Cited by 144Customer churn and segmentationOnline Learning and AnalyticsAI and HR Technologies

Churn prediction for high-value players in casual social games

Runge, Julian, Gao, Peng, Garcin, Florent, Faltings, Boi·2014·2014 IEEE Conference on Computational Intelligence and Games

Abstract

Predicting when players will leave a game creates a unique opportunity to increase players' lifetime and revenue contribution. Players can be incentivized to stay, strategically cross-linked to other games in the company's portfolio or, as a last resort, be passed on to other companies through in-game advertisement. This paper focuses on predicting churn for highvalue players of casual social games and attempts to assess the business impact that can be derived from a predictive churn model. We compare the prediction performance of four common classification algorithms over two casual social games, each with millions of players. Furthermore, we implement a hidden Markov model to explicitly address temporal dynamics. We find that a neural network achieves the best prediction performance in terms of area under curve (AUC). In addition, to assess the business value of churn prediction, we design and implement an A/B test on one of the games, using free in-game currency as an incentive to retain players. Test results indicate that contacting players shortly before the predicted churn event substantially improves the effectiveness of communication with players. They further show that giving out free in-game currency does not significantly impact the churn rate or monetization of players. This suggests that players can only be retained by remarkably changing their gameplay experience ahead of the churn event and that cross-linking may be the more effective measure to deal with churning players.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/cig.2014.6932875

Cites

15 of 15 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. idate, 0, Markets and Trends 2012-2016 Market Research Report
  2. hadden, 2006, Chum Prediction using complaints data, Enforratika, 13

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Runge, J., Gao, P., Garcin, F., & Faltings, B.
Affiliations
École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (CH)
Venue
2014 IEEE Conference on Computational Intelligence and Games
Publisher
IEEE
Published
2014-08
Pages
1-8
OpenAlex
W2087097402
Cited by
144
References
15
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 23 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 2
FWCI
52.14
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
IEEE Conference on Computational Intelligence and Games (CIG) (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › Customer churn and segmentation
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Science Applications › Online Learning and Analytics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › AI and HR Technologies
Keywords
player retention, hidden Markov models, artificial neural networks, machine learning classifiers, A/B testing, crosslinking, in-game advertising, game monetization, temporal dynamics

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review