作者：Guest Author

为了尝试改变，这个月我打算改变自己经常使用的方法并尝试着表现出自己可以看到盈利争论的另一面。

我将想办法去维护付费游戏。

噢，我听到了什么？一些PocketGamer.biz的普通读者说“Oscar是否回到了免费游戏？”

并不是这样。我仍然相信免费游戏模式具有开启用户和收益的潜能，开发者能够通过创造“更棒的”游戏而带来更多创新和乐趣。

然而，本着游戏服务的精神，我们不得不考虑盈利的角色。

我想，我们必须接受预先付费对于某些游戏来说的重要性。（顺便说一下的是，我将排除“付费增值”游戏，即那些带有预先付费和IAP机制的游戏，因为我认为这是一个糟糕的理念，至少从长远看来是这样的。）

准入价格

关于付费游戏最初也是最明显的积极面是源自消费者的视角，即我们设定了预先期待值让我们去定义某种程度的信任。这款游戏将只值1.99美元之类。

这影响了玩家是否购买以及感觉是否良好。这同样也适用于我们所熟悉的实体零售世界观。但同时这是没错的，这并不像我们想象中的那样重要。如果我们拥有一款免费的游戏，履行其承诺并提供进一步的愉快购买，那么消费将会变成正面的选择。

The Room(from pocketgamer)

付费游戏的消极面在于许多潜在的玩家永远不会去下载它—-这主要是受到付费墙的影响。然而，如果我们拥有一款立基游戏，或者一款带有已建立的忠实用户基础的游戏，那么便会有足够多的付费玩家愿意给我们钱，所以我们也无需在此等待。

这足以创造出商业上的成功。如果你的市场营销足够优秀的话，这可能意味着你将获得大量潜在的玩家。

较少的竞争

Swrve在2月份的报告显示，1.5%的玩家会为付费游戏掏钱，尽管因为各种原因我并不能接受该报告的结果，但对于某些游戏来说，付费玩家的比例可能太低了，特别是当游戏并不具有社交属性时。

同样还有一个理念是关于付费意味着比免费游戏拥有较低的竞争，并能够帮助某些游戏获得App Store和Google Play的推荐。

说实话，我并不敢保证这是对的，特别是当你意识到第10名的付费游戏在畅销游戏排行榜单上是第300名时，我们便感受不到任何优势了。

到目前为止，常出现的一些参数都不是特别具有吸引力。然而，可能这并不是一个简单的商业决定。考虑到这点，我想到一个自己愿意接受的动机。

完美的珍品

并不是每一款游戏都必须作为一种服务。

对于像我这样的人来说写下这样的内容是非常痛苦的（游戏邦注：特别是已经发行过关于该主题的书籍），有时候我们只是拥有一个关于游戏的理念；这只是一种一次性的产品。

游戏可能是我们想要发行然后忘记的内容：我们只是在做着满足我们艺术需求的事。我们的目标并不是为了创造巨大的业务。这并不是关于创造持续的用户粘性。这只是为了实践生活中的想法并将其整合到世界中而已。

这让我们能够完成所有未完善之处并在明确的领域去完善它。这真的是一个非常诱人的理念。

让我们着眼于《The Room》或《Monument Valley》。它们都带有独立，受约束，然而却非常有趣的体验。

我个人认为它们更像是谜题；因为它们具有方向明确的体验，但这并不意味着会缩减它们的质量。

为什么我会提到这些？因为我想知道关于创造一款付费游戏是否真的存在一种有效的约束？

（本文为游戏邦/gamerboom.com编译，拒绝任何不保留版权的转功，如需转载请联系：游戏邦）

Oscar Clark on the reasons to release a paid game

By Guest Author

For a change, this month I wanted to turn my usual approach and to try to show that I can see the other side of the monetisation debate.

I’m going to make a go at defending the paid game.

Oh! What’s this I hear? Some regular readers of PocketGamer.biz saying ‘Is Oscar backtracking on free-to-play?’

Well, no. I still believe that the free-to-play model has the potential to unlock audiences and revenues in stable ways which will bring (eventually) more innovation and joy by making ‘better’ games.

However, in the spirit of games-as-a-service, we have to reconsider the role of monetisation.

We have to accept, I believe, that the choice of paid up-front has a role to play for some games. (By the way I will exclude ‘paymium’ games, those with both up-front payment as well as IAP, partly as I think they are a bad idea – in the long run at least – but mostly as there isn’t enough space in just one column.)

Price of entry

The first and obvious positive thing about a paid game is that from a consumer perspective we set an upfront expectation of value that allows us to define a level of trust. This game will only cost you $1.99 etc.

That makes the player’s decision whether to buy or not feel safe and comfortable. It also fits into the physical retail world view we are all familiar with. But whilst this is true, it’s not necessarily as important as we think. If we have a game which is free, delivers on its promise and offers further delightful purchases, then spending can be a positive choice.

The downside of a paid game is that a lot of potential players will never download it – put off by the paywall. However, where we have a niche title, or one with an established loyal fanbase, there may well be a sufficient large audience of paying players giving us their money now; so we don’t have to wait.

That might be enough to be commercially successful. It might even – if your marketing was good enough – mean you get the majority of your potential payers.

Less competition

Swrve’s report in February showed 1.5 percent of players are paying for freemium games and although (as you will know if you read last month’s column) I don’t accept that report’s conclusions for various reasons, for some games the proportion of payers to players might be low; especially if your game isn’t social in nature.

There is also the idea that going paid means less competition than free games and can help some games secure an exclusive featured slot on the App Store and Google Play.

To be honest, I’m not sure this is really true and when you realise that a top 10 paid game might be only the 300th highest grossing game we are left with little advantage.

So far, the usual arguments don’t seem particularly compelling. However, perhaps this isn’t a simple commercial decision. With that in mind there is one motivation which I happen to completely accept.

The perfectly-formed nugget

Not every game has to be a service.

As painful as that might be for someone like me to write – especially having just released a book on the topic – sometimes we just have an idea for a game; a one-off product.

That game might be something we want to release and forget about: something we do for our own artistic needs. The objective is not to make a sustainable business. It’s not about building ongoing engagement. It’s bringing life to an idea and releasing it onto the world.

That frees us to complete all the rough edges and polish our jewel within its own defined space. That is an alluring idea.

Look at The Room or Monument Valley. Both are self-contained, constrained; yet extraordinarily joyful experiences.

Personally I think of them more as puzzles; as they are highly directed experiences, but that is in no way meant to diminish their extraordinary quality.

Why do I bring that up? Well, I wonder if it’s a useful constraint for making a paid game.(source:pocketgamer)