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

分析游戏盈利与迫使玩家付费之间的界线

发布时间:2012-11-05 15:04:33 Tags:,,,

作者:Josh Bycer

几年前我开始发布博文,我的首发博文主要讨论当开发商通过盈利机制获取大量利益时,我们该如何保持免费游戏的平衡性。也就是从那时起,免费游戏与社交游戏市场开始崛起,并逐渐为人所知。

作为玩家与熟悉游戏设计的业内人士这双重身份,我既得从玩家的角度,又要从开发者的角度考虑这个问题。一方面,过去我并不推崇利用某些方法从玩家那获取更多利益,但另一方面,不能获利的游戏只能面临破产命运。

今天,我们讨论的主题是:从游戏中获利与迫使玩家付费之间的界线在哪?

盈利与付费

每当我们使用“付费取胜”一词时,我们总会想到竞技游戏。然而,由于越来越多的游戏公司采用免费模式设计与DLC,这种付费方式开始逐渐渗透到合作类游戏领域。比如设计出具有难度的游戏关卡,而玩家只需购买DLC中的道具便能破解。甚至更阴险的是,开发商会制作出无法解决的请求或任务,玩家只能购买相应的破解道具才能取胜。

在我看来,要求玩家持续不断地购买基本道具或游戏功能只会摧毁整个游戏。我认为,是否付费取决于这些道具是否属于一次性用品:即如果玩家使用这些道具后就丢弃,它们就只会产生一时作用,随后永远消失。

军团要塞2(from newgrounds.com)

军团要塞2(from newgrounds.com)

典型事例要数《军团要塞2》中加速道具的使用方式。我在有关社交游戏设计的帖子中讨论过Mann与Machine模式之间的对比;而未遵循《军团要塞2》体验模式的玩家,他们的体验方式可以是:

你可以免费体验该作中的普通模式。购买了Mann up门票,你就有99%的机会进入Mann up模式。但玩家只能在完成整个游戏进程后才有用掉这种门票,如果玩家无法连网,就不会用掉门票。

玩家每次使用一张门票,便会随机获得一款道具,如果他们完成该系列的所有关卡(总共为6关),他们便会收到一款独一无二的道具。

与其他F2P游戏中的易消耗或廉价道具一样,这些门票也同样具有快速、平价和冲动消费的特点。但不像社交游戏中需要购买任务道具,这些门票可以为玩家提供有意义的事物:无论何时玩家体验《军团要塞2》,他们都可以使用某款道具。

但其它游戏中的廉价道具却不具有长久价值;一旦玩家使用完毕,它们便从账户中消失,好像从未存在过。而在要求玩家付费完成任务的社交游戏中,你从中花钱得到的是一些游戏资源。

如果作为设计师的你经常在游戏中设置一次性的付费道具,那么你的粉丝群会知晓这种状况,此后不再为游戏付费。接着,我们将涉入本次问题的核心:在竞技游戏中购买道具。

竞争优势:

每当某款游戏支持玩家购买竞技游戏中可以使用的装备时,我总会想到“付费取胜”一词。然而,这不似先前那般容易判断这些道具是否属于纯盈利性的内容。在此,由于道具已融合到游戏设计中,所以我们难以界定这种做法的道德性。

在此的争论重点可归结为:什么时候才能让有钱玩家超过技能型玩家?几年前,在有关平衡免费游戏中道具设计的博文中,我提出了一个至今仍具有建议性的例子:

设想下,如果有两位赛车手:其中一位是接触过所有车型,有着20年驾龄的老将,另一位是两周前刚取得驾照的新手。比赛时,老将分配到一辆有着40年历史的老爷车,而新手分配到目前市场上速度最快的超级赛车。如果两人进行比赛,谁能够取胜?

上述例如主要谈论如何设置技能与金钱之间的完美界线,这关系到一款游戏的成败。如果你的粉丝发现付费用户在游戏中具有额外优势,他们会纷纷离开游戏。开发者应找到游戏技能远胜费用的最佳平衡点。

albatross18(from gameogre.com)

albatross18(from gameogre.com)

几年前,我体验的首款免费游戏为《Albatross18》:它是一款类似《大众高尔夫球》的街机模式高尔夫游戏。在该游戏中,为了完善自身技能,你不得不购买全新的高尔夫球杆、服饰或角色。其中有些道具可以通过游戏货币支付,而其它的则需要现金支付。

我们保持游戏平衡的关键是技能与付费各自占据的比重。如果有人购买了游戏中的最佳装备,他们就比我更能够多次击中高尔夫球。但如果他们无法击球入洞,而我可以,那我便占据了一定优势。

然而,如果我的对手拥有一个擅长击球入洞的更棒角色,那我就没有获胜的希望。而这种可以购买更棒道具,且具有卓越技能的玩家便具有获胜优势的现象公平吗?我知道,不少看到这里的人们会立马给出否定答案,但历史与体育领域皆证明了这种现象的公平性。

在几乎所有的主流运动中,运动员的技能与其设备同样出色。如果世界上最棒的网球运动员使用中间破了一个大洞的球拍,那他们还是会很容易就输掉比赛。购买更棒装备同训练一样,也属于比赛的一部分。想想看,有多少高尔夫球手会在训练后购买一套全新的球棒以备新赛程呢?

这就引入到我的最后一个观点——区分“付费取胜”:即付费只能补充,但不能代替玩家技能。当我玩《坦克世界》时,其中让我困惑的便是支付多少费用可以促使某人取胜。

当时,相较于其它同级别的坦克,高价坦克(可以通过现金购买)具有更棒的数据统计能力,它可以为玩家提供更多的游戏资源。由于《坦克世界》中破坏系统的运行方式,具备更高装甲的坦克可以抵御致命射击。

如果具备较少技能的玩家可以行使更多功能,只因为他们支付更多费用,再加上那些针对免费玩家的惩罚因素,这最终只会让我离开游戏。

回到《军团要塞2》这一事例中,由于开发商注重各方分数,而不是持续不断地制作具有更高价格的道具,因此它避免了具有更多资金的玩家战胜具备更高技能的用户。诚然,具有更多道具的玩家可以为其提供更多便利。但是,如果玩家不知道如何有效发挥优势,那么拥有出色的道具也无法让他们获得更加出色的游戏体验。

我们总会听到设计师与发行商表示,越来越多的游戏摒弃单人模式的现象。而所有新型的多人游戏,无论是否具有社交性,它们均具备保持玩家热情的盈利元素。虽然盈利机制有助于快速增加收入,但如果不谨慎关注游戏的平衡性,我们将看不到游戏行业的未来,而传统游戏开发也将面临垮台境地。(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

Drawing the “Pay To Win” Line

by Josh Bycer

When I first started posting a few years back, one of my first posts was on the subject of maintaining balance in free to play games. In which the developer makes the bulk of their money through monetization. Since then, both the rise of the free to play and social game market exploded onto the scene.

As someone who is both a gamer and familiar with design I’ve always had to straddle the line between thinking as someone who plays games, and as someone who wants to make them. On one hand, coming up with ways to make people spend more money isn’t exactly my favorite past time, but on the other hand, a game without any profit is a bankrupt waiting to happen.

This presents us with the topic of the day: Where is the line between getting money from your game vs. forcing people to spend it?

In For a Penny, In For a Pound

Whenever we use the phrase “pay to win” it’s normally associated with competitive games. However, as more companies embrace both free to play design and DLC, this motto can sneak its way into cooperative games. Such as designing the game to be difficult unless the player buys DLC only items. Or even more insidious, making quests or missions unsolvable unless the player spends extra money on quest related items.

Asking the player to spend continually for basic items or features, to me is pushing it. The line is drawn in my opinion if these items are essentially throw-aways: once the player uses them they’re gone for good without any meaningful permanence.

An example of a better use for quick items would be in Team Fortress 2. I spoke about the Mann vs. Machine mode in my post on social game design; for those who don’t follow TF2 here is how it works:

You can play non ranked games in the mode for no cost. But there is the option to play in Mann up mode for 99 cents by buying a Mann up Ticket. The ticket is only consumed if the player finishes an entire match, if they are disconnected the ticket will not be used up.

Each time the player consumes a ticket, they will receive one random item, and if they complete an entire series of levels (at this point that would be 6) they’ll receive a unique item that can’t be found anywhere else.

As with consumables or cheap items in other F2P titles, the tickets are meant to be quick, inexpensive and impulse buys. But unlike having to buy a quest item in a social game, these tickets provide the player with something meaningful: an item that can be used whenever they play TF2.

But in other games, those cheap items have no permanence; once they are used they are erased from your account as if they never existed. For social games that ask the player to spend money to complete quests, all you’ll get out of it are some in game resources.

If you as the designer trivialize the act of spending money with throw away items, your fan base is going to know it and will be less likely to spend money in the future. Moving on it’s time to talk about the heart of the matter: buying items in competitive games.

The Competitive Edge:

Whenever a game allows the player to buy equipment that can be used in a competitive game, the discussion on “pay to win” rears its head. However, unlike the previous topic which is easy to see whether or not the items are a cash grab or not. Here, the issue becomes grey based on how the items are integrated into the design.

The point of contention comes down to this: At what point does money overtake skill? In that post from a few years ago about balancing item design in free to play titles I gave an example that still holds up:

Imagine if we have two race car drivers: one, a twenty year veteran who has driven on every kind of surface, and the other, someone who just got their license two weeks ago. The veteran is given a 40 year old car (unmodified) and the newcomer gets the fastest super car on the market. If both of them were to race, who would win?

The argument of skill vs. money is a fine line to tread and can make or break any game. If your fan base discovers that people who pay money have every advantage, they will leave in droves. The challenge is to figure out that sweet spot in which skill can beat out money.

A few years ago the first free to play title I played was Albatross 18: an arcade golf game in similar vein to the Hot Shots Golf series. There, to improve yourself you would have to buy new clubs, clothing or characters. Some items could be bought with in game currency while the rest required the person to spend real money.

What makes the balance important to this post is how skill and money are factored in. If someone just buys the best gear in the game they’ll be able to hit the ball several times further then I can. But if they can’t putt and I can, then I have the advantage.

However, if I played against someone who had both a better character then me, and was as good (or better) at putting, then I had no hope of winning. Is that fair, that someone who bought better items, but even skill wise, should have an advantage? I know that some of you reading this right now are immediately thinking “no”, but both history and sports have proven otherwise.

When it comes to almost every major sport, an athletic can only be as good as their equipment. The best tennis player in the world would still lose easily if they were using a racket with a giant hole in the middle. Spending money on better gear is just as much a part of competing as training yourself. How many golfers buy a brand new set of clubs after learning and practicing when they want to start competing?

And that takes me to where my final opinion is on the line between “pay to win”: Money should only supplement player skill, not supersede it. When I was playing World of Tanks, one of things that frustrated me was how much money had an effect on who would win.

Premium tanks (ones that could be bought with real money) had at the time, better stats compared to other tanks of the same tier, and provided more in game resources for using them. Because of how the damage system worked in WoT, tanks that had higher armor were resistant to more damage making otherwise fatal shots ricochet off.

Having someone able to do more with less skill compared to me, just because they spent more money and the punishing factors of trying to play the game for free, eventually drove me away from it.

Going back to Team Fortress 2, because the developers focused on side-grades instead of continually making higher rated items, it prevents someone from having more money to beat out someone with more skill. Granted, the more items someone has for their respective class gives them more utility. However, if the person doesn’t know how to use their class effectively, no item in the game will make them play better.

We keep hearing from designers and publishers how more titles are going to be moving away from pure single player experiences. And every new multiplayer game social or not, has some kind of monetization element to keep people playing. While monetization offers a quick rise in case income, without a careful eye to game balance, we won’t see the future of the industry, but a crash and burn of traditional game development.(source:gamasutra)


上一篇:

下一篇: