游戏邦在:
杂志专栏:
gamerboom.com订阅到鲜果订阅到抓虾google reader订阅到有道订阅到QQ邮箱订阅到帮看

免费增值游戏是否应该设置IAP付费上限?

发布时间:2012-10-16 18:00:55 Tags:,,,

作者:Zoya Street

问题:

Nicholas Lovell

我曾提到开发者应确保用户在游戏中至少拥有能够消费100美元的选择,主要是因为对许多初涉免费增值免费游戏的设计师而言,这已经是一个很惊人的数额。但Ben指出这是个很糟糕的规则,他认为你应该设计那种无付费上限的游戏。我同意他的看法,但却认为游戏开发者应该有一个明确的追求目标,然后超越这个目标。各位有何见解呢?

spending upper limit(from marketwatch.com)

spending upper limit(from marketwatch.com)

回答:

Harry Holmwood(Heldhand顾问)

我认为这个问题要考虑两个层面——运营层面,以及长期的道德层面。

我们看到在日本有些游戏的ARPPU每月可能超过200美元,我也看过一些中国游戏曾吸引玩家挥霍成千上万美元。如果让游戏设置100美元(或者其他数额)的付费上限,那么游戏的ARPPU势必会下降很多,游戏最终利润也会大受影响,所以我们应避免设置这种上限,只要低消费用户仍可享受有趣的游戏体验就行。

而从道德角度来看,虽然我很乐见游戏能够吸引每月投入1万美元的高消费玩家,但如果我知道这些玩家其实还有房债压力,我可能就不会有这种想法了。日本已经推出针对“Complete Gatcha”(游戏邦注:这个机制极具成瘾性,会诱使玩家投入大量金钱)的禁令。西方游戏领域尚未碰到这类问题,但如果我们继续纵容这种现象,也许有一天我们也会面临这种处境。

Melissa Clark-Reynolds(Minimonos创始人)

我同意Harry的看法,但有一点需要说明——这要取决于你的目标用户。

我们是面向儿童出售游戏,因此需要避免这一群体为游戏无度消费的现象。但即便如此,我们还是设计了开放式的支付渠道,每月的ARPPU几乎是《企鹅俱乐部》的2倍。

如果不了解用户获得成本(包括一般用户以及付费用户)以及他们的终身价值,那么这个讨论话题就不会有什么意义。如果你的用户获得成本高于他们的终身价值(消费投入),那么你的游戏运营就会遇到麻烦。有不少游戏甚至不惜花费100美元以上的成本去获得一名付费玩家,这些游戏的ARPPU应该要远远高于我们这种用户获得成本较低的领域。

Lance Priebe(Rocketsnail Games创始人)

这让我想起了孩子之宝的GIJOE USS Flag航空母舰,其设计宗旨就是让你一年在其中消费200美元。你可以免费看动画片,收集连环画,购买人形公仔和汽车。但GIJOE每隔两年都会推出一件令人大为兴奋的商品。我怀疑孩之宝公司并未售出多少航空母舰,我所认识的人都没有这种东西,但每个粉丝都不会忘记USS Flag。

而对免费增值游戏来说,它并不只是让玩家收集不同价格点的道具(总价值100美元)这么简单。设计师还需要考虑如何取悦玩家。粉丝是否会将你的道具列表打印出来并张贴在墙上?你的道具是否也像GIJOE航空母舰一样让玩家梦寐以求?

Martin Darby(Remode内容总监)

我认为在美国有个法律规定,如果你想买枪,许多销售点都奉行一个政策,即你不可在买枪后的24小时内使用它。这主要是为了抑制人们的购买冲动(防止人们将其用于谋杀、犯罪等行为)。

不知道我们能不能也将类似原理运用到IAP上,也就是为特定的价格门槛设置一个冷却期,允许用户在一定时间内取消购买决定。如果玩家确实是游戏的“真正粉丝”,免费增值游戏就确实是靠“真正粉丝”来盈利,他们不会轻易取消购买高价IAP的决定,因为他们确实很想得到X或Y道具,并非一时冲动而消费。

这种做法是否更有助于为免费增值游戏正名,还是会揭露这种模式的丑陋真相(即依靠用户的冲动消费而盈利)?

Felicity Foxx Herst(GREE产品经理)

“而对免费增值游戏来说,它并不只是让玩家收集不同价格点的道具(总价值100美元)这么简单”——我认为Lance这句话是一个关键点。

当然新手开发者来说,你当然不希望用户能够以低于盒装游戏的价格“买下整款游戏”。初入这一领域的开发者常被某些用户所创造的大量收益所震惊。我并不提倡使用“鲸鱼用户”导向型的设计,但认为应该为这些高消费用户提供更多选择以及合适的虚荣道具。最重要的是,用户只会为他们认为有价值的商品(即使是虚拟商品)花钱。

如果你只是将某个内容集合定价为60美元、100美元或者1万美元,那么我打赌你所设计的免费增值游戏一定有问题。

免费增值游戏本质上是一种服务,应该将这类游戏设计为一种长期服务,因为它们具有无穷吸引力的系统并非人们可以完成或者拥有的内容集合。无论它是采用易消耗品还是其他方式,服务模式都不应该存在上限。

Andy Payne(Mastertronic经营者)

我认为所有的免费增值游戏都可为玩家提供自由的选择,应该允许他们自主决定消费金额,不应该设置付费上限。但现在有许多针对数字商品和服务的消费者保护法问世,游戏开发商应该尽己所能制作能够产生积极回报和价值的游戏。管理条例的出台一般都表明某些错误现象已经频繁出现,而这对我们所有游戏开发者来说真不是个好兆头。我们已经有行业自律的传统,最好坚持这一传统并为用户打造安全的消费环境。

Mark Sorrell(Hide & Seek开发者)

我觉得Felicity的说法从经济和道德角度上看都很有道理。为你所爱的东西花许多钱,当然不是坏事。并且对我来说,如果用户长期为此花钱,这不仅表明用户确实从中得到满足,并且也反映了这是一种成熟而理性的经济模式。

游戏即服务正是免费增值模式的关键,我认为许多工作室在转型时正是在这一点上栽了跟头,免费增值游戏强调的并非“物体”而是“体验”。

许多开发者仍将制作游戏视为先创造物体,然后为其提供支持的过程,而不是将这类游戏视为长期且不断变化的体验。设计一种本质上需要长期运行的游戏体验,与令人印象深刻但瞬间即逝的体验之间确实存在差异,开发者需要转变思想观念。

Tadhg Kelly(What Games Are顾问)

我最近在玩一款免费增值游戏,我常去其中的商店查看可购买的东西,发现有些升级道具的标价是上千个游戏虚拟货币。我自己寻思道“我才不会买这东西,也不会花那么长时间升级到那个关卡”,我觉得这就像是一个穷小孩面对糖果店橱窗时产生的心理。

所以,正如其他人所言,服务体验的质量才是关键所在。

Will Luton(顾问)

Mark的观点很棒。如果玩家并未得到满足和快乐,他们就不会成为高消费用户——他们早就会离开游戏了。我们可以将100美元以上的价格视为目标,但如果游戏服务质量没有跟上,我们就无法实现目标。如果你的游戏中含有IAP,但游戏却并不能让人产生回报感,那么就不能对游戏收益抱有太大期望。

正如Harry原先所提到的,这些ARRPU极高的日本游戏会根据分析和玩家反馈来调整游戏,其寿命一般也会达到12个月甚至更久,它们确实有为玩家服务的意识。

模拟游戏领域的情况与此相似,忠诚度较高的玩家,愿意为自己所爱的内容掏钱(游戏邦注:例如火车、飞机等)。但这里的道德问题就在于,他们究竟能否负担自己想消费的金额。这几乎是一个无法解决的问题,也并不仅局限于游戏行业,从街头时尚到跑车等领域都存在这个问题。

Oscar Clark(Applifier倡导者)

游戏盈利需实现玩家粘性以及他们游戏寿龄的平衡。玩家进入游戏的时间长短不一,真正的粉丝(指每月消费100美元以上的用户)玩游戏8-12天之后才会开始付费。但这并不只是钱的问题。我们需要创造玩家喜爱并想持续数天、数月和数年重复体验的娱乐内容。对于这种娱乐体验,我们不可用随意设定一个付费上限的态度来看待。我们需要以发展的眼光看待产品,并赋予其重复体验的娱乐性……我们不能着眼于玩家会在其中花多少钱,而要清楚他们只有喜欢游戏时才会心甘情愿地掏钱。

我们还需要注意把握易消耗品(例如售价10美分,一次性使用的能量Crystals)以及耐用品(例如每天可产生20个Crystals的能量井)之间的平衡,以便平衡用户对长短期风险的感觉,并进一步深化游戏粘性。(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

Should there be an upper limit on IAP spending?

Zoya Street

Question:

Nicholas Lovell

This week’s question is courtesy of Ben Cousins and GAMESbrief’s rules of F2P.

In the GAMESbrief rules, I propose that developers should make sure that customers can spend at least $100 in a game, mainly because to designers who are new to free-to-play, this seems like a staggeringly high amount. Ben said that this was a terrible rule: you should actively design to ensure that there is no upper limit to the amount someone can spend in a game. I tend to agree with Ben, but think that it is worth giving game makers a target to aim for, and then exceed. What do you think?

Answers:

Harry Holmwood, Consultant at Heldhand

I think there are two aspects to this question – the business case and, perhaps in the longer term, the moral one.

We’re seeing games in Japan generating ARPPUs well in excess of $200 per month. I’ve even read about Chinese titles which attract individual spends in the tens of thousands of dollars. If there was a finite limit of $100 (or whatever) for the title, of course that ARPPU would be a lot lower, and the game ultimately less profitable, so we should definitely avoid putting any limits in place, provided lower spending users still get an enjoyable and worthwhile experience.

From a moral perspective, while I’d be delighted to get $10,000 a month by hooking in a Premiership footballer or Oligarch to a game, I wouldn’t feel the same way about getting that kind of money from someone who’s struggling to pay a mortgage. Japan has taken steps to ban the ‘Complete Gatcha’ mechanic, which was proving overly additive and costly. We’re not yet at the stage where there’s any real problem in the West, but, if we keep getting better at what we do, it’s possible there could be.

Melissa Clark-Reynolds Founder of Minimonos

Harry, I tend to agree with you, with one caveat – it depends on your target customer.

We sell to children, and I think in that demographic it is really important to protect the children from spending a lot of money.  Even so, we design for open ended payments and have a monthly ARPPU that is almost twice that of Club Penguin.

This discussion can’t be meaningful without also understanding the cost to acquire (both a user and a paying one) and their kLTV.  If you are spending more to acquire a user than they spend, you are in big trouble.  Conceivably there are games out there which have paid more than $100 to acquire a paying user.  They need to have an ARPPU of much higher than a world like ours where the cost to acquire is much lower.

Lance Priebe Founder of Rocketsnail Games

I a reminded of the GIJOE USS Flag Aircraft Carrier.

http://youtu.be/hopjrK0X27M

The entire franchise was designed for you to spend a couple hundred dollars a year. You could watch the animated series for free, collect the episodic comics, buy the action figures and vehicles.

But every couple years GIJOE would release the mind-blowing $100 item. I doubt Hasbro sold many aircraft carriers. I never met anyone that had one, but every fan remembers the USS Flag.

There is more to free-to-play than just have a collection of items at various price points that equal $100. What are you doing to delight your fans? Will your fans print a list of your items and post them on their wall? Did you ever wish you could have the GIJOE Aircraft Carrier?

Side Note: The day the USS Flag was announced, I recreated the entire aircraft carrier in cardboard with working elevators.

Martin Darby CCO at Remode

In the states I believe there is a law where if you want to buy a firearm many outlets operate a policy where you cannot pick it up for 24 hours after purchase. The theory is that it deters the impulse decision making (relating to murder, crime etc).

I wonder if we should be applying a similar theory to IAP, where over a certain $ threshold there is a cooling off period which gives the user a certain time period in which they can cancel the decision. Applying this logic, surely if the player really is a ‘true fan’, and F2P really is all about monetizing ‘true fans’ he/she would not cancel the high value IAP at any point because they clearly want item X or Y irrespective of impulse.

Would this help vindicate F2P or prove an ugly truth?

Felicity Foxx Herst Product Manager at GREE

“There is more to free-to-play than just have a collection of items at various price points that equal $100″ — I’m pulling Lance’s quote out of context but I think this is a crucial point.

Sure it’s a target for new devs as you certainly don’t want users to be able to “buy the entire game” for less than the cost of a box product. Those new to the F2P space are still often shocked by how few users generate the vast majority of revenue. I’m not advocating whale-driven design, but providing options and desirable vanity items for these core high-spending users is a part of serving your audience. The value of goods – even virtual ones – is what your customer will pay for them in the end.

But if you’re just pricing a collection of content up to $60 or $100 or $10,000, then I’d hazard you’re not doing F2P right.

An F2P product is by nature a service. Games as a service should be designed for the long term, as systems that are endlessly engaging not collections of content that can be completed or owned.

Whether it’s consumables or another method, in the service model there is no upper limit.

Andy Payne Owner of Mastertronic

I would say that all F2P games can allow players freedom of choice and they should be allowed to spend as much as they want with no upper limit. But with all sorts of consumer protection legislation for digital goods and services coming down the line, game makers should do their best to make games which positively reward spending and over deliver on value to the player. Regulation always signifies something has gone wrong too many times, and that is bad news for all of us who make games. We have a history of self regulation. Would be nice to keep that intact by encouraging safeguarding for players or all ages ideally.

Mark Sorrell Developer at Hide & Seek

Felicity has it nailed, I feel, from both an economic and ethical standpoint. Spending a lot of money on something you love is, of course, fine. And, to my mind, if that money is spent consistently over a long period of time, that not only indicates quite strongly that the customer is satisfied, but also represents a more mature and sensible economic model.

Games as services is very much the point of free-to-play, which is, I suspect, where many studios go wrong when making the switch. It really isn’t about the ‘objects’ it’s about the ‘experiences’.

Many developers are still making games as objects and then supporting them, rather than seeing them as ongoing and ever-changing experiences. Thinking about how to design a fundamentally, intrinsically long-running game-experience over an impressive but short-lived one,is an important shift in philosophy.

Tadhg Kelly Consultant at What Games Are

Sure. But bring everyone else along for the ride too.

I recently got into playing an f2p game. I went to the store to see what was purchasable in the game (as I often do these days), to discover that some of the major upgrades were priced at a thousand of the game’s hard currency. Thinking to myself “I’m just never going to spend that, nor play long enough to get to that level for free”, I felt like the poor kid with his nose on the window of the sweet shop.

So, as others have said, the quality of the service experience matters.

Will Luton Consultant

That’s a very good point from Mark. If the player isn’t satisfied and happy, they’re unlikely to hit that top spend – they’ll bounce long before. So $100+ can be the aim, but without the quality to back it up, you won’t reach it. If you’re IAPs and game aren’t rewarding, you can expect only one per person maximum.

As with what Harry mentioned earlier, these super high-ARRPU Japanese games will go for 12 months or more of grinding refinement based on analytics and player feedback, before they hit an inflection point. That’s really serving the player.

Very similar to the world of simulation games. High dedication players, willing to spend on something they love (trains, airplanes etc). Again, as Harry says, the moral question is when they can’t afford what they’re willing to spend. That is almost impossible to address and not just a problem for games but all discretionary spend from high street fashion to sports cars.

Oscar Clark Evangelist at Applifier

Monetizing games is a fine balancing act between the engagement level of the player at that point and their longevity as a user. Players go through different life stages of play and it takes 8-12 days for a Truefan (Spending $100+/month) to start paying. But its not just about money.  We need to create entertainment that players will love and want to repeat time and again for days, months and years.  That kind of entertainment needs a different attitude than arbitrary caps of potential spending.  It needs a mindset that we will evolve the product and given them entertainment in repeating play… The result is no limit on how much they can spend – but they only spend if they enjoy that game.

We have also seen that a good balance between consumable (e.g. one-use energy Crystals for 10cents) and durable (e.g. a well of energy crystals giving 20 crystals per day) goods is essential to balancing the user perception of short-term and long-term risk; and to deepen engagement with the game.

X-City has a user who has spent over $35k over 9 months on the game.  It wasn’t a random act – they did this over a long period of time.(source:gamesbrief


上一篇:

下一篇: