制作人谈堡垒之夜Fortnite是如何避免Pay-To-Win的

原作者：Nathan Grayson 译者：Willow Wu

严格来说，《堡垒之夜》是Epic公司的第一个F2P游戏。这款包含破坏、射击、搜刮资源、建造的蜡笔画风格游戏兼具了多人合作游戏的核心以及MMO游戏的进阶机制。PVP模式还尚未成熟，为了让玩家能够在公平的环境中享受娱乐，开发者们还需要进一步调整该模式的平衡性。总之，《堡垒之夜》是一个超级混合游戏——融合了动作、建造、制造、《战争机器》horde模式等等。那么，开发者们要如何确保这个内容如此丰富的游戏不会被F2P搞砸呢？

我们邀请到了游戏制作人Roger Collum，和他一起谈谈Epic公司的计划、《英雄联盟》《军团要塞2》对游戏的影响、游戏中可能出现的一些老套的设计（比如XP辅助道具）、他们是否能像其他F2P开发者那样把玩家的时间与金钱划上等号，以及其它问题。

RPS：你之前提过很多次《英雄联盟》，特别是讲到商业模式的时候。但具体是怎么借鉴、发挥作用的？就目前来说，《堡垒之夜》跟MOBA游戏还是有很大不同。

Collum: 把《英雄联盟》当作是F2P模式的参考是一个不会出错的选择。它有庞大的玩家群体，而且我们一致赞同不做pay-to-win游戏。《英雄联盟》肯定不是pay-to-win游戏吧？所以这就是原因。

fortnite（from rockpapershotgun.com）

另外，要是少了这一大群免费玩家，那些付费玩家也没有对手了，你说是吧？你需要各种各样的玩家填充你的游戏世界，这样能够提升游戏价值。

我们之前想从《英雄联盟》中寻找可能会用到的PvP元素。但是目前还没有确定下什么。

RPS：能详细说明下免费玩家可以在《堡垒之夜》中获得怎样的游戏体验吗？他们能玩那哪些内容？哪些不能？如果有的话。

Collum: 关于免费游戏体验，我们设想的是如果这些玩家有投入时间，那么他们跟付费玩家的游戏体验其实是没有差别的。拿《英雄联盟》举例，我认识的其中一些人为游戏花了很多钱，还有另一些人一分钱也没花，但是这些人也玩得很开心，可以体验完整的MOBA游戏。

《堡垒之夜》的目标也是这样——给玩家充分的自由，并且和社区保持密切联系。我觉得你要是跟玩家锱铢必较的话，那就没人要玩你的游戏了。

如果我们的游戏有好几百万的玩家，但其中只有一小部分是付费玩家，我们也不会觉得难以维持生计。我们还是觉得这游戏很成功，商业方面也很满意。《战争机器》《虚幻竞技场》都是成功的游戏，但是各方面的数据都远不如Dota。如果《堡垒之夜》能够吸引来自世界各地的上百万玩家的话，那我真的会高兴得跳起来。我们真的不需要玩家消费。

RPS：关于时间投入和金钱投入，我认为这其中的差别可能会导致游戏出现一些相当烦人的F2P元素。比如计时器——有的设计就是“如果你不花钱，今天你就只能玩一次”。

Collum: 哦，是的。我们也是玩家，同样是对某些游戏中的F2P套路感到厌烦。计时器之类的东西，“除非你付钱，不然你一天只有x次机会”太破坏游戏兴致了。我们不想做这样的事情。

就《军团要塞2》来说，游戏的主要收入来源就是那些装饰性道具，它们在技能方面没有任何提升作用。我们不打算加入任何能够提供绝对优势的道具。或许我们会提供HP/XP辅助道具、能够缩短等待时间的道具，我们不会让时间成为玩家的游戏阻碍。

RPS：很高兴听到你这样说。但有时候XP道具也会成为问题。找到合适的进阶节奏不是一件简单的事，对非付费玩家来说这很容易变成一段漫长的折磨。就连某些非常知名的游戏——我脑中马上蹦出的是《部落：上升》（Tribes Ascend），在这方面都做得不是很好。

Collum: 我是个RPG游戏玩家，所以我很喜欢这个过程，又或许我就是个怪人。拿《黑暗之魂》（Dark Souls）来说吧，你愿意一直在游戏中受虐就是因为好玩。话虽如此，但是《堡垒之夜》不会这样的。

非付费玩家只能多花点时间和精力。会有不同级别的困难需要克服，但是玩家会获得满足感。就像是MMO游戏中你拼了老命想进入下一关，成功之后你就会想高兴地大喊“哦耶，我做到了！”我认为这就是我们想要的游戏体验。

RPS：你之前提过一个随机性质的补充包（booster-pack-style）的系统，这具体是什么内容呢？

Collum: 我们目前的想法主要是装饰类物品。这部分的计划还尚待完善。我们得多观察一下玩家，搞清楚什么东西在他们看来是有价值的。我们觉得可能是帽子、背包、鞋子、眼镜甚至是胡子。这只是初始计划，但我也不确定玩家会不会买账。我觉得还是会的，但是还需调查调查。

我们不想让这一切跟付费玩家与免费玩家之间的平衡扯上关系。我们不想让玩家觉得你没有花钱所以你就什么都没份。但我们确实希望付费玩家觉得物有所值。所以这就是我们奇怪的二分法。

第一个打开我钱包的F2P游戏是《洛奇英雄传》（Vindictus），Nexon公司旗下的MMO游戏。我花钱的原因是我没有足够的时间投入游戏。跟我一起玩的人都花了大把时间在游戏上。所以我想我能为这个小组贡献的只有钱了。我会买XP辅助道具、防御盾以及其它东西来帮助其他组员。最终我就成为了依靠金钱提高游戏体验玩家，而且在社交方面我也感到很满足，我真心觉得这种感觉好极了。

我们希望《堡垒之夜》的玩家也能有这种积极的感受。在别人花时间的时候，有些人就可以通过花一点小钱为团队创造更好的条件。

RPS：我们又回到了时间与金钱的话题上，我个人认为在你说的这种情况下，付费仅仅是让你成为了资助人。但是时间的投入，跟团队一起克服难关、共享胜利的喜悦，这才能让你成为真正的朋友。我相信这两者之间肯定存在着一个平衡点，但是要直接把时间和金钱画上等号……我觉得还是有点怪。

Collum: 我明白你的意思。我有一些没工作的朋友，他们可以花很多时间在游戏上。这样一来我就成了落后的，我打不过像他们那样已经玩了很久的人。要跟上的话我可以选择牺牲睡眠时间，或者找其它的方法做贡献。确实有些玩家会成为团队中的纯资助者，但我认为这种情况并不多见。

这二者之间的确有个平衡点，这也是我们的必须达成目标之一。当Epic决定把这个项目设定成F2P模式时，大厦里的很多人都表现出怀疑的态度，大家的意思好像都是“我才不做F2P游戏，太廉价了。”但其实公司已经明白了怎么做才不会让F2P毁了这个游戏，让玩家和我们都能受益。肯定还会有人质疑我们能不能圆满完成这个任务，但是我相信我们做得到。

RPS：Epic之前好像要发生过大变动。首席设计师Cliff Bleszinski和前任游戏总监Rod Fergusson先后离职，《堡垒之夜》在过去几年也经历了很多变数，你们的目标平台从一开始的主机平台突然转到PC。到底发生了什么？

Collum: Epic变了很多。《堡垒之夜》初创团队对Epic的影响是不可磨灭的，他们依然是我的好朋友。但是团队也因此获得了一些新鲜血液，他们年轻、聪明、有激情，能够把团队引向一个新的方向，可以说是帮了大忙。

《堡垒之夜》已经不是我们几年前宣布的那样了。那时的游戏只具备了些基本的东西，还缺乏一些深层次的内容。

当初我们预计四个月就能做完。因为游戏结构基本都确定下来了，我们以为只要加快节奏，把所需要的内容都补充上就好了。但是事实并非如此。我们意识到了游戏所需的东西还很多，四个月根本做不完。

RPS：《堡垒之夜》现在的团队是怎样的？离开了多少人？新加入的有多少人？游戏的哪些方面因此受到了影响？

Collum: 主创人员是最稳定的。显然，以前Cliff Bleszinski还在的时候，他的影响力很大。虽然他离开了，但我们还是继续将他的某些想法延续下去。团队中变动的人员也不多。就那么五六个人吧。从团队规模上来说我们还是挺稳定的。

我们这个团队一开始是想做那种超写实的僵尸末世灾难游戏，就像是黑暗版的《战争机器》。就比如《最后生还者》（The Last of Us），我超喜欢这个游戏。我们现在仍然对这类题材很感兴趣。但是因为《堡垒之夜》，我们的团队自然也改变了。我们发现如果把游戏的画风改得简单些，那我们有更多时间让游戏变得更丰富些。

这与我们当初所想的写实风格完全相反，相比之下非常简单，不用花多长时间就可以完成了。除此之外，我们也意识到如果这个游戏做得好的话，它可以在市场上活跃好多年，就跟《军团要塞2》一样。还有，如果你把《战争机器1》和《战争机器3》放在一起对比的话，你会发现这系列真的有了质的飞跃。

这就是我们当初的想法。除此之外，我们也想尝试和之前不一样的游戏。

RPS：感谢你百忙之中抽出时间来接受我们的访问。

本文由游戏邦编译，转载请注明来源，或咨询微信zhengjintiao

Fortnite is, technically speaking, Epic’s first free-to-play game. The crayola colored smash-and-shoot-and-loot-and-build-er is being designed primarily as a co-op thing, but with persistent MMO-style progression underlying it all. There’s also still-nascent PVP in the works, further necessitating balance in the name of fair fun. Fortnite is, however, a giant mixed bag of moving parts, multiple genres (action, building, crafting, a Gears-of-War-style horde mode, etc) mashed together. How do you make all of that free-to-play without mucking it up?

I asked producer Roger Collum about Epic’s plans, influences from games like League of Legends and Team Fortress 2, the potential emergence of a tedious grind with things like XP boosters in the mix, whether or not you can really equate time and money as free-to-play devs so often do, and more. It’s all below.

RPS: You’ve mentioned League of Legends a lot, especially in regard to your business model. How will that work, though? Fortnite seems pretty drastically different from a MOBA, at least so far. I mean, there are only a few classes, for one thing.

Collum: Looking to League of Legends as a model for good free-to-play is definitely not a bad thing. I mean, League has a huge audience, and we’re espousing that we’re not pay-to-win. League is definitely not pay-to-win. So there’s that.

Also, if you don’t have a large number of people playing for free, then the paying people won’t have anybody to play against, right? You need people to fill worlds. That adds value to the game.

We’ve looked at League as a model for possible PVP stuff. Don’t have anything nailed down, though.

RPS: OK, so break down for me what a free player will experience when they play Fortnite. What will they have access to? What will be blocked off, if anything?

Collum: The free experience we envision is one we feel like, if they invest the time, they’re getting the same experience as someone who’s spending money. Using League of Legends as an example, I know people who spend a ton of money on it, and I know people who don’t spend a cent. The people who don’t spend anything still have a great time. They can try out classes and still fully experience what a MOBA is.

That’s our goal for Fortnite – to have that kind of freedom and that level of communication with our community. I think if you nickel-and-dime people, they’re not gonna show up.

If we hit millions of users and only a fraction of those people pay, we’re still gonna be able to pay our bills. We’ll still feel successful. We’ll still feel good about it as a business model. What’s exciting to me is that Gears and Unreal Tournament are successful games, but nowhere near the numbers that Dota gets. If we could get an audience in the hundreds of millions worldwide playing Fortnite, that would tickle me pink. We don’t need them to spend money.

RPS: You talk about investing time versus investing money. But that distinction, I think, has led to some of the worst elements of F2P. Time gates, for instance – giant neon stop signs that basically say, “If you don’t pay, you can’t play anymore today.”

Collum: Oh yeah. As gamers ourselves, we’re irritated at a lot of the free-to-play practices that some games apply. Time gates, things of that nature. ‘You get X number of turns per day unless you spend money.’ That’s super lame. We don’t want to do anything like that.

Look at TF2, for example. Their primary source of income for that game is cosmetics. They don’t really provide power. We’re not interested in providing power. Maybe we’ll provide health or XP boosts, things that can accelerate time, but we’re not gonna make time a hindrance to players.

RPS: I’m definitely glad to hear that. That said, even XP boosts can be a problem sometimes. It’s tough to get level-up pacing just right so that it’s not a total grind for non-paying players. I mean, even otherwise really excellent games – for instance Tribes Ascend, off the top of my head – had trouble with that.

Collum: I’m an RPG player so I like the grind. Maybe I’m totally weird in that way. Like Dark Souls, you keep beating yourself against the wall because it’s fun. I don’t think we’re gonna get to that point, though.

People who don’t pay are gonna have to work. There’s gonna be some level of work, but it’ll be satisfactory. It’ll be like in an MMO where you’re busting your butt to get to the next level and then you’re like, ‘Hurrah! I did it!’ I think we’re gonna generate that experience.

RPS: You’ve also mentioned a booster-pack-style system – something with an element of randomness to it. What all will come in those?

Collum: Right now we envision primarily cosmetics. We haven’t really worked out all of our plans on what will work there. We’re gonna look at our audience and see what they think is valuable. We could say hats and backpacks and shoes and beards and glasses. That’s the initial plan, but I don’t know if that’s compelling. I think they will be, but we need to investigate.

We don’t want it to come down to balance between a paying player and a free player. We don’t want it to seem punitive if you don’t spend money. But we do want people to feel value for money. So it’s that weird dichotomy where we don’t want people to feel bad for not spending, but we do want people to feel value if they spend money.

The first free to play game that got me to spend money was Vindictus, the Nexon MMO. The reason I spent money is because I didn’t have a lot of time to play. The people I was playing with had a ton of time. They way I could still contribute to that group was by spending. So I could buy XP boosts and defense shields and whatever – things that socially helped the rest of the group. I ended up being the guy with the money that helped improve the experience, and I got to feel socially good about doing that. I felt earnestly like, ‘Wow, this is awesome.’

I’m hoping we can engender some of that where people feel good about contributing to their team by spending a little money. Benefit the whole team while people who are investing time as a currency are contributing to the team in that way, by building the awesome base or grinding out crafting ingredients or whatever.

RPS: Once again, though, it goes back to that weird equivalence between time and money. In this case I think spending money only makes you a financier. Playing, being a part of the moment-to-moment struggles and triumphs, that makes you a friend. I’m sure there’s a happy midpoint between those two sides, but equating them strikes me as… odd.

Collum: I see what you’re saying. But you know, I have friends who don’t have jobs, and they spend a lot of time playing games. When I play, I’m behind. I can’t compete with people in that position. To keep up I have to either not get a lot of sleep or find other creative ways to contribute. I don’t disagree where there are scenarios where [people being financiers] happens, but I don’t think it’s universal.

I think there’s gonna be a balance. We have to find a balance. When Epic decided to go F2P with this project, there were plenty of skepticism in the building, plenty of people who were like, ‘I don’t want to do F2P. I think it’s cheap.’ But the company has grown into a mode of figuring out how to do this such that it’s not sleazy or slimy. Everyone benefits. There’s gonna be skepticism about whether or not we can pull it off, but I think we can.

RPS: It sounds like there’s been a lot of change at Epic in general. I mean, most visibly you lost both Cliff Bleszinski and [former executive producer] Rod Fergusson. Fortnite’s changed a lot in the past couple years too, and you’ve suddenly gone from nearly all-console to nearly all-PC games-wise. What’s going on?

Collum: Epic has changed hugely. I think it’s been positive. The people who were here at the start of Fortnite are still close friends, and they’ve left an indeliable mark on this company. But what it has allowed us to do is take other young, hungry, smart individuals in the team and let them step up and shine, take us in new directions.

The injection of fresh blood has helped a lot. Fortnite is vastly different than it was when we announced it years ago. The fundamental stuff was there when we announced, but the depth wasn’t there yet. It took some shifting of the guard and some internal realization that what we were doing wasn’t enough.

Initially we thought we were gonna be done in four months. We thought we were just gonna be like, ‘Boom, let’s do something really fast. It’s gonna be monsters and building and crafting and you’re gonna be able to grow crops.’ But then it morphed. We realized there was more to it, more than four months could do justice to.

RPS: What does the Fortnite team look like now? How many people did it lose? How many did it gain? Which aspects of the game did that affect?

Collum: The main creative team is mostly static. They’ve been here for a while, even on other projects. Obviously Cliff Bleszinski had a big influence when he was here. He’s not here anymore, but we’ve taken some of his ideas and expanded on them. The shift in team is not massive. It’s a handful of people, five or six. Our team has been pretty static in terms of size.

We started out wanting to be ultra-realistic dark Gears kind of gritty, sort of zombie apocalypse-like. And I mean, I love The Last of Us. Those sorts of things still appeal to us. But for Fortnite that changed organically in the team. We realized we could do more if we simplified the art style.

As it is, it’s so stylized and simple that we can just make more art more quickly. Then we realized if we did it right, we’d have a game that would still look nice for ages. You look at TF2 and it can still stand on its own two feet. Meanwhile if you look at Gears 1 compared to Gears 3, it’s practically night and day.

That’s where our heads were at, at the time. Plus, we wanted to do something very different from our previous games.

RPS: Thank you for your time.（source：rockpapershotgun.com ）