作者：Dan “Shoe” Hsu

如今的许多游戏都是披着早旧的《龙与地下城》的外衣，带有基于回合制的战术策略游戏玩法，并让玩家去寻找各种珍宝（和稀有战利品）。你并不需要为此支付任何费用。

如果想要赢得玩家的芳心，开发者还应该做些什么？也许可以向玩家提出60美元的要价？不，让我们严肃点。

独立开发商Blue Manchu最近发行了《Card Hunter》（游戏邦注：面向PC和Mac）并获得了一些积极的评价（就像来自我们的评价）。但是为了获得更广泛的接受度，它还需要克服一个奇怪的障碍：它是免费游戏。传统的经济模式糟糕透了——玩家似乎不再喜欢免费游戏（F2P）。特别是在今天这个时代！

Jon Chey(from videogamewriters)

我们访问了Blue Manchu的公司总监Jon Chey，希望以此了解更多有关这一现象的更多信息。为什么这一业务模式不再适合所有游戏开发者？为什么玩家拒绝尝试那些免费的内容？开发者该如何说服多疑的用户？

GamesBeat：你认为玩家与免费游戏之间到底存在哪些问题？Blue Manchu的联合创始人Joe McDonagh甚至看到了一些“敌对状态”。

Jon Chey：我认为玩家是在担心免费模式会吸走游戏的生命—-他们害怕未来的游戏会被贪婪的刷任务机制所取代，如果他们想要继续前进就必须不断掏出自己的积蓄。他们的游戏体验将不断被花钱的压力所摧毁等等。

我尝试着在自己的论坛或其它平台上通过与用户的互动而获得他们有关这种情况的评价。

好消息是，经过较长的测试，玩家能够测试我们的游戏并看到盈利系统的运行，而我们现在也拥有较大的玩家群组去传达对于该问题的看法。比起说“别担心，我们的游戏并不是那样的”，我们可以让其他玩家做为代言人。这比我们所做的或所说的更能平息人们的担心。

举个例子来说吧，我今天早上看到一条tweet，说着他们感受到了多大的乐趣，而其中一位粉丝的回复是：“该死，我想你已经说服我去尝试一款免费游戏了！”

GamesBeat：你读过的最糟糕的反馈是什么？

Chey：“看起来蛮有趣的，但是我并不想尝试它。”每当我看到这样的反馈时都要郁闷死了，我们将游戏设定为免费游戏的原因只是为了让玩家能够尝试它。如果游戏定价20美元的话是会有更多人愿意尝试吗？我想我们永远都不会知道答案。

你认为谁是造就这种负面情况的罪魁祸首，玩家还是开发者？

Chey：这是个有趣的问题。你会因为毒瘾去怪谁，上瘾的人还是交易商？开发者创造了产品，但是玩家尝试并消费了。

你将如何说服这些人为游戏付钱？或者这将成为注定失败的努力？

Chey：我想为了玩家，我们应该更加注重游戏玩法而非盈利：也就是我们的宣传信息应该围绕着游戏本身而不是免费元素。即更多“嘿，来尝试这款全新纸牌游戏，桌面游戏和RPG游戏的混合体（顺便说下，它也是一款免费游戏）”而更少“现在就玩游戏吧，我的客人！你将永远感受到免费游戏的乐趣！”

但是最终我们将很难说服那些怀疑免费模式的人去尝试游戏。如果你怀疑游戏的目的是为了哄骗你花钱或浪费你的时间，你便不可能相信同一位游戏创造者所提供的相反的保证。

你认为免费游戏还是网页游戏的问题较大，或者是两者均等？

Chey：我认为在当前来说免费游戏是个真正棘手的难题。网页游戏是市场上相对较小的一个部分，如果你未多留意的话便很容易忽视它们，然而免费模式却已经占领并改变了许多人们所喜爱的游戏。

比如？

Chey：在不久前，我便说过《植物大战僵尸》和《创世纪》都是很典型的例子。在这灵感例子中，发行商艺电将一款授权游戏转变成了免费游戏。这是一些有趣的例子，因为我认为每个例子的最终结果都是不同的。

你是否认同艺电的这种转变？

Chey：我还未深入接触新《创世纪》，但是我认为他们在转变《植物大战僵尸2》方面真的付出了很大的努力，即将原先需要预先支付的游的转变成一款免费游戏。虽然我个人更偏向最初模式，但考虑到这是获得授权而做出的转变，我想没有比这做得更好的了。

假设你并不是为了谋生而创造游戏。你是否同意认同这种反对？或者你更拥戴免费游戏？

Chey：我认同这种反对。从整体上看来没有多少免费游戏能够吸引我的注意，所以我对它们都保持着怀疑态度。

另一方面，我已经玩了一些自己喜欢并想要支持的游戏。举个例子来说吧，《坦克世界》便是一款非常有趣的游戏，我为此投入了好几百个小时的时间。将其与《军团要塞2》相比较，这是我在遇到《坦克世界》之前所喜欢的在线射击游戏。对于《军团要塞2》我总是会莫名地内疚，因为我只支付了一次费用便能在之后持续数个月地玩游戏。而面对《坦克世界》，我则能够继续支付一定的费用，而因为游戏非常出色并且我也知道持续提供在线服务需要付出一定的成本，同时游戏也不断扩展并增添新内容。所以这作为一种业务对于我来说是有价值且有意义的。

对于《Card Hunter》你们采取了什么步骤去缓和玩家的担忧？

Chey：第一步，我们着眼于设计一款真正优秀的游戏。我们并不是从盈利模式开始并围绕着它创造游戏。我们的目标是创造价值然后想办法去补偿该价值。

第二步，我们会正视那些想要花钱玩游戏的人。我们不会将其当成是没有出路的做法—-我们将为了那些喜欢游戏的人添加更多内容并保持游戏的活跃性。

第三步，我们掌握了核心的单人玩家活动，这是完全自由且平衡的，所以你可以无需花钱并经历任何繁琐的刷任务而通过它，因为我们以及我们游戏的许多测试者都是基于该方法完成游戏。

第四步，我们已经在游戏中添加了一个单一购买选择，即“基本版本”，打开了所有剩余的单一玩家内容—-所有都属于可选择的支线任务，同时还添加了一些装饰内容，“Club”的订阅以及25美元的游戏内部货币。如果你想要在免费游戏中获得更多内容的话，这便是一种有效购买的单人玩家游戏。

最后，我们将不遗余力地确保多人游戏并不是付费获胜的游戏。测试中许多最出色的玩家便不曾为游戏支付过任何费用。

（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）

Why gamers hate free-to-play, and how developers can work around it (interview)

By Dan “Shoe” Hsu

The game’s got old-school Dungeons & Dragons trappings, turn-based tactical-strategy gameplay, and treasures (and rare loot) to find. And you don’t need to pay a dime for it.

What else does a developer have to do to win gamers over? Perhaps charge people $60 to play? No, seriously.

Independent developer Blue Manchu recently released Card Hunter (PC, Mac) to positive reviews (like ours). But it still has a strange obstacle to overcome for more widespread acceptance: its lack of a price tag. Traditional economic models be damned — gamers just don’t seem to respect free to play (F2P). And in this day and age!

We interviewed Blue Manchu’s Jon Chey — “the guy who pays the bills” if you ask him, and managing director to everyone else — to learn more about this fascinating phenomenon. Why isn’t this business model working out for all game makers? Why are gamers resistant to try out something that’s free? And how can developers win over suspicious customers?

GamesBeat: What do you think exactly is the problem that gamers have with free-to-play? Joe McDonagh, the cofounder of Blue Manchu, even mentioned seeing some “hostility.”

Jon Chey: I think gamers are worried that free-to-play models are sucking the life out of gaming — that all games in the future are going to be replaced by rapacious grind-fests that drag you in and then squeeze every last cent out of you as you try to get through them. That their play experience will be ruined by constant in-your-face pressure to spend money. You know, that sort of thing.

We tend to get a lot of comments on our forums and other places where we interact with our audience expressing those [types of] thoughts.

The good thing, though, is that having been through a lengthy beta where players have been able to test out the game and see how the monetization system works, we now have a pretty large group of players who can speak directly to the issue. Instead of us having to leap and say, “Oh, don’t worry — our game isn’t like that,” we can let other players do the talking for us. That tends to assuage fears a lot better than anything we could do or say.

For example, I saw a tweet this morning from someone saying how much fun they were having and then a reply from one of their followers saying, “Damn, I think you’ve convinced me to try a free-to-play game!”

GamesBeat: What’s the worst feedback you’ve ever read?

Chey: “Looks interesting, but I’m not going to try it.” That’s a real kick in the guts every time I see it, given that the reason we made it free-to-play was to try to get people to play it. Would more people try it if it cost $20 to get in? I guess we’ll never know.

GamesBeat: Who do you think is guilty of perpetuating the negative stigma, gamers or developers?

Chey: Interesting question. Who do you blame for drug addiction, the addict or the dealer? Developers created the product, but gamers played — and paid.

GamesBeat: How do you convince these people to check out your game? Or is that a lost cause?

Chey: I guess for those players, it’s more important for us to focus on the gameplay side rather than the monetization side: that is, for us to pitch our message around what the game is rather than the free-to-play aspect. More “Hey, come try this new card-game, board-game, RPG mash-up (oh, and by the way, it’s free-to-play)” and less “PLAY NOW, MY LORD! FREE FOREVER!”

But ultimately, it’s going to be very hard for us to convince people who are suspicious of the free-to-play model to try the game. If you suspect that a game is designed to trap you into spending money or wasting your time, you’re unlikely to believe assurances to the contrary from the game maker.

GamesBeat: Do you think the problem is more with free-to-play, with browser gaming, or both equally?

Chey: I think free-to-play is the big bugbear right now. Browser games are a relatively small segment of the market and easy to ignore if you don’t care for them, whereas free-to-play models have been taking over and converting some much loved franchises.

GamesBeat: Such as?

Chey: In the recent past, I’d say Plants vs. Zombies and Ultima are both good examples. In both cases [publisher Electronic Arts] took a franchise that wasn’t free-to-play and turned it into one. Those are interesting cases, though, because I think the results are very different in each.

GamesBeat: Do you think EA did a good job with those conversions or no?

Chey: I haven’t played a lot of the new Ultima, but I think PVZ2 is a very commendable effort to turn a pay-upfront game into a free-to-play title. I personally would have preferred if it had been left in the original format, but given a mandate to make the conversion, I can’t imagine doing a better job.

GamesBeat: Pretend for a moment that you aren’t making games for a living. Would you agree or empathize with this backlash? Or would you see yourself embracing free-to-play?

Chey: Oh, I do agree [with the backlash]. There are very few free-to-play games that I like, and in general, I am highly suspicious of them.

On the other hand, I’ve played a bunch of them that I like and want to support. For example, World of Tanks is a great game that I’ve poured hundreds of hours into. Compare that to Team Fortress 2, which was my go-to online shooter before WOT. I always felt vaguely guilty that I’d paid once for TF2 and then played it for months after that. With WOT, I’m quite happy to keep chipping in a bit of money here and there because the game is fundamentally good, they provide a continuous online service that I know costs money to run, and they keep expanding and adding to the game. It’s good value for me and makes sense for them as a business.

GamesBeat: What steps have you taken for Card Hunter to assuage any fears or concerns?

Chey: OK, No. 1 is that we started by designing what we thought would be a great game. We didn’t start with a monetization model, as many advised me to, and then build a game around that. Our goal was to create value and then figure out how to get compensated for that.

No. 2 is that we envisage people who want to pay playing the game a lot. We don’t see it is a dead-end grind — we envisage adding more content and keeping the game alive for those who like it.

No. 3 is that we know the core single-player campaign, which is entirely free and is balanced so that you can get through it without paying and without tedious grinding, because we and plenty of our beta testers have played through it that way.

No. 4 is that we’ve just added a single-purchase option to the game, the “Basic Edition,” that unlocks all the remaining single-player content — all of which are optional side-quests — as well as adding a bunch of cosmetic figures, a subscription to the Card Hunter “Club,” and a bit of in-game currency for $25. It’s effectively buying the single-player game if you want more than is available for free.

Finally, I should say that we went to great lengths to ensure that the multiplayer game isn’t pay-to-win, either. Many, perhaps even most, of our top-ranked players in the beta have never paid a cent for the game.(source:venturebeat)