作者：Will Freeman

过去时日，免费体验、花钱推动游戏进程这些商业模式为游戏开发者呈现出一个全新大胆的平台。目前这种模式在移动和在线领域十分普遍，通过游戏内部交易产生收益，确实可将一款最新发行的产品变成赚钱工具。

《Tiny Tower》这类游戏的发行证明了免费游戏可以引领技术行业的创新风。

市场调研公司Distimo指出，虽然iOS App Store内只有4%的游戏采用应用内置购买模式，但该应用商店却有72%的利润来源于这种交易模式。

然而，免费增值游戏并非大势已定。虽然许多不同的付费平台和全新的盈利机制争相跃入开发者的眼帘，但是主机平台上的免费模式尚未盛行，游戏内置广告内容仍可作为切实可行的替代方案。

Steam、OnLive和Facebook这些发行平台都有通过数字内容获利的专属系统，而应用商店内的游戏平均售价正逐渐下降。

服务与支付

Games Analytics首席执行官Chris Wright指出：“免费游戏是一种十分新颖的模式，但它在盈利渠道上仍处起步阶段。”

“玩家喜欢游戏为其提供选择，比如玩法及哪些东西需要付费。当游戏迅速发展成为基于服务的产品时，它将成为有价值的服务，游戏开发者需要愉悦他们的用户，制作出用户喜欢的游戏。”

也就是说，在考虑壮大工作室的同时，开发者也需尊重玩家，为玩家提供一系列的选项，鼓励他们继续体验游戏。

出现在《Tiny Tower》这类强制循环游戏内的过分盈利行为，可能令玩家感到不满，而且苛刻的游戏内置购买机制甚至会局限了优秀游戏的信誉和创意。

所以，开发者需保持灵活的盈利模式，之后可能会出现结合订阅、免费增值、预先付款方式这些元素的混合模式，这表示传统的“付费模式”仍有许多生存空间。

《Galaxy on Fire 2 HD》工作室Fishlabs首席执行官Michael Schade建议：“在此，我们需坚持带有应用内置购买（IAP）的免费游戏，但它的成功归结于游戏的平衡性，以及增加玩家留存率和游戏热情的操作细节，我们不能像许多发行商那样采用过度盈利行为损害玩家社区。”

他补充道：“我个人认为付费模式不会迅速消失。”

“在我看来，这不仅仅是一个纯粹的商业模式，而是能够将自己的产品区别于大量免费游戏的核心特点。”

尽管如此，Schade承认，将来有必要找寻其它方式重新定义付费模式这一命题。

他称：“目前，付费一词与付费下载模式紧密结合。但是未来，我们将把付费模式与当前免费游戏市场的某些方面结合，这可能更合理一些。”

跨平台收益

这一领域的其他开发商则力图通过减少游戏内置交易的障碍而优化传统的免费增值模式。BoxPAY是一家信奉手机付费将会主宰未来的公司。

BoxPAY联合创始人Iain McConnon坚称：“一次触屏收费和应用内置收费是这一领域最让人兴奋的功能，你可以在Android平台上运用此项功能。”Iain相信一键式收费必定会取代SMS私人密码访问，作为移动平台的付费选择。

他声明：“这项功能可以毫无缝隙地融合玩家的用户经验值，它必定会增加交易数量，从而创造更多的收益。”

当然，随着手机持有量在游戏行业某些最有前景的新兴市场的扩散，类似BoxPAY所提供的解决方案将会变得越发有趣。

我们还要考虑到平台融合现象的出现。随着移动和平板设备的势头足以削弱家庭主机，盒装游戏的发行商力争重建他们的商业模式，在不久的将来，跨设备的盈利模式可能将掌控游戏领域。

SponsorPay营销总监Projjol Banerjea表示：“我们相信跨平台盈利模式会越发重要，最终成为我们获利的选择。”Projjol指出，广告仍可作为收费内容或虚拟货币盈利的方式。

“我们的目标是在不考虑地域、平台、设备的情况下，保证用户可以更加便捷地访问我们的游戏。”

当然，SponsorPay和BoxPAY提供的服务稍微不同于典型的免费模式，它们更可能更适合并未完全依赖一键式消费模式的主机游戏领域。

这种融合方式甚至可能引发支付方式、技术和模式的全球标准化现象，因为致力于多个平台的开发者此时就需要一个适用于不同平台的单个系统。

随着CCP的《EVE Online》等游戏扩展到移动和主机平台，毫无疑问，付费方案供应商必须快速行动，避免出现让用户和开发者产生困惑的大量复杂商业模式。

新型盈利方式

全新盈利方式的转型，给传统开发者和发行商带来极大挑战，他们不得不同Zynga和Mojang Specifications这些遥遥领先的新兴工作室竞争。后者通过“半成品”的预付费用而获取巨大收益。

然而，这些新兴的数字内容开发者还需面临不少挑战，他们在平衡游戏内置盈利模式上面临走钢丝的境地。

电子商务平台Gate2Shop持有者Jonathan Mabey警告：“这种促进发展的技术同样存在潜在困难。”

“从某种程度上说，行业鼓励创新，因为这毕竟是创意和人类本性。”

“但最终还是要确保支付技术具有可行性，我们需要时时注意这一点，尤其是在风险控制和预防诈骗方面。我们必须平衡灵活的盈利模式，同时保持供应商所期望的安全性。”

PSN被黑客攻击丑闻等广泛的媒体报道动摇了用户对他们的信心，而Mabey所触及的问题也越发重要，这不仅是因为开发者和用户都将成为受害者。

付费系统及电子钱包服务供应商Skrill首席执行官Martin Ott提到：“我建议客户确保自己在存储付费数据等敏感信息上要保持谨慎。”

“最近的攻击事件突出表明，不少黑客已将目标瞄准游戏公司，因为这类公司拥有庞大的活跃数据基础。虽然开发者和发行商无法停止他们的行为，但是他们可以确保黑客无果而终。”

如果这不值得游戏公司担心，那么用户被骗事件应该是重要事件，而在此之前，公司最应关心盈利问题。

吸引用户注意

Banerjea坚称：“免费模式面临的最大挑战之一为缺少用户的最初投资，结果游戏需付出高昂的费用。”

“市场上的大量可行选择给发行商和开发商带来了一个巨大挑战，他们需不断努力吸引用户注意力并留存用户。而最大的障碍就是确保用户足够投入游戏，这种投入可以是货币形式、短暂形式、情感投入、或者是这三个元素的结合——为了阻止玩家转移到另一款游戏。”

尽管面临挑战，但其发展潜力巨大。随着新型平台和模式的出现，如今的市场可能在下一个十年将发生巨大变化。

游戏类型的发展带动了盈利模式的变化。如果说那些支持付费模式的群体与寻求新盈利方式的开发者之间存在共识，那就是多样性与灵活性。付费与体验的渠道越多，成功的机率也就越大。

财务顾问的建议

不知如何优化游戏的非传统获利模式？Fishlab的Michael Schade将为你提供一些建议。

虽然目前有一系列支付服务供应商和盈利模式可供选择，但游戏能否盈利主要责任还在于游戏开发者。

这意味着开发者需确保创意与运营之间的微妙平衡关系，并且有信心与最热门的商业模式背道相行。

Fishlabs首席执行官Michael Schade提到：“开发者应想办法尽可能多地接触更多的玩家，随着时间的推移，将社区内的非付费玩家转变成付费用户。”

“带有IAP的免费游戏对所有开发者而言，可能并不一定都是成功的解决方案。在你盲目地复制竞争对手的商业模式前，你的团队应先分析自己的IP，评估自己在游戏市场的机会。”

Schade建议，在某种情况下，采取同竞争对手相反的营销策略可能更有效果。

“以Fishlabs为例。尽管大多数游戏要么以99美分的价格发行，要么采用免费模式，而我们的《Galaxy on Fire 2》却能以9.99美元在App Store保持将近一年的时间。这款游戏目前仍然非常热门，而且创造了不错的收益。”

免费模式存在弊端吗？

以下为Mobile Pie创意总监兼Develop专栏作家Will Luton所述内容。

“通常人们会建议开发者利用一些秘密的心理技巧让玩家自动掏腰包，从而运营一款可获利的虚拟货币游戏——这很像是含有信用卡资料的斯金纳箱。”

“从游戏开发者的角度看，这是一种伪善的做法。从街机模式到如今可体验上百个小时的RPG模式，我们判断游戏的标准，是看这款游戏能否刺激玩家的循环体验。游戏行业已经构造出带有付出与回报的复杂系统，类似电影、书籍或任何艺术作品，它可以唤起玩家的情感意识，保持他们持续体验游戏。如果游戏没有植入这项功能，那么它们就是失败的作品。”

“谁付费以及付费多少可以改变虚拟货币和免费增值模式。人们再也无需为没有完玩的游戏支付40英镑。相反这些游戏将永久免费，但是如果你支付几英镑，那么你可以加速游戏进程或者获得一顶漂亮的帽子。游戏就是虚拟货币营销的手段。”

“喜爱体验游戏的忠实粉丝会支付大笔费用，并为游戏引入更多的玩家。而认为游戏糟糕的玩家不会为游戏花一分钱，并且极早离开。如果那些付费玩家完全清楚自己在付费，并且他们都不是孩子，那么这似乎会是一种更好的情况。”

Facebook Credits的重要性

当Facebook于7月推出自己的虚拟货币“Credits”，并强迫开发者使用时，此举引发了一场争议。

这一虚拟货币让Facebook收获了该平台所有采用微交易模式的游戏30％的收益。

更重要的是，它还将开发者专属或者外部支付系统排挤出局。

Facebook所提供的收益分成比OnLive的40%分成更多，并为该平台开发商提供了支付后盾。同时，它还能鼓励持有Facebook Credits玩家体验该平台多种游戏，而不仅局限于Zynga及其竞争对手推出的榜单热门游戏。

Facebook坚称Credits可以帮助开发者创造收益，从而让他们投入更多精力专注于制作游戏。

Facebook发言人表示：“已有超过1000款游戏和应用，以及全球500多家开发商使用Facebook Credits，他们提供了最简单的渠道方便用户在Facebook上购买商品和服务。”

“Credits为用户提供一种熟悉且一致的付费经历，并且提供了存储付费信息的可靠地方。”

目前，该社交网站正在开通全新的渠道用于支付和赚取Credits，它为开发者增加收益并在该领域获胜提供了额外途径。

此发言人坚称：“这意味着开发者可以专注于自己擅长的领域——比如制作出色的游戏和应用。”

Facebook Credits确实在开发者社区收获了不少支持者。法国工作室Kobojo在《Pyramidville》、《Goobox》和《RobotZ》使用Facebook Credits后，增加了20%的收益。

现在，Kobojo已经吸引了400多万的月活跃用户，目前为止已创收大约775万美元。Facebook表示，这一成功安例体现了Credits系统的巨大潜力。（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）

Beyond free-to-play: The future of game monetisation

by Will Freeman

Free has emerged as a dominant method for generating revenue from digital games, but it is only the beginning…

Gone are the days when the free-to-play, pay-to-progress business model marked a bold new frontier for game developers. Today it is very much a norm in the mobile and online spaces, and revenue generation through in-game transactions is an established way to turn a newly releaed product into a breadwinner.

Releases such as Tiny Tower, meanwhile, have proved that free-to-play games can charm the tech industries’ trendsetting hegemony.

And according to market research firm Distimo, while only four per cent of titles in the iOS App Store feature an in-app purchasing business model, 72 per cent of revenue generated in that market comes from consumers paying for in-app items.

The waters of free-to-play have not completely settled, however. While different payment platforms and new monetisation mechanics jostle for developer’s attention, free has a long way to go in the console space, and in-game advertising models still offer viable alternatives.

Distribution platforms like Steam, OnLive and Facebook all have their own proprietary systems for making cash from digital content, while the average selling price of games on app stores is tumbling.

SERVICE AND DELIVER

“Free-to-play is a very innovative model but is really the first step in a line of finding interesting ways of monetising games,” says Games Analytics CEO Chris Wright.

“People like to be given the choice on how to play and what to spend money on. As games become increasingly service based it will be the service that is valuable, game developers will need to entertain their customers and build games that they want.”

That considered, studios hoping to thrive will also need to respect players, giving them a range of options and incentivising them to keep playing.

Aggressive monetisation seen in compulsion loop games like Tiny Tower can be off-putting to many players, and rigid in-game purchasing mechanics can limit the credibility and creativity of even the most well-intended titles.

That need to remain flexible may see hybrid models emerge combining elements from subscription, freemium and upfront payment approaches, meaning there is still plenty of life in the traditional‘premium model’.

“Free-to-play with in-app-purchasing is here to stay, but success lies in the balancing and the implementation of details that increase player retention and morale at a time where many publishers ravage their respective communities by monetising too aggressively,” suggests Michael Schade, CEO of Galaxy on Fire 2 HD studio Fishlabs.

“Personally, I feel that premium won’t go away anytime soon,” he adds.

“In my opinion it is more than a mere business model, but a core feature that differentiates your product from the vast majority of free-to-play titles.”

Despite this, Schade concedes that it will be necessary to look for ways to redefine the premium proposition in the future.

“So far, the term premium has been strongly associated with the pay-per-download model,” says the Fishlabs boss. “But for the future it might also make sense to look outside the box and combine the premium model with certain aspects of the current free-to-play market.”

BAD VIBRATIONS

Other developments in the space seek to improve the conventional free-to-play model by reducing the friction of in-game purchases. BoxPAY is a company committed to the idea that enabling mobile phone payments will define the future of free.

“One-touch billing, and in-app billing are some of the most exciting developments on the horizon, and you can already see it happening on the Android platform,” insists BoxPAY co-founder Iain McConnon , who believes that one-click billing must replace SMS pin entry as a payment option for mobile.

“This makes the integration into the gamer user-experience almost seamless and will most certainly increase transactions and generate more revenue,” he claims.

Certainly, with the proliferation of mobile phone ownership in some of the games industry’s most promising emerging markets, solutions like that provided by BoxPAY become increasingly interesting.

Another consideration is that of the long-predicted advent of platform convergence. As the power of mobile and tablet devices knocks on the door of home consoles, and publishers of boxed games scramble to reinvent their business models, revenue models that straddle devices may emerge as the most dominant in the near future.

“A cross-platform approach to monetisation is one that we believe is – and will be – of increasing importance and have chosen to adopt ourselves,” says Projjol Banerjea, director of marketing at SponsorPay, which offers an advertising solution for the monetisation of premium content or virtual currency.

“Our goal is to make our services both easily accessible and convenient to use for our customers, regardless of domain, platform or device.”

Certainly, services like SponsorPay’s and BoxPAY’s, which offer something a bit different from the typical free-to-play model, have huge potential to adapt to a world where console games generate revenue without relying exclusively on the point-of-purchase model.

That convergence could even trigger a global standardisation of payment methods, technologies and models, as developers working on multiple platforms need a system that is workable regardless of the different OS’s.

As titles like CCP’s EVE Online expand to mobile and console, there is little doubt payment solution providers need to act fast to prevent the foundation of massively complex business models that have the potential to bewilder the consumer and developer alike.

NEW MONEY

The transition to these new methods of making money is already testing traditional developers and publishers, who have to compete with the runaway success of more youthful, agile studios such as Zynga and Mojang Specifications. The latter of which has made a fortune from charging an upfront fee for an unfinished product.

There are challenges too, however, for the new school of digital content developers, who are all faced with walking the hair-thin line of balanced in-game monetisation.

“The technology that allows such steps forward can also have potential difficulties,” warns Jonathan Mabey of ecommerce platform holder Gate2Shop.

“In a way, innovations take care of themselves, because that’s creative and human nature.

“However, the payment technology has to work in the end, and that needs constant attention, especially risk management and fraud prevention. We need to find the balance between the best flexibility for a player, while maintaining the prudence and security expected from us by the vendor.”

In the wake of widely reported events like the PSN hacking scandal that shook consumer confidence, the issues Mabey touches on are increasingly important, not least because the developers themselves can become as much a victim as the consumers.

“We advise our customers to make sure they don’t internalise sensitive processes like storing payment data,” offers Martin Ott, chief executive of payment system and digital wallet specialist Skrill.

“The recent attacks have highlighted that a lot of hackers target gaming companies in particular, due to their active large databases. While developers and publishers can’t really stop themselves from being targeted they can make sure that hackers come out empty handed.”

And, if that weren’t enough to worry about, there is also the significant matter of consumer fraud, and before that, the very real problem of making any money at all.

ATTENTION SEEKERS

“One of the biggest challenges of the free-to-play model in games is the lack of initial investment from the user resulting in high attrition,” asserts Banerjea.

“When paired with the vast number of options available in the market, it presents a formidable challenge to developers and publishers who are consistently battling to either secure user attention or to retain it. The big hurdle is to secure sufficiently high investment from the user – either monetary or temporal or emotional, or a combination of these – to prevent him or her from moving on to another game.”

Yet despite the challenges, the potential is huge. As new platforms and models emerge, the market today may be unrecognisable in the next decade.

As the kinds of games played evolves, so does the way those games make money. If there is a general consensus between those at the heart of the payments sector and the developers looking at new ways of generating profits, it is that diversity and flexibility is key. The more ways to pay and play means a far greater opportunity for success, both critically and commercially.

Financial advisor

Unsure of how to optimise your game’s non-traditional revenues? Fishlab’s Michael Schade has some advice

The onus of revenue generation still falls on games developers, despite the current range of payment service providers and monetisation models on offer these days.

That means a delicate balancing of creativity and business nous, and the confidence to contradict the most popular business models.

“Think of ways to reach out to as many players as possible and how to convert non-paying members of your community into paying members over time,” offers Fishlabs CEO Michael Schade. “But also think different.

“Free-to-play with in-app-purchase might not be an equally successful solution for all developers alike. Before you blindly copy your competitor’s business model, your team should take the time to analyse your IPs and evaluate their chances on the market.”

Schade suggests that in certain cases it might even make sense to do the opposite of what your competition does.

“Take Fishlabs, for example. Despite the fact that most other titles are either released in the 99 cent category right away or leave the premium price range rather quickly, we have been able to offer Galaxy on Fire 2 on the App Store for $9.99 over a period of almost one year. And the game is still very popular and gaining good profits.”

Free, it would seem, is far from the be all and end all of new game monetisation models.

Is free evil?

Mobile Pie creative director and Develop columnist Will Luton on free’s moral compass…

“It’s often suggested that running a profitable virtual currency game is about employing clandestine physiological tricks to extract money from players – that they’re nothing more than a Skinner

Box with credit card details.

“Coming from product game developers this is hypocrisy. Games have always been judged on their ability to encourage return play, from the arcades to the 100-plus hour RPG. We as an industry have, intentionally or otherwise, evolved to build complex systems of effort and reward which, like a film, a book or any other artwork, invoke emotions that keep us engaged with them. When they don’t do that, they have failed.

“What virtual currency and freemium models change is who pays and how much they pay. No longer is everyone splashing £40 for games that they don’t finish. Instead the deal is that the game is free forever, but you can progress a lot quicker or get a nice hat if you pay a few quid. The game is the marketing for the virtual currency product.

“The big fans who play and love the game, pay big bucks and bring more players to the party. Those that think your games suck, leave with a full wallet. If those paying players are fully aware of their spend and aren’t children, that seems a better deal for all.”

Credits where due

What do Facebook game credits mean for new game payment models?

When Facebook made its ‘Credits’ virtual currency mandatory for developers in July, it proved a controversial decision.

Ultimately, it guaranteed Facebook 30 per cent of all the revenues of the games that offered the likes of microtransactions on the all-powerful social network.

What’s more, it muscled out proprietary or external payment systems.

Still, the revenue split is more generous than that offered by OnLive which takes a 40 per cent cut, and provides studios with a payment backend maintained by one of the world’s largest and most established online outfits. It also arguably encourages players who have the universal Facebook Credits in their wallet to look to games beyond the chart-toppers produced by Zynga and its closest rivals.

Facebook insists that its Credits have been conceived to help developers generate revenue and allow them to focus their energy on creating games.

“With over 1,000 games and apps and over 500 developers globally using Facebook Credits, they provide the easiest way for people to buy virtual goods and services on Facebook,” a spokesperson for the social networking giant told Develop.

“Credits provide people with a familiar and consistent payment experience and a trusted place to store payment information.”

The social network is today investing in new ways to pay for and earn Credits, giving developers additional methods to increase their revenue and become successful in the online space.

“This means developers can focus on what they do best – building great games and applications,” insisted the spokesperson.

Facebook Credits certainly have their fans in the developer community. French studio Kobojo has seen a 20 per cent revenue increase after implementing Facebook Credits across its games Pyramidville, Goobox and RobotZ among others.

The developer now courts the attention of more than four million monthly active users and has made around $7.75 million to date. That success, according to Facebook, is a reflection of the potential of its Credits system.
(source:develop-online)