游戏邦在:
杂志专栏:
gamerboom.com订阅到鲜果订阅到抓虾google reader订阅到有道订阅到QQ邮箱订阅到帮看

探索数字与实体经济差异及免费模式盈利之道

发布时间:2011-05-17 15:49:25 Tags:,,

作者:Will Luton

实体经济和数字经济间有明显的差异。游戏、电影、音乐和书籍的经济形势已经从前者转向后者。在新数字前沿获得成功的公司是那些思考过新经济形态的公司。理解实体产品和数字产品间的不同之处是从承载这些产品的经济中获利的关键。

相同产品间的对比

Tracy Erickson曾写过三篇有关免费增值游戏的观点性文章,免费增值模式的优势只是一种炒作而非实际情况。尽管我同意他的某些结论,但我认为这些文章中所包含的逻辑有一定缺陷。

Tracy的论据之一是赠送冰淇淋的店铺所赠送产品的质量肯定比优质冰淇淋零售商出售的要差。所遵从的逻辑就是,免费提供的产品的生产成本肯定较低,因而质量也较差。这种理论随后被用来描述免费增值和付费手机游戏间的差异。

haagen-dazs-ice-cream

haagen-dazs-ice-cream

这种想法在普通实体产品商店的消费者中很普遍。特斯科或沃尔玛出售的冰淇淋很便宜,因此质量肯定比不上哈根达斯。你付的钱越多,你获得的产品越昂贵,产品的质量就越好。

消费者知道这是个供应链,而且奶油和糖都不是免费的。在实体商店中,付得越多意味着得到越多或得到越好,即便这只是个受销售员操控的价格。事实上,哈根达斯冰淇淋所多出来的费用并非因其质量较好,其价格几乎完全与市场营销有关。

无障碍销售

然而在数字经济中,供应链由服务器和网络构成,其成本甚微几乎可以不予考虑。

在两种经济中,产品开发(游戏邦注:如制作冰淇淋配方和游戏)都是最值得考虑的成本,但数字和实体两种经济的生产过程有所不同。

在实体经济中,原料都需要成本。数字经济没有原料,只有字符和字节,而从表面上看这些都是免费的。数字经济也没有销售成本,如果有也是像App Store那样的盈利分成。

因此,在数字世界中不能通过价格来衡量质量,付费并不确保能获得高质量游戏。

东西方经济差异性

Tracy声称:“免费增值游戏在中国发展的很好,因为中国玩家并不像美国或欧洲玩家那样评估软件的价值。”

文中表示,免费增值服务在亚洲能取得成功与文化有关。但是,认为中国不重视软件价值是个短见。

中国经济正在迅猛发展中,不屈从于数百年的现代资本经济,而且有实体产品消费、品牌和价值观念。以目前的数字经济为基础,中国的发展前景与众不同。

但数字经济可能也是盗版横行的原因。长久以来,免费是中国数字经济的真实形态。西方数字经济也会达到这个层次,但行进之路很缓慢。没有足够资金的新时代消费者逐渐进入市场,他们开始购买免费产品。他们构建起市场发挥其功能的方式,享受着免费产品并将此带进往后的生活中。

smurf-village

smurf-village

免费模式更有助于虏获玩家群体

Tracy还在文中指出:“如果你免费下载《Smurfs’ Village》,玩了一次之后就再也不打开游戏了,Capcom从你这里就赚不到一分钱。如果你花99美分下载《愤怒的小鸟》,同样玩一次之后就再也不打开游戏,Rovio至少能从你这里赚到60美分。”

这个说法忽略了一个重点,免费增值游戏不是期待从每个用户处获得收益,其目标是从付费用户群体中产生盈利。

可盈利游戏的生产和营销成本应该比产生的盈利要少。对于付费游戏来说,让用户玩游戏的成本更高,因为你需要说服他们腾出时间并支付99美分。对于免费游戏来说,你只需要他们花上时间而已。

免费游戏更具盈利成效

尽管免费增值盈利模式与某些数据有关,如ARPU、DAU、MAU和PPI等,但基础是简单的。如果玩家在游戏过程中所花的钱比你让他们去玩游戏所耗费的营销成本更高,那就意味着你的游戏正在盈利。

对于每款定价为0.59英镑的游戏来说,开发商在税后可以获得0.36英镑。如果《愤怒的小鸟》卖出1000份,Rovio就获得了360英镑。如果《Smurfs’ Village》被用户安装了1000次,其中有900个人玩游戏但不付费,有100个人花5.99英镑购买了SmurfBerries,这款游戏就为Capcom带来365英镑的营收。

免费游戏获得1000次安装量所需耗费的营销资金比付费游戏要少得多,因而其纯利润已经就高出许多。如果那900个不付费的人喜欢这款游戏,他们会带来更多的玩家,而这些人可能付费。或者可以通过刺激安装付费等其他方式从这些人处产生盈利。

相对付费内容来说,免费增值模式更为复杂和费时费力。出于此等原因,模仿实体市场做法实际上混淆了数字商品市场的最大不同概念,那就是无穷尽的免费再生能力。

结论

我确实认同Tracy的说法,他认为免费增值将是未来的一种游戏形式,但不是唯一一种。

整个行业仍然乐衷于采用付费模式,但免费模式是一个不可避免的发展趋势。

尽管如此,就长期来说,我相信《Spotify》式的订阅模式将会在市场中显露出强劲势头,用户订阅且在通过掌机、手机、控制器、PC、TV、3D眼镜和那些曾经非常流行的脑感知仪器玩游戏巨作、小游戏、老游戏和新游戏之时

付费。(本文为游戏邦/gamerboom.com编译,如需转载请联系:游戏邦)

Mobile Pie’s Will Luton on why the growth of freemium games is inevitable

Will Luton

Physical and digital economies are vastly different. Games, movies, music and books have made the transition from the former to the latter. It’s been disruptive and those companies that have won in the new digital frontier have been those embracing new economic thinking. Understanding the differences between physical and digital products is key to profiting from the economies that drive them.

Compare apples and apples

Last week, Tracy Erickson’s wrote three opinion articles about freemium games – Freemium is more hype than hope – which contain what I believe to be flawed logic, although I agree with some of his conclusions.

One of Tracy’s arguments is a shop giving away ice cream must be giving away a lower quality product than a premium-priced ice cream retailer. The logic is a product provided for free must have a negligible production cost and therefore be of poor quality: the parallel is then made to describe the difference between freemium and paid mobile games.

This is common consumer thinking in a physical product market. Tesco or Walmart value ice cream is cheap, so not as good as Haagen-Dazs. You pay more, you get a more expensive to produce, and thus better quality, product.

The consumer understands that is a supply chain and that cream and sugar don’t come for free. In a physical market, paying more means getting more or getting better, even if that is manipulated by marketers, and yes, the premium price point of Haagen-Dazs is disproportionate to its quality increase; its premium status is almost entirely due to marketing.

Frictionless distribution

In a digital economy however, the supply chain is servers and networks, a cost so small we discount it.

Product development is a front weighed cost in both cases, creating the ice cream recipe and the game, but where digital and physical differ is in production.

In physical economies, materials are subject to a cost. In digital, there are no materials, only bits and bytes, and these are ostensibly free. There’s also no distribution cost; or at least in the case of the App Store, it’s obfuscated through revenue share.

Hence, equating quality to price in a digital world doesn’t work: paying for a game doesn’t ensure it’s of higher quality.

Looking east

Tracy states that “Freemium games work well in China because gamers don’t value software in the same way as Americans or Europeans.”

The suggestion that the dominance of freemium in Asia is a cultural one is good. However, the sentiment that it is because the Chinese place less value on software is short sighted.

China is a burgeoning economy and one that hasn’t been subjected to hundred of years of modern capitalist economy, prefixed with notions of physical product consumption, brand and value. They have a different perspective based on the realities of digital economy.

This may account for the prevalence of piracy. Free has been a reality of the Chinese digital economy for a long time. The Western digital economy will get to this point too, but slowly, as new generations of consumers entering the marketplace with little ready cash, begin to consume free products. They build an understanding of how the market functions, enjoy free products and carry that into later life.

Build the community

Tracy also states: “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.”

This is missing a major point: freemium isn’t about making money from every single user. It’s about generating revenue from a group of paying users.

A profitable game is one where the cost of production, plus the marketing, is less than the revenue generated. The cost of getting a user to play your game is much higher for a paid title, as you need to convince them to take time out and pay 59p. In free, you are asking only for their time.

All adds up

Freemium revenue models are peppered with esoteric acronyms: ARPU, DAU, MAU, PPI etc. But the basics are simple. If the average lifetime revenue of the user, from first to last play for all ads viewed, offers taken and purchases made, is more than the marketing costs to get someone in to your game, you’re making profit.

For every 59p spent on an app, post-tax 36p is paid to the developer. If Angry Birds sells 1,000 copies, Rovio’s made £360. If Smurfs’ Village gets 1,000 installs, 900 people play without paying, but 100 people buy a £5.99 SmurfBerries pack, that generates £365 revenue for Capcom.

The marketing spend to get 1,000 installs is much less in free than paid, so the net profit is much higher already. The non-paying 900, if they enjoyed the game, will have brought more people to it, who do pay. Or they may have an advert or branded content served to them, taken up a pay per install incentive, or otherwise generated revenue through another means.

Freemium is a much more complex and demanding model than paid for content. For this reason, making analogies with physical markets is confusing the single biggest difference that digital benefits from: free infinite reproducibility.

The end game

Yet I agree with Tracy when he says, “Freemium will play a role in gaming’s future, not the role.”

There are still vested interests inside and out of the industry that want to continue operating a paid model for their content, but freemium’s growth is inevitable.

In the longer term, however, I believe a Spotify-style subscription model will emerge strongly in the market, with users subscribing and pay-per-playing blockbuster, small, old and new games on handhelds, mobiles, consoles, PCs, TVs, 3D goggles and those ever-hyped cortex-hijacking brain implants. (Source: Pocket Gamer)


上一篇:

下一篇: