作者：Tim Gaulton

不管你是否喜欢免费模式（即开发商提供免费的游戏并通过应用内部购买而赚钱），它都深深扎根于游戏领域。最近有很多人在担忧免费模式是否会影响游戏质量，而我想说的是这种担忧根本毫无根据。

免费模式的确存在着一些弊端，但是我们却不能因此完全否定这种模式。

freemium(from omalleyblog.typepad.com)

简述免费模式发展史

在还未出现免费模式之前，玩家需要预先支付一定的费用才能获得游戏。在传统的盒装模式时代，市场准入门槛相对较高，这就意味着市场上彼此竞争的产品并不多，所以商家只要通过一定的广告促销或口碑营销便能够吸引玩家注意——这也意味着发行商能够支付高额的预算并且无需承担过多风险。这种商业模式虽然不甚完美，但是却非常有效。在这里创造性虽然不是开发者最先考虑因素，但是他们也仍未忽视游戏质量。

而再次回到下载时代，特别是App Store盛行的这个年代，开发者所面临的市场准入门槛瞬间变得很低——甚至任何人只要拥有一台电脑和一个编辑器便能够发行游戏。起初大家都会认为这是件好事，我们可以看到许多“独立游戏”的出现并听到许多大获成功的显著案例，但是很快地市场上便开始充斥各种质量良莠不齐的游戏，而开发者也开始为了赢得竞争而大肆砍价。

我们将这个变化过程称之为“向下竞争”，可以看到现在大多数付费游戏的售价都在1至2美元之间，扭转了我们对于游戏价值的真正看法。在过去我们会认为售价5美元的游戏真的非常便宜了，但是在现在看来这却变得异常昂贵——尽管人们可以毫不犹豫地花同样的钱买杯拿铁和吃个三明治。

这意味着，开发者若打算面向手机和平板电脑市场创造一款高质量的游戏，他便可能面临巨大的风险。也就是尽管你那售价5美元（或更多）的游戏非常出色，但是却很少有玩家能够发现并愿意购买它。他们更愿意下载那些价钱便宜的手机游戏，尽管这些游戏中不乏质量糟糕的内容。

这便是免费模式所塑造出来的框架。如果你为游戏设置了免费模式，所有人都能够轻松地尝试这款游戏——当然了，这个市场中已经充满了许多其它选择，但是你却可以通过不断完善游戏而让它从中脱颖而出。

只要你吸引了一些玩家的注意，你便可以开始向他们出售游戏道具并从中赚取利益了。因为这些玩家已经深深对游戏着迷了，所以你便可以向他们收取比封顶的应用售价更高的道具费用。最近我也发现许多游戏通过进一步挖掘这一系统而赚取了大量收益。

这种模式存在何种问题？

我在上个段落的最后一句中使用了“挖掘”这一词，而这便是免费模式的问题所在。从中我们可以发现游戏并不是单纯地吸引玩家的注意并要求他们支付一定的费用才能继续游戏；它们是通过使用一些“不正当的手段”向玩家兜售过多的游戏内部道具，并以此鼓励玩家沉浸于游戏中而忽视了这些道具的成本。

前段时间我在Android平台上玩的一款游戏《Paradise Island》便是一个典型的例子。在游戏中玩家可以为自己的岛屿购买任何特殊的建筑，在这个过程中玩家需要支付各种不同形式的货币，但是他们却不能真正意识到这些建筑的实际成本。我曾经仔细估算过这款游戏的“万圣节包”中的一种建筑的开销高达50美元左右。

我想应该是这种上瘾型游戏才让免费模式落得如此糟糕的声誉吧。当你回到盒装游戏时代时，你会发现那时候的我们已经在脑海中形成了免费模式这一理念，虽然那时它还未成为一种流行词。

是否能够改正这一问题？

这么做已经是指日可待了。最近的一些游戏已经在应用内部付费方面有所收敛。例如《Triple Town》在免费版本中限制玩家每一天只能玩一定量的“回合”，并且让他们可以使用固定的费用去购买无限量的回合。尽管玩家仍可以通过花钱赢得胜利，但是现在他们却可以对此做出选择，也可以只进行一次性付费。这便是解决问题的一大正确方向。

除此之外，近来日本法律还出面审查“kompu gacha”机制（游戏邦注：kompu gacha是出现于许多日本手机社交游戏的高盈利机制）。在采用这种机制的游戏中，玩家需要支付一定的费用去购买随机虚拟道具（本质上也就是彩票），他们会不断受到刺激而购买更多虚拟道具直至最终收集了一整套特殊道具。

尽管这只是冰山一角，但是这次的风波却引起了无数媒体的关注，也开始促使日本社交游戏行业进行自律，而玩家本身也会对这种“不正当手段”提高警惕。

好的免费模式

我想免费模式肯定也存在着“坏免费模式”和“好免费模式”。

坏免费模式的游戏只会一心想着如何从玩家身上赚钱，而好免费模式的游戏虽然碰巧带着“免费”的皮囊，但是却能让玩家感受到诚实与乐趣。

我想坏免费模式即将离我们远去，与其绝望地面对市场现状，我们更应该尝试着创造一款自己的免费游戏，并确保它采用好的免费模式。（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: Embrace freemium

by Tim Gaulton

Like it or not, the freemium gaming model (i.e. games are free and the money is made via in-app purchases) appears to be here to stay. I’ve seen a lot of concern voiced recently that freemium content is driving down the quality of games, but I don’t believe that’s necessarily true.

There are problems that need addressing – but let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

A brief history of freemium

Take away the freemium model, and you’re left with users having to pay for games up front. With traditional disk-based media that worked, the barrier to entry meant that there were relatively few titles on sale so it was possible to get a game noticed given a decent advertising push and by word of mouth – and that meant publishers could afford decent budgets and take a few risks. The business model wasn’t perfect, but it sufficed. Innovation wasn’t always top priority, but the quality bar was fairly consistent.

Fast forward to the age of downloads, in particular the App Store, and the barrier to entry for developers was suddenly much lower – almost anyone with a computer and a compiler could release a game. Initially this seemed like a good thing, there was much excitement about “indie gaming” and a few notable success stories, but soon the market was flooded and developers began undercutting each other on price in order to get sales.

This process, commonly dubbed “the race to the bottom,” now seems to have run its course, with the majority of games now in the $1-2 bracket, and that has warped the general perception of value. Paying $5 for a game may have seemed cheap once but now looks expensive against the backdrop of bargain bucket titles – despite the fact that people will happily fork out that much (and more) for a latte and a sandwich.

As a result it has become incredibly risky to invest in making a high-quality game for the mobile and tablet market. Even if your $5+ game is awesome, the chances of enough people finding it and paying for it are slim. They’re more likely to download half a dozen separate dollar titles and conclude that all mobile games are rubbish.

That’s where freemium enters the frame. If you can give your game away for free, there’s nothing (bar the initial download) to stop people trying it out – sure, the market is still flooded with choice, but you’ve improved your chances dramatically.

Once you’ve got people hooked on your game, then you can start billing them for items, and make your money that way instead. And because you’ve already hooked people in, you can charge them a lot more than the minimum app price that people have come to expect for paid apps. Recently we’ve seen a few games exploit this system to make large sums of money.

So what’s the problem?

Notice I used the word “exploit” in the last sentence? Well, that’s the problem with freemium at the moment. Games don’t simply draw you in and then ask for a single payment to continue playing; they attempt to sell you a whole plethora of in-game items, often using devious means that encourage addictive behavior and disguise the true cost.

A while back I played a game called Paradise Island on Android that was a perfect example; you could buy special buildings for your island, but the way you did so involved so many different forms of currency along the way that it wasn’t immediately obvious what the cost would be. I once sat down and calculated that the true cost of a single building in their Halloween pack was a staggering $50.

It’s this addiction-feeding style of game that I believe has given freemium such a bad name. After all, if you look back to the era when magazine cover-discs were the norm, you realize that freemium has been with us in spirit for decades, even if the buzzword hasn’t.

Can the problem be fixed?

I think we’re beginning to see light at the end of the tunnel. Some recent games have started to implement less aggressive forms of in-app purchasing – for example, Triple Town works by limiting the free version to a fixed number of ‘turns’ per day, and gives you the option to purchase unlimited turns for a fixed fee. It still has option to buy items to essentially cheat your way to victory, but at least you can opt out of that and make a one-off payment. It’s a step in the right direction.

Perhaps more importantly though, the Japanese courts have reportedly stepped in regulate the “kompu gacha” mechanic, whereby players pay a small fee to purchase random virtual item (in essence, a lottery), and are encouraged to keep buying them until they’ve collected a full set to unlock a special item.

It’s only one specific mechanic that they’re investigating, and it’s only the tip of the iceberg, but the case has drawn a lot of attention from the press over the last few days, and looks like it might be the tipping point that wakes regulatory bodies, and players themselves, up to the devious way in which they’ve been manipulated.

Nice freemium

Much as the makers of yogurt products keep telling us there are “bad bacteria” and “good bacteria.” I believe there can also be “evil freemium” and “nice freemium.” The evil freemium games are built purely to extort money from their players, while nice freemium are good honest fun, that just happens to come in a freemium package.

I doubt we’ve seen the back of evil freemium just yet, but rather than despair at the state of the freemium market, why not try making your own game freemium – just make sure it’s nice freemium.(source:GAMASUTRA)