TL;DR
Smoothie Wars evolved through 5 major versions over 5 years: v1.0 (complex stock market simulation, failed testing), v2.0 (overcorrection to simplicity, too shallow), v3.0 (introduced location system, breakthrough), v4.0 (refined ingredient economics), v5.0 (current published version, balanced). Key design decisions: cutting dice-based sales, adding demand cards, limiting locations to 5, introducing exotic ingredients, setting 7-turn length. Over 200 playtests with 1,000+ participants informed changes.
Every published game has a hidden history—discarded mechanics, failed prototypes, design dead-ends. Smoothie Wars looks elegant and simple in its published form (Version 5.0). What you don't see are the four earlier versions that failed spectacularly, the 200+ playtests that revealed what didn't work, and the specific moments where breakthroughs happened.
This is that history. The evolution from complex stock market simulation (v1.0) to accessible family strategy game (v5.0). The features I cut, why I cut them, and what I'd change in retrospect.
For players: this satisfies curiosity about "how did this become the game it is?" For aspiring designers: this provides case study in iterative design—what works, what fails, how to test and improve.
Version 1.0 (2018-2019): The Failure
The Over-Complex Stock Market Simulation
Design concept: Simulate a stock market where players invest in smoothie companies, companies compete for customers, stock prices fluctuate based on company performance.
Mechanics:
- 7 smoothie companies (color-coded)
- Players buy/sell shares in companies
- Each turn, companies "perform" (dice-based revenue generation)
- Stock prices adjust based on performance
- Winner: Most valuable portfolio after 10 turns
Play time: 90-120 minutes
Rules complexity: 8-page rulebook
Why It Failed
Playtested: 12 games, various groups (family, friends, game café regulars)
Feedback:
- "Rules took 35 minutes to explain—we were exhausted before playing"
- "My 8-year-old was completely lost"
- "Interesting for adults, but too dry for kids"
- "90 minutes was too long for a game with this much randomness"
- "Stock market theme is boring"
My wife's verdict: "The kids hated it, and honestly, I was bored. It's not fun."
What I Learned
Lesson #1: Complexity isn't depth. I thought "sophisticated" meant "lots of rules." Wrong. Elegance is depth from simple rules, not complexity from elaborate rules.
Lesson #2: Theme matters. Stock certificates and fluctuating markets are thematically dead for children. Need something visually appealing, thematically engaging.
Lesson #3: Kids and adults need DIFFERENT DEPTHS, not different games. I was designing for adults, expecting kids to tolerate it. Backwards. Design core that kids grasp intuitively, with depth adults discover through play.
Version 2.0 (2019): The Overcorrection
Stripped to Bare Bones
Design concept: Reaction to v1.0 complexity. Made it super simple—draw cards, roll dice, advance.
Mechanics:
- Draw location card (tells you where to go)
- Roll dice for revenue (random)
- Whoever gets luckiest after 7 rounds wins
Play time: 20-25 minutes
Rules complexity: 1 page
Why It Failed
Playtested: 25 games
Feedback:
- "My 8-year-old liked it, but I was bored"
- "There's no strategy—it's just luck"
- "Why did I win? I have no idea. I just rolled better?"
- "Felt like Candyland with a tropical theme"
Honest assessment: Accessible to young children, but zero strategic depth. Adults disengaged.
My daughter (10 at the time): "Dad, this is for babies. Your first version was too hard, this one's too easy. Can you make something in between?"
What I Learned
Lesson #4: Accessibility doesn't mean "no decisions." I'd conflated "simple" with "no agency." Kids can handle decisions (where to position, what to buy, what price to charge)—they just need them presented clearly.
Lesson #5: Replay value requires variability and depth. V2.0 felt the same every game—draw cards, roll dice, no emergent dynamics. Games need variability (different each play) and depth (room to improve strategy).
Version 3.0 (2020-2021): The Breakthrough
Introducing the Location System
Design concept: Players compete for customers at different island locations. Competition + positioning create strategy.
Mechanics:
- 5 locations (Beach, Town Centre, Marina, Hotel District, Park)
- Players choose location each turn
- Multiple players at location = split customers (competitive tension)
- Basic ingredients + pricing decisions
Play time: 45-50 minutes
Rules complexity: 4 pages
Why This Worked
Playtested: 60 games across schools, families, game groups
Feedback:
- "This clicked! I immediately understood why location mattered"
- "Simple to learn, but there's real strategy—where to go, when to move"
- "My 9-year-old could play independently after one game"
- "I've played 8 times and still finding new tactics"
First external validation: Teacher in Reading used it with Year 6 class, emailed: "Students were fully engaged and grasped supply-demand naturally. Can I buy 4 more copies?"
That email was the moment I knew this could work.
Critical Design Decisions in v3.0
Decision #1: 5 locations (not 7) Tested 3, 5, 7, 9 locations. Three too limiting (no real choice). Seven too many (analysis paralysis, crowding never happened). Five was Goldilocks—enough variety, not overwhelming.
Decision #2: Competitive customer allocation Initially, customers were first-come-first-served (fastest player gets all). Felt unfair. Changed to: customers divided among players at location (everyone gets share, but smaller if crowded). Fairer, more strategic.
Decision #3: Removed dice-based sales V3.0 initially had dice determining sales volume randomly. Players hated it ("My strategy was good, but I rolled 1s"). Cut dice for sales, kept location/positioning deterministic. Skill matters more.
Version 4.0 (2021-2022): Refinement
Balancing Ingredient Economics
Changes from v3.0:
- Introduced exotic ingredients (dragonfruit, passion fruit) for premium positioning
- Adjusted costs/prices (dragonfruit was £8, proved too cheap—raised to £12 for balance)
- Added demand cards (variability in which locations favored each turn)
Playtested: 100+ games
Feedback:
- "Exotic ingredients add strategic depth—when to invest?"
- "Demand cards make every game different"
- "Balance feels good—no single dominant strategy"
Features That Were Cut
Cut Feature #1: Ingredient spoilage Unused ingredients "spoiled" after 2 turns (lost their value).
Why cut: Added complexity without fun. Players hated tracking spoilage timers. Lesson: Bookkeeping isn't fun.
Cut Feature #2: Staff hiring You could "hire staff" (pay £5, get +1 smoothie production per turn).
Why cut: Optimal strategy became "hire staff Turn 1-2 always," removing decision. Lesson: If mechanic has one dominant choice, it's not a decision—cut it.
Cut Feature #3: Special location powers Each location had unique ability (Beach: +1 customer; Hotel: +£2 per sale; etc.).
Why cut: Made locations incomparable (couldn't evaluate Beach vs. Hotel mathematically). Balance nightmare. Lesson: Simplicity enables balance.
Version 5.0 (2022-2023): Published Version
Final Polish
Changes from v4.0:
- Rulebook rewrite (8 drafts to achieve clarity)
- Component quality upgrades (better cardstock, art refinements)
- Turn count finalized at 7 (tested 5, 7, 9—seven optimal)
- Pricing simplified (whole pounds only, no £4.50)
Playtested: 40+ final validation games
Result: 89% of playtesters rated "would play again," 76% rated "would recommend to friends," 94% rated "rules were clear."
Ready to publish.
What I'd Change in Retrospect
Honestly? Very little in the game mechanics. V5.0 is solid.
What I'd change in process:
- Network earlier: I isolated myself first 3 years. Joining game design community Year 4 accelerated learning dramatically.
- Publish sooner: Could've published v4.0 and iterated post-launch. Perfectionism delayed launch 8-12 months.
- Manufacturing research: Underestimated complexity of production. Should've consulted manufacturers during design (component count affects cost significantly).
Comparison: Published Version vs. Early Concepts
v1.0 (Stock Market) → v5.0 (Location Strategy)
What survived:
- Competitive economic theme
- Multi-turn structure
- Profit-maximization goal
What changed:
- Complexity (high → medium-light)
- Theme (dry stocks → fun smoothies)
- Randomness (high → moderate)
- Play time (120 min → 45 min)
They're barely recognizable as the same game. That's iteration.
About the Author: Dr. Thom Van Every designed Smoothie Wars over five years, documenting the evolution to help aspiring game creators learn from their process.
See the culmination of five years of design. Order Smoothie Wars and experience Version 5.0—the polished result of hundreds of playtests. Aspiring designers: read our complete design lessons article.
