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

免费增值模式持续完善 未来潜力无限

发布时间:2012-03-05 15:54:58 Tags:,,,

在过去1年里,免费增值模式(游戏邦注:就是免费呈现内容,但会嵌入虚拟商品交易的游戏类型)成了业内人士所谈论的热词。去除游戏初始付费障碍,以及结合方便曝光和消费的连网平台,这促使游戏行业由瞄准细分用户转向锁定更广泛的用户群体。

free to play from edge-online.com

free to play from edge-online.com

在我看来,这让大型发行商和独立开发者得以尝试在传统发行模式中缺乏可行性的新构思,且还覆盖广泛用户群体。低准入门槛,让各个规模的开发者公司处于更平等的地位,及囊括更广泛的用户市场:还有什么好挑剔呢?

部分人士觉得,这一发展趋势会给破坏游戏体验行为,它将富有粘性的玩法替换成重复的病毒式传播机制。

游戏更新换代

我觉得,这些评论者主要着眼于第一波采用此模式的游戏作品,它们犯了只见树木,不见森林的错误。我们目前所看到并不能代表这个模式的未来发展潜力。

免费增值模式已主导亚洲市场很长时间,但在西方市场,这个模式直到社交游戏的出现才逐步崭露头角,尤其是2007年Facebook游戏的诞生。首批采用这一模式的游戏还算不上真正意义上的“游戏”,只能算是由缺乏游戏设计经验的网络开发者制作的简单“应用”,他们期望依靠平台的病毒式传播渠道获得快速发展。随着玩家逐步涉猎这些游戏,且享受其中,这些开发者及若干新加入者开始着手更新及完善他们的早期作品,创造依然鲜少涉猎玩法机制,更多基于社交互动的游戏体验。

所以西方社交游戏借鉴亚洲模式,在游戏融入虚拟商品交易内容算是自然的跨越。西方社交游戏用户规模庞大,足以支撑此商业模式的运作(游戏邦注:虽然付费用户比例依然只有个位数)。一夜之间,一个新的产业诞生了,其获得广泛关注度,给电子游戏带来全新的用户群体。

趣味性是重点

从那以后,我们看到众多搭载网络及智能手机平台的游戏纷纷诞生。虽然复制及玩法粗浅之类的问题依然泛滥成灾,但许多富有趣味的游戏逐渐诞生,这些作品出自那些既熟悉社交游戏机制,又恰当把握游戏最重要的元素——趣味性的开发者之手。就此来看,虽然游戏开发领域处于持续变化中,且深刻把握参数及相关支撑技术变得至关重要,但开发者要在社交游戏领域获得长久胜利的最有效方式依然保持不变:制作玩家愿意体验,且能够享受其中的游戏。

若游戏富有趣味,玩家就会投以关注;若游戏富有趣味,玩家家就愿意进行体验;若游戏富有趣味,玩家就愿意进行消费。

但业内很多人士依然怀疑此模式的发展潜力,怀疑这样的行业实况:行业似乎把焦点放在快速扩大用户规模,然后从中寻找创收方式,而不是提供真正优质的玩法体验。对于这点,我会说:你们的看法是对的,很多现有社交游戏都非常粗浅,似乎没有把玩家的乐趣放在首位。但这只是少部分情况,我们会发现如今有很多新游戏虽然不甚完美,但非常注重创新和趣味元素,令我们对这个处在初级阶段的游戏行业有更深的理解。

免费增值模式本身并没有什么问题:它赋予设计师更多的自由,促使运用模式获得广泛传播,能够提供衡量用户游戏行为的工具,允许持续迭代和完善。这些都是优点,能够促使设计师创作出各题材的优质作品,满足日益壮大的游戏“玩家”。在此,想象力是唯一的局限因素,相比抱怨这类游戏,加入其中行业将是更明智的选择。(本文为游戏邦/gamerboom.com编译,拒绝任何不保留版权的转载,如需转载请联系:游戏邦

Opinion: It’s what you do with freemium that counts

Still suspicious of free-to-play games? Don’t judge them by the first generation, says PopCap’s Giordano Contestabile.

Talking about ourselves is one of our favorite occupations in the game industry. Even more so when a trend presents itself that holds the promise (or menace, depending on your point of view) of reshaping the way games are made, consumed and enjoyed. When that happens, the soul-searching, pontificating and resulting debate can become overwhelming, obscured in a cloud of Internet-enabled, knee-jerk rage at the opportunities brought about by ‘change’.

In the past year or so, the uncontested poster boy for this phenomenon has been the freemium model, defined as the publishing of games that are free to play, but allow for the purchase of in-game items with virtual currency. Taking away the barrier of entry of a purchase price, combined with the rise of connected platforms that allow for easier discovery and consumption of games, constitutes a major opportunity for the game industry to go from a (large) niche of relatively dedicated players to a much wider audience of billions.

It’s pretty clear, in my opinion, how this represents a chance for large publishers and indies alike to try out new ideas that would not be feasible with a traditional publishing model, while reaching a much larger number of players. Lower barriers of entry, a more equal footing for small and large developers and a much larger market: what’s not to like?

Plenty, at least according to the curmudgeons that make up a (very) vocal minority of the game industry, and to the Cassandras that predict this growing trend will bring ruin on our beloved activity, replacing engaging gameplay with repetitive, exploitative viral mechanics.

Generation games

My opinion is that, for the most part, such commentators are looking at the way this model was implemented in the very first wave of games that took advantage of it, and making an age-old mistake of failing to see the forest for the trees. What we have seen up until now, I believe, is not at all representative of the potential of the model.

The freemium model has been dominant in Asia for a long time, but in the Western world has come to prominence with the emergence of social games, and in particular games playable on the Facebook platform, starting in 2007. The first experiments in that sense could barely be defined “games”, and were simplistic “applications” built by web developers with little or no exposure to game design, aiming to take advantage of the platform’s viral features for rapid growth. As players started to engage with those products and to enjoy them, the same developers and several new entrants (still, by and large, without a specific gaming background) started to iterate and improve on their early releases, building experiences that were still thin on gameplay, and based mostly on social interaction.

From there, it was a natural leap to taking inspiration from the Asian experience and charge players for virtual goods purchased with in-game currency. The user base was large enough to make the business model sustainable, even with the percentage of paying players being in the low single digits. Overnight, a new industry was born, attracting an increasing amount of attention and gradually introducing to videogames a large audience that until then had had limited or no exposure to them.

Fun is the thing

Since then, we have witnessed an explosion of games designed to be played socially on the web and on smartphones. While issues such as cloning and shallow gameplay are still rampant, many compelling game experiences are emerging, developed by teams that understand not only the dynamics of social games, but also that the most important feature of any game is also the most difficult to pin down: fun. And, in that sense, it’s now clear that, while game development is changing and having a deep understanding of metrics and the technology to back it off is crucial, the most effective (and probably only) way to succeed in the long term with a social game isn’t much different from what it has always been: make a game that people want to play and that will keep players entertained and engaged.

Make it fun, and people will come. Make it fun, and people will play. Make it fun, and people will want to pay.

Many in the game industry, though, are still unconvinced of the potential of this model, and suspicious of the fact that the focus seems to be on rapidly growing the audience and finding ways to monetise it, rather than on delivering great gameplay. To them, I say: you are right, many existing social games are shallow, and don’t seem to have players’ enjoyment as the foremost priority. But many are, and every day we see new ones that, while not perfect, bring innovation and a sense of fun, and advance our overall understanding of a space that’s still in a very early stage of development.

There is nothing inherently bad or wrong with freemium: all it does is give designers more freedom, enabling a much more rapid usage growth and providing the tools to measure what players actually do in the game, allowing for continuous iteration and improvement. Those are all advantages, and can be engaged to make awesome games in an array of genres, for an ever-expanding audience of ‘gamers’. Imagination being the only limit, wouldn’t joining the party be a better use of your time than complaining about it?(Source:edge-online


上一篇:

下一篇: