作者：William Volk

游戏的盈利模式已经发生了巨大的转变，即从付费模式过度到“免费模式”。在iPhone平台上，10款畅销游戏中就有8款属于免费游戏。但是对于许多开发者来说，创造免费游戏也成为了他们当前所面临的巨大挑战。

freemium(from media36)

例子：

位于美国爱荷华州Ames的初创企业（成立了2年）Mikengreg Games LLC在月初发行了免费iPad游戏《Gasketball》。开发者的灵感是源于篮球游戏《H.O.R.S.E.》，并且这款免费iPad游戏至今已经获得了超过42万次的下载量了。

但却只有1%的玩家愿意支付2.99美元去购买完整版的游戏。游戏并未提供任何虚拟商品，但是它销售的是可提升玩家进程的额外游戏内部功能。

所以我们该如何挽救这种局面？首先我们需要明确为何会出现这种情况。

在此之前已经出现了IAP（应用内部购买），精简版和付费版等模式。但是发行商最终决定推出免费版本的游戏。他们希望让玩家在决定消费前可以无需花费任何成本而尝试游戏。

比起付费应用，免费应用的促销更加容易。因为玩家更愿意去尝试一款免费应用。同时，Zynga等开发者通过在Facebook这个大平台上提供免费 游戏（突出可购买的数字产品）而创造着巨大的改变。有时候这些产品能够帮助玩家在游戏中更快速地前进；而有时候（例如在《PlayScreen Poker》中）它们便只是“消费品”一样的存在：即终会耗尽的纸牌筹码。尽管只有少量的用户参与了这种应用内部购买，但是Facebook的病毒性却能 够帮助这些游戏以最低的成本进行促销。也就是玩家在游戏中所做的一切都将呈现在好友的消息墙上。

关于“免费”理念的起源我们可以追溯到较早之前。在中国，因为游戏盗版行为的肆掠，免费模式便成为了开发者在这个极具挑战的市场中有效营销的主要手段。

免费模式到底是在哪一环出了差错？

1.许多免费游戏都是依赖于“鲸鱼”用户去支撑那些非付费用户。根据相关报道我们知道Zynga每月所获得的玩家中只有1.3%是属于付费玩家。这时候也只有鲸鱼玩家愿意为游戏投入较大成本时，这种模式才能起作用。其中一种方法便是使用心理学技巧去利用玩家的上瘾行为。

2.一些免费游戏使用了IAP而提供给玩家一些特别的优势（如更厉害的武器等），让他们能够以此去抗击其它玩家，但却导致游戏失去了平衡。

3.老实说，许多玩家只是不愿意付钱购买数字产品或内容。

你也可以适时回归“标准的”付费应用模式。就像Zynga的最新iOS游戏《Horn》便是带有应用内部道具的“付费”游戏（售价6.99美元）。 更引人注目的则是《Final Fantasy Dimensions》是以售价2.99美元的“付费”版本模式出现在玩家面前，同时每个额外章节的售价为9.99美元，而如果玩家一起购买的话便只需要 28.99美元。

不可否认的是这都是一些具有高产的AAA级应用。并且在iOS平台上也出现了许多成功的付费应用。例如《翼飞冲天》，《愤怒的小鸟》等。即使已经在游戏产业打滚了30多年，但是我也只能说对于成功游戏的预测更应该说是一门艺术，而非技术——这是一种赌博。

所以什么才是“公平游戏”以及为什么我们应该强调这一点？

在最早的街机游戏中便出现了公平游戏这一理念。投入硬币而开始游戏。但是“公平游戏”却不只如此。

2011年我们发行了《Crickler》的免费iPhone版本。那时候我们的业务模式是提供给玩家有限的“谜题积分”。当玩家开始解决谜题时便 会花费一个谜题积分。虽然我们拥有大批的忠实用户，但却仍有许多玩家在耗尽了积分时开始各种抱怨。事实证明许多玩家根本不想在游戏中花钱。

一种解决方法便是与Tapjoy（游戏邦注：移动广告平台）合作。即让玩家通过观看广告而获得积分。我们同样也会提供给那些成功解答了谜 题或在Facebook和Twitter上传达这些游戏信息的玩家一定的奖励。最终证明这是一种富有成效的方法：来自应用内部购买或广告单位的收益占据了 游戏总收益的90%，即让玩家感觉自己所面对的谜题变得更有价值。这与其它免费应用所面对的1.3%每日应用购买率形成了巨大的反差。

公平游戏—-通过提供给那些进行社交行动（即在社交平台上公布游戏信息）或观看广告的玩家（不愿意进行应用内部 购买）奖励能够推动着他们继续游戏。对于那些为游戏“做宣传”的玩家我们还会提供给他们比自己实际消费更多的积分。而正是这种慷慨的决定（比起榨干玩家的 钱好吧）帮助我们吸引了10%玩家开始尝试IAP或执行“获取积分”互动。

如果你是一名出色的社交/手机游戏开发者，你最好学会摆脱对鲸鱼玩家的依赖。基于这次特殊的益智游戏经历，我们真心希望有更多工作室能够采取这种公 平游戏的方法。解决免费模式问题的唯一方法便是抛弃粗糙的人为收费方法，而努力维持玩家在游戏中的支出与收入的平衡——这一过程将能够拯救无数的工作室。

（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）

Fair to Play: Fixing Free To Play

By GamesIndustry International

The following is a guest editorial from PlayScreen CCO William Volk.

Games have seen an evolution in financial models, from premium (paid for) to ‘Free to Play’ or ‘Freemium’ games. On the iPhone eight of the top 10 grossing games are Freemium. Nonetheless, making Freemium work turns out to be a real challenge for a large number of developers.

Case in point:

Mikengreg Games LLC, a two-year-old start-up in Ames, Iowa, launched a freemium iPad game called “Gasketball” earlier this month. Inspired by the basketball game H.O.R.S.E., the free version of the iPad game has already been downloaded more than 420,000 times.

Yet only 1% of users have gone on to pay $2.99 to get the full version of the game. Although the game doesn’t sell virtual goods, it does sell additional in-app features that can improve a player’s moves. (Source: “When Freemium Fails” / The Wall Street Journal.)

So how did we get here, and how do we fix it? To figure that out, let’s look at how and why all of this got started.

Before there was IAP (In App Purchases) there were ‘lite’ and paid versions of games. Publishers would release a free, but limited version of a game. The idea was to give players a no-cost way of looking at a title before committing to a purchase.

Promoting a free app was always cheaper than a paid app. Players were simply more willing to try a free app.

Meanwhile, on Facebook Zynga and others were making decent change with free games that featured digital goods that could be purchased. In some cases these items allowed players to progress at a faster clip. In others (PlayScreen Poker, for example) they were ‘consumables’: poker chips that eventually run out. Even though a small percentage of users participated in these in-app purchases, Facebook’s virality enabled these games to be promoted at low cost. Pretty much everything you did in these games ended up being a post on your or your friend’s wall.

The concept of ‘Freemium’ goes back even further. In China, game piracy was so rampant that the Freemium model made sense as a way to effectively monetize games in an extremely challenging market.

Where did Freemium go wrong?

1. Many of the Freemium apps rely on ‘whales’ to support the non-paying users. For example the reported figure is that only 1.3% of Zynga’s monthly players are paying players. That model only works if these ‘whales’ can be persuaded to spend a great deal. One way that is done is to use psychological techniques that exploit addictive behaviors.

2. Some Freemium games have IAP’s to give players advantages (better weapons, stats, etc.) that they can use against other players, unbalancing the game.

3. Frankly, many players simply do not want to pay for digital goods or content.

You can see a swing back to ‘normal’ paid apps in some cases. For example Zynga’s new iOS game Horn is a ‘Paymium’ $6.99 game with in-app items. More notable is Final Fantasy Dimensions which is offered in a ‘Paymium’ $2.99 version, with additional chapters for $9.99 apiece – OR – a buy it all for $28.99.

To be fair, these are high production AAA apps. Still there have always been successful paid apps on iOS. Tiny Wings, Angry Birds etc. But even with 30 years in the game business I can tell you that predicting what titles will hit pay dirt is more art than science. It’s a gamble.

So what is “Fair to Play” and why should I care?

Fair to Play has its origin in the old arcade model of gaming. Put your quarter(s) in and play the game. But there’s more to it than that.

We originally released a free iPhone version of Crickler in 2011. Our business model then was to give players a limited number of “puzzle credits”. Starting to solve a puzzle cost one puzzle credit. Although we had a loyal base of users, we still got complaints when players ran out of credits. It turns out some players just didn’t want to pay.

One way to deal with that was to add Tapjoy. Watch an ad, earn credits. We also rewarded users who completed puzzles and bragged on Facebook or Twitter. The results were surprisingly positive: the revenue from the in-app purchases and/or ad units covered 90 percent or more of the value of the puzzles users play. That’s a huge contrast from the 1.3 percent daily app purchases (DAP) that other Freemium apps often have to deal with.

Fair to Play – By awarding puzzles for social actions (bragging) or watching a commercial we allow users who simply do not want to do an IAP to continue to play the game. We might even give players more credits than they expended to play the puzzle in the first place for bragging on Facebook. Being generous (versus milking players to the last dollar) has resulted in days where 10 percent of the players went for IAP or “Earn a Credit” activities.

If you’re a social/mobile developer, not depending on whales feels great. Based on our experience with this peculiar puzzle game, we expect to see many more studios try a Fair to Play approach. Taking down artificial paywalls in favor of a more healthy back-and-forth between players earning and spending in-game currency might be the only way to address the shortcomings of Freemium, saving countless studios (and jobs) in the process.(source:gamesindustry)