作者：Alistair Aitcheson

计划发布这篇文章时，我正在准备《Greedy Bankers: Bailout!》的发行工作——也就是植入虚拟交易扩充模式的免费版本。我原本预计这能够显著改变游戏的命运——尤其是带来更多曝光度。

Greedy Bankers Bailout from appshot.net

当然和所有最佳计划一样，这一策略并未达到我的预期。虽然相比付费版本，我从免费版本中获得更多下载量，但我预期的用户基础要比这多很多。在谈论免费游戏的曝光机会前，我们需要进行些许思考。

我将从逻辑起点着手：采用免费模式应该要让游戏获得更多推荐机会，进而提高曝光度。下面就来想想为什么。

逻辑

基于用户角度进行思考，或是查看自己的购买决策。我认为自己不算非典型的iOS用户，就我看来，即便支付69便士购买应用都算是重大决策。毕竟，在最终找到真正喜欢的内容前，我愿意支付多少个69便士？除非我在购买时格外谨慎，否则我将需要掏很多次的69便士！

买咖啡时，我很清楚自己将得到什么，将从中获得什么享受。所以掏出1.8英镑购买中杯美式咖啡算不上什么重大决策。而对于游戏，我只能模糊知晓自己将从中收获多少乐趣（游戏邦注：即便有时间阅读完所有资料，查看评论和截图）。总之，我需要碰运气。

采用免费模式就排除这一决策，让冲动下载成为可能。通常如果好友向我推荐一款游戏，我会先询问价格，若需要掏钱，我通常会说：“我考虑一下。”我很清楚他们的游戏品味和我大不相同。如果游戏免费，我没有理由不将其下载下来，试验看看。

总之，采用免费模式减少阻碍，能够增加推荐机会。

提高用户兴趣

就创造推荐机会而言，免费内容越丰富越好。不是提供免费演示内容，相反而是向玩家呈现完整版的无限制游戏，促使他们持续返回，维持他们的喜悦感，将其打造成更值得推荐的内容。创收是另外一个问题，但这里我的假定策略是，允许狂热粉丝掏钱购买特殊内容。如果免费游戏包含明显付费门槛，那么从理论上看，这将减少玩家返回或是游戏获得推荐的机会。

提供可访问网络版本，从中获得曝光度的典型游戏代表包括《屋顶狂奔》、《彩虹独角兽》和《蒸汽战鹰》。喜欢这些游戏、希望能够在途中或沙发上进行体验的玩家多半愿意掏钱购买其他设备的游戏版本。他们愿意支付不菲资金，因为他们相信游戏的品质，所有其中不涉及任何风险。

可以说这些游戏的持续成功要归功于较高辨识度和App Store的频繁推荐。但是游戏的完整免费在线版本促使它们获得此等水平的辨识度。

免费游戏的实际情况

我依然相信我们上面提到的逻辑。免费游戏对你来说是个有用资产，但它们也绝非“变革性力量”。虽然这和开放网络也许有所不同，但在App Store平台吸引用户眼球同样非常困难，无论你的游戏采用免费，还是付费模式。

应用曝光度由App Store的布局决定，采用免费模式无法改变你在这一市场中的位置。你依然需要依靠App Store方能获得所需的关注度。为让上述理论产生实际效果，你的游戏需要积极争取大量推荐。

事实上，当我参加TIGA Mobile Games Conference时，整个现场弥漫焦虑情绪，甚至连大型手机开发公司的开发者也是如此。自从出现虚拟交易机制，免费领域的竞争越来越激烈。Zynga之类的大人物开始进军这一领域，唯一能够持续获得关注度的是那些将病毒式传播功能植入游戏中的作品。这是社交游戏（游戏邦注：例如《Farmville》和《Draw Something》）的优势所在。

免费模式是病毒式传播的润滑剂

在App Store创建用户基础，无论游戏是否采用免费，主要取决于游戏的病毒式传播。显然采用免费模式能够显著减少阻碍，但病毒式传播功能很难进行把握。有些游戏获得病毒式传播，因为游戏建立相应机制，进而引入越来越多的朋友（例如《Draw Something》）。其他游戏获得病毒式传播元素则纯粹由于游戏的品质，如《神庙逃亡》，但这更无法阻挡——在《神庙逃亡》出现前，逃亡者已是iOS平台的常见类型；为什么这款游戏马上销售一空，我们至今依然有些疑惑。

Draw Something from omgpop.com

有趣的是，免费游戏《Greedy Bankers》的下载量持续处于稳定水平，正如付费游戏的销售水平一样。这可能意味着它和付费游戏的受欢迎程度相当，或者至少没有更受欢迎。否则我就能够从中获悉各版本的增长率差异。当然这就玩家的游戏发现途径做出广泛假设。但这意味着，免费模式并非像我想的那样是个强大的润滑剂。

如果你不打算依靠病毒式传播功能，那么免费模式的重要程度如何就有待商榷。免费开放网络版本（游戏邦注：能够轻松连接，在浏览器中立即具有可玩性的内容）依然是不错选择。但若你的产品只通过应用商店呈现，那么你就会持续受到忽略，无论价位如何。

无论如何，我觉得这里你的核心USP（独特卖点）是王道。没有它，你的游戏就无法获得病毒式传播，如果你不依靠病毒式传播功能——而是更愿意培养忠实付费用户，你的USP依然决定媒体和忠实粉丝是否感兴趣。

在免费模式中，用户规模是否重要？

当然，还有一个关于免费游戏的问题。我接触免费模式只是为了获得更多《Greedy Bankers》的忠实粉丝。也许我错过了免费模式的真正之美：虚拟交易机制。如果在你的游戏中，少数狂热粉丝会支付大笔资金购买内容和功能，你是否还需要庞大用户基础？

无可否认，《Greedy Bankers: Bailout!》的创收方式非常简单和局限。游戏目前有两个解锁模式，各售价69便士，仅此而已——最重要的是，没有消费道具。我的计划是看看我能否首先解决曝光度问题——如果我有足够用户基础，让一切变得具有可行性，那么我就会扩展IAP机会，尝试提高我的用户平均收益水平（ARPU）。目前，IAP的运用程度依然非常低，对此我并不惊讶。问题是，试图让用户投入大笔资金将耗费大量时间、精力，需要进行大量调查研究。没有庞大日活跃用户基础，我的时间和精力投入将具有风险性。

所以这是否值得我们花费精力提高创收水平？

关于这个问题，我们可以这么看：我通过免费版本获得高出付费版本5倍的下载量。所以假设用户发现免费版本的方式和付费版本相同，那么这意味着采用免费模式能够把阻碍降低5倍——听起来很不错，是吧？要赚取和付费版本相同的收益，我的ARPU只需达到原有水平的1/5。所以无需用户预先支付69便士，只需平均在游戏中投入14便士，游戏就能够达到原有的总体收益水平。如果我100%去除阻碍，那么完善IAP机制将不费吹灰之力。

就有利方面来看，我依然在出售付费版本（现定价1.49英镑），虽然销量并没那么多，并且iPad版《Greedy Bankers vs The World》（定价1.99英镑）的销量更高。所以这对收益完全没有影响。所有版本都持续获得5颗星评价，所以至少《Greedy Bankers》获得更多关注，用户对我的品牌更熟悉，更信任——我在发行下款游戏时可以充分利用这一优势。

总结

我依然觉得基于免费内容的商业模式是不错选择。但就提高游戏曝光度而言，这并非什么神奇子弹。尤其是在App Store，曝光度障碍依然持续存在。免费模式算是病毒式传播的润滑剂。

就有利方面来看，手机领域近来的免费模式角逐意味着你可以随意定价非免费游戏。1.99英镑的付费游戏只会稍微不如69便士的游戏那么讨喜，但如果你希望游戏价格高于最低限度，这倒是个不错的选择。

在我看来，提高游戏曝光度的最关键要素在于产品设计。例如游戏是否杰出？是否扣人心弦？要知道这能够推进玩家之间的推荐，能够在发行前就引起市场的广泛关注。（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）

Indie Exposure: the realities of free

By Alistair Aitcheson

It’s been a while since the last Indie Exposure post, hasn’t it? When I was planning to post this instalment, I was preparing Greedy Bankers: Bailout! for launch – that is, the free version of the game with expanded game modes for in-app purchases. I fully expected this to make a massive difference to the game’s fortunes – specifically, enabling much better exposure.

Of course, as with the best laid plans, this strategy didn’t go the way I expected. While I am receiving consistently higher downloads of the free version as I had been getting on the paid version, I was expecting the userbase to grow by significantly more than it actually did. I needed to do some thinking before I could wax lyrical about the exposure opportunities for free games.

I’ll begin with my starting logic: offering your game for free should make it more open to recommendation, and hence benefit your exposure. Let’s think about why.

The Logic

Put yourself in your customers’ shoes, or look at your own purchasing decisions. I presume I am not an atypical iOS user, and from my own experience even paying 69p for an app requires a big decision. After all, how many times do I want to spend 69p before I find something that I really enjoy? Unless I am cautious about my spending those 69p’s could really add up!

When I buy a cup of coffee, I know exactly what I’m going to get and have a fairly accurate estimate of how much I’ll enjoy it. So paying ￡1.80 for my medium Americano is not a big decision. With a game I have only the vaguest idea how much I’ll enjoy it, even if I take time to read all the copy, see the reviews and look at the screenshots. In short, I’ll be taking a risk.

Putting your product out as free eradicates that decision, and makes impulse downloads a possibility. Usually if a friend recommends me a game I’ll ask them how much it is. If it’s got a price tag I’ll say “I’ll think about it,” knowing that their tastes in games are very different to my own. If it’s free, I have no reason not to download it now and give it a go.

In short, putting your product out for free decreases friction and increases the chance of a successful recommendation.

Encouraging Interest

In terms of encouraging these recommendations the bigger the free offering the better. Rather than a free demo, offering players a complete and unlimited game keeps them coming back, sustains their enjoyment, and makes it a much sweeter offering to recommend. Monetising is another question entirely, but my assumed strategy from here is to enable enthusiasts to pay a premium for specialist content. If a free game has obvious pay walls it should, in theory, nullify its chances of being returned to or recommended.

Perhaps the most exciting examples, in the case of gaining exposure at least, offer fully-accessible web versions of their game. Canabalt, Robot Unicorn Attack and Steambirds serve as fantastic examples. Players who enjoy the game but would really like to play it on the move or on the sofa will happily pay money for the same game on another device. They’ll happily pay a non-minimum price, as they already have trust in the quality of the product, so there is no risk involved.

Arguably the sustained success of these games has been due to popular recognition and frequent featuring on the App Store itself. But their complete free online offerings certainly helped rocket them into that level of recognition.

The realities of free games

I still believe in the logic of all of everything I’ve just said. Free games are a useful asset on your side, but (from my own experience) they are by no means a game-changer. While this may be different on the open web, drawing eyeballs to your shopfront is just as difficult on the App Store, regardless of whether your game is free or paid.

App discovery is dominated by the layout of the App Store as a marketplace, and releasing as free barely changes your position in that marketplace at all. You’re still going to rely on working around the App Store, in order to get the attention that you need. In order for all the theory above to make a real difference, your game must encourage a lot of recommendation.

In fact, when I attended March’s TIGAMobile Games Conference, there was a definite feeling of anxiety in the room, even from developers with established mobile successes. The free space has become increasingly competitive since the advent of In-App Purchases. Big fish such as Zynga are moving into the space, and the only games which can ensure consistent eyeball space (from the free charts) are those for which virality is built into the games themselves. This is where social games, from Farmville to Draw Something, really excel.

Free is a lubricant for virality

Building a userbase from the App Store alone, whether your game is free or not, is reliant on your game being viral. Clearly being free reduces significant friction, but virality is a tricky beast to bottle. Some games are viral because the mechanics are built so that the game improves with more friends involved (e.g. Draw Something). Others go viral simply due to the quality of the game, like Temple Run, but that’s much harder to pin down – endless runners were already a common genre on iOS before Temple Run appeared; why this one flew off the shelves so well is a question I do not have an answer for.

Interestingly, downloads of the free Greedy Bankers continue at a relatively stable level, just like sales of the paid game did. Presumably this means that it is just as viralas the paid version was, or at least not significantly more viral. Otherwise I would see a difference between the growth rates of each version. Of course, this is making wide assumptions about how players discover the game. But it suggests that Free isn’t as strong a lubricant as I though.

If you’re not looking to rely on your game being viral then it’s questionable as to how important that free price band really is. A free open-web version which is easily linked to and instantly playable in a browser still makes good sense. But if your product is only playable from app stores then you’ll remain just as hidden, regardless of price band.

Either way, I find myself feeling that your core USP is king here. Without it, your game cannot go viral, and if you’re not reliant on virality – and would rather build a premium-paying base of passionate hearts and minds – your USP is still going to decide whether press and enthusiasts take an interest.

Is userbase size important in Free-to-Play?

Of course, there is one more question about free games. I approached Free-to-Play for the sole purpose of getting more players into the Greedy Bankers fold. Perhaps I’ve missed the real beauty of Free-to-Play: the In-App Purchase system. Do you need a large userbase if you have a game where a select few enthusiasts will pay vast amounts of money for content and features?

Admittedly, the monetisation in Greedy Bankers: Bailout! is pretty simple, and very limited. There’s currently two unlockable game modes, for 69p each, and nothing more – no consumable items, most importantly. My plan was to see if I could crack the problem of exposure first – if I had a large enough userbase to make it worthwhile, I would expand the IAP opportunities and attempt to increase my Average Revenue Per User (ARPU). Takeup of the IAP so far has been very low, and I’m not surprised. The problem is, trying to get users to spend vast amounts of money is going to be a massive amount of time, effort and research. Without a sizeable Daily Active Userbase this becomes a big gamble of my time and energy.

So is it worth the effort to improve monetisation?

Of course, we can put this into perspective with the knowledge that I’m getting five times the downloads on free that I was on the paid version. So, under the assumption that everyone’s discovering the free version in the same way as they did the paid version, that means going free has reduced “friction” by five times – sounds, great, doesn’t it? Of course, to make the same revenues as I was making off of the paid version, I’ll need to make a fifth of the ARPU I had before. So instead of each player paying 69p upfront to play, I’d need an average 14p spend per player, merely to equal what I was making before. If I’d reduced friction by a factor of 100, improving the IAP mechanisms would be a no-brainer!

On the plus side, I am still making sales of the paid version (now priced at ￡1.49), albeit not as many, and am actually making a few more sales of the iPad version, Greedy Bankers vs The World, (priced ￡1.99). So this hasn’t made a difference to revenue at all! All versions continue to receive 5-star reviews from all around the world, so at the very least I have more eyeballs on Greedy Bankers and greater familiarity and confidence in my brand – something I can leverage when publicising my next game.

The conclusion

I still believe a business model based around free content makes great sense. But in terms of gaining exposure for your games it is by no means a magic bullet. Especially in the App Store the same barriers to exposure are there as were always present. What Free does is, presumably, oil the gears of virality.

On the plus side, the recent race to free in mobile means that – with the expectation that everything should be free – a game that is not free can be pitched at any price you like! A paid game for ￡1.99 only seems marginally less attractive than one for 69p, which is good news if you want to price your game above the minimum.

In my eyes, the most important factor in getting exposure for your games is in the very design of your product. Is it remarkable? Does it grab hearts and minds? This is what really drives recommendations between players, and it’s what gets passionate interest from the market before your game has even launched.

In the final piece in this series, I’ll discuss where I feel your priorities should lie, if you want to get exposure for your game.（Source：gamesbrief）