作者：Wolfgang Graebner

移动平台的多数F2P游戏会出售数种付费货币：例如《Clash of Clans》中的宝石，《Simpsons Tapped Out》中的炸面圈，《Game of War》中的金子等。我花了点时间分析App Store上的32款游戏如何出售它们的付费货币，并从中找到了一些有趣的趋势和技巧。

游戏

在我们切入正题之前，先看看我们所分析的32款游戏：

8 Ball Pool, Angry Birds Go!, Boom Beach, CastleVille Legends, Clash of Clans, Clumsy Ninja, CSR Racing, Disco Zoo, Dungeon Keeper, Empire, Farm Heroes Saga, Game of War, Hay Day, Hobbit: KoM, Jelly Splash, Juice Cubes, Kingdoms at War, Kingdoms of Camelot, Knights & Dragons, Modern War, Monster World, Moshi Monsters Village, Papa Pear Saga, Pocket Village, Puzzle & Dragons, Real Racing, Royal Revolt 2, Samurai Siege, Simpsons Tapped Out, Smurf’s Village, Subway Surfers, Top Eleven.

我挑选游戏的方法非常不科学……只是抽取了我自己玩过，想玩，或者位于App Store畅销榜单前列的游戏。

趋势&技巧

1）定价并没有什么多样性

这个图表最能说明问题：

许多游戏提供相同的5种定价点：2.99英磅、6.99英磅、13.98英磅，34.99英磅、69.99英磅。这就是以上图表所显示的5个泡泡。（游戏邦注：换算成美元分别是4.99美元、9.99美元，19.99美元，49.99美元，99.99美元）

这其中最典型的当属Supercell游戏《Boom Beach》，毫无变化地提供了这5种定价点。

这是我所调查的五分之一游戏中最有代表性的定价点。

有44%的游戏含有其中一种定价，有22%的游戏含有其中两种定价。

甚少游戏能够脱离这一法则……《Moshi Monsters Village》和《Empire》并列成为最具独特价格点的游戏，它们分别都提供了4种不同于其他游戏的定价。看到有人尝试与众不同的定价是件颇为有趣的事情，它们的定价能否奏效值得期待。

2）玩家认同最小定价，发行商则不然。

这些游戏唯一不统一的地方在于最小定价。

我想知道：提供低于2.99英磅的最小定价究竟是否划算？App Store最为热门的交易排名显示了一些有趣的信息：

1）在100%情况下，2.99英磅是最便宜的价格，也是最受欢迎的交易。

2）有17款游戏的起始定价都低于2.99英磅，以及一个2.99英磅的选项。

3）在这17款游戏中，2.99英磅定价仍是大多数（70%）游戏最受欢迎的选项。

以下图表显示了相同的信息：

从中可以看出，即便你为玩家提供了低于2.99英磅的最小定价点，他们也有可能仍然更喜欢2.99英磅选项。但这里仍然存在一些问题……

a)当2.99英磅就是最廉价的选项时，游戏会流失多少来自只愿意为低于2.99英磅付费的玩家的销售额？

b)游戏可以从那些更青睐低于2.99英磅选项，但是别无选择只能支付2.99英磅的玩家中获得多少收益？

c)最重要的是，a和b选项应该优先考虑哪一者？

不幸的是，我并没有足够的数据来回答这些问题。但这令我想起之前同一名发行商的谈话，对方声称“有许多愿意为某物支付1美元，也同样可能愿意为其支付5美元”。他很后悔将定价设置得过低了。

如果换成是我，我可能会将起始价设为2.99英磅，然后再推出促销活动降低价格，降价总比抬价更容易操作！

3）对玩家来说购买更多并不总是更好的交易

我假设通过购买一个更大的货币包，我就能获得每一美元可买到的更多货币量。但事实并非如此。这方面最显著的例子就是《Angry Birds Go》：

你花2.5倍的价钱，但仅得到2.1倍的宝石。如果我想得到2500枚宝石，你可以购买2*1200宝石+1*100宝石，总价也不过29.97英磅，这比花34.99英磅购买2500枚宝石节省了5英磅。你还可以用这些省下来的钱再购买300枚宝石呢。

这并非个例。我所调查的70%游戏存在这种现象。

有时候，你会看到美国商店也出现了相同的情况。

我想其他时候这可能与定价本土化有关。如果在美国标价4.99美元的东西，在英国通常售价为2.99英磅。但9.99美元（4.99的两倍）却成了6.99英磅（超过了2.99美元的两倍），它实际上售价应该是5.99英磅。以《Hay Day》为例：

我不确定这种做法起源于何处，但我并没有看到有任何游戏调整了这种付费货币，以致于我们不时可以看到你每1英磅可买到的货币远少于你1美元可买到的东西。

4）“最受欢迎”并不一定意味着最受欢迎

作为玩家，你不会相信发行商所告诉你的一切。在8款游戏中，仅有一者为某一货币包添加了“最受欢迎”标签，它同时也是App Store榜单最热门的选项。

《Angry Birds Go》是目前唯一标注了“最受欢迎”货币包的游戏：

这是否意味着其他人都在撒谎？我猜如果是在过去某个时候，或者某个不同的地区，所谓的“最受欢迎”标签的确是最受欢迎的，那么你可以说它只是过期标签。

在任何情况下，这都不符合发行商的最大利益，因为在这7款错误标注“最受欢迎”的游戏中，实际上其最受欢迎的选项是价格更低者，而谁会去鼓励玩家去购买更廉价的选项呢？很显然只有Rovio在这方面足够坦诚。

5）不只一种计算奖励的方法

有些游戏想告诉玩家更大的货币包究竟有多优惠。这里有不同的计算方法可以让这种折扣举措听起来更具吸引力。

第一个例子来自Kabam的《Hobbit》游戏。

6.99英磅货币包中每英磅可购得的最大宝石数量：100/6.99=每英磅可购得14.3个货币。

以这种交换率，13.99英磅的货币包本该让你获得13.99*14.3=200个货币。

但他们给你提供的是13.99美元购买240而非200个货币。

240/200=1.2，也就是说你获得了120%的货币，比实际上可得到的多20%。

它这样安热电厂数据可以最大化其所提供奖励的印象，同时又能保证100%的真实性。但并非人人都会这么计算。

以下是来自Flare的《Royal Revolt 2》例子：

像《Hobbit》一样，他们使用了最低的转换率，也同样是从6.99英磅的货币包开始。

在这种转换率下，你本该用34.99美元购得5256个货币，但他们实际上给你7500个货币。

这正是源自《Hobbit》的方法。

你多得到的货币数量就是7500-5256=2244。

2244/7500=0.299，所以我们可以说在这7500个货币中，你免费得到了29%的货币。

首先，他们可以将29.9%抬高到30%。更重要的是，使用《Hobbit》的方法，你可以说7500/5256=1.43，因为也可以说你额外得到了43%的货币。

另一个有趣的例子就是《Monster World》：

如果你想使用相同的方法计算奖励，就没有什么意义了。这有点让我困惑。之后我查看了美国App Store定价才找到要领：

如果你使用美国定价，那就非常适合使用与《Hobbit》相同的方法。实际上，在英国App Store中，该游戏远没有美国版本那么慷慨（例如100个potion在英国版中只能得到7%，而在美国版中可得到25%，4000个potion在英国仅能得到70%，在美国可得到100%）。

总结

我希望这一信息有助于大家了解F2P游戏付费货币的定价。定价的背后当然还有更多考虑因素，我越深入研究，就可以得到越多发现。（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）

5 Premium Currency Pricing Trends and Tricks used by Mobile Free-To-Play Games

by Wolfgang Graebner

Most free-to-play games on mobile sell some sort of premium currency: gems in Clash of Clans, donuts in Simpsons Tapped Out, gold in Game of War and so on. I spent some time analysing how 32 games on the App Store sell their premium currency, and some interesting trends and tricks emerged.

If you like the kind of stuff I write about, you can follow me on my blog allworkallplay.org or twitter @awapblog.

The Games

Before we proceed, meet my data set. The 32 games analyzed are:

8 Ball Pool, Angry Birds Go!, Boom Beach, CastleVille Legends, Clash of Clans, Clumsy Ninja, CSR Racing, Disco Zoo, Dungeon Keeper, Empire, Farm Heroes Saga, Game of War, Hay Day, Hobbit: KoM, Jelly Splash, Juice Cubes, Kingdoms at War, Kingdoms of Camelot, Knights & Dragons, Modern War, Monster World, Moshi Monsters Village, Papa Pear Saga, Pocket Village, Puzzle & Dragons, Real Racing, Royal Revolt 2, Samurai Siege, Simpsons Tapped Out, Smurf’s Village, Subway Surfers, Top Eleven.

My method for selecting games was pretty unscientific… just a mix of games I had played, wanted to play, or were in the AppStore top grossing. Perhaps I’ll expand on the list some day.

Fancy a deeper look? Click to download my full spreadsheet with all recorded data and graphs.

Trends & Tricks

1) There is not much variety in pricing

This diagram says it best:

A lot of games offer the same 5 price points: £2.99, £6.99, £13.99, £34.99, £69.99. Those are the 5 big bubbles you see in the diagram above.

(That’s $4.99, $9.99, $19.99, $49.99, $99.99 for American readers).

The most popular thing to do is to offer those 5 price points exactly with no changes, as is done in Supercell’s Boom Beach for example.

Boom Beach Pricing

This exact price progression accounts for 1/5th of all games surveyed.

If you also count price progressions that are within 1 price of the most popular (meaning they can be reached by either adding, modifying or subtracting just 1 price from the progression), you’ve got over 3/5ths covered.

Extend it again to count price progressions within 2 prices and almost all games are accounted for.

Price Progression Similarities

Very few games deviate from this formula… Moshi Monsters Village and Empire are tied for the most unique price points award, with each offering 4 unique prices that no other game does. It’s nice to see someone trying something a little different, it will be interesting to see if their pricing catches on.

2) Players agree on a minimum price, publishers don’t

The only price that games seem to disagree on is the minimum to charge.

Popular Price Progressions

I wanted to know: is it worth offering a minimum price cheaper than £2.99? The App Store most popular purchase ranking reveals some interesting information.

1) In 100% of cases where £2.99 is the cheapest price, it is also the most popular purchase.

2) 17 games had both a starting price cheaper than £2.99, as well as a price point at £2.99.

3) For the majority (70%) of those 17 games, £2.99 was still the most popular price point.

The same information visualized:

Most Popular Cheap Purchase

It appears that even if you offer players a minimum price point cheaper than £2.99, chances are they will probably still prefer to buy the £2.99 option. But some questions remain…

a) When £2.99 is the cheapest option, how many sales are lost from players only willing to pay less than £2.99?

b) And how much revenue is gained from players that would have preferred a cheaper option but paid £2.99 anyways because there was no cheaper option?

c) And most importantly, which is greater? A or B?

Unfortunately I don’t have enough data to answer it. But it did make me think back to a talk I watched long ago in which a publisher claimed “you’d be surprised how many people who are willing to pay a dollar for something, will also be willing to pay 5 dollars”. He goes on to express regret for setting the price too low.

If it was up to me, I would probably start pricing at £2.99 and then lower the price later through special starter pack offers if need be. It’s always easier to lower a price than it is to raise it!

3) Buying more is not always a better deal for the player

I assumed that by buying a larger currency pack, I would always get more currency per dollar spent. This is not always the case. The most significant example of this I came across was in Angry Birds Go:

Angry Birds Go UK Prices

Pay 2.5 times as much, but only get 2.1 times as many gems. If you want 2,500 gems, you can save money by buying 2 x 1,200 gems + 1 x 100 gems for a total cost of £29.97 – a whole £5 cheaper than the 2,500 gems priced at £34.99. Those are savings you could use to buy another 300 gems

It’s hardly an isolated incident. 70% of the games surveyed do this kind of thing.

Sometimes, you see the same thing happening in the US store.

Angry Birds Go US Prices

Other times I think it has to do with price localization. When something is priced at $4.99 in the US it is typically sold for £2.99 in the UK. But for some reason $9.99 (double 4.99) becomes £6.99 (more than double £2.99) whereas it really should be £5.99. Take Hay Day for example.

Hay Day US vs UK Price Comparison

Not sure how or why this practice originated, but I didn’t see any games adjust the premium currency given as a result so sometimes we end up getting less currency per £1 than you would get per $1.

4) ‘Most popular’ doesn’t have to mean most popular

As a player, don’t trust everything publishers tell you. In only 1 out of 8 games that prominently displayed a “Most Popular” badge next to a currency pack, was that also the actual most popular purchase in the App Store ranking.

Angry Birds Go, the only one to correctly label the “Most Popular” offer:

Angry Birds Go Most Popular Purchase

Does this mean everybody else is lying? I guess if at some point in the past or in a different territory the offer tagged as “Most Popular” was actually most popular, then you could say it’s just out of date.

In any case, it wouldn’t be in any publisher’s best interest because in all 7 cases where the “Most Popular” was mislabeled, a cheaper offer was the most popular and who would want to encourage players to buy a cheaper pack? Apparently only Rovio is honest enough.

5) There’s more than 1 way to calculate a bonus

A few games like to tell players exactly how much of a better deal the larger currency packs are. There are different ways of calculating this which can make the discount sound more or less impressive.

Hobbit Bonuses

This first example is from Kabam’s Hobbit game.

The lowest amount of gems per £1 is found in the £6.99 pack: 100 / 6.99 = 14.3 currency per £1.

At this exchange rate, for £13.99 you should get 13.99 x 14.3 = 200 currency.

But they give you 240 for £13.99 instead of 200.

240 / 200 = 1.2, thus you are getting 120%, ie 20% more than you should get.

The numbers have been arranged so as to maximize how impressive the bonus sounds while remaining 100% truthful. Not everybody calculates it the same way.

Here’s a different example from flare’s Royal Revolt 2.

Royal Revolt 2 Bonuses

Like Hobbit, they use the lowest exchange rate which again is from the £6.99 pack.

At that rate, you should get 5,256 currency for £34.99 but instead they give you 7,500.

This is where the method diverges from Hobbit.

The extra amount of currency being given is 7,500 – 5,256 = 2,244.

2,244 / 7,500 = 0.299, so we can say that of the 7,500 currency you are being given 29% for free.

First off, they could easily have rounded 29.9% up to 30%. More significantly, using Hobbit’s method you could say that 7,500 / 5,256 = 1.43, therefore it is equally honest to say that you are getting 43% extra.

Another interesting example is Monster World.

Monster World Bonuses

If you try to calculate the bonus using any sane method, it just doesn’t make sense. It had me stumped for a little while. Then I checked the US AppStore pricing and it all fell into place.

Monster World US Prices

If you use the US prices, the bonuses make perfect sense using the same method as Hobbit. So it appears that when the prices were localized, the bonuses were not. In reality, the bonuses in the UK AppStore are far less generous than their US counterparts (eg 7% UK instead of 25% US for 100 potions and 70% UK instead of 100% US for 4,000 potions).

Final Words

I hope this information helps anyone working on (or simply curious about) f2p game premium currency pricing. There’s certainly a lot more going on with the prices than is obvious at first glance. The more I looked, the more I found.（source：gamasutra）