Article on Monetizing F2P
Monkey Archive Forums/Digital Discussion/Article on Monetizing F2P
| ||
| I posted this over on Blitz, but I know not everyone here goes there. Worth a read for sure. I have definitely observed these mechanics. Makes me want to take a shower after reading it. Do you guys think this is smart business or sketchy? http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/RaminShokrizade/20130626/194933/The_Top_F2P_Monetization_Tricks.php |
| ||
| If I heard that some fat exploiter backed by the repressive forces of the state was stealing the surplus of the masses, I'd be angry too. By which I mean, his excessive framing of the situation in loaded phrases and the incessant 'won't somebody think of the children' harms his case in my mind. He's presenting a ton of rhetoric and calling it science. I don't approve of models based on harvesting whales, but I have enough faith in human intelligence to believe that these will largely become poorly profitable on a reasonable timeframe. So why worry? Just make games that offer value to customers and if you save anyone from the jaws of Puzzle Dragon or whatever that's an added bonus. |
| ||
| Aye I read a little of it, but it sounds to me like making these games means you have to hate games, hate the people playing your games and essentially have no morals. I hope indie developers never aspire to this model of 'games' |
| ||
| I feel strongly about this sort of thing, and that Article made me a little sick in the back of my mouth, I am not against IAP, but when its done in a deceptive and manipulative way like that then yeah its out of order and we need some laws to protect the people were supposed to be making games for, our gamer's. IAP when done correctly should never act as a barrier to progression within the game, it should never be the only way to achieve something, and I think that's where 90% of companies who use it fail badly, the second I play a game where it tells me that I cant progress unless I buy x amount of gems, I turn the game off and delete it, but if the same game says you cant progress unless you buy x gems OR gain 5000 score then I will keep playing. The goal of any developer with any game should be to keep players in their game, not throw up blocks to stop them unless they pay. |
| ||
| Charging a small amount of money is no less immoral than allowing people to spend as much as you want. Giving a game away is no more moral than some person spending $50 a day on a game. People can choose to do what they want to do and as long as you are not forcing people do to something with physical threat to their body then good/bad has nothing to do with it. When you put qualifiers ahead of your statements on what you think should or should not be a way to make money you are only limiting what opportunities you have available. If you make the game free and everything in the game easy to get you do not have a game easy to monetize. Even if you have the game free and things very difficult to get (time consuming) you will never monetize as well as if you have a free game plus things which can only be gained through payment (the best options of which are ones where gameplay is allowed to happen in unique ways other than the primary method of play). There is more than one way to define "progress" and many people play the same game for different reasons and in different ways than others, even ways a developer had not intended possible. Another thing to watch out for is when you set yourself as an example on spending money. If you look only at your own play and spending habits then you miss out on understanding everyone else in the world. As game makers we are already in the scare minority of consumers. If you do not spend money in games routinely, if you do not buy many major games, if your spending and play habits do not follow then trends of the majority out there then watch you! You could be on the path to making things only you want to play. As game devs many of us have strong opinions, but the reality is many people on the outside are happy to pay for power (P2W) and are fine with investing money into what they see as a hobby - their current favorite game. They show it with their actions - even when some minority on forums say they "hate p2w games" the numbers speak for themselves. It's either selection bias in the forum population, or they are all liars who are only saying they hate something to save face, meanwhile having fun with more power in game. When people say others are falling for "coercive and manipulative" methods what they are really doing is objectifying those people by refusing them agency to making their own choices. They are assuming they are children because they are choosing to do things they, the obviously smarter person, would never do. If you want to win then follow the data. Have some guts and try things which other people are hating on. If you are making more money, then invest that money into dream projects you've been wanting to make, which without money were impractical. If you want to be the nice guy and not allow people to spend money, not optimize your game to be both fun and make unlimited money, and not make money that's up to you, but don't expect people to reward you for being so generous. Zynga makes more money than any of us here, because they are viciously analytical with optimizing making money. It works - they make lots of money. Their strateies may not work forever in their current form, but the methods still work for others in mutated forms. I don't really like the games purely based on optimizing money making, because I think they lack at least some heart, but the people who own those properties are still making more money than the rest of us, and keeping the attention of a major majority of the market. For the record, games like LoL or Dota 2 I like how they monetize, but I bet that LoL will forever make more money as they sell methods of differing play (indirectly) with their character sales, while Dota 2 gives everything for free, and only sells cosmetics. There are a lot of things about the article which make me cringe. The assumption that only children would like cartoon graphics. If a child is spending money that is not theirs to spend then it is a failure of parenting. A child can take a parent's credit card and spend money on anything if they know how, but children never spend money on things "targeted at adults", right? Call of Duty games, with their attempts at high realism, only sell to people over the age of 25, right? The assumption that people cannot spend real $ on a premium currency with judgement - hey, when someone buys a bag of candy and they trade those for a sugar high are they no longer able to judge the value of that transaction as they consume the candy? Probably not. It's the same with any consumable, but you would think people would be able to make a value judgement on the original transaction. Also, ban everyone under the age of 25 from being able to spend money, because they are purely incapable of decision making, and also ban the majority of people who spend money on luxury items... I'm not even going to say which demographic that is, but it's not people under 25. Finally - his appeal to only make games of skill - not everyone wants to play all games in the same way - stop trying to influence others so that they only have limited experiences available in the way you personally approve of. Please see the "I'm better than all of you and would never make a F2P game" crowd for what they really are - a similar crowd to those who blame school shootings on violent video games. Final thoughts: Not everyone is going to buy the cheapest toilet paper just because they are cheap - some people are willing to pay a premium for the greater experience, even if functionally they don't need to spend as much to gain the same ultimate value. Some will spend $1,000 on a pair of pants they only wear once, while others will only ever buy their clothing second hand. People do what they want. They are not as endlessly manipulable as some think. To think people are stupid because they do not value the same things you do makes you the really ignorant one who does not understand that different people have different value systems. |
| ||
| Charging a small amount of money is no less immoral than allowing people to spend as much as you want. Giving a game away is no more moral than some person spending $50 a day on a game. People can choose to do what they want to do and as long as you are not forcing people do to something with physical threat to their body then good/bad has nothing to do with it. I agree, and I do not think anyone was saying it was, where the immorality comes in is when a developer or publisher starts to deploy these underhanded tricks with the sole intention of tricking the player into handing over their money. Offering Items in a game for real money/prem currency is cool, but only when its done right, and only when there is an alternate way for the player to gain access to the same items. Candy Crush is a fine example of them slamming the game door in your face as you get higher levels, my wife plays it solid, and shes at that point now where she constantly feels she has to pay over hard cash because the games simply become unplayable without the boosts and cheats. That's whats really immoral. |
| ||
| No, it's not. No one is forcing her to continue to play. And if she really wants more of that play style there are endless match 3 games which are free or for a flat fee only available. Older quarter eating arcade games are no more different than many of the current generation of F2P games with their endless ramping up of difficulty and increased level of chaotic randomness, with the only option to pay more quarters in the older generation - at least Candy Crush still lets you try as many times as you like without paying. If people choose to keep playing them despite their difficulty or randomness either they are an adult making a decision to continue or they are someone with no agency to make their own decisions and should not be trusted with any responsibility. If you release one game free and people like it then you release a sequel as a paid game it is no different than the situation with a free game which has some form of gated content. Pay, or don't pay. If you say that it's not immoral for a person to pay for a sequel to a free game then don't say it's immoral for people to pay to get past gated content in a free game. |
| ||
| Yes it is :), guess we will have to agree to disagree. At the end of the day people will do the talking with their wallet's , its what has prompted changes from a number of big free to play developers and whats seen the demise of those unwilling to adapt. |
| ||
| Selling the sequel of a free game is just as immoral to you? Because functionally they are the same thing. You cannot continue to the sequel legitimately without paying. "Candy Crush"... "simply become unplayable without [paying for] the boosts and cheats" vs Sequel of x free game is simply unplayable without paying for it. Yes, the way it looks right now full purchase premium games will become a far minority as F2P games make more money and those who make more money are able to spend more to make more of what people want and also keep their money makers in focus. The signs are all there to any major developer - full premium games are a struggle when people favor with their wallets the free to play options. Those who refuse to adapt to the changing market will lose. There will still be exceptions, but already we can see the shift with ALL top grossing games consistently being F2P for most of the time, and the devs who do make F2P but make cosmetic only options not being as able to compete (there are of course exceptions, but I've seen stats from comparable games and the ones which do the things people hate on (paying for game related stuff) make more money more often), while devs who have paid gates on features or content are winning. What about this: you can download an app and pay some money instead to unlock everything in it. Is that morally reprehensible? How exactly is that different from Candy Crush? The fact that in one game you can only be able to choose to pay once for a fixed price for the full experience, or that you can choose to pay as many times as you want to, but you don't actually need to for the full experience? If a game developer makes a game which is a premium purchase only, but the game is super difficult, and the person feels that the only way they can advance is through cheating is it less immoral if they just use a memory editor to win or is just that money was transfered to gain some power that makes it immoral. Things are complex. If you wall yourself from opportunity on emotions you are only hurting yourself. At least keep an open mind for the good opportunities available. There was a dev a while who refused to listen to reason. He didn't want to make a F2P game, but he also didn't want to make an outright upsell screen. So, as to avoid looking like a scumbag (in his mind), he hid a buy screen deeply in his menus. The result? With many downloads he made almost nothing. That's what happens when you make decisions in appeals to how others work up your emotions. I would like to see many more Monkey devs being very successful. It's up to you to do what you want and I won't try to stop anyone but I still wish everyone the best. |
| ||
| Soap I can't agree more. Even though there are still games where I'd prefer the good old lite/full model. My upcoming 3d submarine game will be like that. But I also plan to make a f2p game soon... |
| ||
| Selling the sequel of a free game is just as immoral to you? Because functionally they are the same thing. You cannot continue to the sequel legitimately without paying. "Candy Crush"... "simply become unplayable without [paying for] the boosts and cheats" vs Sequel of x free game is simply unplayable without paying for it. No of course it's not in fact I really dont see how you can consider them the same thing at all, unless your talking about a lite version of a paid game and even that is not Immoral, I am starting to wonder if either your simply not understanding my point of view or were just getting our wires crossed. Yes, the way it looks right now full purchase premium games will become a far minority as F2P games make more money and those who make more money are able to spend more to make more of what people want and also keep their money makers in focus. The signs are all there to any major developer - full premium games are a struggle when people favor with their wallets the free to play options. Those who refuse to adapt to the changing market will lose. There will still be exceptions, but already we can see the shift with ALL top grossing games consistently being F2P for most of the time, and the devs who do make F2P but make cosmetic only options not being as able to compete (there are of course exceptions, but I've seen stats from comparable games and the ones which do the things people hate on (paying for game related stuff) make more money more often), while devs who have paid gates on features or content are winning. I don't think Free to Play is going to go away it's clearly here to stay, if Zynga is anything to go by tho and with recent changes in policy from big named developers in that market like War Gaming who flat out come out and said they were removing all pay to win from their market, it's clear to me and apparently others that people are waking up to the ruthless practices of some of the shadier companies and they, the gamer's are starting to talk with their wallets. The Free to play model in general can be incredible beneficial to young gamer's, allowing them to play games without having to hit up their parents for money, the problems arise when these young minds are poked into paying money for items in game that they probably don't need or could have played without, how many articles have you see about some impressionable young kid blowing their parents credit limit on in game purchases without even realizing just how much REAL money they had spent. It's like anything else, It's a good system when its done responsibly , but when it's done wrong, it can really hurt.. What about this: you can download an app and pay some money instead to unlock everything in it. Nothing wrong with that, the player has a very clear obvious barrier in front of them that requires them to pay to keep playing. nothing hidden away, nothing there to suck you in its a straight up buy or don't buy. Is that morally reprehensible? How exactly is that different from Candy Crush? The fact that in one game you can only be able to choose to pay once for a fixed price for the full experience, or that you can choose to pay as many times as you want to, but you don't actually need to for the full experience? I see the difference here in the fact that CandyCrush actually makes the game almost impassible at higher levels without the player buying packs or moves or cheats, its no longer about skill at that level its about how much money you spend on it. As a player plays through the game their lured into thinking its their skill that's getting them through, so when they hit this wall they assume their luck is just running out so a few extra moves wont hurt. Truth is they have coded the game to stack up on the player forcing them to pay out if they want to progress, at that point it stops being a skill game and starts being a money machine for the dev. Must Admit other than sneaky feelings about the game from watching my wife play, I had no real insight on it until reading that article. Anyway.. TLDR :: I like free to play as a model, I do NOT! like it when developers are underhanded about how they seek that all important purchase. |
| ||
| This about sums it up.. http://www.gameskinny.com/1b054/candy-crush-represents-everything-thats-wrong-with-mobile-gaming To be clear, I'm not talking about 99 cent power-ups here. The power-ups in Candy Crush are $16.99, $24.99 and $39.99. That's right. To get the most out of this game, will need to drop at least $82.On a simple single player game that you play on your phone. And even then, you need to... Pay to unlock more levels Don't need to say anything else other than.. It's a Match 3 Game, not Crysis 3, Not Doom 5million, Not an MMO where you might expect to pay 8.99 a month. its a match 3. |
| ||
| >Don't need to say anything else other than.. It's a Match 3 Game, not Crysis 3, Not Doom 5million, Not an MMO where you might expect to pay 8.99 a month. its a match 3. Some people value Match 3s more than FPS games. Your value system is not the same value system everyone else has. >the problems arise when these young minds are poked into paying money for items in game that they probably don't need or could have played without, how many articles have you see about some impressionable young kid blowing their parents credit limit on in game purchases without even realizing just how much REAL money they had spent. "Some parents are bad at parenting so we should ban everything adults like." > its no longer about skill Again, not everyone wants to play the same games you do. Not everyone wants to play games of skill. A match 3 by its very nature is random. If you didn't randomize the boards each time then it would be predicable and boring, but this also removes an element of skill. Candy Crush is designed to be an endless game, and its design is to be ever increasingly difficult. No one is forcing people to play it. There are tons of full purchase match 3 games available. It is peoples' choice, for whatever their reasons are, to keep playing that game, and in some cases pay to have an advantage. That advantage is value to people - they want it - they like it. That you do not understand that value does not mean it doesn't exist to them. Do you buy top of the line luxury clothing? I don't, because I don't value it, but there are still many people who do, and it's their choice to spend their money how they want to. >forcing them to pay Why do people use this language? No one is forcing anyone to spend money in games. >...if they want to progress Ah, right, so it's like my earlier example where if you wanted to legally play a paid sequel to a free game you would need to pay some money to purchase it. It's a person's choice to buy the paid sequel, right? They are not being forced to? It is the same thing as the Candy Crush example. No one is forcing anyone to do anything. They are choosing to do it. If you deny someone has the agency to make the choices they want then you are objectifying them as not a person. Just because their personal choices do not line up with your personal ideals of what you would choose does not mean they are being forced against their will to make their choice. >I am starting to wonder if either your simply not understanding my point of view or were just getting our wires crossed. It must be that my English is not clear enough. |
| ||
| I think we would all agree more if we were talking about specific games rather than theories of what is moral in principle. I would note that the FTP concept does create dilemmas for developers that didn't exist with older models such as lite and full version. There are so many theoretical ways to monetise, and they all affect the game in some way (I guess you could argue that the effect is always adverse, but then again so is having to pay). For example, if it's a skill game, do you exploit bad players by making them pay a lot to progress, or do you negate the skill element by making free or cheap progress too easy? There are no simple answers. I'm in the beta of a game called Card Hunter now (a cross between DnD and CCG, an excellent game in which I have already forked out $15 which is very rare for me) and those dilemmas are very plain on the beta forums. [You can look them up if you like - it's an open beta.] |
| ||
| All in all one aspect I miss here is the fact that you nowaydays probably MUST create a free version of a game. That specially true for the Android market. I've tried that lite/full thing a lot in the past and there might be games out there where this would fit better than the f2p model. More complex games are in that lite/full category I guess. Starting a match-3 game today and make it a paid game you won't see any money at all. You have to make it free and use ads or make it f2p... |
| ||
| Btw might be a good idea to start a match 3 game which looks similar cute. Any artists out there who can make such graphics? Taiphoz maybe you? ;) |
| ||
| https://plus.google.com/u/0/105363132599081141035/posts/Cyi2Am8gqGq Hehe. |
| ||
| Just wanted to say, Soap - some great posts there mate. |
| ||
| Xaron yeah I can easily handle the art, and I have a few old Match 3 projects one done in Blitz 3D which I will be porting over to Monkey, while I wont be changing the core setting of that old match 3 game I will be making it way more cute and cartoonie to appeal to the crazed people who love that sort of thing. As for making it pay, I know a few people that do indeed make them pay, I think your kinda right tho, you need a bit of luck on your side , you need the right game and theme and you need it to get noticed by the right people, none of which are easy to do. I guess if soap is right what I should do is add IAP to my next game, make it harder the further the player goes and sell items that make it easier , so in a nut shell treat my players like crack addicts, get them addicted to the low game, show them some difficulty in the mid game and then have them scrambling for their wallets in the end game. I might make a lot of money, but would I feel clean ?? |
| ||
| Do you really care, Taiphoz? You are in the great position to be able to make nice graphics AND the programming part. I really suck on the art stuff... I guess I will just start one, finish it and look for some artist to just change the art. I think another moneytizing thing are ads. Look, I added simple admob banners into my games which don't annoy anyone today and they do pretty well. Make about $200-$300 per month with my sea battle game for iOS and Android (lite versions) which have about 100 downloads per day each which is not thaaat much. I can imagine that a game with 1000 downloads a day which is really played and fun can make some nice money with admob banners alone. I never understood why someone should give a game away for free as I always had the impression that banner ads simply don't work but they actually do! |
| ||
| Yeah I mean my Pirate Gems game is deff on the sheet for being worked on after my current project so I will be entering the match 3 market at some point, I think that's why this topic interests me so much, I am interested in soaps point of view while I might not agree, it does interest me. In terms of IAP it's something I have thought about for Terminal 2, I initially looked at powerups that would make gaining score easier, but I felt that would instantly make the score tables about who spent, and who didn't, the other option I thought of that is a lot more fair was to offer DLC style stage blocks, so people could buy additional stages, with each stage holding 10 levels. But, its such a hot topic right now I honestly have no clue what I will eventually do. |
| ||
| Can that be true? http://thinkgaming.com/app-sales-data/2/candy-crush-saga/ $632,867 DAILY REVENUE ESTIMATE :o |
| ||
| Yeah, it's true. Look at the top grossing games on each platform. They all make bank. The thing is they spend countless thousands every day on maintaining their dominance. But if you can make $2 for every $1 you spend you'll be spending those $1s as quickly as you can. For us, we are keeping a balance between F2P and Premium games. I like when games are not F2P as a game, but I won't deny that they make money and are worth doing if you can do them right, which is in itself tricky with no guarantees. Some product types simply do not work as F2P. In all cases with my own projects, I want to always try to make things which fail gracefully and are still mostly if not completely playable without an Internet connection, but even that in does not work with specific designs of great potential. I also have ZERO problem with Pay 2 Win games and I don't have any sympathy for people who complain about these games. They are wasting their time, and some people like paying for power, so it boils down to "stop liking what I don't like" endlessly. |
   |