From hypercasual to hybrid: what we broke (and learned) along the way

State Connect was released four years ago. It started out as a quiet, meditative game about building roads between cities and states, inspired by the PC title Mini Motorways. But there was one problem: the original mechanics were too complex for a mobile hypercasual project, so we went through several iterations to simplify the gameplay. At the time, hypercasual games were thriving, and few were thinking about transitioning to hybrid. The idea that a hypercasual could last five years or more wasn’t widely accepted in the market.

Together with Twin Crab, we focused heavily on ad monetization, particularly interstitials. Ads performed well, the game paid for itself, and the in-game economy allowed us to spend up to $20,000 a day on user acquisition just two weeks after launch. When a game allows for large daily spend, that’s a good sign, it means the investment will likely pay off in the coming months. During the first half of 2022, the game was generating over $1 million in monthly revenue.

Then, we experimented by adding an IAP to disable ads. Interstitials were shown after unlocking new states, not very often, but even so, our NoAds purchase rate was unusually high for a game in this genre. At one point, IAPs were contributing $5,000–$10,000 daily, accounting for nearly 20% of total revenue — a huge figure for a purely hypercasual game, especially at the time.

Gameplay 3 years ago:

The game was successful, we released regular updates, and tested multiple hypotheses. But over time, audience interest started to fade. At one point, we even considered sunsetting the project. Still, we felt the core mechanics were strong enough to justify a few more tests.

Today, State Connect’s product metrics are steadily climbing back to their 2022 peak, and the share of IAP revenue is now the highest it’s ever been.

This turnaround was only possible thanks to identifying and fixing bottlenecks in the project. These days, all hypercasuals are trending toward hybrid, and new ones are being built with depth and longevity in mind. But State Connect wasn’t originally designed with depth, which meant there was no solid foundation for IAP monetization, players simply weren’t motivated.

To address this, we planned a series of updates around gameplay, balance, and monetization. The game is now enjoying a second life, but along the way, we tried a lot of hypotheses that didn’t pan out. And sometimes, those “failed” tests teach you more than the successful ones.

Here are a few of them.

Tried removing randomized interstitials

In early versions of State Connect, interstitial ads would appear unexpectedly during gameplay, following the classic approach. We assumed this created a negative experience and decided to tie ads to specific events or player actions.

We implemented special tabs where interstitials could be triggered, testing several variations: from simple reward triggers to narrative overlays. All of them underperformed.

We thought players would be less annoyed if the ads felt more “opt-in.” But the opposite happened. Faced with a choice, “Tap this and watch an ad,” players would simply avoid that tab altogether. Many just closed the game.

Interstitial views dropped because of that. Retention and monetization took a serious hit.

Experimented with audio ads

This wasn’t a total failure. Audio ads worked decently in State Connect and generated some revenue. But one idea — rewarded audio ads where players tap a button to hear an ad — didn’t land at all.

Most users played without sound and likely assumed the button was broken. The game continued with the ad playing in the background, but the lack of visual feedback made the interaction feel like a bug.

Listened to players and added a feature that turned them off

One of the more interesting flops was a feature players had been actively requesting: the ability to delete roads they’d already built. After implementing it, nearly all metrics dropped by 5–10%.

Why? First, we discovered that players liked the chaos of road webs, even if they weren’t logistically optimal.

Second, there’s a suspicion the interface wasn’t precise enough. Players often deleted the wrong road segment by mistake. In the end, we rolled the feature back.

The more, the worse

If players enjoy building roads, they’ll love filling them with cars, right? Initially, a fully upgraded setup gave you 9 cars across 3 cities. In one update, we tripled this to 27.

But more cars created visual overload. Optimization suffered. Retention dropped. More wasn’t better.

Didn’t think about balance

We once added a mechanic where tapping the screen made cars go faster. A fun, clicker-like experience that let players farm soft currency more actively.

But that faster progress meant players burned through content and left the game quicker.

We also tried dropping coins around the map. Players collected them. Progress sped up. The result was the same — early burnout. The idea itself was solid, though. Now that the balance has been reworked, we’ll probably give it another go.

Now, even when we add dynamic features, we counterbalance them with numerical tweaks to prevent content from being consumed too quickly.

Introduced an overcomplicated meta

We tried adding a standalone meta layer in the form of “capitals.” It was a separate game mode where players could build houses and earn extra coins. We tested several variations of these metagames, but none of them caught on. Most likely, our audience simply wasn’t interested in managing a game within the game. They preferred to focus on the core loop.

Lesson learned: if you add a meta, it should support the core gameplay, not distract from it. A better idea would be to offer another avenue for farming soft currency that connects directly to progression.

Experimented with visuals

We tried adding a day/night cycle and dynamic weather effects. It didn’t land. The plan is to revisit the idea eventually, but next time with gameplay implications, for example, normal conditions during the day, but at night, cars might slow down or generate less income.

Same with a winter update with snowfall across the city. Nice to look at, no noticeable impact. We’ve concluded that in the hybrid/casual segment, purely cosmetic changes don’t move the needle. They consume time and resources, but don’t improve performance.

That said, our core gameplay is strong enough to hold players’ attention without flashy visuals. They’re here for the experience, not the snow. But that only works when your core is really solid.

Offered skins that no one wanted

We had a car skin store, but almost no one used it. It didn’t enhance gameplay or deliver any kind of wow effect, so the feature didn’t make much sense.

Later, when we started adding more depth to the project, we introduced a car upgrade system via merging. That’s when a better idea came up: instead of keeping an underperforming skin shop, we folded the skins into the merge mechanic.

Skins went from purely cosmetic to part of the gameplay loop, and suddenly, they started to work. This brings us to an important takeaway: just because something isn’t selling doesn’t mean it has no value. Sometimes it just needs to be reimagined.

Merge in State Connect is a lightweight sub-system where identical Tier 1 cars can be combined into more powerful Tier 2 models and beyond. This mechanic gave purpose to skins, they became part of the visual feedback loop for progression.

The new system boosted all major metrics, including rewarded video views, since missing merge pieces can now be obtained through ads.

The bottom line

In today’s market, hypercasual monetization based on showing ads every 15 seconds is no longer viable. We need to move toward more complex hybrid models: events, starter offers, and so on.

Originally, this didn’t make sense for State Connect, there was nothing valuable to sell. But now, with features like tickets and chests, there’s finally something players want.

We’re also preparing a major update with new skins, not just cars, but also planes and trains. The story of the skin shop is a great example of how a failed idea can be redesigned into something profitable.