One of the most prominent discussion about games in the last year or so have all revolved around the viability of the current business model, specifically: Freemium Games. The wiki definition is a pretty solid description:
Freemium is a business model that works by offering a game, product or service free of charge (such as software, web services or other) while charging a premium for advanced features, functionality, or related products and services.
In the video game world though, there's been very strong debates on what constitutes "advance features, functionality, related products and services". By the most basic definition, even basic DLC can be considered "freemium", as it offers new content for a premium fee (other than the base game not being free at all). In fact, some companies have tried approaching this model with traditional retail games (see MX vs. ATV Alive) with less than impressive result.
It's hard to say whether this model actually works or not given there's only been one attempt. Guess it's something we'll never know.
This post isn't about mixing in freemium with traditional retail game model, but rather the strict "free" model. In addition, games that sell "content packs" that isn't repeatedly re-purchasable in a solo play setting (IE, extra modes/levels) don't technically fall into the same discussion. While they are proper "freemium", no game balance issues occur, as players are at worst only locked away from additional content (which technically works like DLC). What I'm after is specifically anything re-purchasable: in game currency/"energy", in game stat boost (both temporary and permanent), and any freemium content that changes the balance of play in a competitive game.
==================================
The concept of in game currency/"energy" is probably the model most familiar to people. You may have seen it in pretty much all of Zynga's games (or practically most Facebook social games), and it's starting to trickle over to iOS games. My latest obsession on iOS, Tiny Towers, uses this model as it's entire revenue scheme (how successful though, is another debate).
Farmville
Tiny Towers
And truth to be told about this model:
Two interesting points arise, especially from a designer standpoint:
a) The games were designed with breaks in mind, and by implementing such a feature to "allow" players to play by paying. This "time for money" model in theory hurts no one, but I often question whether it ends up playing into people's OCD instincts, the need to "complete" rather than the need to "play". I look at Tiny Towers and I often ask myself: "why is it fun and why do I keep coming back"; certainly, there's some management aspect to it, but it's so minuscule it's inconsequential. All I have is the want of "filling up my building with people", which isn't that good of a "gameplay hook" but rather a "addict hook", triggering the compulsive need to collect and complete.
b) While technically there is a competitive aspect (via seeing your friend's progress), there is no direct competition, which softens the blow if and when someone decides to pay up to speed up progress? Your friends paid money to grow faster? Great, you now can feel wonderful knowing that they paid for something virtual, like getting an extra 500 points. (Here, have 500 points, don't you feel wonderful too!)
In this freemium model, games aren't "unbalanced" by someone throwing in a wad of cash; then again, there might not be much of a game to be "unbalanced" to begin with. For a game like Tiny Towers, I've yet to feel the need to pay for more (which should be a concern on the dev's part). I'm indifferent to games using such a model, and I'm sure there's been well done implementations of it. The only concern I would have with this model is when the business side creeps over every design decision. One example would be Let's Golf 3 by Gameloft: I'll let this review do the talking:
While I think that being able to earn cash (and thus, energy) by playing well is a good gameplay mechanic, the fact that you can only passively earn one unit of energy per hour is ridiculous. In other words, if you’re not that good at the game, you’re going to be punished rather harshly by either having to wait a long time for energy or shell out money to play. Meanwhile, someone that’s better at the game might be able to play significantly longer (and level up faster) by earning more cash in-game and converting it to energy. I personally had no problem scoring birdies and earning enough cash and energy to continually play, but I just think that the energy cool down is way too long for most gamers. It’s definitely going to alienate a lot of players who simply don't have any in-game cash and aren't going to pay or wait an hour to play one hole.
==================================
While I had wanted to write something about Freemium for a while, this article about BigPoint is really what triggered me to finish it. In it, Philip Reisberger has some amazing insight on how to charge for in game content, especially in light of game balance:
"In a nutshell, EA doesn't understand it," he adds, referring to EA's insistence that a Battlefield 3 pre-order bonus containing advanced weaponry would not give players a competitive advantage. "It wouldn't ruin the game. If selling an advantage ruins the game, you haven't done the balancing right…EA and Ubisoft, for example, they're both trying, but they're not really there yet.
Note the bolded line: If an advantage ruins the game, then it isn't balanced.
But wait. If it's balanced, how can it be an advantage?
OK, but if there's no advantage, then what the hell am I selling to people to actually give them an advantage?
OK, let's say I do come up with an advantage, but then is it still balanced?
We've reached a paradoxical issue: If you sell freemium content, how does it affect game balance? Can you truly call it balance if someone can buy their way to an advantage? The examples I've seen are truly frightening: "sell more ammo", "carry more items", "faster respawn". If you take a sports analogy, it'd be the Yankees paying the ref to get an extra out for an inning, or everyone getting aluminum bats for their next turn.
I don't want to say that it's impossible, but every time I read someone say "you aren't fully exploiting what can be done with freemium", I would worry about every other gameplay issue they haven't thought about.
Quite a few thoughts on this. Summary:
ReplyDelete1. Get them addicted.
2. Make the add-ins fun/useful.
3. Have small buy-ins to suck you into multiple buys or larger buys.
4. For MMORPGs implement a dual coin system.
You touch briefly on addiction, which is important for a lot of these continuous games. If a person is always playing your game, odds are they'll be more likely to pay for things? Let's Golf 3 seems to hurt itself by not letting normal people play long enough to get addicted, whereas Tiny Towers let you play 'til you were hooked. (edit - Had written a lot more on getting people, but it's sort of a side issue.)
I've got one good example of non-OCD freemium: Puzzle Pirates. Puzzle Pirates is a great example in many respects, as it actively tested multiple freemium principles against the market at the same time. I think they were one of the ones who first realized you could make more from a pay per upgrade as opposed to a subscriber model.
There are semi-tiered environments. eg, one environment completely with paid subscribers, and another with a mixed class of players, some paying some not paying. (this probably wouldn't work anywhere except a MMORPG)
In their free worlds, you needed a combination of earned money (coins) and premium money (dubloons) to buy most things and do most things. In subscriber worlds, you only needed coin. Subscribers could also play on normal worlds but would have to buy dubloons. Then they realized they could make more money...
They opened up their subscriber worlds and added licenses (30 days) bought with dubloons. Subscribers automatically had these privileges and didn't have to buy licenses in their world, but now more casual players could choose their level of involvement.
!! DUAL-COIN System. PP was the first MMO game I saw to implement a coin/dubloon (cash/premium cash) with premium cash bought purely by the players. Since you needed both types of money to do things, lazy players with access to their parents credit cards could buy dubloons and sell them for coins. Players with little cash could work hard in game any buy dubloons with coins. If someone started buying up dubloons and the price of dubloons went up, enterprising pirates would buy dubloons and sell them for large amounts of coin. It was a self-regulating market, with the 3% fee having the added effect of removing excess coin from the system.
!! Sucking you into to using the paid system.
This is the biggest weakness freemium games have, commercially. PP, created free days across the week. eg, Poker would be free on Tuesdays and Sundays, Distilling on Tuesdays and Thursdays, etc. to sucker people into buying dubloons either through the exchange or with credit card. However, you're right with this respect. Very few companies get me to use the paid system, simply because the benefits aren't good enough. (The last thing that tempted me was the katana in Zombieland.) What PP does is brilliant because 1. You could work for it instead the first few times. 2. The license is there for 30 days, so you get used to having it. 3. It seems like a small amount to start, but every addition draws you in deeper.
I really think you need to draw the line between solo games and multi-player interactive games here. With solo games, almost anything goes. If the player wants it, they should be able to buy it, and companies will sell it as costly as possible. With multi-player games, you can only really sell things that don't disrupt the balance, and/or that you can earn with hard work otherwise. That's the great thing about having a dual-coin convertible system. Some people will say, "It's not worth the effort of farming it, I'll just buy it" and others will say "It's not worth buying it, I'll just farm it." Either way, the players can't really fault you; you're just giving them what they want without really breaking the game. Blizzard should have gotten into that model earlier, and then the faux outrage might not have been so loud.
Trying again with a much shorter comment:
ReplyDelete1. You touch briefly on addiction, which is important for a lot of these continuous games. If a person is always playing your game, odds are they'll be more likely to pay for things? Let's Golf 3 seems to hurt itself by not letting normal people play long enough to get addicted, whereas Tiny Towers let you play 'til you were hooked.
2. Solo vs multiplayer games.
Solo: sell the player whatever they want at as costly a price as possible.
Multi: Balance is an issue.
3. If bringing pay items to a subscriber model, people aren't as mad if you have a dual convertible currency. Eg, one currency earned, the other bought, but both convertible into each other. Without ranting too much about the amazingness of Puzzle Pirates, the brilliance of the system is that some people will say, "It's not worth the effort of farming it, I'll just buy it" and others will say "It's not worth buying it, I'll just farm it." If you have a in-game trading market for the currency there is double win. Players who pay for stuff will also pay for more stuff if they can sell it to other players (who weren't going to pay) Either way, the players can't really fault you; you're just giving them what they want without really breaking the game. Blizzard should have gotten into that model earlier, and then the faux outrage might not have been so loud.