作者：Graham McAllister

说服人们去购买游戏当然是一项挑战，主要是因为他们很可能会考虑许多因素才能做最后决定，例如该游戏的题材、IP、评价得分、口碑和售价等。假设该游戏确实是玩家所喜爱的题材和IP，那么最重要的判断标准就成了好友的反馈和专家的评价，之后就是价格。在最近几年，这两大购买障碍似乎已经被免费模式（F2P）所解决了。首先，这种游戏完全移除了预付款问题；其次，你也不需要去想象游戏究竟是什么样子，你可以自己先玩玩看。

Free-to-play(from edge-online)

通过移除这些障碍，F2P游戏令成百上千万原本不认为自己是玩家的用户开始接触游戏，也让许多现成的玩家更放心地去尝试一些自己原本会忽略的游戏。虽然玩家可以不花一文钱就玩完游戏，但购买道具更能加强游戏体验。如果玩家选择在一款免费游戏中花钱，这实际上意味着该游戏的付费障碍并没有消除，只是将预先付费的操作转移到了游戏内部。

盈利的4层次模型

玩家如果很享受一款游戏，他们就似乎更可能为其花钱，所以找到可能阻碍玩家乐趣的东西甚为关键。对于我们客户的F2P游戏，我们使用了一种4个层次的模型来帮助他们找到抑制游戏成功盈利的潜在障碍。

理解

这是该模型的基本层次。如果没有准确地理解游戏规则和目标，玩家可能就无法看到游戏的奇特之处，或者简单地说，游戏的趣味所在。玩家尝试新游戏时所投入的时间一般都会少于开发者的期望值。如果游戏规则很复杂，或者根本无法突出趣味，那么玩家在体验游戏时可能就会错误百出，或者干脆放弃该游戏。

易用性

让玩家准确了解游戏目标这一点很重要，但让他们能够实现这些目标也很关键。笨拙的菜单设计，不寻常的控制设置或者令人困惑的UI可能让玩家纠结不已，从而退出游戏。玩家的失败应归咎于游戏的挑战性，而非易用性上的瑕疵。

用户体验

无论玩家属于哪种类型（游戏邦注：例如Bartle所提出的“社交家”、“成就者”、“杀手”和“探索家”这四种类型）都无谓了，重要的是他们乐在其中。我们在一次游戏测试后展开调查，试图确认玩家是否喜欢游戏，以及他们不喜欢游戏的原因。一般来说，我们会将其划分为以下三个层次的潜在原因：理解问题，实现目标的问题，或者挑战性和满意度问题。

这种方法的用处在于它可以产生实际可操作的反馈。例如，玩家若不知道游戏关键功能是什么，那么我们就知道必须先解决这个基本层次，然后才能着眼更高层次的问题。

盈利性

之前的三个层次均为这第四个最重要层次——盈利性的障碍。能够确保玩家了解IAP的好处，并让他们轻松消费，最重要的是让他们觉得物有所值的游戏才能有效盈利。让玩家掏一次钱也许不难，但如果你想让他们重复消费，那就要让他们获得信任、价值，甚至是奖励等积极感受。

很显然，F2P游戏设计之初就考虑到了IAP内容，但如果设计时也能参考这四个层次，也许就能让玩家更轻松地购买内容。开发者希望玩家掏钱买东西，但想实现这一目标，就要让游戏和玩家都满足这个模式各个层次的标准。

F2P商业模式正在改变我们为游戏付费的方式，以及开发者创收的途径。让玩家能够免费试玩游戏，从而鉴别出最佳游戏之后，让他们付费买内容的主要障碍就只剩下用户体验本身的质量了。（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 four essential steps to successful monetisation of free-to-play games

Graham McAllister

Convincing people to buy games is, of course, a challenge, mainly due to the many factors they’re likely to consider before making a final decision: genre, familiar IP, review scores, word of mouth, and pricing can all play a part. Assuming the game meets a player’s preferences for genre and IP, the most important criteria are feedback from friends and professional reviewers, then price – and probably in that order. In recent years, these two main purchase barriers have been seemingly addressed by the free-to-play model. Firstly, the up-front price is completely removed, and secondly, you no longer have to imagine what the game will be like; you can actually play it to find out.

By removing these barriers, F2P games have encouraged millions of people to play games who would not typically consider themselves gamers, and many current gamers are trying out titles they may otherwise have overlooked. Although games can be finished without spending any hard currency, it is typically possible to enhance the experience by purchasing items through microtransactions. If players chose to make a purchase in a free-to-play game, in reality it means the barrier to payment has not been removed, but simply moved from up-front to in-game.

The four-layer model of monetisation

It seems reasonable to assume that a player is much more likely to spend if they’re enjoying a game, so identifying the things that might prevent player enjoyment is critical. For our clients’ F2P games, we use a four-layer model to help identify the potential barriers to successful monetisation.

Understanding

This is the base layer of the model. Without a clear understanding of the game’s rules and goals, players may fail to see what is unique about the game, or more simply, where the fun is. Players typically don’t persevere as long as developers may wish them to when trying out a new game. If the rules are either unnecessarily complex, or don’t sufficiently highlight where the fun is, then players may play without correct knowledge of what is possible, or abandon the game before they find out.

Usability

Whilst it’s important that the player has an accurate understanding of the goals of the game, it’s equally important that they’re able to achieve these goals. Awkward menu design, unusual control layouts or confusing UIs may frustrate the player to the point of walking away. If the player is failing in the game it should be due to the game’s challenge, not usability flaws.

User Experience

It doesn’t matter which of the Bartle gamer types – socialiser, achiever, killer or explorer – players are; all that matters is that they enjoy themselves. In the interviews we conduct after a playtesting session we seek to determine if a player has enjoyed the game, and if not, what precisely were the underlying causes. Broadly speaking, we map the underlying causes to one of the three layers discussed so far; problems with understanding, problems with achieving, or problems with challenge and satisfaction.

This approach is useful as it leads to producing practical, actionable feedback. If, for example, the player isn’t aware of key game features, then we know we must address this base layer before focusing our attention higher up the model.

Monetisation

The previous three layers are barriers to the all-important fourth: monetisation. Games which are effectively monetised ensure that the player understands the benefits of IAP, that they are able to make the purchase easily, and perhaps most importantly, that they feel their purchase was justified. It may be possible to make a player pay once, but if you want them to make a repeat purchase, then leaving the player with positive feelings of trust, value, and even reward, is vital.

It’s clear that F2P games are designed with IAPs in mind – they have to be – but if designed with an understanding of these four layers, then it’s more likely that players will feel comfortable about paying for content. Yes, developers would like players to pay for some content, but for this to happen, both game and player need to fulfil essential criteria at each layer of the model.

The free-to-play business model is changing how we pay for games and how developers make their income. By being able to try out games for free and identifying those which are best, the main barrier to us paying for more content is now the quality of the user experience itself.（source：edge-online）