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

势利和恐惧助长了人们对F2P的道德批判

发布时间:2014-05-29 13:05:51 Tags:,,,

作者:Ben Cousins

外界对游戏行业的非道德行为的指责一直不绝于耳,例如长达数十年的弹球游戏禁令(以免对青少年造成消极影响),但游戏行业最近遭受的非议却是来自行业内部。

因Facebook、iOS和Steam等新平台的崛起,以及Early Access和Kickstarter等新项目融资方式的出现,游戏正处于一个快速发展和急剧变化的状态。

所有的这些新型商业模式,尤其是免费模式,更是遭遇了最严厉的道德审判。

在“传统”行业混迹7年之后,我花了8年时间打造免费模式项目,所以我对这些批判尤其敏感和感兴趣。人们对免费模式的攻击和批判通常有失偏颇,却无视存在问题的传统商业手段。

这是一种势利态度,它证明传统行业人士对这个行业的走向心存恐惧。

老套的诱导转向法

人们对免费游戏的一个指责在于它采用了一种古老的销售手段“诱导转向法”。天真的玩家被“诱使”下载一款自称为免费,但在之后的体验中若不花钱又难以持续下去(即转向)的游戏。

这种批判的问题在于,这里所谓的转向是无效的。《Candy Crush Saga》开发商King曾在去年透露70%的玩家直至游戏最后一个关卡也从来没有花过一文钱。移动分析公司Swrve也曾指出,在2014年1月份,98.5%手机游戏玩家是非付费用户。

免费游戏允许人们在花钱之前就体验大量内容,它所提供的丰富体验远超过传统游戏。EEDAR代表Geoffrey Zatkin最近曾问我究竟有多少次看到糟糕游戏的出色预告片。他的观点是,在传统游戏行业中想要获得退款几乎是不可能的。

这正是真正的诱导转向法实际上发生在传统游戏领域的原因。发行商通常要求媒体直到游戏发布时才能发表评价,他们试图在游戏差评面世之前就收获销量。发行商一般还会针对数字预订渠道提供独家的游戏内容。数字版本不会售謦,但这一举动还是在独立的游戏评论问世前牢牢抓住了用户的钱袋子。他们总能在游戏发布前,以“稀有”或“独家”道具等承诺让玩家投入和花钱。

Kickstarter在诱导转向法方面是一个最恶劣的典型。人们极其容易以低成本创造一个惊人的宣广视频,只要用一些具有诱惑性的卖点和美观的概念艺术,就可以吸引玩家为项目捐赠。在Kickstarter这个平台上,转向可能会更极端,因为这里的项目集资者并没有在融资完成后必须推出游戏的法律责任。所以这里的诱导转向可能是用于一款并不有趣,甚至完全不存在的游戏。

免费游戏成功避免了诱导转向的陷阱。你可以试玩游戏,如果喜欢这种体验就可以投入更多时间或金钱。传统游戏却不会让你拥有这种奢侈体验。

虏获鲸鱼用户

免费模式所遭遇的另一层道德批判集中于“鲸鱼”概念,即可能在游戏中投入成百甚至上千美元购买虚拟道具的少数高消费玩家(他们的投入支持了多数玩家的免费体验)。

whales(from polygon.com)

whales(from polygon.com)

这一抱怨表明心智健全的成人绝不会有意为一款游戏花上数百乃至上千美元。批评者编造了一种在他们看来是非理性行为的解释——免费游戏采用了讽刺的心理操纵技巧,其游戏设计和盈利机制迫使玩家在自己实际上并不需要的东西上撒钱。

但正如免费游戏开发者所知,要找到理性的鲸鱼用户并非难事。育碧调研人员Nicolas Ducheneaut和Nick Yee在2014 GDC大会上展示数据显示,《Ghost Recon Online》中的“鲸鱼”用户并非典型的强迫型消费者,“他们会长期思考,保持冷静,富有条理。”游戏就像是另一种业余爱好,有些人就是愿意在其中花更多时间和金钱来实现自己的追求。

其他数据也证实了这一观点。EEDAR在2013年发布的调查报告显示,78%在手机免费游戏上投入达50-100美元的用户觉得自己所花的钱很值当,67%投入超过100美元的用户也有同样的感觉。多数在免费游戏中投入大笔金钱的人甚至认为这种交易具有价值。他们得到了消费的乐趣。这并不是非理性玩家的行为,而是理性的人为自己的娱乐买单的正常举动。

但是让我们再看看关于在游戏中“大笔投入”本身就显示了一种商业模式道德问题这个论断。价值250美元的收藏版本《Titanfall》在评论问世前就不乏买主,《魔兽世界》的长期订阅用户(包括那些购买了所有扩展内容包的玩家),以及在对项目一无所知的情况下就向Double Fine Adventure捐赠了1万美元的粉丝,这些现象的存在又该作何解释呢?

传统游戏也是虏获鲸鱼用户的领域,但在付费游戏领域这却算不上一个道德问题。这里甚至还有更有昂贵的收藏者版本要求玩家再次掏钱玩游戏。

为孩子们考虑

我想解决的第三个问题就是免费游戏针对儿童用户的营销手段。有些批评者认为孩子是这个问题的根源,并引用EEDAR调查结果称美国有相当比例的手机游戏玩家,拥有那些未经大人允许就在游戏中购买内容的子女。

最近美国联邦贸易委员会(FTC)开始介入调查苹果App Store中儿童未授权就购买游戏内容的问题,迫使苹果向这些遭受损失的家长支付了至少3250万美元退款。这看起来似乎是很大一笔钱,但从整个App Store来看,不过是九牛一毛。据FTC所称,iOS应用终身销售额约60亿美元。

这意味着经过仔细的规范调查,FTC确定了这个问题仅占App Store销售额的0.5%左右。即使我们用EEDAR数据做参照,这种来自儿童的未经许可的购买行为在所有销售额中也仅占比2.4%。

这个小小的数据并不足以表明这是个影响广泛的问题。

免费模式为何遭遇诟病?

我们查看免费模式的用户道德问题时,通常会发现情况并没有批评者所称的那样严重。要不就是现成的数据并不足以支持这种论调,要不就是我们还可以找到不受批责,但仍然使用相同手段的游戏商业模式。

免费模式对于那些在本世纪之前就入行的媒体记者、开发者和评论员来说是令人震惊的现象,正如电话之于电报运营商。免费游戏的玩家通常是孩子,中年群体,女性,以及位于俄罗斯和韩国等遥远国家的用户。这有一点势利心理在作怪,它是传统看门人不愿意同自己并不理解的游戏规则以及自己并不了解的玩家分享爱好的一种防御姿态。

免费模式在紧密结合的开发领域中创造了一种不安氛围。这一新领域的许多成功公司来自像中国或芬兰等“非主流”地区。他们通常比传统开发商更年轻,并且更具网络开发背景。

当你并没有同某个商业模式中的任何人打交道时,就很容易用有色眼镜去看待他们,并认为他们的运行方式存在阴谋。我们通常习惯于怀疑自己并不了解的东西,这也导致人们对免费游戏公司及其产品产生了消极的印象,但对已有名气的公司及游戏的运营战略更宽容。

免费模式现在是全球参与规模最大的游戏商业模式,在数年之内将成为销售额最大的模式。对于想把行业维持在2007年之前情况的人来说,这真是个可怕的时代。那些传统行业中曾经难以撼动的巨头或将被相对更大的免费模式公司所取代,或将因用户消费模式的转变和销量下滑而被淘汰出局。这一领域的工作室在关闭,裁员,传统开发者需要勒紧裤带过日子。

当与你无关的新事物出现时,当它是由陌生地方的陌生人创造时,当它打破了既定规则和极为流行之时……它对已经稳定者来说就是可怕的现象。而道德谴责就是一种与这种变化斗争的简易方式,一种假借保护孩子或保护显然不会喜欢此类游戏的群体之名的行动号召。这就好像是针对弹球游戏禁令的保守态度,或者对爵士音乐会腐蚀年轻人思想的恐惧心理。

pinball(from polygon)

pinball(from polygon)

时间通常会证明这些趋势并没有危险性。电话如此,点唱机如此, 摇滚乐等其他许多事例均是如此。我们害怕自己不了解的东西,而在此则是惧怕行业的未知走向。

未来我们回顾这段历史时,可能会为这种认为免费游戏给社会带来威胁的念头而觉得好笑。与其将旺盛的精力投入到这种将行业划分成两个部分(2007年之前、2007年之后的既定传统与新兴模式)的道德争论中,为何不团结起来承认我们的共同弱点,从彼此角度研究和学习,分享共同的基础,为未来创造更棒的内容?(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

Snobbery and fear drive criticisms of free-to-play games and ethics

by Ben Cousins

The game industry has long been accused of unethical behavior from the outside, such as the decades-long ban on pinball to avoid its corrupting influence on youth, but the latest attack on the ethics of gaming is coming from within.

Games are in a state of rapid growth and tumultuous change, driven by new platforms like Facebook, iOS and Steam, and new ways of funding projects like Early Access and Kickstarter.

Of all these new business models, one in particular has emerged as being subjected to the most ethical questions and criticism — free-to-play.

After seven years in the “traditional” industry, I’ve spent eight years building free-to-play projects, so I’m especially sensitive to and interested in these criticisms. The attacks and criticism of free-to-play mechanics are often unfair and selective, and leave questionable but traditional business practices alone.

This is snobbery; evidence that the old guard is scared of where the industry is headed.

The old bait and switch

One criticism of free-to-play games suggests that it employs a time-honored sales technique called “bait and switch.” Innocent players are ‘baited’ into downloading a game which advertises itself as free only to find out later in the experience that it is impossible to actually proceed without spending money, hence the switch.

The problem with this critique is that the supposed switch is ineffective. King, creators of Candy Crush Saga revealed last year that 70 percent of players who had reached the final level of that game had never spent a dime. Mobile analytics firm Swrve said that during January of 2014, 98.5 percent of mobile game players had not spent a single penny.

A free-to-play game can be played extensively before you even make a purchase, which is more than can be said for traditional games. EEDAR’s Geoffrey Zatkin recently asked me how many times I’ve seen great trailers for terrible games. He has a point, and getting a refund in traditional gaming is all but impossible.

“During January of 2014, 98.5 percent of mobile game players had not spent a single penny”

This is why the real bait and switch techniques take place in traditional gaming. Publishers often ask the press to hold reviews until the game has been released; the publisher is often trying to sell the game before poor reviews hit. Publishers routinely offer exclusive in-game content for digital pre-orders. Digital copies won’t sell out, but the push remains to lock in consumer money before independent reviews hit. Get the player invested and spending before the game is released with the promise of “rare” or “exclusive” items.

Kickstarter is the worst offender by far when it comes to the potential for bait and switch. It is extremely easy and inexpensive to create a compelling pitch video, some enticing bullet points and some beautiful concept art to bait gamers to make pledges. With Kickstarter the switch can be extreme, as there is no legal obligation to actually deliver a game once a campaign is complete. The bait and switch could be for a game that’s not enjoyable or, at worst, doesn’t exist at all.

Free-to-play games successfully avoid the bait and switch trap. You get to try the game, and invest more of your time or money if you enjoy the experience. Traditional games don’t give you that luxury.

Whale hunting

Another ethical critique of free to play focuses on the concept of “whales,” the small proportion of players of a game who may spend hundreds or thousands of dollars on virtual items, enabling the vast majority of players to play the game for free.

This complaint states that no sane adult would ever intentionally spend hundreds or thousands of dollars on a single game. Critics have forged an explanation for what seems to them to be this irrational behavior — free-to-play games employ cynical psychological techniques — game designs and monetization mechanics that coerce players into spending huge amounts of money on things they don’t really want.

However, as any free-to-play developer knows, it is very easy to find whales who are rational. Nicolas Ducheneaut and Nick Yee, research scientists at Ubisoft, presented data at GDC 2014 that showed that “whales” in Ghost Recon Online were far from the stereotype of the compulsive shopper. “Instead of being impulsive, they were long-term thinkers, cool-headed, methodical,” they stated. Gaming is just like any other hobby; some people are willing to invest more time and effort into their pursuits.

Other data backs this up. A research study conducted by EEDAR in 2013 showed that 78 percent of people who spent $50-$100 on mobile free-to-play games felt they had received value for money and 67 percent of those who’d spent over $100 feeling the same. The majority of the people who spent large amounts of money on free-to-play games, even looking back, felt that purchase had value. They received enjoyment for their purchases. These aren’t the actions of irrational players, binging on in-app purchases; this is what it looks like when rational people pay for their entertainment.

But let’s say for argument that “big spending” on games is in itself an indicator of ethical issues for a business model. What does that say about the existence of purchasers of the $250 Collector’s Edition of Titanfall, which sold out well before reviews were available? Long-term subscribers to World of Warcraft, including those that purchased all the expansion packs, and the people who pledged $10,000 to Double Fine Adventure without knowing anything specific about the game?

Traditional gaming is, yet again, in the business of hunting whales, yet somehow it’s not an ethical concern in premium gaming. There are even expensive collector’s editions that fail to include the game, requiring another purchase just to play.

Think of the children!

The third issue I want to tackle is the marketing of free-to-play games at children. Some critics of free-to-play think that children are the root of the problem, pointing to a study from EEDAR that shows a significant proportion of mobile gamers in the US have kids who had made unauthorized purchases on mobile games.

Recently, the US Federal Trade Commission became interested in unauthorised purchases made by children on Apple’s iOS App Store, forcing Apple to pay at least $32.5 million in refunds to parents. This might seem like a lot of money, but in the context of the entire App Store, it’s a drop in the ocean. Lifetime sales from iOS apps in the FTC’s US jurisdiction are around $6 billion.

This means that after all that careful regulatory research, the commission determined that this problem constitutes a mere 0.5 percent of App Store sales. Indeed, even if we take the more damning EEDAR data as a reference, unauthorised purchases from children represent just 2.4 percent of all sales.

There’s very little data to suggest this is a widespread problem.

Why is free-to-play under fire?

When we look at the consumer ethics of free-to-play we tend to find things aren’t as bad as suggested by critics. Either the data does not support the argument, or we can find other, supposedly ethically sound, games business models using the same techniques without the criticism.

Free-to-play is as shocking to reporters, developers and commentators who came into the industry before the turn of the century as the telephone was to telegraph operators. Free-to-play games are often played by children, the middle-aged, women and people in distant countries like Russia and Korea. There is a bit of snobbery and gate-keeping at play here, as the old guard is defensive about sharing their hobby with games they don’t understand and gamers they don’t recognize.

Pinballshutterstock

Free-to-play creates a kind of unease in the tightly knit development world. Many of the successful companies in this new space come from “unusual” places like China or Finland. They tend to be younger than traditional developers and are more likely to have come from a web development background.

When you don’t personally know any people working on a given business model, it’s easy to assume the worse, to think that there are nefarious intentions behind the way they operate. We tend to distrust what we don’t understand, and this leads to people assigning negative traits to free-to-play companies and games while giving better known companies and games a free ride on their business strategy.

Free-to-play is now by far the world’s biggest games business model by participation, and within a few years it’s going to be the biggest by sales. For someone looking to preserve the industry as it was pre-2007, these are scary times. The once untouchable giants of the old industry are either going to be diminished by the bigger relative size of free-to-play or be diminished in absolute terms as consumers transfer spending to the new model and sales drop. Studios are closing, staff is laid off and traditional developers are tightening their collective belts.

“We’ll look back with amusement at the idea that free-to-play games offer a threat to society”

When something is new, when it isn’t aimed at you, when it is created by strange people in strange places, when it breaks established norms and when it is becoming hugely popular… it’s scary for the establishment. The ethical critique is an easy way to fight these changes, a call to protect the children or protect the irrational people who obviously can’t like these games on their own merits. We begin to sound as reactionary as the ban on pinball or the fears over jazz music corrupting the minds of our youth.

Time usually proves the lack of danger in these trends. This was the case for telephone, the jukebox, rock ‘n’ roll and many other examples. We fear what we don’t recognize, and in this case it’s the industry not recognizing where it’s heading.

We’ll look back with amusement at the idea that free-to-play games offer a threat to society. Rather than expend energy on using ethical arguments to divide the industry into two halves — post-2007 and pre-2007, the establishment and the upstarts — why don’t we come together, admit our common failings, research and learn from each other, share common ground and create something amazing for the future?(source:polygon


上一篇:

下一篇: