作者：Brandon Cotton & Time Fields

（本文选自《Social Game Design：Monetization Methods and Mechanics》一书第九章，主要探讨社交游戏中的虚拟商品设计注意要点。）

虚拟资产

“虚拟商品”一词充满奇妙的矛盾性，“虚拟”从定义上看意味着“实际上并不存在”，而商品则表示在市场上交易的物品。而对游戏行业而言，虚拟商品却充满真实性，它们每年创收数十亿美元，吸引玩家无数次体验游戏，并曾引发现实世界的纠纷，成为夫妻喜结连理的桥梁（或者导致玩家妻离子散），让世界各地的玩家成天为其花钱。

虚拟商品可能是21世纪的一个矛盾词汇，但它们却已形成了一个巨大的产业，并成为社交及手机游戏设计的一个重要环节。

虚拟商品在游戏中有多种表现形式，它们可以是用于增强玩家或角色游戏威力的一种道具，也可以是一种支持访问之前未解琐功能的权限，它们也可以是一种激发玩家虚荣心的装饰性物品（游戏邦注：例如可装饰角色的道具，汽车、卡牌或农场动物等）。这些道具可以是游戏玩法的核心元素，也可以是一种特殊，甚至是节日限量版道具。

我们将在此讨论热门道具的类型，以及它们对游戏平衡性的影响，并探讨如何避免功能性道具破坏游戏平衡的现象，探索让具有视觉装饰效果的道具成为吸引用户，以便他们显得特立独行的有效方法。

出售付费商品

如果一款游戏打算通过贩售道具而创收，那么最好在游戏设计之初就考虑到这一点。游戏设计师事先就要规划周全，区分出游戏可出售哪些类型的道具，明白这些道具将如何影响游戏平衡性。要确保引进虚拟道具可增强游戏玩法而非削减游戏趣味。

最理想的虚拟商品是那些与游戏世界相得益彰，并能够成为后者每个发展阶段核心元素的内容。例如，在城建游戏中，用户所接触的每种不同建筑都可视为一种虚拟商品。在赛车游戏中，用户汽车的每个部件都可以是该游戏虚拟商品系统的一个基本组成模块。在第一人射击游戏中，每把枪或每颗子弹都可以成为一种付费道具。

上述例子的共同点在于，其贩售的商品都是用户游戏体验的重要组成部分，它们在设计之初就融入整体游戏中，并在玩家每时每刻的游戏体验中扮演重要角色。

我们很难在不“破坏”游戏的前提下，将虚拟商品引进一款已经成形的游戏中。如果采用了这种做法，最好的结果就是，它会让这种道具销售系统显得像是一种画蛇添足的做法，意图在没有提升游戏玩法的情况下从用户身上赚钱。要避免这种做法，最好是事先仔细考虑游戏设计的哪一部分比较适合植入虚拟商品，哪一部分应与微交易系统相隔离。

设计师应花点时间分析市面上的其他游戏并从中汲取经验教训，想想看，如果玩家每次想买下一家饭店时都只要扔下一些钱就能如愿，那么《大富翁》还会那么好玩吗？最好确定哪些内容可设置成用真钱购买的道具，并谨慎地将其植入整体游戏设计方案。

对游戏设计师来说，这一领域存在两种截然不同的虚拟商品，我们必须一开始就明确这两者的区别，要考虑游戏内置道具（或者非道具的提升功能、加速器或功能等）对游戏玩法的影响程度如何。

人们普遍认为，购买可改变一些游戏形势的内容实际上等于购买“功能性优势”，而购买仅具有美感的东西对有些玩家来说也十分重要，因为他们追求的是一种不同的游戏设计和多变的游戏体验，这种消费内容被称为“虚荣道具”。

功能性优势

游戏中有多种可赋予玩家功能性优势的道具，例如射击游戏中更具破坏力的枪支，或者比免费枪支射击速度更快的武器，城建游戏中可快速产生新建筑的特制推土机，角色扮演游戏中的宝剑和盔甲等等。

涉及到在玩游戏过程中给予玩家功能性优势的道具，我们就不得不严肃思考游戏平衡性的问题。如果手头阔绰的玩家优势过于明显，那些非付费玩家或者很少花钱的用户，就会备感受挫并因此退出游戏。而游戏如果过于简单或困难，玩家也会因缺乏兴趣而退出游戏。有一些方法可以克服这些问题，在设计优势性道具时需考虑以下几种问题：

*在PvP游戏中出售功能性道具，可能打破游戏平衡性。如果玩家只需多花点钱就能获得一种无人能敌的优势，那么其他玩家可能会觉得自己被划分成三六九等。这种感觉在北美尤其明显，但在亚洲就不那么普遍（游戏邦注：这些地区以《穿越火线》和《ZT Online》等游戏为主导）。

*但以上提到的玩家被区别对待的情况，也可能成为游戏的一个卖点，但具体要视玩家社区的情况而定。通常某名PvP游戏玩家被杀或被其他玩家挂掉时，他们就会显得群情激愤，并会伺机报复，这就会让玩家更愿意掏钱购买更多强大的装备（只要你的游戏拥有这种设计）。

但要慎用这种方法，你总不想因为自己一时的心血来潮而将玩家划分为有钱与没钱的阵营，并因此而损害他们的自豪感，另外这样也可能催生一种以“炫富”为主的不良玩家社区。这当然是一种可挖掘的玩家心理，但千万不能滥用。

*在PvE或玩家对抗AI角色的游戏中出售道具，可能会让玩家觉得自己无法在游戏中发挥技能以克服挑战。只要他们投入足够的钱，最终就能获胜。

*不过，轻微改变或调整游戏平衡的道具，也可以为整个游戏体验带来一些新变化。如果玩家已经很享受原来的游戏玩法，给他们加点新鲜元素，增添游戏粘性，对你们双方来说都有好处。只要这些道具不会取代游戏获胜所需的特定技能，就可以让玩家花点钱为自己节省点时间，提高获胜的机率，获得一点富有变化的游戏体验。

以下是一些可减少玩家“花钱买胜利”之感的小技巧，它们同时适用于PvP和PvE游戏：

*限制玩家个体所购买道具的使用周期。例如，玩家购买了一项可提高治愈速度的道具，就要令其在限定时期内使用道具，而非无限量使用该物品。这不但可让开发商重复出售可易消耗的物品，也有助于平衡游戏系统，以免部分玩家能力超越他人。即使是最谨慎的玩家也常会忘记重新补充道具，或是尝试在缺乏该道具的情况下玩游戏。

这种限时设置也可让玩家看到道具的相对价值所在。这会让他们觉得自己的小一部分投入增加了游戏趣味性，并获得一种多变的游戏体验。

*创造间接优势，这样玩家的竞争对手就无法明显看出端倪。例如，游戏可让玩家购买一种可加快建设速度的道具。不要只是简单地减少玩家建设每个单位的时间，而要考虑设计一种减少玩家建材用料（例如木材、钢材或砖块）的道具。这样竞争对手就不能明显看到玩家提速的情况，而此时玩家却仍能获得同样的成效（在同一时间建设更多建筑）。

*如果游戏中含有元游戏内容，例如《使命召唤》中的XP模式，或者《英雄联盟》中的召唤师高级模式，它们使用加速器让玩家在元游戏中以更快速度前进。这不同于在游戏中直接给予玩家强大力量的道具，后者的做法常被称为作弊或者“破坏”游戏平衡的行为。

*为经验丰富的高级竞争对手创造一些优势或特定招术，以抗衡玩家所购买的道具优势。例如，玩家1购买了可让网球提速25%的道具，玩家2就可以拥有一个反手击求的招术以抵消前者10%的优势。这种平衡性策略可限制玩家“花钱包赢”的机率，促使玩家更有策略地使用道具。也可以让购买道具的玩家完全拥有某项优势，但同时要让骨灰级的对手能够适时调整其玩法，减少后者的受挫感。

*不要向玩家出售“威力无敌”，可彻底清扫整个界面所有障碍或敌人的道具，而要让玩家在使用强大道具的同时，积极参与游戏过程。例如，不要出售可铲除所有敌人的“智能炸弹”，而要提供玩家只有在天时地利的情况下才能达到最大化效果的”喷火器“。这可以保证游戏平衡性不受影响，同时又能让玩家感到自己是有技巧、有策略地使用新技能，而不是让玩家感觉钱多就能赢。

*要认真考虑游戏的核心机制是什么。用设计师的话来说，就是哪些“玩具”可让游戏每秒钟的互动性趣味横生？要确保游戏中出售的物品不会损害玩家与游戏的互动性（至少不会长期对其造成消极影响）。要找到那些具有重复性或枯燥的任务，然后围绕这些任务设计特别而有趣的道具。

例如，在许多RPG游戏中，每当库存填满时，玩家都需要沷山涉水地返回城镇贩售东西。而MMO游戏《Dungeon Runners》开发商NCSoft设计师则允许玩家购买一个可跟随主人的精灵，让它们去交易无用的道具。这类节省时间的元素，再加上精灵奇异的处理方式，使其成了备受玩家青睐的消费选择。

*要出售那些未必更好，但仍有不同用处或价值，并且能够在不影响核心游戏体验的前提下可令玩家兴奋的东西。例如，在一款探索世界的游戏中，玩家原先需要划着小船探索空间，这时就可以向他们出售一种海马坐骑。这种海马不可像小船那样在靠近浅滩，但对风浪的抵抗力较大。这样就能让道具发挥同样的功能，并在不严重影响核心机制的情况下，给玩家游戏体验带来一点好处或弊端。

*要出售那些赋予玩家更多灵活性但不一定更强大的升级内容。可以让一些玩家带有两种武器，而另一些玩家只持有一种武器，只要确保带有两种武器的玩家不一定更强大，更具天然优势就行。最好是通过改变玩家策略来改变游戏玩法，通过给予灵活性让他们获得更多体验。

考虑游戏平衡性

许多游戏类型都面临定价和平衡性问题，在出售可赋予功能性优势的道具时更是如此。这种游戏平衡问题为设计师的平衡方程式增加了一个额外变量，某件道具助玩家在游戏中获得的优势越多，它的售价就越高。

最理想的情况是，你能够以现实世界的价值估算出玩家在游戏中所获优势的价值。

为了更合理地量化道具在游戏世界中的作用，并适当维持游戏平衡性，我们可将这种优势简化为金钱换时间的方程式。例如，在一款以PvE为主的奇幻RPG游戏中：

假如一个升到一定等级并拥有相应技能的玩家，打通某个地下城需要花费1000秒，而后他们平均可获得1000个金子，那么他们在这个地下城中的黄金/时间平均比率为1：1。

假设有一把剑售价为1万个金子，它的攻击力比一般武器多10%，那么玩家手持这把剑打通地下城的速度就会提高10%，玩家就只需要900秒就能打通关。这件道具将玩家的黄金/时间比率提高到了10：9。

如果游戏以1美元1000个金子的价格向玩家出售黄金，那么这意味着现实世界中的金钱与时间比率为每秒16.6个金子。从中可得出，价值1万个金子，可节省玩家100秒的宝剑售价应该是1.6美元。

很显然，平衡时间和难度以及两种不货币（游戏邦注：游戏虚拟货币和现实钱币）要视每款游戏的不同设计特点而定。正确把握这种平衡问题极为关键，在出售具有功能性优势的道具时更是如此。反之则可能破坏游戏平衡性并流失用户。

比起混合两种模式的游戏，纯PvE或纯PvP模式的游戏更易解决平衡性的问题。在混合两种挑战的游戏中，设计师需费尽心思满足不同类型玩家的需求。若不借助外部影响力（例如购买功能性优势的道具）则难以解决游戏平衡性问题，但由于这类游戏迎合的是两种玩家的需求，其用户规模也会更为庞大，从这一点上来看，这种设计挑战完全值得一试。

美观的“虚荣”道具

LV包包与Target出售的同类包包有何不同？粗略来看，它们的功能相同，大小和形状也相差无几，这两者在作用上真没什么区别。但为什么前者的价钱比后者贵了好几倍？因为人们都喜欢可显示身份的物品，这种东西可让他们通过行头与常人划清界线。

出售虚荣性道具是一个相对直接而简单的命题，因为此类道具对游戏玩法并无实际影响。玩家可购买闪闪发亮的小红帽，也可以为自己的虚拟爱车买钢圈，总之他们可以使用各种装饰性道具丰富游戏体验。即使是不提供玩家虚拟形象的游戏，也可以使用这种个性化方式，让玩家选择可显示威望的皮肤等物品。例如在Xbox Live版本的《万智牌》游戏中，玩家就可以为自己的牌组购买有光泽的锡纸套。

要在设计游戏和规划整个项目时就考虑好为游戏提供哪些个性化装饰内容。在项目动工时就要做好计划，因为个性化内容难以重新调整。

例如，在某个角色系统中，如果事先没有预留一定空间，游戏建模完成之后再添加角色个性化装饰内容就极为耗费成本。但如果是改变玩家图标，或者是更改UI元素却相对容易而简单，通常只需要投入一些额外规划和2D美术内容就成。

虚荣道具的一个强大作用在于其病毒传播性。如果玩家看到某人穿戴着自己心仪的道具晃来晃去，这件道具的价值就会因此而增长，随后就会有一些玩家不遗余力地寻找这件道具。因为需要花钱购买的东西一般都属于稀有物品（毕竟玩游戏的人比花钱的人多），其稀缺性此时就会得到体现，增加了其购买价值。

《魔兽世界》常因挖掘这种功能而获益，它会引进一些只能在扩展包内容的特定区域中找到的新装备，玩家若发现只能通过扩展包探索新区域才能找到这件神奇的道具时，就会愿意花钱购买扩展内容。

设计虚荣道具或皮肤时，要注意考虑全球市场的情况。要清楚不同道具在不同市场的吸引力不同。国旗是一种较受欢迎的元素，因为它便于玩家通过地区界定自己的身份。与不同地区相关的标志、球队或信仰体系也同样很受欢迎。

当然，使用不同文化标志时也要多加注意。万字符在一些亚群体中可能很受欢迎，但在游戏设计中要谨用，因为有些符号可能会得罪另一些群体。因此，允许玩家创造自己的标志、图标或皮肤，也很可能给开发团队带来一系列棘手的问题。

最好让玩家通过一系列预先设定的图标、颜色等元素创造自己的个性化内容。《极品飞车》和《使命召唤》将这种功能发挥得淋漓尽致，支持玩家有限地发挥创造力，同时又避免了因放纵玩家创造性而产生的问题。

稀缺性

大家都喜欢便宜货，而当人们想让自己与众不同，或者展列自我时，他们就会希望自己所买有东西不同于常人。

要同时满足这两个目标，最好是推出限时促销活动，或者限量供应商品（例如“只剩下1828个金锤子！现在购买仅需200个点数！”）。通过这种方式供应道具可以创造一种稀缺性和市场需求，激发玩家购买特价商品的欲望。

许多销售和营销手段也都借鉴了传统广告模式中的稀缺性概念。“买一送一！”是易耗性商品的促销手段，“多加0.5美元可以买更多”则是鼓励人们多消费的方法之一。

当然，零售商常用的产品定位手段也适用于虚拟商品系统。想出售更多某道具，那就将其纳入商品清单的前列，或者为其添加闪亮的彩色图标。

另外，也可以根据特殊节日推出不同道具。例如，在圣诞节期间向某些地区的市场发售圣诞帽，在中国春节来临之际添加与之相关的道具。具体如何操作要取决于游戏引擎、虚拟商店及后台系统的灵活性，你可以针对特定地区推出个性化元素。

凡是现实生活中能卖的东西——甚至是那些现实中卖不了的东西，都可以在社交游戏中出售。因为只要设计师的创意无止境，游戏世界就拥有无限可能性。游戏可出售海马坐骑，虚拟汽车的钢圈，魔法喷火器等任何玩家需要的东西。

决定游戏可出售哪些内容，每件虚拟道具的属性，以及平衡道具与游戏其他系统的互动性或许是个巨大的挑战。但随着我们不断向前发展，我们终会找到针对不同货币提供不同道具的理想解决对策。（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）

Virtual Goods – An Excerpt from Social Game Design: Monetization Methods and Mechanics

by Brandon Cotton, Tim Fields

[This text, on the crucial aspects of virtual goods design, is an extract from the ninth chapter of Social Game Design: Monetization Methods and Mechanics, by Tim Fields (Certain Affinity) and Brandon Cotton (Portalarium). In the book, the two authors closely examine how social games function as a player-responsive business.]

Fake Estates

The very phrase “Virtual Goods” is something of a delightful contradiction. Anything “virtual,” by definition, doesn’t physically exist, and goods, at least when appearing within the context of the marketplace, are typically an article of trade.

For our purposes, though, virtual goods are real enough that they generate billions of dollars in revenue each year, and are so important to players that they can drive binge play sessions, provoke real-world fights, create (and destroy) marriages, and keep users spending money twenty-four hours a day, in almost every country in the world.

Virtual goods may be an amusingly 21st century contradiction in terms, but they’re also big business, and a major part of social and mobile game design.

Virtual goods can end up taking on many different forms in a game. They can be literal items which a player or character buys in order to enhance their in-game abilities, or they can be instantly consumed “items” which grant the user more turns, or access to some previously-unavailable feature.

They can also be purely cosmetic items which stroke a user’s vanity by letting them customize the way their character or car or card or farm animal appears to other players. These items can be a core component of gameplay, or they can be special, even seasonal items.

We’ll discuss popular items of all types, and talk about how such items can be used to affect, alter, or destroy a game’s balance. We’ll discuss how to avoid some of the game-balance pitfalls often created by offering functional items for sale, and ways to make visual customization features appealing to your users as a way to distinguish themselves from the crowd.

Selling Premium Goods

If a game is going to monetize via the sale of virtual goods, it’s ideal for the game design to account for this from the moment of the game’s inception. To be well executed, the game’s designers need to plan in advance what types of items will be sold, and understand very clearly the ways in which these items will affect the game balance. Virtual items need to augment the gameplay, not distract from it.

The best types of virtual goods are those which fit nicely into the game world, and act as a core component of each and every move. In a city-building game, each different building the user interacts with could be considered a virtual good. In an online driving game, the subcomponents of the user’s car can be the basic building blocks of the virtual goods system. For a first person shooter, each gun or bullet could be a purchasable item, and so on.

What all of these examples share in common is that the goods for sale are a critical component of almost every user’s experience within the game system, and they were designed from the onset of the game to play a major role in every second of the user’s experience.

Integrating the sale of virtual goods into an existing game design is difficult to do without inadvertently “breaking” the game. At best, the system is likely to feel like a tacked-on afterthought designed to extract money from customers without improving the gameplay. The best way to avoid this type of design afterthought is to carefully identify which parts of your game design could reasonably rely upon the sale of virtual goods, and which parts need to remain untangled from the influence of microtransactions.

Spend time analyzing other games in the market and take advice from there; would Monopoly be as much fun if you could just throw a dollar on the board every time you wanted to buy a hotel? Determine what you’re going to sell for real money, and carefully integrate that plan into your overall game design.

Team Fortress 2 by Valve is a free-to-play FPS on Steam which monetizes by selling virtual items. Games can sell items that are either functional, cosmetic, or both.

For game designers, there is a core division between the two key types of virtual goods, and this distinction needs to be understood from the onset of the design process. In-game items (or even non-item boosts, accelerators, or features) need to be considered in terms of the degree to which they alter gameplay for the user.

Purchases that change something meaningful about the game are said to confer “functional advantages.” Purchases that are purely aesthetic are often no less important to users, but they serve a different function in the game’s design and moment-to-moment play. These purchases are generally considered “vanity items.”

Functional Advantages

There are many types of goods that can grant a functional advantage in a game. In a shooter, this could be something as obvious as a more damaging gun, or a gun that fires faster than those available in the game for free. In a city-building game, a functional advantage could be a certain type of bulldozer that produces new buildings faster than is possible for those players who do not chose to spend real world money. Role playing games tend to favor swords and armor; for a fishing game… well, you get the idea.

When considering selling players items that give them a real advantage in gameplay, game balance should be a critical consideration. If rich players are overpowered, those who don’t spend money, or as much money, will become disenfranchised and quit playing. Alternately, if players don’t feel engaged because a game is too easy or too hard, they’ll quit playing. There are a few ways to overcome this, and since the core problem is a different depending on the type of challenge offered in the game. First, there are some general issues to consider for items of this type:

•Selling functional items in a game that pits player vs. player (PvP) risks making the game feel unbalanced. If one player can simply spend a few extra dollars and create an advantage so powerful that no other players feel they can compete (without also spending), players may quickly feel alienated and move on. This sensibility is particularly strong in North America, though less so in Asia based on the popularity of games like Crossfire and ZT Online.

•To complicate matters, the risk of alienation described above can also become a major selling point, depending on your player community. Often, when a user in a PvP game has been killed or “ganked” by another player, they tend to be emotional and want to strike back; this does make your player more likely to spend money in exchange for power, if your game design allows them to do so.

But you need to tread with caution when allowing this sort of behavior. You don’t want to leave your revenue to the whims that divide a gamer between their wallet and their damaged sense of pride, and you don’t want to foster the type of nasty online community which exists only for those who get their kicks from spending a few pennies to “grief” new players. Certainly, this is an emotion to exploit, but also to control.

•Selling functional items in a game that pits the player against AI opponents (or “bots”) or against the environment (as in PvE) risks making the player feel as if there is no skill to overcoming the challenge of the game. As long as they plug in enough dollars, they can guarantee a victory through attrition.

•However, items that shift or slightly tweak the game balance, creating a new variation on the overall game experience, have the opportunity to be significant sellers in the PvE space. If players are already enjoying your gameplay, something that will allow them to enjoy some variety without leaving your gamespace has great benefit for both you and them. So long as the item isn’t perceived as reducing the necessary level of overall skill required to excel at the game, users are likely to spend on items that will save them a little time, improve their chances,, and otherwise vary their already positive experience.

Here are some tips for reducing the feeling that users are “buying their way to victory.” These guidelines can apply to both PvP and PvE games.Limit the duration a purchased item can be used by any single player. For example, if a player has an item that grants them faster healing, rather than allowing them to enjoy that power indefinitely, give it to them for a limited duration. This lets you repeatedly sell the item as a consumable, but also helps balance out what might otherwise be overpowering to other players. Even the most vigilant will forget to “re-up” their item, or decide to try to play without it, etc.

A set duration also allows your players to see the comparable value of the item. They are regularly reminded that the small expenditure increases the enjoyment of their gaming experience, or it allows them to spend their money on other items you might offer, thus increasing the variety of their game experience.

Make the advantage indirect, such that it isn’t obvious to the player’s opponents when they might be using a particular “buff.” For instance, imagine that you let the player buy an item that allows them greater speed in the construct of new buildings; rather than simply decrease the player’s time to build each building, consider designing the item instead to reduce the amount of lumber, or metal, or brick required to construct the building. This way, the increased speed at which a player can build isn’t patently obvious to their opponents, but your player still enjoys the same net effect (more buildings in the same time).

If your game features a metagame loop, like the XP model in Call of Duty or the Summoner advancement model in League of Legends, for example, accelerators that allow players to advance through the metagame at a faster pace tend to be quite popular. This is in contrast to items that directly make a player more powerful in mid-game, which are often perceived as cheating or as “breaking” the game.

Balance out the items that grant players certain advantages by allowing experienced opponents to either earn or buy a specific defense or countermove. Yes, Player 1, you can buy something that makes your initial tennis serve 25 percent faster, but Player 2 may have a backhanded return that reduces any speed bonus to no more than 10 percent. Such balancing strategies will limit a player’s “sure win” purchasing options, and force more tactical play. You can still allow for an advantage to the player who just purchased the new item, but experienced players will be able to recognize and adjust their gameplay accordingly, reducing their frustration and everyone’s competitive gaming experience.

Rather than selling users a “nuke ‘em from orbit” type ability that eliminates all obstacles or enemies on the screen, give players a powerful attack or ability that still requires their active involvement. For example, rather than a “smartbomb” type weapon that kills everyone on the screen, sell them a “flamethrower” that does terrific damage to whatever they point it towards, if they point it in the right direction, at the right time. The net effect is much the same from a game balance standpoint, but one makes the user feel as if they skillfully used a new ability, while the other makes a player feel as if their credit card just purchased their victory.

Consider carefully what your core game mechanic is. In game designer speak, what’s “the toy” that makes the second by second interaction with the game enjoyable?

Ensure that whatever you are selling doesn’t break that toy by changing how the player interacts with your game, or at least not for very long. Instead, find tasks

that are repetitive or dull, then obviate those tasks by offering for purchase a particular, shiny, “cool” item.

For example, in many RPGs, characters are required to make a long and (often) boring walk back to town to sell items every time their inventory fills up. The designers of NCSoft’s MMO, Dungeon Runners, allowed players to purchase a gnome who followed them around and converted useless items to gold on the spot. The time-saving element, plus the quirky gnome’s method of processing, made the purchase an easy choice for many of the game’s faithful.

Selling items that aren’t necessarily measurably better, but are still in some way different, can delight users without breaking the core game experience. For example, in a game about world exploration where a player must explore the space by paddling around in a rowboat, consider instead selling them a seahorse to ride.

The seahorse might be unable to get as near the shore as the rowboat, but could be less affected by choppy water (or some other balance-saving detail). Thus, is the item functionally very much the same, but carries with it a visual difference, along with some slight advantage/disadvantage that helps to vary the player’s experience of the game, without markedly changing the core “toy.”

Sell upgrades that make a player more flexible, but not necessarily more powerful. Allowing some players to carry two weapons while others only one, so long as the two are not doubly as strong, won’t inherently introduce a disadvantage. What it will do, however, is change up the game play enough that players will have to vary their tactic, giving players additional by giving players greater flexibility.

Game Balance Considerations

For any game type, there are sure to be issues of pricing and game balance, especially when selling items designed to confer a functional advantage. This type of game balance simply introduces an additional variable to the designers’ balancing equation. The greater the degree to which an item allows a player to deviate from the standard curve of in-game performance, the most expensive it should be.

Ideally, your game will be such that you can calculate what the real world dollar value is of each statistical advantage the player may receive, if they purchase the item you’re considering offering.

This advantage, in turn, will need to be reduced to a money-for-time equation, in order to properly quantify the effect the item will have on the world, and the offsetting balance that will need to be achieved to sustain proper gameplay.

For example, in a PvE-focused fantasy RPG type game:

If an appropriately leveled player of average skill takes, on average, 1000 seconds to fight their way through a particular dungeon, and they receive, on average 1000 gold for doing so, then the average ratio of gold/time in that dungeon is 1:1.

Let us imagine that a sword is sold for 10,000 gold which does 10 percent more damage, so the player is able to fight through the dungeon 10 percent faster. This player would now be able to run through the dungeon in 900 seconds. This item has just increased their gold/time ratio to 10:9.

Imagine that you sell gold to the player at the rate of $1 for 1000 gold. This means that the real world ratio between dollars and time is 16.6 gold per second saved.

Consequently, the value of the 10,000 gold sword, which will save the user 100 seconds per dungeon run, should be about $1.60. Clear as a MUD?

Obviously, the specifics of how to balance time, difficulty, and two different currencies (in-game and real world dollars) will need to be entirely customized for each individual game design. But getting these specifics right is of critical importance, especially when selling items that can give players a functional advantage over one another, or over the game itself. The alternative is an unbalanced game and alienated players.

Games which are either entirely PvE or entirely PvP are considerably easier to balance than those attempting to straddle the line between the two. In blended games, which offer both types of challenges, the designer ends up needing to account for the tastes of a few very different types of players. This problem is difficult enough without allowing for external influences on the game balance (like functional item purchases.) However, because a game that manages to appeal to both types of players can potentially have a far greater customer base, this is a challenge that is well worth undertaking.

Aesthetic “Vanity” Items

Is there anything about a handbag from Louis Vuitton which makes it fundamentally better than a similar handbag sold in Target? Perhaps (but probably not). At a gross level, they perform an identical function, and provided they are the same size and shape, there is very little practical difference between the two. So why is one many, many times more expensive than the other? Because people like status items which help distinguish them from one another based on their accoutrements.

Selling vanity items is a relatively straightforward proposition, because such items don’t have any real effect on gameplay. From a shiny red hat for the player’s avatar to sweet, blacked-out rims for their favorite car, allowing players to customize their game experience can be a very powerful user draw. Even games without any player avatar can accomplish this personalization by offering players prestige skins for… almost anything. On the Xbox Live version of Magic the Gathering, for example, players can buy shiny tinfoil backing for their decks of cards. And they do, in droves.

Planning what sort of items you’ll allow your players to customize is integral to the design and feel of your overall software project. It should be something you consider from the start, because customization can be very difficult to retrofit, depending on what you hope to achieve.

For example, a character system with the ability to add “paper doll” style character customization might very very costly to add later if the foundation wasn’t in place when the game was first architected. On the other hand, swapping out player icons, or even customizing UI elements in exchange for a dollar or two can be quite popular, and often involves little more than some advanced planning and a little extra 2D artwork.

One of the great features of vanity items is that they are, in effect, viral. If a player sees someone else walking around wearing an item they want to wear, the value of that item is increased, and some players will go to elaborate lengths to acquire that item. Because goods that cost real money are automatically rare (since, statistically, more people play than purchase) scarcity is preserved, adding value to the virtual goods.

World of Warcraft has consistently found success in exploiting this feature, by allowing the introduction of new gear that can only be found in a certain area that just happens to be part of an expansion pack. Of course, while the gear must be found in the new area, players are free to wear it in the old. When players discover that the only way they can get the new and wonderful items is to buy the pack and explore new lands, they’re motivated to purchase the expansion pack.

When designing vanity items or skins, remember that your games (should) exist in a global marketplace. Consider the different sorts of different items that might appeal to varied markets. National flags tend to be very popular, because they allow gamers to identify themselves by region. Symbols associated with different districts, sports teams or belief systems can be popular as well.

Of course, you’ll want to take care as to the sorts of iconography you allow. Swastikas, for example, may be popular among certain subgroups, but you probably want to avoid them in your game. For every icon that gets a player excited, there’s another that could upset a player to the point that they abandon your game. For this reason, allowing users to create their own symbols, icons, or skins is likely to expose your team to a number of headaches.

A happy medium can be found in allowing users to create their own custom liveries from a pre-determined set of icons, colors, and the like. Both Need for Speed and Call of Duty have made great use of such features, allowing for limited user insignia customization while avoiding the problems of completely freeform user creation.

Rarity

People love a bargain, and when their motivation is to feel unique, or express themselves, they want to feel as if the item they are buying isn’t something everyone else will have.

One way to accommodate both of these goals is to have limited time sales offers and only release certain goods in a limited number. (“Only 1828 Golden Hammers remain! Buy one now for only 200 points!”) By offering an item in such a way that it has perceived scarcity, you create demand, and appeal to the user’s desire to get a special bargain.

Most of the sales and marketing tricks surrounding the concept of rarity hearken back to traditional advertising models. “Buy one, get one free!” has always been a great enticement for consumable items. “Upsize for an additional $.50″ is a good way to sell users on a slighter larger amount of product than perhaps they actually need. (In the dual currency world, this often manifests as a bulk “discount” for purchasing virtual currencies in larger denominations.)

And of course, the same tricks used by retailers related to product positioning apply in the virtual storefront. Want to sell more of an item? Put it at the top of the list, or give it a brightly colored icon.

Likewise, consider offering items that are tied to the calendar in some way. For example, Santa hats are always a top seller around Christmas time, at least in some parts of the world. Here, again, a little attention to global trends can go a long way.

Are there special goods you can sell that will help users celebrate Chinese New Year in your game world? What about Guy Fawkes masks? Depending on your game engine and the flexibility of your store and backend systems, you may be able to customize offers for a particularly territory, which can help you target sales to those most likely to be interested in them.

Almost anything that can be sold in real life — and quite a wide array of things that cannot — can be sold as virtual goods in a social game. Since the gameworld is limited only by the imagination of the designer, there is no feature, offering, or fantasy that a user cannot be enticed to indulge. Your game can sell seahorses to ride, or shiny-tin foil rims for a virtual car, or a literal horse-of-a-different-color, or a magic flamethrower that lets a user extract petty revenge on a player who has recently wronged them.

Deciding what to sell, and what properties to imbue each virtual item with can be an incredible challenge, as can balancing the ways these items interact with other game systems. As we move forward, we’ll look at some of the ways that designers can further nuance these decisions by offering different types of items for different types of currencies.（source:gamasutra）