游戏邦注：本文作者为Brandon Sheffield，文章旨在说明现今游戏市场已发生变化，免费游戏开始成为主流模式。

Soren Johnson曾在“Game Developer’s May”设计专栏里谈论免费游戏设计。他最近刚刚完成作品《Dragon Age Legends》，这是《Dragon Age world》的Facebook免费版。

League of Legends from leagueoflegends.su

他在文中提到几个成功免费设计版本，这些作品的设计师须让玩家时刻保持兴趣，维持玩家参与性，同时说服他们展开虚拟交易活动。

这个话题之所以如此受欢迎是因为很多设计师，包括我在内，一想到要制作这类游戏都觉得颇伤脑筋。

免费模式的创收渠道

有人觉得这个模式具有威胁性。我们发现平台所提供的丰富参数和反馈信息让设计师变成表单管理者。

虽然从某种程度看，该模式似乎给人这种感觉，但其实并非如此，因为设计师首先需要设计系统，然后才进行广泛测试（游戏邦注：这就像获得最终反馈循环，若你的目标是娱乐玩家，那么若能够及时获悉新系统是否成功就再好不过了）。

不仅如此，另一个更棘手的问题是付费解锁游戏“乐趣”观念。不论事实是否如此，但这个想法很好理解。例如，在《League of Legends》中，角色名单每周会更新，若玩家希望专注某个角色，或选择支付现金解锁内容，或持续体验游戏积累足够货币，然后解锁角色。

这本身并未含有什么不利元素！但光是思考这个想法就让我有种“犯错”的感觉。我内心的声音告诉我，所有角色都应一开始就提供，玩家应该拥有选择的权利。让我觉得更糟的是玩家可以选择通过现金购买道具，帮助其快速获得游戏货币。但你知道吗？这么想其实是错的。

首先，流动角色名单能够促使玩家接触其原本不会主动选择的角色。若游戏开始就提供72个人物角色，玩家很难选择切入点，因此就不会有强烈尝试欲望。从这点来看，设计师其实是以更直接的方式展示其所有角色，否则可能会有相当多的角色被玩家忽视。

关于这点，是仁者见仁，智者见智。你可以将其视作拥有72个角色的花名册，从中你只能选择10个，而且是由游戏每周随机更换。或者，或者你可以认为这是个高度协调的游戏，每周提供10个新角色。有人认为，这些设计师是先提供完整体验，然后再决定采取何种方式促使玩家付费。

这显然不是那些成功巨作的设计方式。他们把付费理念融入游戏核心体验当中。上述观念让我连在输入这些文字的过程过程都倍感难受，但几乎所有商业游戏都是付费体验。虽然很多公司还在开发一次性销售产品（游戏邦注：这些产品依然还在不断流通中），但出售产品的观念在两种模式中都是行得通的。

值得注意的是，这些游戏中杰出代表都是采用免费模式。如果你有足够的时间，你可以一直免费体验《League of Legends》。除供视觉欣赏道具需要购买外，所有物品都能通过体验获得。这就好比植入游戏数十年的“解锁内容”。但玩家无需掏钱，无需下载盗版作品。

League of Legends from image.com.com

很多情况下，付费机制通过提供便捷性强化游戏体验。但我认为这是另一个麻烦的地方。若设计师知道如何将游戏变得更通俗易懂，更富趣味，更便于操作，为何要树立这座付费之墙呢？

原因是若不这么做，没有玩家会选择付费。若游戏采用订阅模式，那么玩家就得不断忍受掏钱之痛。若游戏需一次性购买，那么很大部分玩家会选择下载盗版作品，那么游戏公司就一无所获。但若是限制游戏原有便捷性，就显得合情合理。

满足玩家需求

免费游戏刚出现，我就开始关注这个领域。我2001年开始留意韩国市场，免费游戏的种子在那里诞生后，便开始在世界各地开花结果。免费模式成为当前创收丰厚的商业模式。这个模式有望覆盖更多西方应用，同时成为当地在线游戏市场的主导模式。

需要注意的是，这类游戏并非靠游戏公司强行推广。我是看着这个行业成长的，这些游戏之所以能够延续是因为玩家展开消费活动，他们通过掏钱告诉我们他们喜欢这类游戏。事实上，这正是他们喜欢的游戏类型，他们愿意接受的付费方式。反对和抱怨这一变化的群体只是少数。

我不认为免费模式的兴起意味着单人模式游戏设计的消亡。免费模式并不需要应用至所有游戏当中。你或许无法获得同《Fallouts》或《Deus Exes》一样的成就。但不妨看看游戏《Amnesia》（游戏邦注：这款游戏出自小团队之手），这是款融入当代画面的独特单玩家游戏，创收颇为可观。

Amnesia from horror-video-games.com

我希望免费游戏市场能够涌现更多富有艺术性和叙述性的设计，我们需要把握每个机会。若设计师希望继续在传统背景下创造富有指导性的叙述游戏，其依然能够创收。但对于那些不愿接受这一改变，希望继续保留富有指导意义叙事情节和传统玩法的设计师来说，是时候该融入免费模式。

玩家钟情免费模式。所以设计师若希望保留叙事类游戏，就得采取折中方案。（本文为游戏邦/gamerboom.com编译，如需转载请联系：游戏邦）

Opinion: Accepting Free-To-Play

by Brandon Sheffield

[In this opinion piece originally published in Game Developer magazine's May 2011 issue, EIC Brandon Sheffield argues that developers shouldn't fight against the free-to-play model even though it might feel "wrong" at first.]

In Game Developer’s May design column, Soren Johnson discussed free-to-play game design. He recently completed work on Dragon Age Legends, an F2P realization of the Dragon Age world for Facebook.

He mentioned several successful implementations of the F2P design aesthetic, wherein designers must keep players interested and engaged on a moment-to-moment level, but also provide them with compelling reasons to spend money.

The reason this topic is so valid is that a lot of designers, myself included, just get plain old queasy when we think about creating games this way.

Money Talks

Some people feel threatened by the model. There’s a perception that the powerful metrics and feedback provided by these platforms turns designers into spreadsheet managers.

Though it may feel that way on some level, it’s not totally true, since you have to devise the systems in the first place, then test them extensively. It’s like getting the ultimate feedback loop, and if your goal is to please players, there’s nothing better than instantly knowing whether your new system is a success.

More than that, one of the stickier issues is the idea of paying to unlock the “fun” of the game. Whether that’s what’s really happening or not, it’s easy to view it that way. In League of Legends, for instance, the character roster rotates weekly, and if you want to specialize in one of them, you have to either pay real money to keep it unlocked, or play long enough to save up in-game-money to unlock that character.

There’s nothing inherently bad about this! But just thinking about it makes me feel like it’s “wrong.” My gut tells me that all characters should be available from the get-go, and players should have a choice of who to use. It makes me even more uncomfortable to know that you can buy an item with real money that helps you gain in-game money faster. But you know what? I’m sort of wrong to feel this way.

First of all, a rotating roster inspires players to try out characters they might otherwise never touch. When presented with some 72 characters at once, it’s difficult to know where to start, and one is less inclined to experiment. In that sense, the designers have made a choice to showcase all their characters more directly, because otherwise a good percentage of them may have gone unused.

It’s also a question of perspective. You could view it as a roster of 72 characters from which you’re constrained to only pick 10, chosen at random by the game every week. Alternately, you can look at it as a well-balanced game that offers you 10 new characters every week. I think that some of us feel designers of these games build a complete experience, and then decide what they can chop out to make people pay for.

That’s not how the most successful games are designed, necessarily. They take a core experience that has the idea of payment integrated into it as it’s designed. The preceding sentence made me uncomfortable even as I typed it, but all commercial games are paid experiences somehow or other. Whereas many of us still make a game and sell it once, these games keep on selling – but the idea of selling our games to customers stands firm in both cases.

It’s important to remember that the best among these games really are free. You could play League of Legends for free forever, if you had the time to invest. Almost everything except the visual flair items is purchasable with in-game money, earned by playing over time. This is just like the “unlocks” we’ve been building in games for decades. But the player never had to pay, and they never pirated the software.

In most cases, paying enhances the experience for players by making it more convenient. But I think that’s another troublesome point. If the designers know how to make a game more accessible, more fun, and more convenient for players, why should that be behind the pay wall?

The answer is that if you don’t, nobody will pay. And if your game is subscription-based, it will probably slowly bleed subscribers over time. And if it’s a one-time purchase, there’s a real good chance a very large percentage of your players will be pirating your software, giving you nothing in the first place. But there’s no way around the queasiness some of us feel knowing we’re withholding convenience that could have been built into the game natively.

Give The People What They Want

I’ve been casually following the F2P industry for nearly as long as it’s been around. I started paying attention to the Korean industry back in 2001, and the seeds planted then have taken fruit worldwide. Free-to-play is quite simply one of the most lucrative business models, if not the most, in games today. This has expanded to include much greater Western appreciation, and looks to become a dominant model for online games here as well.

I mention all this because it’s important to note that these games aren’t just being forced onto us by a bunch of executives. I’ve watched the industry grow, and these games are succeeding because players are paying for them. They’re voting with their wallets and showing us that they like these games. This is, in fact, something they want to play, and a payment method they feel good about. Those who dissent and rail against this change are a vocal minority.

I don’t think the rise of free-to-play means the death of the single player designed narrative experience. Free-to-play doesn’t have to be in every game. You may not get as many Fallouts or Deus Exes. But look at a game like Amnesia. That was made by a small team, presents a unique single-player experience with contemporary graphics, and has done quite well for its creators.

I would love to see more artistry and narrative design in the free-to-play market, but we have to forge that possibility. If you want to create a guided narrative in a traditional setting, there will continue to be a way for you to make a comfortable living doing so. But really, those of us who don’t like this change, those of us who want to preserve guided narrative and traditional gameplay, it’s up to us to find ways to make the F2P model work on our terms.

Customers want to play this way. If we want to preserve narrative, we are going to have to meet them halfway.（Source：gamasutra）