免费游戏无法取代高质量付费内容

游戏领域是一个充满炒作的行业，这种大规模的宣传一方面确实激发我们时刻与这一行业的变化保持同步，另一方面也难免导致我们误判形势，得出错误荒谬的结论。

但对一些观察者来说，免费游戏将成为掌上游戏领域不可避免的发展趋势，就属于这种错误结论。尽管有不少说法可以驳斥这个观点，但如果我们再仔细考虑其他影响因素，就不难发现免费游戏确实是这一领域的重要发展趋势，但却并不是奠定其未来前途的基石。

文化认同感在消费者市场中发挥的作用，少数免费游戏公司的意外成功案例，以及游戏行业过去的相似趋势，都可以让我们得出一个合理的结论：免费游戏可能会重塑游戏行业的发展格局，但并不能决定这个市场的未来走向。

我们假设有一家人气极低的冰淇淋店，它无法与其他冷饮店竞争的原因会有很多种，例如冰淇淋口感不佳、市场推广力度不足、门店地理位置不利。它想与其他竞争对手扯平，于是就免费派送冰淇淋，只针对杯子和锥形脆筒收费。

这样一来，它的生意似乎有了起色，但其面临的竞争形势并没有消失。事实上，这种免费政策只会强化其竞争对手的优势，因为后者所提供的产品正是这免费冰淇淋店所缺乏的长处。

为什么会出现这种情况呢？因为产品价值取决于两个方面：成本和质量。免费冰淇淋在成本上占优，但付费冰淇淋却具有理想的质量。

游戏领域也不例外，付费游戏能够长盛不衰的原因与其过硬的质量不无关系，尽管免费游戏只需轻点鼠标就可开始体验，但用户还是愿意为付费游戏买单。值得注意的是，免费冰淇淋店是因为产品质量不济而被迫采纳免费模式，才能与竞争对手相抗衡。

这实际上就强化了其竞争对手付费策略的可行性，假如一款游戏质量不错，那么它就无需大打价格战。《俄罗斯方块》并非免费内容，但还是有不少用户会掏钱捧场。《We Rule》是免费产品，因为它的质量并不如意，没有用户愿意为它预先付费。

我们甚至可以作这样的设想，就拿《We Rule》、《Li’l Pirates》、《Toy Shop Adventures》等免费游戏来举例，如果它们重新以付费游戏的面目示人，你还会花9.99美元下载这类游戏吗？

举例来说，Ngmoco是因为他们的付费内容无法在激烈的市场竞争中立足，所以才被迫转向了免费运营模式。他们的这一举动与iOS市场的活力并无多大关系——iOS毕竟是一个最支持付费游戏开发商的平台。

尽管如此，业内富有影响力的公司还是会极力推崇免费游戏，Glu Mobile公司就宣称免费模式是一种必然趋势，并称这是在中国非常盛行的做法。但这种说法不但忽略了成本与质量之间的关系，而且还混淆了不同文化环境下的市场特点。

不但中国和西方世界的文化对用户消费心理的影响不同，这两个地区的游戏行业也存在巨大差异。

免费游戏在中国非常有市场，主要是因为该地区玩家对软件价值的看法与美国或欧洲用户完全不同。我们要是将美国掌上游戏行业的未来建立在中国市场的基础之上，那就未免过于引申话题了。

从实际角度来看，免费游戏当然会发挥重要作用，但它不会取代整个行业的发展现状。成本与质量之间的关系 ，以及这两者对免费模式的影响，只会强化付费策略的优势，而不是使其被免费模式所取代。

99美分付费游戏风险低于免费游戏

游戏是一种产业，同时也意味着它能够带来经济利润。

“免费游戏”是一种能让玩家为游戏花钱的策略，是一种能够赢取利润的方式。不像那些收费游戏需要预先支付，“免费游戏”是一种免费对玩家开放的游戏，但是玩家必须在游戏过程中购买可选择的道具和虚拟货币，以此进行消费。游戏开发者正是从此盈利的，即不断累积来自于绝大多数玩家的小额消费。

尽管这是一个很有吸引力的设想，但不少采用免费运营模式的公司不济的财务状况却表明，这种模式仍存在不少挑战性。当一些公司因为某些大热游戏吸引了成千上万玩家的而获得快速发展的同时， 那些未能提供可选性道具服务，并因为高成本的生产而犹犹豫豫的公司就只能在竞争激烈的市场上被淘汰了。

ngmoco为了提高公司收入而从原先的付费游戏发行商转变为“免费游戏”的支持者。通过提供“免费游戏”将能够吸引更多的手机游戏玩家，以此帮助 ngmoco赚取更多的利润。然而有趣的是，尽管ngmoco能够从“免费游戏”中获取较大的利润，但是却因为每个游戏的长期在线网络维护的巨额成本，从而使其利润大打折扣。换句话说，制造这些游戏的庞大成本将大大地抵消掉开发商的利润所得。

比起付费游戏，“免费游戏”是一种更复杂的产品（尽管游戏设置并非如此），更需要源源不断地投入制作和维护成本，ngmoco就是一个典型的例子，但是并非所有公司都会面临这种问题。

开发商The Playforge因为“免费游戏”《僵尸农场》（Zombie Farm）大获成功，不仅在利润所得上打败了包括ngmoco，Glu在内的有名的免费游戏开发商，而且《僵尸农场》还成了苹果2010十大热卖名单中唯一一款“免费游戏”。

然而我们却不得不考虑一下这个问题，即2010年涌现出了众多受欢迎的“免费游戏”，但是却只有一款游戏能够挤身苹果十大热卖名单之列。

也许这种局面在2011年会发生变化，但是比起带来财政利益，“免费游戏”更像是一种宣传和炒作。在App Store的前100名热卖游戏中有将近三分之一的“免费游戏”，但是付费游戏的数量却是它的2倍，即它们之间的力量对比是2：1。换句话说，比起“免费游戏”，付费游戏仍然最受欢迎。

据报道，仍然有大量“免费游戏”涌现在游戏市场里。所以按照这种局势，“免费游戏”所带来的利润将可能逐渐超过付费游戏。但是这种说法却只有在某种程度上来说是现实可行的。

当游戏市场上大多数游戏开发商，包括EA Mobile/Chillingo（游戏邦注：EA Mobile已经收购了Chillingo），Gameloft，Rovio等都是通过付费游戏模式取得成功时，“免费游戏”模式便看起来不那么靠谱了。

还有另外一种说法，即发行“免费”的产品本身就具有风险性。如果玩家在下载《蓝精灵村庄》后只玩过一次便不再访问游戏，那么Capcom将不会获得任何利润。而这种情况如果出现在《愤怒的小鸟》（99美分付费下载游戏），Rovio就能够从玩家手中赚取60美分的利润。

尽管也会出现愿意花100美元购买“免费游戏”应用的忠实玩家，但是这种概率却是非常小的。因为手机游戏具有随意性的本质，即玩家不一定会只忠实于同一款游戏，所以99美分的付费游戏对开发商来说是最没风险的赌注了。

但是这也并不意味着“免费游戏”在手机游戏市场上毫无立足之地，它只是不能统治整个游戏产业，也只是不可能像自动取款机那样源源不断地为开发者创造利润罢了。

免费游戏无法决定行业未来走向

如今，免费游戏似乎已经随处可见并似乎逐渐成为了手机游戏中的主导游戏。然而这种场景在游戏产业中却并非首次出现。之前曾有人预测MMORPG游戏将成为游戏产业中的主流，但是这种游戏最后也仅仅只是被当成一种游戏类型。最近也有人预测第一人称射击游戏将主导游戏产业，但是它却仍然只是作为众多游戏中较为受欢迎的一种游戏类型而已。

过去的这些案例表明，像免费游戏这样的新型商业模式并不可能占领整个游戏产业，反之，它们的未来发展将会受到限制，并只能是成为一个更大的游戏产业中的一部分。

2000年，似乎MMO游戏在大范围地占领着整个游戏产业。《无尽的任务》（EverQuest）风靡一时，《魔兽世界》紧随其后，在那时有许许多多这一类型的游戏摩拳擦掌意欲进军游戏市场。

《魔兽世界》在2001年取得巨大成功，但其他大多数MMO游戏却没有这么走运。大型多人在线游戏并未能占领整个游戏行业，而是仅仅成为了一个细分市场，取得了巨大成功的《魔兽世界》也仅仅只是成为该流派中的一个孤例而非主流。

仅仅依靠《魔兽世界》的成功并不能用于描述MMO游戏在整个游戏产业中的未来发展，相同的，仅仅因为iOS生态圈中出现了几款优秀的免费游戏，并不意味着未来整个游戏产业将朝着免费游戏模式方向发展。

免费游戏存在的一个重要问题就是它的饱和性。在App Store中有大量的免费社交游戏，但是却仅有一小撮能够获得成功。以TeamLava为例，这个手机社交游戏公司根据他们的Story品牌发行了一系列免费游戏，分别有《Restaurant Story》、《Zoo Story》、《Fashion Story》、《Treasure Story》等等，并且还将推出新的“story”游戏。这些游戏的玩法大同小异，开发商只是换了个包装来吸引更多不同的玩家。

但是使用这种方法的问题就在于游戏设置（或者游戏玩法）并不总是能够吸引所有的游戏玩家。如果玩家喜欢军事射击游戏，是否免费游戏就应该把场景设置在美国五角大楼上来吸引玩家呢？

当MMO游戏为吸引更多新玩家而开始形成多个分支后，它的结果却非常不妙。例如NCsoft的《Auto Assault》，这个汇集了角色扮演、赛车和社交游戏特色的多元化赛车游戏，其实就是个巨大的败笔。

NCsoft制作这款游戏的初衷是吸引新的游戏玩家，但结果却适得其反，不仅未吸引到非MMO游戏玩家（这些玩家本来就不喜欢MMO游戏），而且还失去了原先的MMO游戏玩家（因为这些玩家不喜欢这种杂糅组合的理念）。

免费游戏市场上也出现了混合着硬核游戏元素的产品。像Glu这类游戏发行商就抓住了机遇，在一些免费游戏中加入了硬核游戏元素，以吸引那些对“可爱型”游戏不感兴趣的玩家们。尽管游戏中加入了一些动作元素和奇幻画面，但是却并未改变免费游戏的核心内容，这种组合为该公司带来了不少利益。

《Gun Bros.》就是个典型的例子，它是一款充满生机的虚拟双摇杆射击游戏，同时还是一款“付费加快进程”的免费游戏。实际上Glu所打算吸引的硬核用户，宁愿花99美分下载《Guerrilla Bob》，也不希望应付令人纠结的服务器以及游戏内置付费功能等问题。

结果就是，免费游戏只能够作为一种类型的游戏，而不能涵括所有类型的游戏。换句话说，免费游戏只能是一种游戏类型而不能决定整个游戏产业的未来。

并不是说第一人称射击游戏仅凭《Twilight：Dead Aim》这种拥有特殊设置的游戏，就能统领整个游戏产业并挤掉其他休闲游戏。

不管怎么说，这款游戏终究还是一款射击游戏，并不可能吸引那些对射击游戏不感兴趣的玩家。与此类似免费射击游戏，并不意味着它就能够吸引那些硬核玩家，而这些免费游戏也不能自动并入硬核游戏的行列。

不要改变本身的性质，对于免费游戏来说就是最好的选择。免费模式对一些开发商来说是行之有效的的手段，它与特定风格的游戏玩法和设置相得益彰。

然而一个成功游戏模式未必就是未来游戏模式的范本，一个成功的公司也不一定能够作为整个行业效仿的对象。总之，游戏行业并非一招管百用的领域。（本文为游戏邦/gamerboom.com编译，转载请注明来源：游戏邦）

Opinion: Freemium is more hype than hope – Quality

The games industry has a fascinating relationship with hype.

On the one hand, it fuels passion for the future and helps us wrap our minds around what comes next in our constantly changing world. Yet it can lead us to speculative conclusions that are often more outlandish than plausible.

For me, the notion that freemium games are at the heart of an inevitable portable gaming future is such a conclusion.

While this point can be argued with some persuasion, it’s far too easy to down the freemium Kool-Aid without recognition of several other factors that point to its designation as an important trend, but not a keystone for the future of the portable gaming.

I scream, you scream, we all scream

The role culture plays in the consumer marketplace, the shaky financial success enjoyed by freemium game companies, and acknowledgement of past trends of a similar nature lead us to the more reasonable conclusion that freemium games will play a role in shaping games moving forward, but won’t be the foundation from which the industry builds a future.

Consider an ice cream parlour that just can’t seem to compete in a city crowded with frozen treat shops. Whatever the reason – low quality ice cream, poor marketing, bad location – the business just isn’t doing well. In an effort to compete with its rivals, the parlour decides to give away the ice cream, but charge for cups and cones.

Business picks up, though the competition isn’t wiped out. Instead, the shift to free only entrenches competitors that can deliver something the free ice cream shop can’t.

How is that possible when free is such a great value? It’s because value is two things: cost and quality. Free ice cream is about cost, but premium ice cream is about quality.

Quality versus cost

Games are exactly the same. The reason the premium games persist has to do with quality; consumers enjoy the value of paying for quality games despite free titles being a click away. Remember, the free ice cream shop was forced to try the freemium model because its product wasn’t cutting it against the competition.

This has the effect of reinforcing the premium proposition made by competitors. If a game is good, then it can compete without the need to toy with the price. Tetris isn’t free, for example, because it’s good enough that consumers are willing to pay for it. We Rule is free because it’s not good and consumers aren’t willing to pay upfront for it.

Think of it this way: take any freemium game – We Rule, Li’l Pirates, Toy Shop Adventures – and restructure it as a premium game. Would you pay $9.99 for it?

Ngmoco was forced to switch to the freemium model, for instance, because it was unsuccessful in selling its premium content in a competitive environment. The move had nothing to do with a shift in the dynamics of the iOS market, which happily supports a range of premium game developers.

The China argument

Nevertheless, influential business leaders have embraced this argument and tout the inevitability of freemium games. Glu CEO Niccolo de Masi asserts the rise of freemium as a certainty, citing its prevalence in China. Not only does this ignore the cost-versus-quality issue, but it also sweeps major cultural differences under the rug.

Not only does culture yield unique consumer tastes and expectations, but the economy of games is fundamentally different in China.

Freemium games work well in China because gamers don’t value software in the same way as Americans or Europeans. To predict the future of the US portable games industry based on the structure of the Chinese marketplace seems a stretch.

Realistically, freemium games will play a role, yet they won’t take over the industry. The relationship between cost and quality and how they interact in the freemium model reinforces the premium strategy, rather than displaces it.

Opinion: Freemium is more hype than hope – Cash

Games are a business and that means one thing: money.

Freemium games are one way of making money – one strategy for getting people to pay for a game. Instead of paying an upfront price like a premium title, you’re given a game for free and provided opportunities to purchase optional items and currencies within the game.

This is what draws revenue for the developer: small purchases from a huge number of gamers.

It’s an appealing concept, though the financial situations of the biggest purveyors of the freemium idea clearly show challenges in making the formula work. While some companies soar with hit games drawing thousands upon thousands of paying gamers, others falter due to a lack of interest in purchasing optional items or high production costs.

Show me the money

When ngmoco transitioned from a premium game publisher to vocal freemium proponent, the move was intended to boost the company’s revenue. By offering freemium games that are supposedly more appealing to mobile gamers, ngmoco would make more money.

Interestingly, ngmoco was able to generate good revenue from its freemium games; however, the exorbitant cost of maintaining the persistent online networks behind each of its games wiped away increases in revenue. In other words, the enormous cost of building these games countered any financial gains.

Freemium titles are sophisticated products – even if the gameplay isn’t – and the costs associated with building and then maintaining such games are distributed over a longer period of time than premium games. In the case of ngmoco, the costs were significantly higher, but not every company has this problem.

The unlikely success of Zombie Farm

Developer The Playforge has been enormously successful with freemium game Zombie Farm. Not only did it manage to beat ngmoco, Glu, and other big name freemium game makers in terms of revenue, but it was also the only freemium game to make Apple’s top 10 grossing list for the year 2010.

Think about that: for all the attention placed on freemium gaming, only one freemium title was in the top 10 grossing list for last year.

While that’s likely to change in 2011, it’s clear that there’s more hype than certainty surrounding the freemium financial craze. A good number of freemium games sit on the top 100 grossing chart on the App Store (about a third), yet the number of premium games is more than double – a ratio of 2:1. In other words, the vast majority of top grossing games are premium, not freemium.

Take it or leave it

One explanation states that freemium is still on the rise, so the share of revenue generated by freemium games will continue to displace that generated by premium title. That’s probably true, but only to a certain extent.

It seems unlikely that the majority of revenue will come from freemium games when the most successful players in the market – EA Mobile/Chillingo, Gameloft, Rovio, etc. – are betting and winning with the premium model (with some infusion of in-app purchasing), not freemium.

Another explanation has to do with the inherent risk in giving away a product for free. If you download Smurfs’ Village for free, play it once, and then never open the game again, Capcom makes no money from you. If you download Angry Birds for 59p/99c, play it once, and then never start the game up again, Rovio makes 40p/60c from you.

While the chances of getting an enthusiastic gamer to spend hundreds on in-app purchases in a freemium game is real, it’s also slight. The disposable nature of mobile content in which gamers play a game once and move on to the next big title makes a 59p/99c premium game a safer bet.

That isn’t to say freemium doesn’t have a place in mobile gaming or can’t make money – it just isn’t going to take over the industry and it’s not an automatic cash machine.

Opinion: Freemium is more hype than hope – Fashion

Freemium games have seemingly come out of nowhere to dominate the discussion around mobile games.

Yet, we’ve been through similar fits of excited prospecting before. Many said massively multiplayer online role-playing games were the way of the future, but they ended up becoming a genre rather than the whole of gaming itself. Recently it was first-person shooters predicted to dominate gaming, though it’s still just one extremely popular type of game among many.

What the past tells us about exciting new ventures like freemium gaming is that they rarely – if ever – take over the industry. Instead, they shape the future in a limited way, becoming a part of the much larger whole of gaming.

Past is prologue

In the year 2000, it seemed like massively multiplayer games were about to swallow gaming whole. EverQuest was a hit, World of Warcraft was on the horizon, and dozens upon dozens of competing titles were getting ready to hit shelves.

World of Warcraft hit it big in 2001, but the rest of the lot suffered. Rather than taking over the gaming industry, massively multiplayer online games were relegated to a status as a niche genre with the mainstream success of World of Warcraft being the exception, rather than the rule.

Just as the success of World of Warcraft could hardly be used to argue the impending annexation of the game industry by MMOs, the rise of a few noteworthy freemium games on iOS don’t support in a compelling way an argument for the entire game industry switching to the freemium model.

It’s about gameplay, not setting

Part of the problem with freemium games is saturation. The App Store is chock-full of social freemium games and there’s simply a limit to how many of these games can succeed.

TeamLava, for example, has launched a staggering number of freemium games under its Story brand – Restaurant Story, Zoo Story, Fashion Story, Treasure Story, the list goes on. These games are identical in terms of gameplay, simply swapping settings in hopes of attracting different gamers.

The problem with this approach is that it isn’t always the setting that appeals to the gamer – it’s the gameplay. If you like military shooters, would a freemium time management game set in the Pentagon appeal to you? Probably not if you have to wait 12 hours to tap the screen a couple of times to harvest TPS reports from a row of carefully arranged cubicles.

Hardcore appeal

When MMOs started to branch out into different styles of gameplay in an effort to attract new gamers, the results were disastrous. NCsoft’s Auto Assault, for instance,blended role-playing, car racing, and social features for a unique experience meant for fans of action-packed racing games. It was an unmitigated failure.

NCsoft wanted to court new gamers, but instead it alienated MMO gamers who didn’t like the concept and it never appealed to non-MMO gamers because, you know, they don’t like MMOs.

The same is occurring in the freemium gaming space. Publishers like Glu are bringing out new freemium games with a hardcore edge to appeal to gamers not attracted to its cutesy competitors. This is sure to bring the company some success, though branching out to include more action elements or fancier graphics doesn’t alter the freemium formula at its core.

Gun Bros., for instance, is a neat concept. The twin-stick action is lively, yet at the end of the day it’s still a pay-as-you-go freemium game. The hardcore audience Glu is courting would rather spend 59p/99c on Guerrilla Bob and not have to fuss with server issues and in-app purchases.

One size doesn’t fit all

What results is the codification of freemium games as a type of game rather than inclusive of all gaming. In other words, it’s just a genre and won’t take over gaming as a whole.

You wouldn’t say that first-person shooters are overtaking the game industry and squeezing out casual games because Twilight: Dead Aim (a totally made-up game, in case you try looking it up) uses a mainstream franchise for its setting.

It’s still just a shooter and one that probably won’t appeal to Twilight fans who aren’t into shooters. Similarly, making a freemium shooter doesn’t mean that you automatically appeal to hardcore gamers or that freemium has subsumed hardcore gaming genres.

It’s still just a freemium game and that’s fine. The freemium formula works for some game developers and it fits nicely with particular styles of play and settings.

That success, however, doesn’t mean it’s the way of the future or that one company’s success is a strategy for the entire industry to follow. Gaming thankfully isn’t one-size-fits-all.（source:pocketgamer）