作者：Nicholas Lovell

VG247在一篇长文中提出了疑问，即关于微交易是否会彻底改变单人游戏。至少我是这么认为的，以下是我对这一观点的总结：

“发行商和开发者们经过了长期的努力终于让人们不再只是评估内容的价值，而是针对内容给自己的感受进行评估……”

除此之外我也回答了文章中未提及的其它问题，如：

单人游戏的应用内部购买（IAP）是否是未来的发展趋势？

早前这种模式主要局限于多人游戏模式中，但是《极限竞速》却实现了在单人游戏中使用真钱购买汽车的创想。你是否认为今后的单人游戏IAP将成为所有游戏模式中的一种标准机制？

如果缺少了社交环境，游戏便很难基于IAP模式与玩家达成情感共鸣。就像当我们一个人待在家里时，总是会换上最舒适家居服，而将光鲜亮丽的外套和珠宝丢于一旁。同样道理，如果没有别人在意自己的游戏进展，玩家根本不可能进行IAP。

这种情况不只停留在多人游戏中。像排行榜，与好友车库或足球队的社交连接，在Xbox Live或Steam上的个人资料等都是重要的影响元素。也就是玩家们可以在操场上，车间里或者社交网站上大声地炫耀自己的成绩。这是一种受成就或奖励所驱使的机制。

虽然并非每一款多人游戏都适合这种机制，但是我们确实可在大量多人游戏中看到这一机制。如果根据参数指示，玩家愿意为你的IAP掏腰包，能够帮助你双倍或三倍增加每用户平均收益，并让你从更多玩家身上赚取更多利益，你怎么可能错过这种机遇？

是否需要留意核心内容？

FIFA(from topnews)

基于这种模式的盈利其实还不是很流行，但是在像《FIFA》的“Ultimate Team”中就取得了非常棒的效果。你是否认为像艺电等公司需要留意那些精明且直言不讳的玩家所具有的危险性（即使他们已经成功吸引了大多数玩家的注意）？

对于我来说真正需要留意的核心是未能把握要领。现在的我们还处于免费游戏发展的前期。我们拥有极具侵略性的盈利模式，具有较大影响力的心理控制技巧，以及穿插于游戏设计中各种伦理元素。但是我们还有很长的一段路要走。

你可能会问“公司是否应该留心过度利用玩家所具有的危险性”。既然说是“过度”，那就必须多加提防。但是我并不认为公司应该阻止玩家根据游戏环境去判断如何花钱，同时还要为那些不愿花钱（游戏邦注：也就是在免费游戏中），或者只投入少量数额（基于付费游戏）的玩家创造非常棒的游戏体验。

（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）

Forza Horizons, IAP and VG247

By Nicholas Lovell

VG247 posted a long piece on the IAP on Forza Horizons to ask whether this was a fundamental shift in how single player games are considering microtransactions. I believe so, and said so extensively in the piece. My summary:

“It has taken this long for publishers and developers to realise that people don’t value content: they value how that content makes them feel. The floodgates are now open.”

For more context, go and read the full post.

I also answered some other questions that weren’t included, so I post them here.

Are single-player IAPs the future?

We’ve mainly seen this limited to multiplayer modes, but in Forza Horizon it’s possible to buy any car (I think) using real money in the single-player campaign. Do you think single-player IAPS are going to become a standard feature across all modes in major games as we move forward?

It is harder to build the emotional resonance with players to spend money on IAP without a social context. If you are sitting at home on your own with no one looking, you are more likely to be slobbing out in T-shirt and a tracksuit than your best Ted Baker shirt or bling accessories. Similarly, it is harder (but not impossible) to persuade players to spend on IAP without someone looking.

That doesn’t have to mean multiplayer though. It can be leaderboards or a social connection with your friends’ garages or football teams or profiles via Xbox Live or Steam. It can simply be bragging rights in the playground, the workplace, or on social networks. It can be driven by achievements or trophies.

I don’t think it will appear in every single multiplayer game. I think it will appear in many, if not most. If the metrics show that players willingly spend money on IAP, potentially doubling or tripling your ARPU and helping you make money from second/third/fourth owners and pirates, you would be foolish not to explore this area.

Should companies heed the core?

Monetisation in this form isn’t popular among the core, but it’s proving successful in features such as Ultimate Team in FIFA. Do you think companies like EA should be mindful of the dangers of over-exploiting savvy, vocal gamers, even if they’re successful with the majority?

The core is, to my mind, missing the point. We are in the very early days of F2P. We have had the Wild West of over-aggressive monetisation, of psychological tricks that manipulate the susceptible, of experiments that that played with the very notion of ethics in games design. We have a long way to go.

Your question was “should companies be mindful of the dangers of over-exploiting gamers”. Of course they should. That’s what “over” means. But do I think that they should shy away from allowing people to spend lots of money on things they truly value in the context of the game, while also giving a good and meaningful experience to people who never pay anything (in freemium titles) or only the ticket price (in the case of paid-for games)? No, I absolutely don’t.(source:gamesbrief)