作者：Lars Doucet

《盗版与四种货币》是我最受欢迎的一篇文章，我在其中用了四种“心理货币”去解释盗版的经济原理，而这四种货币分别是：金钱货币（$M），时间货币（$T），痛苦货币（$P）以及正直货币（$I）。购买行为不光是花钱，同时还将包含时间，痛苦，甚至是节操。

four currencies（from gamasutra）

概括

在那篇文章中我基于这四种货币着重讨论了盗版行为，尽管它无需投入$M成本，但却需要玩家付出$T，$P和$I成本——因为盗版行为需要承担恶意软件所具有的风险，并且算是一种非法行为（游戏邦注：基于盗版人的观点，$I值也会发生变化）。开发者将通过删除具有侵略性的DRM并提供有效的用户服务而与盗版行为相抗衡，如此才能降低$T和$P成本。每个人对不同货币的重视度也各不相同。例如有钱人比起金钱便更加看重便利，忙碌的人更强调节约时间，而那些带有坚定信仰的人则不会为了金钱在信念上让步（花费$I）。

的确，$I代表着各种意识形态。如Richard Stallman（游戏邦注：美国自由软件运动的精神领袖，GNU计划以及自由软件基金会的创立者）便会投入更多$I成本于专利软件的使用中，我就不会这么做；而坚定的素食主义者也会投入$I成本于皮革大衣中。

免费游戏

现在让我们将这四种货币带进免费游戏中。

我们已经看到许多成功的免费游戏，包括《愤怒的小鸟》，《军团要塞2》等，并且这些游戏的成功也赋予了大型多人在线游戏全新的生命，不再只是局限于像《魔兽世界》这种类型上。但是与此同时我们也注意到像Zynga这样的免费游戏领导者正逐渐衰败，并且也出现了许多关于免费游戏收益不断下降的文章描述。

关于免费游戏的争议一直持续着，所以让我们着眼全局先明确到底发生了什么。

分析

首先，免费游戏与盗版游戏正展开激烈的竞争，因为游戏的准入障碍已经低得不能再低了。下载一款免费游戏无需花费任何$M，$P以及$I（对于那些对下载盗版游戏感到内疚的人而言），而只需要少量的$T。

F2P VS Piracy（from gamasutra）

尽管免费游戏无需$M成本，但是它通过添加了$T和$P成本去鼓励玩家支付$M成本。这与传统游戏完全相反，即当玩家购买了游戏（尽管具有侵略性的DRM，DLC和糟糕的设计）后，便无需再投入额外的$I，$P或$M成本了。

根据一些优秀的免费游戏设计实践，开发者故意在游戏中添加了更多不便元素，让玩家可以通过删除这些元素去换取利益。这便是准入障碍，需要时间的投入，所以在此便包含了“双重货币”系统，即玩家既可以花钱去获得奖励，也能够花时间去刷任务。

traditional game vs F2P（from gamasutra）

如此看来传统游戏就像是一台激光打印机：售价昂贵，但却很容易操作。而免费游戏则更像是喷墨打印机：售价低廉，但却极难操作，特别是当你的公司的商业策略不甚完善时。

一方面，免费游戏将提供给玩家各种选择。许多人虽然没钱游戏，但却拥有大把的时间或者是忍耐力。除此之外它还让玩家能够在一种“按照菜单点菜”的环境下消费（以防游戏中只存在少数玩家喜欢的内容）。这是一种有效的设定。

另一方面，免费游戏添加了各种不便元素并通过不断让玩家付钱而进入“魔法阵”中，所以许多设计师才会认为免费游戏是“邪恶的”，而不只因为它们是害怕改变的“卢德派”。可以说，免费游戏既可能回到过去，也可能超前发展而走向未来。我们在之前的街机游戏中便经历过相同情境。

我承认，虽然我有点保守和暴躁，但是我认为免费游戏可以为我们带来更多更棒的内容，例如《军团要塞2》，《英雄联盟》以及《Triple Town》等。但同时我们也不能放弃批判的观点。

免费游戏何时（为什么）开始衰败

让我们着眼于一些遭遇了失败的免费游戏，并使用这四种货币去寻找原因。

《Punch Quest》和《Monkey Drums》的开发者都将失败归咎为游戏太过出色，虽然他们是围绕着免费游戏理念进行创造，但都企图鼓励玩家支付更多金钱去获得更棒的游戏体验。让我们从这些团队身上吸取一些经验教训。

就像我之前曾经提过，创造免费游戏的最简单的方法便是删除未支付的$I成本。这也是为何捐赠软件难以发挥作用的主要原因——之所以没人愿意支付是因为你并未真正允许他们这么做。如果你创造出过多免费或很容易获得的内容，用户便会觉得自己没有义务再去为其它内容消费。而这时候进行促销便是吸引玩家掏钱的好时机，特别是当你已经拥有一个免费样本时。

传统的游戏设计教会我们必须最大限度地回馈玩家的支出，并只向他们收取一次费用。而免费游戏却遵循着完全不同的理念，即不是将所有商品整包出售。所以对于开发者来说在免费模式和传统模式间做出选择是件非常困难的任务。让我们先来看看传统游戏设计。

发展中的“传统”模式

过去的电子游戏主要是陈列在零售商店中以包装形式进行贩卖，也就是购买前玩家是看不到游戏内容的。的确，零售模式即将过时，并且零售商对于预先定价模式的谴责也实在没有任何说服力。但是同样地，如今的传统模式与其它模式一样也在不断朝前发展着。

我们将以自己作为“新型传统”模式为例进行说明。就像在《Defender’s Quest》，我们便利用较长且具有吸引力的浏览器样本去推动销售。这让我们可以无需依赖于像GOG和Steam等门户网站而获得巨大的收益（尽管我们最后还是能够吸引这些网站的关注）。我们通过在自己的网站以及免费的Flash网站（如Kongregate）上销售游戏，并利用它们的微交易引擎去销售在线游戏版本而获取了巨大的成功。

尽管游戏是基于预付模式，但其价格却并非固定的。当在1月份正式推出游戏时我们的定价为6.99美元，但同时我们也提供了许多优惠券，让那些拥有优惠券的玩家可以以4.99美元的价格最终获得游戏。我们还会不时推出免费促销代码。

在黄金版本发行后我们将价格提升至14.99美元，但是在Steam问世的第一周我们设定了“发行促销价”9.99美元。我们都知道，Steam和GOG很喜欢在某一时期进行产品大打折，而我们也很乐意加入他们的这些活动。除此之外我们还制定了一些疯狂的计划，如围绕着明年的10月30日，也就是1周年纪念日而展开各种降价活动。当玩家了解了某款游戏经常推出促销活动后，他们便会等到价格下降时用$M去换取$T。

基于不同价格而运行一款游戏长达一年，并保持着较高的收益与早前将商品摆放在零售商店一个月并获得提成完全是两码事。后者是早前的传统模式，我也很高兴看到这种模式被淘汰了。

而新的传统模式的优势便在于开发者可以预先收取游戏利益，这让他们可以完全专注于游戏玩法而无需费心于后续的推销活动。除此之外，这种模式还能够避免游戏的共享文化体验被划分成高付费和低付费层面。我发现传统模式只能够用于把握住少量的玩家基础，但却很容易错失来自“忠实粉丝”和鲸鱼玩家的收益，但我也认为这种模式将能够继续发展并最终克服这些挑战。

最后，也是最重要的是，传统模式和免费模式必须相互借鉴，取长补短，它们之间并不存在替代之说。“新型传统”模式便同时整合了这两种模式中的各种元素，但走的却是与经典的iPhone游戏或GameStop上的主机游戏销售完全不同的方向。

关于免费游戏的总结

免费游戏迎来了新机遇，新用户以及新市场，但这却不是什么魔法。简单地说，比起让玩家预先投入$M成本，免费游戏让玩家可以在游戏过程中选择投入$P或$T成本，并以此引诱他们去支付$M。

免费模式的优点：

提高单人玩家能够支付的最高费用

最大限度地降低准入障碍

打开新的类型并吸引新用户

免费模式的缺点：

不适合许多游戏类型（特别是那些重视游戏故事的类型）

直接将盈利动机整合在游戏中

让玩家感到厌烦

可能会破坏整体设计（如Zynga的游戏）

结论

Facebook，手机以及其它新兴趋势的确如报道所说的发展迅猛，但是我想说的是关于传统产业不断衰败的描述的确被夸大化了，特别是NPD结果便具有极大的误导性。同时，手机游戏的发展还不足以取代任天堂的掌机市场，而对于PSVita，我就不敢保证了。

零售的主机游戏的确正在衰败着，但是PC销量的下降并不等于PC软件开发者也深陷困境中。就如汽车销售，尽管销售一辆汽车非常困难，但是现在拥有汽车的用户已经远远多于早前。同样道理，新PC也因为强大的性能以及较低的维护需求而取得了更高的销量。这对于像戴尔等主推硬件的公司来说是个坏消息，但是对于那些面向这一平台制作游戏的开发者而言，这便是再好不过的消息了。

手机平台最终也会到达一个饱和点，那时候肯定也会有人开始呼喊手机的衰亡，而也许eyePhone将能够改变这种局面。

（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）

Free 2 Play and the Four Currencies

by Lars Doucet

One of my most popular articles was “Piracy and the Four Currencies”, which explains the economics of piracy in terms of four “psychological currencies”: money-dollars ($M), time-dollars ($T), pain-in-the-butt dollars ($P) and integrity-dollars ($I). Purchases don’t just cost money; they also cost different amounts of time, pain-in-the butt, and (sometimes) moral integrity.

Quick Summary

In the article, I argue that piracy, though it costs 0 $M, has a non-zero $T, $P, and $I cost, because the pirate must know where to search, risk exposure to malware, and do something illegal (which has a variable $I cost depending on one’s outlook). Developers can compete with piracy by removing invasive DRM and practicing good customer service, which lowers $T and $P costs.  How much weight an individual gives to each currency varies widely.  For example, a wealthy person may value convenience over money, a busy person may value time the most, and someone with strong convictions might refuse to compromise their beliefs (“spending” $I*) for money’s sake alone.

*Exactly what $I represents varies with ideology.  For example, Richard Stallman would put a large $I cost on using proprietary software, whereas I do not, and strict vegetarians might assign an $I cost to fur coats.

Free 2 Play

Now, let’s apply the  four currency model to Free 2 Play games.

F2P is clearly here to stay.  It’s seen big success with Angry Birds, Team Fortress 2, and given a new lease on life to MMO’s that aren’t World of Warcraft.  However, we’ve also just witnessed the spectacular implosion of F2P standard-bearer Zynga, and seen article after article about popular, critically-acclaimed F2P games that garner little revenue.

The debate is heated, so let’s step back, put down our pitchforks (on both sides), and see what’s going on.

Analysis

First of all, F2P competes well with piracy, because the barrier to entry couldn’t be any lower.  Downloading an F2P game costs no $M, little $T, no $P, and no $I (for those who feel guilty about piracy).

Though FTP has no $M cost, it inserts $T and $P costs throughout the game to encourage players to pay $M instead.  This is the opposite of a traditional game, where there is no extra $T, $P, or $M cost once you’ve bought the game (invasive DRM, DLC, and bad design notwithstanding).

According to some best practices of F2P design, developers should intentionally inject inconvenience into games, which players can remove in exchange for money.  This means barriers, time sinks, and “dual-currency” systems where players can pay real money for rewards, or grind for hours instead.

In this way, traditional games are like laser printers: expensive to buy, cheap and easy to operate.  F2P games are like ink jets: cheap to buy, but expensive and sometimes a pain to operate, especially if the company has questionable business tactics.

On the one hand, F2P gives players options. Lots of people have no money but plenty of time and/or plenty of pain-in-the-butt tolerance.  Furthermore, it enables players to purchase things “a-la-carte,” in case there are only certain aspects of the game they really want.  These are good things.

On the other hand, F2P adds inconveniences and compromises the “magic circle” by constantly asking the player for money.  These practices are why some designers call F2P “evil,” and not just because they’re luddites* who are afraid of change, as some have implied.  If anything, F2P is a return to the past as much as it is a step towards the future.  We’ve been here before, and it’s called The Arcade.

Despite my reservations and general grumpiness, I do think F2P can drive great things – you only have to look at Team Fortress 2, League of Legends, and Triple Town to see that.  But it still deserves a critical eye.

*As an aside, the historical Luddites have been grossly misrepresented by industrialist propaganda and (incorrect) associations with religious fundamentalism.  I highly recommend the book Rebels Against the Future by Kirkpatrick Sale for an alternative viewpoint.

When (and why) F2P Fails

Let’s look at some F2P games that have failed and see if the four currencies can tell us why.

The developers of Punch Quest and MonkeyDrums have suggested that their games failed because they were too nice – i.e., they embraced F2P but still hung onto the idea that they could “delight” their customers into paying more for the experience.  I feel for these teams and applaud their willingness to be so open with such a painful experience, so let’s see if we can learn from it.

As I mentioned in Pay What You Want and the Four Currencies, the simple act of making something free removes the $I cost of not paying.  This is why donationware doesn’t work – nobody pays because you gave them permission not to.  By making too much content easily accessible or free, customers feel no obligation to pay.  If you ask for the sale, however, there’s a good chance you’ll get them to pay, especially if there’s a free sample.

Traditional game design has trained us to maximize the value we are giving players for their money, charge them once for it, and call it a day.  F2P requires an entirely new perspective that doesn’t focus on delivering all the goodies in one big package.  It seems these developers had a hard time choosing between F2P and traditional design.  So, let’s take a quick look at tradition.

The Evolving “Traditional” Model

In the past, video games were sold in retail stores as packaged goods that you bought sight-unseen. Retail is certainly on the decline, but those who use this fact to decry up-front pricing* are attacking a straw man. “Progress” doesn’t happen in only one direction, and the traditional model has been evolving right along with the others.

*In fairness to Dan, he’s right that charging 99 cents for all of TripleTown would be insane, and I’m largely a fan of his approach to F2P design.  That said, I can think of more than just a few indie developers who use the up-front pricing model without relying on mega-hits to succeed.

Traditioooooon!

We’ll use ourselves as an example of the “neo-traditional*” model. With Defender’s Quest, we relied on a lengthy, compelling, browser-based demo to drive sales. This allowed us to make good revenue without the benefit of major portals like GOG and Steam, although we were eventually able to attract their attention. We  survived by selling directly from our own site and free Flash portals like Kongregate, where we leveraged their microtransaction engine to sell an online version of the game.

*We seriously need a better name than that.

Furthermore, although the price is up-front, it’s by no means “fixed.” We started at $6.99 when we launched in January but made so many coupons available that anyone paying attention could nab it for $4.99.  Meanwhile, we handed out free promotional codes left and right.

We eventually raised the price to $14.99 for the gold edition launch but started with a “launch sale” of $9.99 through the first week on Steam.  And as everybody knows, Steam and GOG are fond of periodic sales with deep discounts, and we will be participating in every event they invite us to. Furthermore, we have some crazy plans of our own, so stick around for our one-year anniversary next October 30th.  Because players know that games often go on sale, they can exchange $M for $T by waiting for a price drop.

The ability to sell a game year-round, at variable prices, while keeping the majority of the revenue is a far cry from the old days of having a one-month shelf-life in a retail store and collecting a few percentage points in royalties – if you were lucky. That’s the old traditional model, and I’m happy it’s dying.

However, the advantage of the new traditional model is that it gets the financial exchange out of the way up front, which lets developers focus solely on game play rather than a string of tiny sales pitches. Furthermore, it avoids fracturing the game’s shared cultural experience into low and high-paying tiers.  I realize that the traditional model has the potential for a smaller player base and lost income from “true fans” and whales, but I have some ideas about that and, more importantly, have no doubt that the model will continue to evolve to meet these challenges.

Finally, and I think most importantly, the traditional model and F2P have much to learn from each other. They are points on a spectrum rather than fixed binary alternatives.  The “neo-traditional” model incorporates many aspects of both, but takes it in a different direction than a typical iPhone game or console title for sale at GameStop.

Summing up F2P

F2P brings with it new opportunities, audiences, and markets, but it’s not magic. Simply put, instead of front-loading the $M cost, it sprinkles alternative $P and $T costs throughout the experience as inducements to make you pay $M.

F2P pros:

?Raises the ceiling on how much a single player can spend

?Lowers the barrier to entry almost entirely

?Opens up new genres and embraces new audiences

F2P cons:

?Not a good fit for many genres (especially those focused on narrative)

?Injects financial motivations directly into the game

?Annoys players

?Can corrupt the design (c.f. Zynga)

Closing Thoughts

Furthermore, those obsessed with growth* as the sole metric of the industry’s sector-by-sector health should be slapped with a large, wet trout.  Facebook, mobile, and other once-emerging trends are obviously here to stay, but reports about the traditional industry’s decline have been greatly exaggerated, especially because NPD results are grossly misleading.  And contrary to popular wisdom, the explosive growth of mobile has not doomed Nintendo’s handheld market, though I can’t say the same for the PSVita.

Retail sales of console games do seem to be on the decline, but the slowdown in PC sales should not be taken as an indication that PC software developers are in trouble. For example, eventually you get to the point where everyone who wants a car has one, so although it’s harder to sell new ones, more cars are being driven than ever before.  Similarly, sales of new PC’s have peaked because they are powerful enough, and, with a little maintenance, a decent rig can last you the better part of a decade. This is bad news for people like Dell who need to push hardware, but for those of us who just make games that run on the dang things, times couldn’t be better.

Mobile platforms will eventually reach their saturation point, too, and then the pundits will start shouting that mobile is dead, and eyePhones are the Next Big Thing.(source:gamasutra)