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

开发者应如何适当而有效地使用微交易模式

发布时间:2012-11-23 16:41:53 Tags:,,,,

作者:Graham Jans

在Design Dojo例行会议上,我们讨论了微交易以及免费业务模式的优势与劣势。我们着重讨论了“如何适当有效地使用微交易?”而不是微交易的负面性和滥用现象。

以下是会议中一些重要内容:

首先便是明确定义

一开始我们便明确了微交易与免费游戏的定义。微交易便是指玩家在开始游戏后所支付的基本费用;先游戏再付款便是免费游戏。关于这种模式主要有两种结果:

第一种结果便是舍弃零售模式,通过可下载内容和样本内容去推动整体游戏的销售!章节内容也是如此:玩家在购买了最初章节内容后,便可以选择是否为今后的章节投入更多资本。

另一种结果便是包含增量付款(如带有可下载内容的基础产品),订阅模式以及标准的“免费”盈利类型。

我们故意选择了较广泛的定义便是为了呈现出一种渐变的感受;因为很少有人能够接受一款带有DLC的零售游戏直接变成微交易系统。同时也有许多游戏同时使用各种混合的方法从玩家身上谋取利益。

为什么要使用免费模式?

我们之所以认为这一模式很重要是因为整体的免费游戏理念总是能够与玩家价值有效地整合在一起。许多玩家已经对传统的零售模式感到厌烦了,因为它不仅提供了各种难以预测的广告,无意义的评分,非互动式游戏媒体,同时还要求玩家投入更大的资本去换取一些不一定能满足自己需求(并且不能退还)的盒装游戏。

而不管是最基础的游戏样本,便宜且持续的订阅,还是基于新奇道具的游戏销售,这些系统都能让玩家真正体验到游戏乐趣,并判断游戏中所存在的价值是否值得自己的资本投入。从而确保玩家不会因为玩游戏而出现任何损失,并且开发者也可以持续从中盈利,而真正的游戏粉丝(或有趣的玩家)也将继续投资游戏。这便是最理想的状况。

我们需要明确如何有效地利用这一系统:如何使用微交易为玩家创造出一款更加有趣的游戏。即创造出一款能够带给玩家利益而不是利用他们的游戏。

微交易要求更长的游戏时间

微交易是基于游戏世界所创造的价值系统。作为设计师,我们在每一款游戏中所面临的一大挑战便是将游戏的价值系统有效地传达给每一位玩家。这便意味着玩家在整个教授过程结束前可能不会意识到游戏的盈利价值。只持续2个小时的精致的游戏体验也只能将完整的游戏价值全部呈现出来——或者让玩家在今后几天时间里慢慢消耗这些体验!但是到那时候我们便很难使用额外的内容或体验去吸引他们的注意力了。相反地,如果一款游戏能够反复吸引玩家回到游戏中,它便拥有更多机会从玩家身上赚取利益。

结果便是,大多数成功的微交易游戏都属于角色扮演游戏,在线多人游戏,特别是在线多人角色扮演游戏!

还有另一种长时间免费游戏,即在大多数免费游戏中,非付费玩家将提供给付费玩家一些现有的“内容”。这么做能够确保整体系统充满活力,创造出社交和交易节点,并且让付费玩家感到满足。但是如果免费玩家不能长期留在游戏中,那么付费玩家也将没有动力继续花钱游戏。

依赖于不断发展的市场所具有的风险性

许多标准的微交易总是能从用户获取中获得更多价值。而关于这种境况的真正结果在于,一旦你的市场出现饱和或倾向于小众用户,你便不可能再获得盈利。Nexxon便遭遇了这种境况,其之后发行的游戏便没有了发展空间,只能依赖于早前游戏而缓慢发展。

匹配游戏形式的微交易

micro-payments(from gaminghighlights)

micro-payments(from gaminghighlights)

《FarmVille》及其同类型游戏已经遭受了各种角度的评判,特别是来自于那些不满其微交易系统的玩家们。我之所以不喜欢这些游戏是因为玩家花钱购买的都是一些“无意义的内容”。游戏中不存在任何支付标准,玩家可以付钱直接跳到丰收时期;基本看来这便是一种可以被随时删除的障碍物。

其实对于我来说《FarmVille》本身就是一款无意义的游戏!让我们暂且搁置这一问题,因为不管怎么说,微交易模式非常适合这款游戏的属性。

游戏内部的价值与现实世界的价值是相互维系在一起的

就像之前提到的,现金购买价值主要是基于玩家在游戏世界中的视角进行定义。除此之外,游戏道具在现实世界的价值也将影响着玩家对于其在游戏中的看法。例如一个售价1000美元的道具将会呈现出一种威望,让玩家产生想拥有它的想法——即使它未拥有内在价值或审美价值。其价值性便在于它是件昂贵的道具。

还有许多有关内容的价值是基于现金和游戏内部努力的例子。例如在《英雄联盟》中赢得“Champion”。付费玩家可能会说:“你看我花了5美元便省去了5天的努力!”但是非付费玩家也会说:“我通过自己的努力省下了这5美元!”所以玩家投入于游戏中的时间具有非固定价值。

创建并遵守惯例

在《魔兽世界》中,玩家可以购买完整级别的角色而无需为此刷任务。玩家这么做的理由有许多,并且在他们眼中所有的理由都是合理的。但是游戏本身并不支持这种交易,玩家只能通过外部网站(游戏邦注:如eBay)完成交易。社交游戏领域中的一种既定惯例是,如果玩家想要拥有最后体验,就必须努力去争取这一权利!那些跳过某些升级过程的玩家虽然能够避开更高级别的玩家,但却会在游戏论坛上遭遇负面言论的进攻。

并不是说跳过某些低级别的内容有什么错,仅仅是因为社交系统的惯例不允许玩家这么做。关于这种惯例主要有两种情况:如果游戏规定玩家必须通过自己的努力去获得更强大的道具,那么玩家花钱购买的行为便属于“欺骗”或“不公平”;但是如果游戏要求玩家必须通过购买才能获得道具,那么那些不愿花钱的玩家便会被当成是小气,或未能全身心投入游戏中的人。

拉平每玩家价值曲线

开发者通过免费游戏赚取的利益主要是来自于鲸鱼玩家(愿意为游戏投入大量资本)。而绝大多数玩家则从未为游戏花过钱。

通常情况下“滥用”都是发生在图像波动非常大的情况下。游戏中的大多数玩家都未曾为游戏而花钱,所以开发者只能从少数的付费玩家身上榨取更多利益。真正健康的游戏便拥有非常平坦的每玩家价值曲线。即更多玩家会为游戏花钱,并且每次的支出金额都非常合理(不管是对玩家本身还是开发者而言)。

当我在玩免费游戏时真正打动我的还是游戏的实际产品价值。例如在《英雄联盟》中:我看着游戏并对自己说“如果游戏是以盒装销售模式呈现出来,我便会毫不犹豫地掏出40美元去购买它。”这时候我便会开始预算游戏中种种资产的价值,开发者在游戏开发和完善的时间投入,我个人在服务器上的加载以及支出等。通过这一估算可以发现:如果玩家未为游戏支付任何费用,游戏便会遭遇巨大的损失。

如果将这一数值平摊在更多玩家身上,你将会发现开发者用于维持每个玩家的费用将大大减少。所以很明显的是,付费玩家是游戏最强大的支持者。

而零售则最大化地实践了这一模式,即确保每位参与者都能支付一个标准的数额。订阅模式紧随其后,也就是更有投资欲望的玩家将在游戏中投入更多钱。

pacmoney(from gamingwithscissors)

pacmoney(from gamingwithscissors)

不同类型的微交易

我认为“为内容花钱”是微交易中最典型的模式。而以下我将列出其它常见的微交易模式:

花钱去获得更多体验。例如获得新内容;出于个人或社交原因的定制选择;新机制;力量优势等等。“购买一把宝剑。”

助推器和消费品。基于游戏机制而进行临时购买,并因此而完善玩家的属性和活动,或帮助他们克服障碍或逃出山洞等。“购买能量药剂。”

钥匙和资源。通过提高玩家能力而简介帮助他们做出有效的选择。“购买游戏内部的金币。”

外部特权:购买游戏机制和游戏世界以外的物品或能量。如花钱改变名字,传送服务器,访问公会管理工具,获得广告渠道中的优先名单等。

交易费用:如果你认识一些在进行双边交易的玩家,如进行商品转让,送礼,贸易或拍卖,你便可以为自己储备一些必要的物品。

微订阅

在我们的讨论中屡次提到订阅模式,因为它能够为开发者带来可行的收益流,并且能够确保所有玩家得到公平的待遇。我们也在思考是否能在游戏中设置一些可满足玩家需求并允许他们订阅的小部分内容。例如让他们通过订阅去获取更高层面的内容,而中等层面的内容则始终保持免费。或者通过订阅去获取整个游戏过程中不断出现的新角色等等。

贪婪是一把浮动的标尺

有人说这是一种邪恶的工具,因为开发者可以在发行时调整游戏长度,从而基于同样的价格而提供给玩家更少的内容。但是有人反驳道,如果一家餐馆在食物中加了过多盐,顾客肯定不会想去那里吃饭了。因为市场的力量还是取着决定作用,玩家也只会购买那些自己觉得有价值的产品。

也有人说这是一种积极的工具,因为开发者也有可能在发行时基于同样价格而提供给玩家更多内容(如果他们觉得这样做是合理的话)。实际上,微交易中的大多数元素都是基于这一层面。这些系统的消极声誉都是源于那些滥用玩家的钱去赚取最大利益的种种元素。但这却不是系统的本质属性。当然也存在许多积极元素能够让开发者在获得利益的同时坚守道德底线。

所有的游戏都是斯金纳箱

我们可以将《FarmVille》中的反馈环路比作斯金纳箱(游戏邦注:新行为主义心理学的创始人之一的斯金纳为研究操作性条件反射而设计的实验设备)。也就是从本质上看来这是一款游戏,但同时也是一个斯金纳箱。当我们谈及如何制作一款“更有吸引力”的游戏时,我们也是在说明如何完善游戏内部的斯金纳箱。

如果你的游戏足够吸引人便最好了。因为我们所说的更多是关于系统而非强制性循环。如果游戏中存在有趣,吸引人且带有奖励性的体验,那么游戏提供给那些遵循循环的玩家的奖励也将是有趣且吸引人的。

微交易便放大了这种功效,因为大多数游戏只需要玩家消耗时间,而免费游戏则需要同时消耗玩家的时间和金钱!但是要清楚我们所面对的是娱乐产业,人们只是在花钱获得娱乐。开发者既能够创造出最小的结构去尽可能榨取玩家的钱财,也能够创造出最棒的艺术作品而最大化地丰富玩家体验,并赚取他们的投入。但是到底开发者会做出何种选择却是一种不可知论!

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

Microtransactions Under the Microscope

August 31, 2011

By Graham Jans

For our usual Design Dojo meeting last night, we discussed the pros and perils of microtransactions and the free-to-play business model. It was a fascinating discussion, revealing fascinating tension in our normally close-knit little group of designers! There was some intense, fruitful discussion, so this post is a bit of a doozy!

In this discussion we were trying hard to focus on, “How can we use microtransactions properly, for good?” rather than focusing on their negative perception and misuse.

I was overtired last night, so my recollection is a bit shaky. But here’s the salient points as I remember them:

First, Some Definitions

The first thing was settling on a definition of microtransactions and free-to-play which we could utilize for the rest of the discussion. I proposed that, for the sake the discussion, micropayments were basically any money the player payed out after they started playing the game; that playing the game and then paying [more] later was free-to-play. There are two important consequences of this:

The first is that practically everything but a retail purchase can be analyzed in this light, notably DLC and demos that upsell to the full game! Episodic content can also be looked at this way: After the initial purchase of the first episode, the player makes choices to invest in further episodes.

The other consequence is the inclusion of incremental payments (like a base product with DLC), subscription models, as well as standard ‘freemium’ styles of monetization in this umbrella.

We purposely chose such a broad definition, because we felt that these things all sit on gradients; it’s hard for a group of people to agree on the exact moment a retail game with DLC turns into microtransaction ecosystem. As well, many games use a mix of approaches simultaneously to acquire money from the player.

So Why Free-To-Play?

The reason we think this all matters is that the whole concept of free-to-play aligns better with player values. Traditional retail bombards a player with inscrutable advertising, senseless review scores, and non-interactive game media, and then demands that they fork over a large portion of money for a non-returnable box which may or may not contain a game that they actually enjoy.

From the most basic example of a demo, to a cheap-but-ongoing subscription, to a game funded entirely by the sale of novelty hat items, each of these systems allows the player to experience the game as a game and decide for themselves how much value it contains, whether it’s worth their money. The punters can leave with nothing lost. The developers still get paid, and the true fans (or rich fans) have the opportunity to keep on giving. Ideally.

So we wanted to see how to make best use of that system: to figure out how micropayments can be used to make a better game for the player, not a worse one. To make a game which profits from players, but doesn’t abuse them.

Overall, the meeting was fairly unstructured, so I’m just going to lay out the points we covered, in no particular order.

Microtransactions Require Long Play

Microtransactions piggyback on the value system created by the game world. One of the challenges we face as designers, on every game we make, is communicating and teaching the value system for our particular game to the player. This means that we can’t expect players to realize the monetary worth of a game element until this education process is completed. A highly refined experience that lasts only two hours will likely only make its full value apparent to the player when it’s all done — or even a few days later as the player digests the experience! By then, it’s too late to capture their attention for additional content or experiences. Alternatively, a game that brings the player back again and again has many opportunities to convert and upsell the player.

The consequence of this is that the most successful microtransaction-funded games tend to be RPGs, and online multiplayer, and especially online multiplayer RPGS!

There is another synergy of long-play and free-to-play, which is that in most freemium games, the non-paying players provide ‘content’ for the paying players just by being there. They keep the system lively, create nodes for conversation and trade, and even just make the paid players feel good about themselves. However, if the free players don’t stick around very long, then there is less incentive (in this context) for the paid players to stick around either.

Danger of Relying on a Growth Market

Many standard microtransaction formulae gain a lot of their value from customer acquisition. The very real consequence of this is that once you saturate your market or niche, you will stop profiting. This happened to Nexxon; subsequent game releases basically had nowhere to grow except cannibalizing their previous games.

Microtransactions Match the Form of the Game

Farmville and its kin has been slagged from many different angles, especially by gamers deriding it’s microtransaction system. I came into this meeting with spite against these games because many of the things you pay for are ‘amechanical’. There is no standard in-game metaphor for paying to skip the harvest period of a crop; it’s basically an arbitrary barrier that is arbitrarily removed.

But it was then pointed out to me that Farmville itself is largely amechanical! And that’s nothing to hold against the game, or at least a discussion for another day. But the point is, the microtransactions actually match the nature of the gameplay.

In-Game Value and Real World Value are Tied

As mentioned above, the value of real-money purchases is largely defined by the player’s perspective within the game world. But additionally, the real-world value of items affects their perception within the game. The obvious case of this is that selling a top hat item for $1,000 will provide a kind of instant prestige for any player owning that item, even if it has no intrinsic value or significant aesthetic value. It’s valuable because it’s expensive.

There is a more subtle case with content that can be accessed both through real money and in-game effort. Take, for example earning a new Champion in League of Legends. On one hand, the paying player can say, “Woo, I payed $5 and saved myself 5 days of effort!” But the non-paying player can also say, “Woo, I earned this myself, and saved $5!” It actually gives an extrinsic value to the time the player is spending in the game.

Create and Embrace Conventions

In World of Warcraft, players can purchase fully-leveled characters rather than grinding up through the levels. There are a variety of reasons a player may want to do this, and in their mind, the reason always makes sense. But the game doesn’t officially support this kind of transaction; it is actually handled through an external site (such as eBay). It is a firmly established convention within the social circle of the game that if you want to experience the end-game content, by golly, you gotta earn the right! Players who skip the levelling process are shunned by the other high level players and slandered in the forums.

And it’s not because there is anything inherently wrong with skipping low-level content, but merely that the conventions of the social system don’t allow for it. This can be bent both ways: If in your game, it is the convention to work for stronger items, then players who buy them will be called out for ‘cheating’ or ‘playing unfair’ or ‘paying for power’. But if the convention is to only access stronger items through purchasing, then players who don’t purchase are looked at as cheap or not dedicated.

Flattening the Value-Per-Player Curve

The vast majority of the money you make in free-to-play comes from the top paying players. The vast majority of players pay nothing. Not to cut it too thin, they are freeloaders.

Most of the cases where “abuse” happens is when this graph is extremely sharp. Most of the players in a game are nothing but an expense, and so the few players that pay get milked to death. A healthier game flattens out the curve. More players are paying, and each is paying a healthier amount. (Both healthier for themselves, and healthier for the developer.)

A point that strikes me really strongly when I’m playing a free-to-play game is the actual product value of the game. For example, with League of Legends: I look at the game and say to myself, “If that was in a box at retail, I’d probably pay $40 for it.” What I’m trying to do when I do this is divine the value of the assets, the time spent developing and patching, and my own personal load on the servers, and still give them a profit. Obviously this is a rough estimate, but whatever this exact number is: if players don’t pay this much on average, then the game is a loser.

By distributing this load across more players, the amount you need to eke out of each player is reduced. As well, there is the easily observable phenomenon that paying customers are stronger advocates of the game.

Retail, of course, takes this to the extreme, making sure that every single participant pays exactly a standard share. Subscription models sit fairly nicely in the middle, with the players who are more invested spending more money on the game overall.

Different Kinds of Microtransactions

I asserted that ‘paying for content’ was the most obvious format for a microtransaction. We challenged this definition and came up with some other common formats as well:

Paying to expand the experience. This may be access to new content; customization options for personal or social reasons; access to mechanics; gaining power within the system. “Buying a Sword.”

Boosters and Consumables. Temporary purchases that tend to work in conjunction with the play mechanics, either multiplying player stats and activity, or providing a lift over a hurdle or out of a hole. “Buying a Strength Potion.”

Keys and Resources. Indirectly aiding the player by increasing their ability to make choices, or making a new choice accessible. “Buying in-game gold.”

External Privileges: Purchasing goods or powers that exist externally to the game mechanics and world. Pay for name change, a server transfer, access to guild management tools, getting priority listing in advertising channels, etc.

Transaction Fees: If you have players on both sides of a transaction, such as goods transfer, gifting and trading, or auctions, you can reserve a portion for yourself.

Microsubscriptions

Subscriptions came up several times in the discussion as both a reliable income stream, and also a way of treating players more equally (because time passes for everyone at the same rate). We got thinking if there could be a number of smaller streams within the game that the player could subscribe to based on their needs. For example, subscribing for access to high-level content while mid-level content remains free. Or subscribing to recieve every new character that is released for the duration of the subscription. And so forth. Has anyone done this yet?

Greed is a Sliding Scale

One member brought up that such a thing was a tool evil, because the developer could tune the length between releases in a subscription to offer just a little bit less content for the same price. It was countered that, yes, all bars add salt to their food, but you don’t eat at a bar with really salty food. Market forces prevail, people will pay for something what they feel it is worth.

As well, such a thing could be a tool for benevolence. A developer could tune the length between releases to offer just a little more content for the same price, if they felt that was the right thing to do. In fact, most of the factors in microtransactions work this way. The negative reputation these systems have comes from factors that are tuned to maximize profit and abuse players for their money. But that’s not an inherent trait in the system; you could just as easily use it to ensure your own bankruptcy! But obviously, there are various optimums in the middle which allow a person to both make a profit and ahere to their morals.

All Games are Skinner Boxes

The comparison of the feedback loop in Farmville to a skinner box is not accidental. It is a skinner box. As are basically all games. Any time you talk about making a game ‘more sticky’ or ‘more engaging’ or ‘compelling’, you are talking about refining and enhancing the skinner box that resides within your game.

But it’s okay if your game is engaging or compelling. Because there is more to the system than the compulsion loop. There is the experience of playing, which can be exciting and interesting and beautiful and rewarding, and there is the feedback that the game gives in reward for following that loop, which can be interesting and beautiful and rewarding.

Microtransactions have an amplifying effect here, because where most games suck up a player’s time, free-to-play games suck up their time and money! But we are in the entertainment business, people are giving us their money to entertain them. We each have a choice to create a minimal structure which siphons their money away, or to create a beautiful piece of art which enriches them, and for which they give us their money. The fact that it is compelling is agnostic!(source:grahamjans)


上一篇:

下一篇: