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

Foddy分析免费模式存在的5大弊端

发布时间:2013-03-27 15:09:08 Tags:,,,,

作者:Leigh Alexander

Bennett Foddy(游戏邦注:《QWOP》和《GIRP》的设计师)列出了免费模式所具有的5大弊端,但他也表示如果设计师们能够有效利用微交易,那也能创造出更棒的作品。

1.只是让玩家花钱而非玩游戏。Foddy认为许多免费游戏让玩家在花钱或刷任务之间做出选择,“而这便等于玩家可以花钱去减少投入于游戏中的时间。让不玩游戏变成一种‘奢侈的选择’,如此最终有可能降低游戏在玩家心中的价值。”

QWOP(from foddy)

QWOP(from foddy)

2.不存在公平竞争的环境。如果玩家是基于不同规则而游戏,你便很难去比较他们的游戏体验。Foddy说道:“如果有些玩家通过花钱购买进程,或从IAP商店中获得优势,那这便属于作弊行为。而你则是帮助玩家作弊的罪魁祸首。”

3.破坏了游戏体验。Foddy认为在游戏过程中向玩家收钱会破坏游戏的沉浸式体验。他说道:“在我眼中,真正优秀的游戏总是与玩家间拥有特殊的关系。而在免费游戏中,游戏与玩家间的关系就像是卖家与买家。”

4.存在不可调节的矛盾。设计一款从一开始便基于金钱交易的游戏需要平衡两个不可兼容的目标:确保游戏足够有趣,并同时面向付费玩家与非付费玩家。他说道:“完全处于一个进退两难的局面。”

5.失去了发挥创造性的机会。“如果你只是在游戏中出售帽子,那么你便不会破坏所有玩家的游戏体验,但即使是这样你也会失去面向所有玩家提升游戏价值和意义的机会。”

有些理念并非“完全不可取”

有些人为了捍卫免费游戏而将其与投币电动玩具进行比较,但是很少人会设计像电动玩具那样的游戏,即让玩家每次游戏都必须掏钱。Foddy说道:“如果这么做,你便能要求玩家支付更多钱,并且这也能维持一种公平的竞争环境。”

他补充道,让玩家在比赛中花钱去记录正式的分数也是一种方法。你可以提供给那些具有技能的玩家一定奖励,例如:如果玩家能够一直使用技能他便可以永久免费使用你所创造的多功能演示版本。不过Foddy也承认这种方法并不适合手机应用。

他说道:“你可以将永久性付费模式应用于任何人身上。”如果每个人都能通过花费2美元而打开一个额外难度关卡会是怎样的情况?Foddy说道,尽管有些理念并不符合苹果的相关条款,但是基于免费模式而发挥创造性依然是个好方法。

他解释道:“你并不需要局限于面向小孩或一些单纯的人销售数字商品,你也可以想出其它的方法。”

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 five reasons freemium sucks (according to QWOP’s developer)

By Leigh Alexander

Designer Bennett Foddy of QWOP and GIRP fame counts five major reasons why the free to play model doesn’t work well in its current incarnation, but suggests that by being creative with microtransactions, designers have the chance to do better work.

1. They’re pay not to play, really. Foddy believes lots of freemium games give players the choice between paying or grinding — “which suggests you might want to pay money to reduce the amount of time you spend playing the game,” he notes. “Not playing the game is the ‘luxury option’… [and] ultimately reduces the value players see in the game.”

2. There’s no level playing field. If some players are playing with different rules and others, you can’t meaningfully compare their experiences. “If somebody is buying progress, or advantages from the IAP store, they’re just cheating,” Foddy says. “It’s like you’re selling players steroids to cheat with.”

3. It corrupts the experience. Seeking real money from players during the gameplay breaks immersion, Foddy believes. “In my view, a really good game has a particular relationship with the player,” he says. “In a freemium game, it’s relating to you more as a vendor, or a drug dealer.”

4. There’s an irreconcilable conflict. Designing games for real money transaction from the ground up balances two incompatible aims: Making the game fun and complete for non-payers, and making it complete for people who do pay. “You’re caught between a rock and a hard place,” he says. ”

5. You miss opportunities to be creative. “If you’re selling hats, it’s true you’re not ruining the game for everybody, but even in that case you’re still missing the opportunity to invent a way of charging people money… in a way that increases value and meaning in the game for everyone.”

Some ideas that don’t “totally suck”

People often defend free-to-play by comparing them to coin-op arcades, but very few people actually design games like arcades, where players pay for every life or play. “If you do that, you’re charging them to pay more instead of less… and it also maintains a level playing field,” Foddy suggests.

In a tournament you pay for the opportunity to log an official score — that’s another method that might work, he adds. And you can offer players rewards for playing with skills, for example: If you make a full-featured demo that stays free forever so long as you play with skill, although he admits that sort of approach might not play well among mobile apps.

“You could charge money for permanent changes to the game that apply to everybody,” he says. What if everyone paying two dollars unlocks an extra difficulty level? While some of these ideas may not be allowed under Apple’s terms and conditions, the goal of being creative within the free-to-play business model still applies, Foddy says.

“You’re not confined to selling digital consumables to small children and idiots,” he explains. “You can come up with your own thing.” (source:gamasutra)


上一篇:

下一篇: