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

采用微交易模式需注意的原则及禁忌

发布时间:2012-04-18 15:51:27 Tags:,,,,

作者:Josh Wittenkeller

最好的事情就是碰上免费的东西。如果你手头就有一些免费的游戏那又何必掏腰包去购买一款新的电子游戏呢?据Flurry数据显示,平均每个iOS用户共下载65款应用,并且这些应用大多数都是属于“免费”产品。

当然了,没有什么东西是真正的免费。从近日的iPad,iPhone以及Android最畅销应用榜单来看,我们可以发现免费已成为一种最佳盈利方式。在这三大平台的前50名畅销榜单中,有32款iPad应用,36款iPhone应用以及42款Android应用都提供免费下载服务。我们可以用各种名称去形容这种服务,如微交易,免费游戏,免费模式等等,但是不管怎样,这些游戏都不是真正的免费。

有些游戏虽然并未向玩家收取费用,但是游戏公司却仍然坚持销售游戏,因为他们知道游戏最终能够盈利。我也见证了许多因为免费模式带来盈利的公司实例。微交易已经成为应用市场中一种主要的盈利模式,而我将在此分析采用这种模式的可取与不可取做法。

不可取做法:出售权力

rocketshop(from gamezebo)

rocketshop(from gamezebo)

这种机制,特别是在多人游戏以及“积分”类游戏中将不再受欢迎。

这方面的反例就是EA旗下的《Flight Control Rocket》(主要是因为该款游戏的微交易处理不当)。在游戏中,玩家的最终目标便是获得最高分数,但是《Flight Control Rocket》却想尽办法推动着玩家通过消费去获得更高的分数。玩家在失败后也可以使用coins货币(游戏邦注:他们能够在游戏中收集到coins,但是同时也离不开用金钱购买)而再次复活,因此大大降低了游戏的难度,并且能够增加玩家的分数——但所有的这些行动都不是免费的。

提供公平的奖励与直接贩售分数具有明显的区别。我认为像后者那样付钱换得任何成绩是一种低俗的表现。

可取做法:出售便利和装饰品

但是并不是说不能在游戏中提供购买机会。以《Dragonvale》中的宝石理念进行说明。在游戏中,玩家可以利用宝石购买少量的建筑,而宝石的主要作用则是加快建造建筑或者孵化鸡蛋的速度。免费玩家即使不花一分钱也能够在此体验游戏的乐趣,只是他们需要投入更多的耐心;而心急的玩家便可以花钱去节省更多时间。

装饰品也是一种合理的IAP购买对象。从《军团要塞2》中的帽子到《瑞斯岛》中的服装,提供给玩家独特的装饰商品并不会对游戏发展造成任何损害。这种外表上的消费虽然能够成为玩家炫耀的手段,但是却不是他们战胜其他玩家的真正优势,所以是无害的。

不可取做法:事后添加IAP内容

尽管很多应用开发者都在试水免费游戏模式,但是在一款原本不存在免费模式的游戏中添加微交易却不是一种很好的实践方式。

SGN的《Warp Rush》(游戏邦注:原名是《Warp Dash》)便是一个典型的例子。这是一款售价99美分的游戏,玩家能够在游戏中与各种开放性船只进行竞争。但是在一次更新后(改变了游戏名称),SGN决定封锁大多数船只而让玩家只有花钱才能继续与之抗衡。而游戏也因此失去了原先玩家的信赖。

可取做法:围绕微交易系统设计游戏

另一方面,IAP能够有效地鼓励玩家进行消费。《Dragonvale》为何会数月占据iOS营收榜单前10名的位置,Zynga的《FarmVille》和《CityVille》又为何能为该公司谋得数十亿美元的利益?因为这些游戏在创建过程中都始终劳记微交易系统的设置。

通过提供一些混合游戏元素以鼓励玩家耐心等待并与好友进行交流,这类型游戏也为开发者带来了一定的利益。就像在《Draw Something》中,玩家如果想要使用其它颜色就可以通过与好友一起游戏(能够帮助传播游戏)或者直接花钱购买。这是一种灵活的系统,并且也有效地证明了为何《Draw Something》开发商OMGPOP能够以2亿美元身价出售给Zynga。

draw-something(from gamezebo)

draw-something(from gamezebo)

不可取之处:为付费游戏创造额外的付费内容

这是所有电子游戏共同面临的一大问题。掌机游戏玩家将其称为可下载的内容(DLC)。简单来说就是,不要在一款付费游戏中再出售额外的内容,除非这能够有效地完善游戏体验。

我不反对开发者在创造一款收费游戏后再添加其它额外的关卡(如《N.O.V.A 2》中的地图),但是如果开发者一开始便明确这是一款收费游戏但是还在游戏中创造其它收费内容(如之前提到的《Flight Control Rocket》),我就只能说它的游戏系统非常糟糕了。

在理想情况下,所有的工作室最好都有足够的成本提供一些免费的新内容(如Epic的《无尽之剑》)。至少我们希望开发者不会在一开始就向玩家收取额外的费用。

可取之处:提供演示版本

那些售价很高的游戏通常都应该为用户提供份免费的演示版本而吸引他们购买游戏。制作这种免费演示版本不需要耗费多少成本,所以休闲游戏也可以利用这种方法而受益。

基于积分和点击的冒险类游戏也频繁使用这种方法。如在免费下载游戏《幽灵诡计:幻影侦探》中,玩家在真正需要付费打开剩下游戏关卡前可以先尝试着玩几个关卡的游戏。就像Big Fish Games发布于App Store的多款寻物解谜游戏也同样使用了这一方法。这么做不仅能够促使更多玩家选择游戏(他们可能会想“反正这是免费的,试看看也无妨”),同时也能够让对游戏感到好奇的玩家以此判断游戏是否值得他们继续挑战。

不管你是否喜欢微交易模式,在不久的将来它终将成为开发者赢取利益的最佳方式。尽管这不一定是游戏的最佳销售方法,但是它却能够有效地维系起开发者与用户之间的关系。因为我们已经见证了这一方法的成效,“免费”游戏也能够创造上百万美元的收益。

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

The do’s and don’ts of microtransactions

By Josh Wittenkeller

As the old saying goes, the best things in life are free. Why empty your bank account for a new videogame when some of the best around don’t cost a dime? According to Flurry, the average iOS user owns 65 apps, and you can bet that a big chunk of that consists of glorious, “costless” apps.

Of course, nothing is really free, is it? In fact, according to today’s top charts for iPad, iPhone, and Android, free is actually the best way to make a profit. 32 of the top grossing 50 iPad apps, 36 of the top 50 iPhone apps, and a whopping 42 of the top 50 Android apps are available for download at zero cost. They go by many names. Microtransactions. Free-to-play. Freemium. Whatever the title, very few of these games are truly costless.

Can the freemium debacle a byproduct of corporate greed? You bet. Some games have no business charging the capital that they do, but businesses continue the practice because they know it will sell. On the other hand, I’ve seen freemium practices that are fair and reasonable ways for a company to make a profit. With the constant surge of microtransactions as the dominant form of profit on the app market, I’ve decided to analyze some of my favorite (and least favorite) practices employed today.

Don’t: Sell power

This practice, especially in multiplayer and “hi score” style games, can go sour really quickly. Losing the science fair to the kid whose family could afford the electric light show is never fun in real life, and the same concept applies over to the virtual one as well.

One major culprit of this in recent memory is EA’s Flight Control Rocket (you’ll notice our one complaint in the review is the game’s handling of microtransactions). In a game where reaching the high score is your ultimate goal, Flight Control Rocket stops at nothing to offer you a chance to buy your way to a better score. You can pay coins (which can be collected in-game, but are impossible to hoard without real purchases) to revive yourself after failure, make the game less difficult, and even multiply your score – and all this in a game that isn’t even free to begin with.

There’s a fine line between offering fair bonuses and straight up selling better scores. Any practice that ends up in the latter category is pretty sleazy, in my opinion.

Do: Sell convenience and “bling”

On the other hand, offering the purchase of time is a perfectly acceptable practice. Take the concept of gems in Dragonvale. Gems can purchase a small handful of buildings, but are primarily used for speeding up the process of constructing a building or incubating an egg. Free players can experience the game just fine without spending a penny and playing with patience, while eager players can trade their money for the convenience of time.

“Bling” is another purchase that I have no gripes with. From hats in Team Fortress 2 to costumes in Rinth Island, there’s no harm in offering the option to purchase unique skins for characters. These kinds of items offer the player the option to buy bragging rights, while adding no real in-game advantage over other players. Harmless.

Don’t: Add in-app purchases posthumously

It’s understandable that many app developers are licking their chops at the recent success of freemium games, but that doesn’t make the practice of adding microtransactions to a game that didn’t previously have them acceptable.

One particularly sour case that I can remember is through SGN’s Warp Rush (previously called Warp Dash). A .99 cent app, Warp Dash allowed players to race with a plethora of unlockable ships. After a particularly greedy update (the one that altered the title), SGN decided to lock most of the available ships under the ransom of real money. There is no better way to lose a fan’s trust than this.

Do: Build a system around microtransactions from the ground up

On the other hand, in-app purchases can be a fair system that encourages purchases. There’s a reason why Dragonvale remains on the top 10 grossing charts on iOS for months, and why games like Zynga’s Farmville and Cityville have helped the company earn billions of dollars. They were systems built with microtransactions in mind.

By offering a mixture of gaming that encourages patience and connections with friends, these types of games create a favorable exchange for the developer either way. Users who want additional colors in Draw Something can either play often with friends, increasing word-of-mouth advertising for the game, or they can buy the colors and expedite the wait. This kind of system is smart, and is a huge reason that Draw Something was able to sell to Zynga for $200 million dollars.

Don’t: Offer purchases after purchase

This is a problem that exists in all videogames worldwide. Console gamers know this problem as DLC, or downloadable content. DLC alone has brought about entire scholarly papers discussing its morality, but for now, I’ll leave it to a simple statement: Don’t sell extra content for a paid game unless it is a legitimate addition to the experience.

If creators want to add additional levels after the creation of their game for a fee (such as maps in N.O.V.A 2), I’m okay with that. However, when a game that already requests money to play in the first place (such as the aforementioned Flight Control Rocket) begins by immediately requesting more money, you’ve got a pretty ugly system.

In an ideal world, all studios would have enough money to offer new content for free (such as Epic’s Infinity Blade). Because we don’t live on such a planet, the least we can hope is that developers will refrain from charging extra from the start.

Do: Offer demos

If there’s one thing console developers have learned from offering games at a $60 price tag, it’s that they almost always offer free demos to consumers interested in purchase. Even without the heavy cost for its titles, casual games can benefit from the same practice.

For some reason, it seems the point and click adventure genre is one of the few that frequently employs this approach. Games like Ghost Trick: Phantom Detective are free to download and play for a few stages, before opening up the option for players to pay a fee to unlock the rest of the game. Likewise, plenty of Big Fish Games’ hidden object releases on the App Store employ a similar process. Not only does this allow more players to check out a game they wouldn’t have previously (“well it’s free, so I’ll try it”), but it also gives curious players the chance to gauge if they like a game or not.

Whether you like them or not, microtransactions are quickly becoming the way of the future for profit-seeking game developers. While they aren’t always the best approach for selling a title, it’s important that developers treat their consumers with respect. After all, we’ve seen the numbers. A smart “free” game just might be worth millions.(source:gamezebo)


上一篇:

下一篇: