最近我在平板电脑上下载了一款新游戏。一开始我是因为喜欢游戏体验才投入其中，但是在进入游戏后的1分又30秒后，我便用光了所有能量和钱。我在游戏中面对着3个任务，但是我却不能成功地完成任何一个机制或行动，除非我为此投入金钱。延迟机制，阻碍，摩擦等等都是免费游戏中经常使用的盈利机制，但是我并不是打算在此劝说你们不要使用这些机制。我认为真正出色的游戏不会在玩家等待各种延迟时鼓励他们离开。例如《Clash of Clans》。从第2关到第6关期间，我需要投入30天的时间才能完善市政厅。不过我也可以花费5美元去获得另一栋建筑，并提高建造效率，即可能只需花费20天时间；甚至我还可以砸下100美元（或者500美元）而立刻完成建造。它们都是使用相同的延迟机制，但是这款游戏并不只是关于建造城市和加强防御。除了建造城市，玩家还可以攻击其它村庄。真正的战斗以及军队训练需要花费玩家20多分钟的时间。显然，训练更高级的单位也需要花费更多时间，而如果玩家愿意的话，他们甚至可以每隔20分钟去攻击其它村庄。这种次要机制或第二种核心循环能让玩家在等待建筑升级的时间里（游戏邦注：可能是几天或者几周）去执行一些其它任务或目标。
5 Ways to Fail Freemium
by Benjamin Sipe
The freemium or free to play (F2P) business model is still new and in an immature state. There are some early adopters that have used exploits or tricks to squeeze money from their players, while others created what we call a “pay-to-win” experience where you’re almost guaranteed to win if you pay money. While these tactics may have generated a lot of revenue for these developers, as the market, business model and player expectations mature, these tactics will become less and less accepted by players. They probably won’t go away all together, but it’s better to get ahead of the curve and start designing and executing smarter games today. Here are examples of 5 of these tactics:
Making players spam their friends
I know this was a popular tactic in Facebook games, but stop gating content based on the number of “friends” one has in the game! Things like “friending” or “making an in app purchase” (or IAP) should complement the experience and not be required. Don’t hold content back from me until I’ve recruited enough friends. My assumption was that developers understood that friend gating content would ultimately not work in mobile; however, I’m still seeing this in new mobile games that released in recent months so I’m compelled to include this on my list.
Start steering away from psychological tricks or hidden button placements
Decay or extinction mechanics are widely used in freemium gaming. Decay and delay can be natural fits depending on the subject matter, but players have started to dislike the extinction mechanic and it’s becoming less and less popular. Especially if they’re with something that you can create a bond with like a pet for example. How popular would Hay Day be if your animals died if you didn’t login to feed them?
Another mechanic, that if implemented may be considered a deceptive business practice, is making some buttons difficult to find or press. I’ve seen games try to hide X’s so people thought they had to purchase something or greyed buttons out so players thought they had to “share” on Facebook to get to the next screen. Are these tactics clever or misleading? There’s no right answer, but it probably feels less terrible if it doesn’t involve money. However, as a developer you have to ask yourself, do you want to increase monetization and k-factor from player mistakes and tricks, or through making an awesome game that people naturally want to share or pay money towards? The decision is up to you, but in a grey area, I would try to stay closer to what seems right or ethical in your players’ eyes.
Stop using intrusive advertising solutions or being lazy with your implementation! I’m looking at you… banner ads. I understand the first argument a developer usually has is that adding advertisement solutions will cannibalize my IAP revenue. It’s true you can impact your IAP revenue, but only if you don’t advertise intelligently. W3i conducted a study and blogged about it earlierhttp://blog.w3i.com/2012/10/31/its-official-offers-dont-cannibalize…. Take this screenshot for an example of how to advertise intelligently.
People who aren’t going to pay have another way of contributing towards the developer. Players who want to pay will continue to pay since they don’t care and/or aren’t looking for the advertising anyways. However if you obstruct their view or make things difficult then you’re driving players away and it could be both paying and non-paying players. That’s why I’m not a fan of the “paying to remove ads” feature. You’re spamming your players and admitting it to them. It doesn’t have to be like this.
Design a Free to Play Player vs. Player (F2P PvP) game to be pay-to-win
If you’re thinking, “but all F2P PvP games are pay-to-win,” I’m here to tell you you’re wrong. There’s pay to win and then there’s pay for competitive advantage. Take a look at this screenshot for example…
Attacks range from 3-12, and defenses 4-9 for grinding currency weapons, but for a premium weapon… well you get only 112 ATTACK AND 100 DEFENSE. This game is purely stat driven so buying this weapon clearly allows you to win over everyone else, and there’s nothing a non-paying player can do to win against paying players unless they pay too.
Now let’s look at another PvP F2P game called Planetside 2. It’s a first person shooter (FPS) that allows you to buy different weapons and vehicle upgrades with their premium currency (station cash) or you can grind to unlock them, but it’ll take some time.
Some are more powerful, some have faster/slower reload speeds, and some are more accurate or have lock-on capabilities for vehicles. However, just having a higher damage output doesn’t mean you’ll automatically win a battle. Same with fire rate, reload speed or any other characteristic because these stats only complement your natural ability to play the game. But wait… there’s more.
Each gun, class and weapon has specific upgrades that can do a magnitude of things like reduced recoil, grant more player health, improve class abilities, and add scopes to weapons or night vision. These class or weapon upgrades can only be purchased through the secondary currency (cert points) and these points cannot be purchased. You can pay to speed up the rate of earning these points but it’ll still take some considerable time to earn those points. Why is this important? Players can pay to get the guns that match their play style, but they can’t immediately deck out their guns or characters with enhancements. Regardless if you like the game or not it’s hard to argue against the fact that they executed a really solid F2P PvP experience.
Makes players pay to play
I recently downloaded a newer game on my tablet. I starting playing was enjoying the experience, but I ran out of energy and money (following the tutorial mind you) 1 minute and 30 seconds in. I had 3 quests and couldn’t complete any of them or complete any action in the game unless I converted. Delay mechanics, choke points, friction, whatever else you may call it, is a commonly used monetization mechanic in F2P games and I’m not here to tell you not to use them. However, the most brilliantly designed games don’t encourage the player to leave while they wait for these delays. Take Clash of Clans for example. In order to improve my town hall from level 2-6 it could maybe take 30 days. I can pay $5 for another builder and increase construction productivity so maybe it now takes 20 days, or I could drop $100 (or maybe $500) and get it now. They use the same delay mechanics, but the game isn’t just about building a city and reinforcing defenses. That’s only half of the battle. The other half is about raiding other villages. The actual battles last minutes and to train basic armies usually takes 20 minutes or less. More advanced units obviously take more time to train, but you can be out raiding other villages almost every 20 minutes if the player so chooses. This secondary mechanic or second core loop gives players something to do or goals to achieve while they wait for the days (or possibly) weeks it’ll take for a building upgrade to be completed.
Obviously the mechanics outlined here can be the main revenue/marketing driving mechanics of your game. I’m not here to say these will stop making you money. I’m simply saying that as a market matures, so will game design and players’ expectations along with it. It’s better to start making smarter designs today so you’re not scrambling to change or squeeze the last pennies out of your game tomorrow.(source:gamasutra)