" for players and developers alike. Due to a lack of gaming licenses, these games mainly monetize through ads, encouraging user interaction to watch ads for game rewards. The recent collaborative ad between "Catching Goose" and Genki Forest has showcased the commercial potential of IAA games, a model that has received widespread market recognition.

So, how much revenue can a popular mini-game bring in? At the 2022 China Game Industry Annual Conference, the developer of "Sheep Goes What Sheep," Zhang Jiaxu, shared that the initial development cost of the game was about 500,000 yuan, while in early 2023, it earned over 100 million yuan through advertising alone. Another game, "King of Salted Fish," equally popular as "Sheep Goes What Sheep," capitalized through ads and user recharges, with total platform turnover exceeding 400 million yuan. As for viral games like "Catching Goose," the income is naturally quite considerable.

However, players might find watching a 30-second ad relatively acceptable, but the content quality varies significantly, including anything from loans, vulgar content to gray area information, which hardly constitutes a good experience. However, if the ad content is another mini-game, it is seen as a normal phenomenon. Players should be reminded that you might be drawn into trying another mini-game advertised and unknowingly start watching new game ads, entering this nesting doll-style gaming cycle. Interestingly, some players have even discovered pirated ads for "Catching Goose" in the ads, claiming to offer a payoff of thousands of yuan for downloading the app and clearing 100 levels.

This kind of gimmick may not be clever, but there will always be people willing to try it out with a "what if" mindset. Then, when trying to beat the 100 levels, they are greeted with a system prompt stating a queue for review is needed, alongside another temptation of “beat another 59 levels to withdraw without review.” Even without financial loss, by the time you've wasted a great deal of time, you'll realize it's time to stop. Hence, this is indeed low-grade.

By comparison, mini-games that only consume advertising time, such as "Catching Goose," actually gained more understanding. Even when players express dissatisfaction online, they encounter numerous "Goose fans" defending by saying: "You were not asked to invest real money, what's the harm in earning some income through ads? Shouldn't game developers benefit from their own work?" Indeed, commercial activities are not non-profit charity events, and the so-called IAA (In-App Advertising) games are naturally aimed at profit, thus, they will inevitably push ads to users as much as possible.

Yet "Catching Goose" manages to make people willing to watch advertisements, and to some extent, it can be considered to maintain a certain dignity while making money. From ancient times to the present, whether it's advertorials, TV commercials, or video bloggers "earning their keep," those advertising methods that can make the audience willing to watch are truly rare.

However, the most important thing is how to find a balance between the playability and commerciality of the game, to maintain a "decent" state. It seems that after "Catching Goose" became a hit, it couldn't escape the negative reviews of being "greedy." Some users claim that as the levels progress, the game becomes more difficult, and the props obtained from watching advertisements do not help the game progress. "So it seems, the benefits have been pocketed by the developers, and the time we spend and the frustration we feel seem to have become an acceptable loss." Many people initially hoped the game would relax their minds but found themselves unintentionally delving into the philosophical pondering of "which came first, the chicken or the egg."

For many gamers, their sole purpose is to enjoy the game, and they do so by watching advertisements. For developers, the goal is always to get players to watch ads, by any means necessary. As a cultural medium, a game should not reveal its commercial purpose too blatantly because once gamers see this too clearly, they might not be far from abandoning the game.

Despite numerous success stories circulating in the market, developers are still trying to figure out how to attract players more effectively. We've witnessed the popularity of "Push The Sheep" and "Catching Goose," but the next hit game may appear soon after. The mini-game market seems like a blue ocean, but who will make the money? In fact, for European and American players, such games are not something new.

Back in 2013, a game called Flappy Bird became popular for its addictively simple gameplay and its profit through advertising and was seen as the pioneer of IAA (In-App Advertising) mini-games. After the success of Flappy Bird, Facebook and Google became the main battlegrounds for hyper-casual games. In China, WeChat launched its first mini-game feature at the end of 2017, and "Jump Jump" became very popular. In 2019, Douyin also launched its mini-program feature with "Music Jumping Ball." Today, apps like QQ, Alipay, and Meituan all provide mini-game services, and even traditional game companies, such as 37 Interactive Entertainment and Perfect World, have joined the competition to get a slice of the pie.

According to industry data analysis, there is little overlap between the paying user groups of mini-games and regular app games. This trend indicates that the mini-game market has successfully attracted a lot of new users who don't usually play games, showcasing significant market growth potential. It's noteworthy that this growing force isn't limited to just passing the time; the number of players willing to spend on mini-games is also quite large.

Looking back at 2019, studies have shown that in overseas markets, about 20% of players who experience ad-supported games (IAA) will shift to games with in-app purchase options (IAP). In other words, players eventually tend to pay cash for game content, which helps sustain the healthy development of the mini-game ecosystem.

However, as more and more developers dive into mini-game development, the once blue sea of the market quickly became fiercely competitive. It can be seen in the current ecosystem that mini-games primarily achieve profitability through ads and often vie for ad space with similar types of games, with revenue and traffic eventually concentrating on those popular top games.

In mini-games like "Fat Goose Gym," players can choose to pay for mystery boxes, which adds to the game's interactivity and appeal. At the same time, the cost of acquiring users for mini-games is getting higher and higher, and some games, in order to reduce costs, resort to deplorable practices such as using misleading advertising content or heavily plagiarizing others' works, a phenomenon that inevitably raises concerns about the market's growth quality.

Undoubtedly, people's need for leisure activities to relieve stress is everlasting, and there will always be someone willing to watch ads while playing mini-games. However, when an ultra-difficult game instead exacerbates the player's stress, we may need to contemplate one question: Whether our attention is more valuable than the value brought by the ads.