开发者浅析2020年的游戏定价策略

原作者：Oscar Clark 译者：Willow Wu

（本文作者是Fundamentally Games的首席战略官）

在过去的这些年中，我们已经看到了各种游戏（尤其是3A游戏）尝试通过不同的方法从玩家身上榨取更多收益。不幸的是，像《星球大战：前线2》《圣歌》这样的游戏，玩家并非总是会买账。除此之外，预付费制+战利品宝箱模式的尝试已经为相关品牌带来了难以消除的负面效应。

这就让我们不禁思考这样一个问题：为什么有些游戏的盈利策略把这么多玩家都劝退了，而有些游戏的却能够蒸蒸日上？

定价策略

我先说一下，我的个人立场是有偏向的，虽然我在PC和主机领域都工作过，但我最了解的还是F2P手游。所以我认为，设定一个客观的基准线是很重要的。

能让游戏产生收益的策略主要有三种：

·预付费：必须得先付一笔钱你才能玩游戏，但有时候游戏会提供免费的demo。

·微交易：玩家购买游戏内的物品来获得更好的游戏体验，交易物品有赛季通行证、装饰物等等。

·付费更新：玩家购买DLC或者其它大型的内容更新，比如一个新章节。

游戏使用哪种盈利模型（包括混合类型）是开发人员必须做的决策之一，基于游戏的生产成本和服务要求为玩家提供最佳价值。总而言之，我们必须要了解玩家，知道他们的动力来源是什么——我们不能因为自己觉得这游戏值得掏钱就理所应当地期待玩家也这么做。

所以，站在开发者的角度来说，有哪些因素会影响你的采购策略呢？我们将把价格作为一种价值传达方式来进行探讨——为什么游戏交易不仅仅是一种钱物交换的行为，以及长期沉浸对游戏盈利方式的影响。

价格是一种预期

在20世纪60年代一项题为“消费者风险认知行为”（Consumer Behaviour as Risk-Taking）研究报告中，R.A.Bauer提出了这样一个观点：作为消费者，每次我们在购买东西时（不管买的是什么），我们都会经历一种购买焦虑。就游戏而言，除非玩家很清楚他们为什么这么在意这个游戏/物品、为什么他们应该放弃其它的优先事项来玩这个游戏，以及为什么他们现在就应该掏钱，不然的话他们会一直拖着不买。

在最近一期的Elite Game Developers Podcast中，Resistance Games的Jussi Autio谈到了如何设定价格不仅仅是开发人员在考虑统一利润率和有竞争力价格时所涉及的一个因素，而且定价会被游戏的制作价值所限制，而该价值又受到游戏开发预算的影响。

这意味着，游戏的美术、音乐以及对开发人员细节的关注，与玩家所享受到的“乐趣”一样，是制定价格的重要参考因素。就比如《杀戮尖塔》与《漫漫长夜》，你愿意在前者上花更多钱吗？它们都是非常优秀的游戏。就我个人而言，我觉得《杀戮尖塔》的机制有非常高的重玩价值，但是艺术方面太简化了。《漫漫长夜》提供了一种引人入胜、时而又令人惊惧的体验，画面十分精美，正是这些制作价值使我的天平倾斜了。由此看来，我们在研究游戏定价时，不能只应用简单的需求价格弹性模型。

Alliance: Heroes of the Spire（from pocketgamer.biz）

这个想法在Yannick Elahee 2018年的博客文章“Pricing Your video game”中得到了响应，他用表格列出了不同类型游戏的价格以及（舆论中）对游戏质量的期待。他认为，游戏价格对于玩家期待的影响实际上跟看到游戏截图或者玩法视频时是一样的。一款低于5美元的PC/主机游戏一般会被认为是一个很差的游戏，或者至少在规模上非常有限。

玩家心中“优秀的独立游戏”售价应该在10~15英镑左右。而定价40~60英镑的产品在玩家预期中应该是3A级别的超高质量游戏——但如果没有与之匹配的3A营销活动，有时玩家就会产生一些怀疑。这似乎与我个人的期望是相符的，而且手游也是如此——一款发行售价为0.99美元的游戏，大家一般就会想这可能是劣质品。

售价略高于最低价的游戏，比如从1.99~4.99美元，就意味着“有一定的质量”。尽管如此，我们不能忘记移动平台的预付费市场是非常有限的，而且由于每款游戏的价值主张都是特定的，因此很难对IAP的定价模式总结出什么规律。

对于一些玩家来说，他们长久以来的经验形成了“一分钱一分货 ”的观念，而“免费游戏”在他们眼中则与“低质量”或“很多广告”挂钩。然而，只要你能传递出游戏的价值，把游戏设定成免费能对安装量产生巨大的影响，并让你有更多的机会将更多人转化为潜在的重复购买用户。

这对任何开发者来说都是一个难以抉择的局面。他们必须决定游戏到底需不需要预付费用。除了考虑到价格对游戏质量反映，这个决策还需考虑到另一个因素：玩家持续沉浸的价值（和成本）是什么？

沉浸度交易

有些游戏提供的是一次性的美妙难忘体验，除了使用预付模式，几乎没有其它选择。就算有重玩价值，它所带来的回报也是明显递减的，当然不能转化为可靠的收入来源。

有少数开发者成功建立起了自己的个人品牌，比如Jonathan Blow或者Mike Bithell，他们建立了一个玩家社区，成员们都热切地期盼着每一款新游戏的到来。至于多数其他开发者，他们希望能与发行商合作来抵消风险，但现在会在开发早期就提供全力资金支持的发行商是越来越少了，所以创作这类内容的开发者得承受很大的压力。

而制作重玩价值高的游戏，开发者重点应该关注的是游戏的商业模式——它反映出了开发者在玩家生命周期内提供支持所需的成本。这通常就会涉及到游戏内微交易，或者DLC。

不幸的是，在PC游戏领域，这两种模式的应用效果并不总是那么理想。

就拿《星球大战：前线2》来说吧。从公众舆论角度来看，《星球大战：前线2》在2017年年末的事件多少可以算得上是一场灾难，游戏也没有达到EA的销售目标。《星球大战：前线2》同时使用了预付费和战利品宝箱两种盈利模式。开发者设计宝箱是为了将特定的游戏内容封装到一个类似于付费的gatcha系统中，包括某些玩家认为在预付款时就会与游戏主体一起解锁的物品。

从表面上看，这种做法似乎是为了追求收益最大化，但没有真正考虑到对玩家体验的影响。这一决策对市场产生了巨大的影响，甚至可以说导致了一种重要盈利手段的合法性的改变。但这个游戏并不是唯一的例子。已经有很多人尝试将大众所认为的移动领域的盈利技巧应用到PC游戏上，其中有不少都遭遇了商业上的失败，或者引发了一定程度的抵制。

将重要的游戏内容隐藏在付费宝箱之后，这会惹恼玩家，感觉就像是开发者抱着卑劣的企图，试图压榨玩家的钱财。一定要明确跟用户说明他们花钱后能得到什么，并确保所选择的方法不会破坏游戏体验，这非常重要。

然而，我认为类似《星球大战：前线2》这样的游戏，它们的定价模型还有另外一个根本性的问题，我认为PC/主机市场到现在都还没领悟。

预付费+IAP这样模式会给玩家们传递一种混乱的信息，到底什么是包括在预付费内容中的，什么是需要额外再付钱买的。《全面战争：罗马2》《战地：硬仗》都人们被指责故意隐藏内容，用DLC的方式额外收费。

这种方法不仅会破坏游戏的感知价值，甚至会影响玩家在后续内容上的消费意愿。类似的事情在移动领域也发生过，就比如2012年动视发行的跑酷手游Pitfall。理论上说，这个游戏应该在商业上大获成功的，但它是预付费+IAP，而且内容没有达到玩家的预期。

在我个人看来，预付款+微交易的模式是一种怯懦的表现——好吧，我知道这话有点难听。然而，要说服一个组织放弃他们惯用的盈利方法，用IAP取而代之，这应该不是那么容易就能办到的吧。

但问题是，如果你保留预付款，那就是为玩家设定了一个期待值。只有去掉了这个门槛，玩家才能自由决定微交易对他们的价值。更重要的是，通过移除付费墙，会有更多玩家愿意尝试你的游戏。这就像玩家在商店中浏览，能够在他们下单之前看到所提供的东西一样。

DLC vs. 赛季通行证

DLC不同于微交易。DLC在很大程度上算是一个章节形式的内容，有时也会为核心游戏带来新的特色。它可以重新吸引玩家回到游戏中来——不只是那些付了钱的玩家。然而，DLC依赖的是这样一种理念：玩家还没移情到别的游戏上，而且他们相信开发者的水准，相信他们能够交付出满足期待的内容。

投入巨大的精力去创造新内容、关卡和叙事，然后把它们隐藏在另一个付费墙之后——太多游戏都是这样的，这意味着越来越少的玩家能看到他们所错过的东西。提供给所有玩家一样的内容，但加入了微交易或者赛季通行证——这意味着越来越多的玩家会看到内容的价值，从而可以决定要不要购买。

赛季通行证似乎是诞生于PC领域的，但现在它也在移动领域扎根了。虽然当下针对这一模型的可持续性产生了一些争论，但我认为重要的是提醒自己赛季通行证的特别之处是什么。从本质上来说，关键在于我们向玩家展示了如果他们订阅会得到什么额外的东西，但这些额外的东西需要你在游戏中投入更多时间。一个优秀赛季通行证的核心是奖励玩家不断上升的沉浸度。面对社会上对游戏盈利策略的辛辣批判，它就是（或者至少应该是）一种解毒药。然而，赛季通行证也面临着一些挑战。

首先，玩家需要了解其价值。赛季通行证所提供的内容/装饰/选项必须是真正有意义，意思是说它不能是线性的。价格方面也要避免一刀切，喜欢你游戏的玩家都会有不同的价值观，消费时的心理门槛也不一样。你需要为那些真正热爱游戏并愿意消费的人提供一个适合他们的价值。

你卖的是什么？

归根结底，盈利就是将你所销售的产品包装成你的受众想要的样子。需要预付款的游戏就是提供好理解但内容量有限的体验。添加DLC可以延长它的生命周期（尤其是这时候你还会巧用捆绑销售）。然而，随着有越来越多的游戏需要联网、需要维护社区，我们就需要找到更可持续的模式来满足用户的需求。

我们需要重新思考这样一个问题：内容到底是什么？它不仅仅是一个新关卡或者新特色——它关乎的是玩家的游戏体验。我们需要从以下这几个层面来思考这个问题：

·收集——玩家能收集什么东西，并且能够炫耀给其他人看。

·进阶——是什么在激励玩家朝着下一个目标前进，我们该如何庆祝之前的成就。

·优化——在哪里可以产生战术困境，从而引出有意义的选择和响应式战略。

·叙事——玩家如何成为游戏背景故事的见证者（甚至是创造者）？

·其他玩家——玩家体验的核心影响因素。最强大的内容就是其他玩家。

说到底，每个游戏都是不同的。然而，如何应用商业模式以满足玩家的需求，这还需要仔细思考。如果游戏的商业模式能着眼于玩家的真正需求——而不仅仅是之前流行什么或者玩家说他们想要什么东西，那么这种商业模式将会是最有效的。有相当多的例子表明，有微交易、赛季通行证和季票的游戏依然能够在市场中屹立不倒。这些游戏很早就设定了价值预期，并且可靠地实现了交付目标。这就是社区的意义——共同的努力和信任。

本文由游戏邦编译，转载请注明来源，或咨询微信zhengjintiao

Oscar Clark is chief strategy officer at Fundamentally Games.

The last few years have seen a bunch of games (especially AAA) experimenting with ways to make more money from their players. Unfortunately, with games like StarWars: BattleFront II and Anthem, this has not always gone down well with players; and some experiments in using Loot Crates along with upfront pricing have led to lasting, damaging impact on the associated brands.

This leaves a question of why this has gone so wrong; why have some games alienated so many devoted fans whilst others (also experimenting with methods of monetisation) have gone from strength to strength?

Pricing strategy

Let us start with an admission. I’m biased, whilst I’ve worked on PC and console, I’m most experienced with free to play on mobile, so I think it’s important to set an objective base line.

There are essentially three strategies for games to generate revenues:

·Pay Upfront: The game has an entry fee without which you can’t play; sometime this include a free demo.
·Microtransactions: Players buy items inside the game to improve their experience from battle passes to cosmetics.
·Pay For Updates: Players buy DLC or other large content updates e.g. episodic.

Which strategy a game uses (including any hybrids) is a decision the developer must take to deliver the best value to the player against the cost of production and support requirements of the game. At the end of the day, we must understand the player and what motivates them – we can’t expect players to buy just because we think our game deserves it!

So, as a developer, what factors influence the decision on your purchase strategy? We are going to explore the role of price as a way of communicating value, how Exchange is more than just a cash transaction and the impact of long term engagement on the way games make money.

Price as expectation

As part of a study in the 1960’s called “Consumer Behaviour as Risk-Taking” R. A. Bauer introduced the idea that as consumers, whenever we buy anything, we experience a kind of buying anxiety. In terms of games, players hold off buying games or in-game-items unless they understand not just why they should care about the items, but also why they should be willing to set aside their other priorities to play this game, and why they should do that now.

On a recent edition of the Elite Game Developers Podcast, Jussi Autio of Resistance games talked about how setting price is not just a factor of what the developer wants as a unity profit margin and competitive pricing, but that the pricing is capped by the production values in the game, which in turn is impacted by the game’s development budget.

This implies that the art and audio of the game as well as the attention to detail are as important to setting a price as the ‘fun’ players enjoy. Would you pay more for Slay the Spire than The Long Dark? They are both considered excellent games. Personally, I find the Slay the Spire mechanics a joy to playtime and time again – but quite simplistic in terms of art. The Long Dark is an absorbing, frightening (at times) and beautiful experience and, for me, it’s those production values that tip the scale. It seems that we can’t just apply a simple price elasticity of demand model when we look at pricing for games.

This thought is echoed in Yannick Elahee’s 2018 blog post where he set out a table showing some example prices and (anecdotal) game quality expectations. He makes the case that the price of the game frames what players expect to get as much as any screenshot or gameplay video. A PC/console game priced under $5 is usually seen as either a bad game, or at least limited in scope.

Players expect ‘Good Indie’ games to be priced at £10-£15. Where games are priced at £40-£60, players tend to expect the very highest ‘AAA‘ quality production values and they will often be suspicious if this is not backed up by a AAA marketing campaign. This feels consistent with my own personal expectations and seems to be mirrored on mobile also, where a game released at $0.99 is generally considered bad.

Games which charge more than the lowest possible price, e.g. from $1.99 to $4.99, assume a kind of ‘quality’. Although, we can’t forget that the Pay Upfront market is mobile is very limited and it is harder to draw conclusions about patterns of pricing for IAP as the value propositions are very specific to each game.

For some players, there has historically been a sense that ‘you get what you pay for’, and ‘free games’ have been associated with poor quality or heavily Ad funded models. However, making access to the game free, as long as you can communicate its value, can make a tremendous impact on the volume of installs – and gives your game more opportunity to convert more people to potentially repeat purchases.

This presents a dilemma for any developer. They must decide whether to charge upfront for their game at all; not just what that price says about the quality of the game. This decision should also consider another factor. What is the value (and cost) of ongoing player engagement?

Exchange for engagement

Some games are singular beautiful nuggets of joy; a one-time experience where there are few options other than to use a pay upfront model. In these games, the ability to repeat play is generally a starkly diminishing return; and certainly not one which can be converted into a reliable income.

There are a handful of developers who have been able to build up a personal brand, such as Jonathan Blow or Mike Bithell, who have built up a community of players who look forward to each new game. For many other developers, they look to work with publishers to offset the risks; but fewer and fewer publishers are offering early stage, full development funding; which puts a lot of pressure on developers of this kind of content.

Where the game is not a one-time experience, and rather can be replayed, then the focus needs to be on business model which reflects the costs to the developer to support the game over the player lifecycle. This is generally where in-game microtransactions come in, or where the developer looks to offer DLC to players.
Unfortunately, in the PC world, both of these models haven’t always been implemented in the most constructive way.

Take Star Wars: Battlefront II.

Somewhat a disaster from a publicity point of view and the game missed its sales targets between October-December 2017 . The game controversially used both a pay upfront model with Loot Crates on top. The loot crates design they used locked specific unique content into a chargeable gatcha-like system, including items players reasonably expected to be unlocked as part of the basic game.

From the outside, this approach seems to have been motivated by an attempt to maximise revenue without really considering the impact on the player experience. This decision has had dramatic ramifications on the market and arguably has even led to changes to the legal status of an important monetisation method. This game isn’t alone. There have been numerous attempts to leverage what are seen as mobile monetisation techniques within PC games, and many of them have been commercial failures or have triggered a degree of player backlash.

Hiding vital content behind chargeable Loot Crates upsets players and can often feel like a sleazy attempt to squeeze players for cash. More than that it’s always important to be clear with your customers what they are going to get for their money, and make sure that the chosen approach doesn’t break the game in the process.

However, I believe there was another fundamental issue in the pricing model for games like Star Wars: Battlefront II and this is one I don’t think the PC/Console market has yet learned.

Charging upfront AND in-game. This approach can set confusing messages for players about what should and shouldn’t be included in the game. Games from Total War: Rome 2 to BattleField Hardline were accused of holding back content to include as DLC.

This approach doesn’t just undermine the perceived value of the game but can even impact the willingness of players to spend on subsequent content. This has happened before in mobile, for example the 2012 Activision release of Pitfall!, an endless runner based on the classic title. This game theoretically should have been commercially successful – but it had both pay-upfront and in-game purchases and failed to live up to expectations.

This act of charging upfront as well as for microtransactions is, in my opinion, a kind of corporate cowardice. Ok – I admit that this sounds a little harsh. However, it is likely difficult to persuade an organisation to remove an entire revenue stream that the company is used to receiving and replace it with in-app purchases.

However, the issue is that if you retain the upfront payment, you are setting an expectation for the player of what the game is worth. Only if you take that away can players make a free decision on what the microtransactions are worth to them. More than that, by removing the paywall, you increase the proportion of players who give your game a chance. This is just like players browsing in a store and being able to see what is on offer before they commit.

DLC vs. battlepass

DLC is different from microtransactions. DLC is an episodic model to a large extent, but where the core game is given new features also, it can renew the engagement of the whole audience; not just those who pay. However, DLC relies on the idea that players have not yet moved onto another game and that they trust the reliability of the developer to deliver.

Too many games put huge efforts into creating new content, levels and narrative that are hidden behind another paywall, meaning that an ever-decreasing audience gets to see what they are missing out on. The same content offered to all players, but with a microtransaction or BattlePass model means more and more players are exposed to the value of the content and therefore can decide to buy into it.

BattlePass is a model that seems to have come from the PC world (and is now seeing its place in mobile also). Whilst there are now arguments about its sustainability, I think it’s important to remind ourselves what is different about a BattlePass. Essentially, the key is that we show players what they will get extra if they subscribe, but where that extra only comes from playing the game more. At its heart, a great Battlepass is about rewarding ever deeper engagement from players. It is (or at least, should be) the antidote to the cynical monetisation strategies. However, it’s not without its own challenges.

Firstly, players need to understand the value. The content/customisation/options that a BattlePass gives the player must be genuinely meaningful. That means it can’t be linear. If you simply add another +1 you will run out of scope quickly. It also shouldn’t necessarily be one price fixes all. Players who love your game will all have a different level of value that they are looking for (and are willing to spend). You need to be able to offer people who genuinely love your game and are willing to spend, a value that works for them.

What are you selling?

At the end of the day, monetisation comes down to packaging what you are selling in forms that your audience wants. A pay upfront game is a package of experience which is easy to understand and consume. Adding DLC to the offer can extend its life (especially if you use smart sales/bundles alongside that. However, as games increasingly go online with the need to sustain communities, there is a need to find more sustainable models that reflect what those audiences want.

This requires a rethink of what content is. It is not just a new level or new feature – it is about the experience of the player. This means we need to rethink content in terms of:

·Collections – what can the player collect and show off to others
·Progression – what keeps them looking to the next objective; how do we celebrate past achievements
·Optimisation – where can tactical dilemmas be built in, which drive meaningful choices and emergent strategies
·Narrative – how are players witnesses (or even creators) of gameplay lore?
·Other Players – at the heart of all aspects of the player experience. The most powerful content are other players.

In the end every game is different. However, careful thinking is needed about how commercial models can be applied to the player needs. Business model for games will be the most effective if they look at what players need – not just what went before or what players say they want. There are a considerable range of examples of great living games which have microtransactions, BattlePasses and season passes. These games set the expectation of value early and deliver on that, predictably and reliably. In the end that’s what community is about, a shared sense of endeavour and trust.

(source: pcgamerinsider )