开发者谈F2P模式：细节决定成败

原文作者：Sam Forrest 译者：Megan Shieh

众所周知，给游戏定价是一件非常棘手的事情。在为玩家提供价值的同时，你还得考虑许多其他因素，比如自己能不能盈利、竞争产品的标价是多少等等。

取决于游戏的类型以及具体的机制，有些游戏只有采用付费模式才能实现经济上的可持续性；而另一些游戏则更适合免费模式，开发商需要想出办法通过付费功能（IAP）来提升玩家的游戏体验，进而吸引他们花钱。

一旦决定了产品的商业模式，接下来要做的就是找到合适的捆绑类型并为其定价，这些产品的价格不仅得让你赚钱，还得让玩家觉得物超所值。

一般来说，每年最受欢迎的游戏的价格从0-60美元不等，这是一个非常广泛的价格范围。如果把微交易考虑进去，这一数额甚至会更高。因此，给游戏定价真不是件容易的事儿。

至于F2P游戏的情况就更加复杂了，别的不说，光是玩家就直接被分为两种——付费玩家和免费玩家。

15年前，韩国游戏《枫之谷/冒险岛（Maplestory）》成为了首款超级热门的F2P模式游戏。当时，开发商WIZET通过一种廉价、合法、零bug的安全方式降低了游戏的门槛，主要目的是为了打击盗版。虽然F2P模式最初大多存在于手游领域，但经过多年的演变，这一模式现在也蔓延到了各个游戏类型和各大游戏平台上。

像《DC Universe Online》这样的F2P游戏玩家数量一度达到了1800万之多，这些玩家主要来自Play Station 3 和Play Station 4。与此同时，部分长青游戏系列也开始从付费和订阅模式转向了F2P模式，例如暴雪的《星际争霸（Starcraft）》。

乍一看，你可能会觉得采用F2P模式是在冒险，尤其是对于制作成本较高的游戏产品而言。

Smurfs’ Village(from insidemobileapps)

然而相比其他盈利模式，F2P其实存在很大的优势：

其中最显著的要属玩家数量的提升，这点对于多人在线游戏而言至关重要。其次，不间断的收入流和潜在的转化率（免费玩家在游戏后期可能会掏钱）对开发商而言也是一个很大的福利。事实上，iOS中90%以上的手游收入均来自F2P游戏。

此外，F2P模式也为玩家提供了其他游戏中没有的选项。拿3A游戏来说，无论游玩的时间长短，玩家都需要支付相同的费用。例如，在《天际（Skyrim）》中游玩40个小时所需支付的价格和2个小时是一样的。

但是在F2P游戏中，玩家可以先玩上几分钟再决定要不要掏钱。而且大多数情况下，他们还可以选择支付真钱来加快游戏进度，或者通过刷游戏来慢慢进阶。

免费玩家、付费玩家，非得二选一？

F2P模式的美妙之处在于，只要开发商把它给“做好了”，作为少数群体的付费玩家不会介意“资助”免费玩家的体验。根据最近的一项调查显示，无论是哪种类型的F2P游戏，都只有2.5%的玩家会掏钱。

随着研究的深入，这些数字变得更加有趣。Swrve近期发布的一项研究显示，平均而言，只有2.2%的F2P玩家群体会在游戏中消费，其中几乎有一半的收入来自这些玩家群体中的10%，也就是全体玩家的0.22%。

这种现象让许多开发商陷入了两难，付费玩家和免费玩家到底谁比较重要呢？虽然免费玩家占绝大多数，但他们的体验却是依赖于付费玩家对游戏的经济支持。

但是有些开发商并不注重玩家当下花了多少钱，他们更关注的是诸如社交媒体、个人信息、联系方式等等数据方面的额外因素。在多人游戏中，无论掏钱与否，玩家的参与都已经为游戏带来了价值。

其实对于开发者而言，真正的挑战在于，你的游戏不仅要能吸引付费玩家，还要能吸引免费玩家。

那么问题来了：在F2P游戏中，玩家掏钱买的到底是啥？

以《德州扑克（Pokerist）》为例，玩家每天打开游戏都会收到免费的游戏内货币（筹码）。此外，他们可以以低至0.99美元的价格购买更多筹码，这样的话就可以玩久一点，玩的时候也可以下更多的赌注或参加游戏内举办的锦标赛。玩家还可以掏钱购买其他物品，比如虚拟的礼物和皮肤，这些物品可以用来加强与他人的互动并进一步个性化自身的游戏体验。

在这种情况下，虽说付费用户可以获得实实在在的好处，但游戏环境对所有玩家而言都是一样的。

氪金虽好，谨防引火烧身

如果玩家对F2P游戏有足够的好感，他们通常会原谅偶尔的过失，比如一件物品的标价太高或者偶尔的不公平收费。由于F2P游戏的收费系统是延展性的，开发商有机会在以后避免这种错误，所以大部分玩家都会选择睁一只眼闭一只眼。

然而，如果游戏中的氪金体系给人感觉毫不留情、咄咄逼人、甚至带有侵略性，玩家就会产生不满情绪，这时游戏中的玩家数量也会随着开始下降。

部分开发者会在游戏中提供收费皮肤、关卡、章节、额外内容或迷你游戏，这种行为是完全可以接受的。最重要的是，核心的免费体验必须是物超所值，而不是只有付了钱的玩家才能享受到游戏的乐趣。

充满争议的“付费赢（pay-to-win）”模式就是一种会疏远绝大多数玩家的盈利模式。近期，EA因为企图通过氪金机制压榨玩家而遭到了抨击，这次风波的主角《星球大战：前线2》的内容也是偏向“付费赢”模式。

现在好啦事情大条了，EA这才知道氪金虽好，但玩家的忍耐是有限度的。《星球大战：前线2》本可以成为今年最成功的游戏之一，可惜它那繁琐而又昂贵的氪金体系激怒了粉丝（游戏邦注：本身就是一款付费游戏，在这个基础上还加入了疯狂的氪金机制…），该作在上市第一周后销售额下降逾60%，甚至连EA的股价也受到了影响。

真钱、假钱，傻傻分不清楚

无论是哪种游戏类型，最受欢迎的总是那些能够让玩家感觉身临其境的游戏。然而，这种沉浸感也可能会让玩家暂时忘掉虚拟游戏币和真钱之间的区别，而这种模糊的界限时常会让开发者和玩家感到头疼。

举个例子：《蓝精灵村庄（Smurfs’ Village）》是一款围绕着孩童们喜爱的动画角色而建立起来的游戏，但它滥用了iTunes的付费规则——一旦在免费或付费购买时输入了账户密码，15分钟内就无需再次输入。在让他们的父母安装完免费游戏的几分钟后，孩子们就会跑到游戏中的Smurfberry去疯狂消费。很明显，《蓝精灵村庄》并没有明确说明这些东西都是需要支付真钱的。

这种“模糊的界限”导致孩子们在不知情的情况下花费了父母数百美元的血汗钱，其中一个孩童的支付账单竟然高达1400美元，这一现象最终导致了政客们的介入。

美国民主党代表Edward J. Markey给联邦贸易委员会（FTC）写了一封公开信，阐述了他的担忧。这封公开信也同时点名了苹果和谷歌公司，后被《华盛顿邮报》引用，他在信中说道：“这些应用程序的推广和交付方式让我感到担忧，尤其是针对儿童的那些应用程序，因为他们不太可能理解内购交易会带来的后果。”（游戏邦注：联邦贸易委员会是美国联邦执法机构，负责通过消除不合理的和欺骗性的条例或规章来确保和促进市场运营的顺畅。）

在被公开点名之后，苹果更改了其支付规则，现在iOS上的每笔内购交易都要求用户单独输入一次密码。

总结

F2P模式充满了各种各样的潜在陷阱，错误的执行手法可能会疏远付费玩家或免费玩家，甚至可能最终落得两头空，要想找到其中的平衡实属不易。

好的F2P模式应该是公平的，在为玩家提供巨大价值的同时，也需要能对付费和免费玩家提供相同的吸引力。而且在开发商寻求征服国际市场的同时，他们还必须确保自己的F2P模式能够扛得住其他国家的法律法规和文化监管。

简而言之，好的游戏不好做，好的F2P游戏更难做。

本文由游戏邦编译，转载请注明来源，或咨询微信zhengjintiao

As every developer knows, pricing a game can be tricky. How do you provide value for the player and keep your own books in the black? What are competitors charging and why? And how do you define “good value”?

Depending on the type of game they are building, and the specific game mechanics, some games would only be financially sustainable on a paid model, while others would be better off offering the app for free, whilst incentivising their players and really figuring out how to enhance the playing experience through paid features.

Once the business model is clear, it’s finding what’s the correct type of bundles to offer and “that” precise number that’s not just profitable but that customers also think is fair and enhances the playing experience.

Generally, the most popular games released over any given year usually have a price range from free to $60 (and even higher if you take microtransactions into account) which is an incredibly broad spectrum to work within.

For free-to-play (F2P) titles, it becomes even more complicated; raising questions of what to offer paying players and their non-paying counterparts (who they often play alongside or against!).

15 years ago, the South Korean game Maplestory became the first major free-to-play game. Back then, it was to combat piracy by offering a cheap, legitimate, bug-free and safe way for the masses to access the game. The image has evolved over the years. While primarily associated with mobile games, the F2P model is now making inroads across all genres and platforms.

F2P games like DC Universe Online had 18 million players at one stage, mostly on PlayStation 3 and PlayStation 4. Meanwhile, long-running franchises are switching from subscription and paid to F2P, such as Blizzard’s Starcraft.

F2P looks like a risk at first glance, especially for relatively expensive productions like the games mentioned above.

There are though huge advantages that F2P has over other payment methods (for developers and players alike).

The most obvious is the potential for higher player numbers, which is essential for online multiplayer games. The ongoing revenue and “down the funnel” conversions (payments deeper into the game) are a big boon for developers too. Indeed, over 90 per cent of mobile game revenue on iOS is from F2P games.

The payment method also offers options to the players that are absent in other games. With a triple-A title, everyone pays the same cover charge, regardless of how deep or shallow their dive is. (Someone who plays Skyrim for 40 hours pays the same price as another customer who plays it for two.)

However, in F2P, players don’t pay until after they’ve played for a few minutes (and on most cases, they don’t pay at all). And they might have the option of speeding up progress with payments, or to progress more slowly through “grinding”.

Who foots the bill and is it fair?

The beauty of F2P, when it’s done “correctly”, is that a minority of paying players are happy to subsidise the other players. In fact, according to one recent survey, regardless of genre, only 2.5 per cent of players pay in F2P.

And the numbers get even more interesting as you delve deeper:GameRant reports that: “A recent study from Swrve has determined that only 2.2 per cent of a free-to-play player base ever pay for the content on average, with almost half of the revenue coming from ten percent of that number, a minuscule 0.22 per cent.”

The dilemma lies in the equal importance of both paying and non-paying players. While non-payers comprise the majority of participants, their experience is subsidised by payers.
Then there’s the added factor of data, as some developers value players’ information than the cash they spend; social media, demographic information, contact details and so on.

In multiplayer games, players add value as participants, regardless of whether they pay. The challenge is making the game equally compelling for the players regardless of whether they open their wallet or not.

This brings us to the big question; what do you pay for in a F2P game? Using one of our games as an example, Pokerist is free-to-play, and players receive in-game currency (“chips”) every day they take part.

They can buy more for as little as US$.99, which opens access to longer games, higher stakes or special tournaments. Players can also pay for cosmetic perks, such as virtual “gifts” and skins to boost their interactions with others and to further personalise their experience.

In Pokerist and countless other examples, paying customers see real perks but the playing field is even for all players. Conversely, developers can venture into choppy waters when they give paying players perceived unfair advantages.

Microtransactions and their micro-aggressions

If a player has sufficient good will towards a F2P game, they’ll forgive the occasional misstep; one item costing too much, an occasional unfair charge. Since F2P games and their payment systems are malleable, it’s possible to course correct.

However, it’s when the microtransactions feel relentless and pushy, even aggressive, that resentment kicks in… and player numbers begin to drop.

It’s perfectly acceptable to allow for more skins to be bought, for access to other content such as a paid-only level, chapter or mini-game, which some developers offer. However, it is vital that the core, free experience should be worthwhile in itself, not just for those making the micro-payments.

The controversial “pay-to-win” model is one way to alienate a majority of your fans. Recently EA came under fire for “over-milking” the in-game micro-transactions and leaned on the pay to win model with a recent product – Star Wars: Battlefront II.

Unfortunately they learned the hard way that you can only push it so far. Star Wars: Battlefront II should have been one of the biggest gaming success stories of the year. Instead, its onerous and expensive microtransactions (on top of an initial cover charge) angered fans, saw a sales drop of over 60 per cent after its first week, and even affected the company’s stock price.

The blurred line

The best games, in any genre, are immersive experiences, which might lead players to temporarily forget the difference between imaginary, in-game currency and their own money.

Those chips, coins, gold and builders accelerate your progress in an imaginary world with money that’s earned in the very real world. The blur between real and imaginary money causes headaches for players and developers alike.

Smurfs’ Village was a wholesome game based on the beloved children’s characters. But, to quote Forbes: “Smurfs’ Village takes advantage of the iTunes rule that once an account password has been entered after a free or paid purchase, it doesn’t need to be entered again for fifteen minutes. So minutes after getting their parents to install the free game, kids are going on a Smurfberry spending spree. Smurf Village apparently isn’t making it explicit this costs real money”.

This led to children spending hundreds of dollars of their parents’ money, in one case racking up a bill of $1,400. Politicians started to wade in.

US Democrat Representative Edward J. Markey wrote an open letter to the Federal Trade Commission outlining his concerns. In the letter, quoted in The Washington Post, and also addressed to Apple and Google, he said: “I am concerned about how these applications are being promoted and delivered to consumers, particularly with respect to children, who are unlikely to understand the ramifications of in-app purchases.” The FTC is America’s federal enforcement agency for unfair and deceptive advertising and marketing.

Apple now requires a password for every in-app purchase.

F2P – The secret end of level boss

The F2P formula is fraught with potential pitfalls. The wrong approach can alienate paying players, free players, or even both at once. It’s a tricky balance and a relatively young discipline.

When it’s done the right way, it’s fair, it offers great value to players and is equally compelling to those who pay and those who don’t. And, as developers look to conquer international markets, their F2P model will also have to withstand regulations in other countries, laws and cultures.

The best app games are deceptively tricky. The same can be said about mastering the F2P formula. ( Source: pocketgamer.biz )