作者：Mike Rose

2012年初，我和几个好友最终决定尝试着创造一款手机游戏。

在开发早期阶段我们经常会面临一个问题：是要创造一款付费游戏，免费游戏还是这两种模式的结合？

在过去我们每次都会花费好几个小时去讨论每种模式的细节，并最终找到一种简单的方法去解决这一问题。我给许多已经涉及了免费市场和付费市场的手机游戏开发者发送了电子邮件，让他们尝试我们的游戏理念，并希望他们在发展方向上给予一些建议。

一些较有名的开发者给予了我回复，而我们团队也决定基于这些回复做决定。但是因为白天工作的忙碌以及团队成员很难聚集到一块商讨游戏创造，我们将这一设想搁置了1年多时间。

而在16个月后的今天，我决定将最初的问题再次丢给相同的开发者，以明确随着去年手机市场的发展，他们所给出的建议是否也发生了改变。

最初的电子邮件

以下是我最初的电子邮件，以及每个开发者所给予的回复，最早是2012年初，最近则是本周：

我是来自IndieGames.com的Mike Rose。你们好。我希望在此寻求你们的建议。

我现在正与几个好友一起创造一款智能手机游戏，并且我们希望创造出一款大受欢迎的益智游戏。我当然知道App Store中付费模式与免费模式的区别，我们也在权衡着应该走哪条路。因为你们在免费游戏上已经取得了巨大的成功，所以我喜欢你们能够对此给予一些建议。

我将在此描述下游戏背景—-这是一款益智游戏，将在屏幕上呈现出各种谜题，包括数学问题，逻辑谜题以及令人费解的难题，并且这些谜题是由一则故事维系在一起。这便是游戏的核心理念。

我们最初想将其价格定为99美分，但是在对免费游戏进行深入研究后，我们在思考是否将其设定为带有IAP的免费游戏会更好。当提及我们将如何执行这一理念时，我们便想到玩家总是愿意购买谜题暗示，也就是当他们想不出问题的答案时便会求助于提示。我们也考虑了是否添加额外的谜题包，从而让主要的谜题故事变成完全的免费游戏，而玩家可以购买额外的谜题快，并且这也不会影响他们的故事。

我们的想法是否合理？我不知道我们所设定的这些内容是否能够带来利益，我们只是想着如果将游戏定价设为99美分，它便有可能被埋没在App Store中。希望你能够对此给予我们一点建议，不管大小，我们都会欣然接受。

Mike

Nimblebit

Nimblebit的David Marsh给予了回复。那时候，他的工作室刚刚发行《口袋青蛙》，并正准备着其大受欢迎游戏《迷你大楼》的发行——而这两款都属于免费游戏。

最近，Nimblebit面向iOS和Android发行了《Nimble Quest》，即结合了《贪吃蛇》，RPG以及塔防元素的游戏。以下是Marsh最初给予我的回应，随后是本周所更新的回应。

2012年1月24日

你好Mike：

因为我们已经在免费游戏领域取得了一定的成功，所以我担心我的观点是否会带有偏见。可以肯定地说，尽管iOS上的主要障碍是让人们安装你的游戏，但是如果你使用的是免费模式的话，你便能够更轻松地越过这道障碍。

基于你的游戏类型，将免费模式与游戏整合在一起也会出现不同效果。有些人虽然整合了IAP，但仍为游戏设定了99美分甚至更高的定价，然后在之后以推广为理由对此进行免费销售。也有些人在一开始便将其设定为带有IAP的免费游戏。不幸的是，因为我们从未创造过一款免费益智游戏，所以我不清楚怎么做才能更好地将IAP整合到游戏中。

我知道许多类似的游戏将仅需付费一次的额外关卡包当成IAP，我认为这种方法也很有效，特别是在游戏结构中。当然，可消费的IAP更能取得长期的盈利，但是我认为这才是一种真正的挑战，即我们必须明确到底该怎么做才能让消费品在益智类游戏中具有意义。有些人选择出售略过权利或提示。而我也愿意进行尝试。

我觉得你所提到的所有理念都很合理，这也有可能是我最先想尝试的内容。祝你好运！

2013年4月22日

你好Mike：

16个月后，我的答案还会是一样的吗？我想用5个字来总结答案，也就是“看情况而定”。

在过去16个月时间里，App Store取得了很大的发展，而这也意味着两种情况。一种便是位于顶层的游戏获得了绝大多数的下载量，并赚取了大量的利益。但另一方面，其它游戏的曝光率也变得越来越低，并且凭借着较低的下载量而很难攀上排行榜前端的位置。

如今的我们更加难以获得较高的下载量。尽管如此，我仍然认为如果你拥有一款能够吸引广大玩家注意的免费游戏，你便仍有可能将其推向排行榜的最高端。

几乎所有人都有可能成为你的游戏的潜在玩家，所以你在排行榜上的流动性也是灵活的。如果你不认为自己的游戏有可能登上排行榜顶端，如果你所创造的是更加利基化的游戏，那么我认为你可以选择付费模式或者基于IAP。

如果我们能够重新发行《Nimble Quest》，我们便会这么做。这是免费游戏发射的引爆点，但是如果你不想引爆它，那么付费模式便是你的最佳选择。

如果你不认为自己的游戏能够获得上百万的下载量，那么基于付费模式便不会带来多大风险，并且你也可以于之后再尝试免费模式。

Kiloo

来自Kiloo（游戏邦注：《地铁跑酷》的开发者）的Jeppe Bisbjerg也为我们提供了建议。以下是他在16个月前和最近所给予的回应。

2012年1月25日

其实关于你该做什么并不存在任何神奇公式。有些基于免费模式的游戏能够取得成功，有些基于99美分的游戏也是如此。

如果你担心游戏会因为每周所涌现出的上百款游戏而黯然失色，那么免费模式便是你的最佳选择，因为这至少可以保证人们会注意到你的游戏。

听起来你们不是一家大公司，所以我猜你们也未拥有太多的资金去进行较大的市场营销活动。就这一点而言，我们必须清楚iOS是个拥挤且充满竞争的市场。

我们总是会尝试着去创造最优秀的游戏，不管价格。我希望你也能够这么做。如果你的作品足够完善且有趣，那么人们肯定也会注意到他。而口口相传便是一种很棒的市场营销策略，特别是现在。

2013年4月23日

其实一切都取决于游戏。并不是所有付费游戏都比免费游戏出色，反之亦然。

你不能抛弃质量，风格以及玩家类型。一款真正完善的作品总是能够吸引人们的眼球并在市场中站稳脚跟。

而业务模式将帮助你在拥挤的市场中脱瘾而出，但这基本上归结为方向，愿景和细节。

Godzi Lab Games

最后的建议是来自Godzi Lab Games（以手机游戏《iBlast Moki》和《Happy Street》而广为人知）联合创始人Jerome Lanquetot。

2012年1月24日

你好Mike：

我很高兴能够与你分享我们的经验。

不幸的是益智游戏并不是最适合免费模式。在创造《iBlast Moki 2》时我们便一直在思考这一问题，并且最终决定将其当成一款付费游戏。最佳免费模式便是设定一种货币让玩家能够利用它打开新内容，并且最好这些内容是无限的。但是在益智游戏中，除了打开新关卡或提示，所有内容都是有限的。

我们承认《iBlast Moki》的免费版本包含了这两种可开启的内容（即提示和关卡），但是因为虚拟货币的使用，它们便不适合存在于游戏中（因为这两种元素并不希望我们使用虚拟货币）。所以我们便回到带有IAP的简单版本。

当然了，这一回答并不适合你的游戏类型。但是如果你能够提供超过2种的IAP（如奖金或升级道具），你的游戏便会更有价值—-否则我便会选择先发行付费版本，然后再推出免费版本。

2013年4月24日

你好Mike：

即使在今天我还是认为比起其它免费类型，免费益智游戏更难获得盈利，特别是因为它们带有有限的内容并要求更多关卡设计。

《Candy Crush》是一款非常成功的免费益智游戏。它拥有超过250个关卡，其开发者也仍然在创造着更多内容和游戏机制，并通过每次的更新去留住当前的用户。它的游戏内容甚至是《愤怒的小鸟》的2倍多。

关于免费游戏还存在着一大问题便是平衡—-为了获得盈利你必须创造出包含计时器的游戏机制，有些开发者也通过呈现出挫折感去推动玩家购买升级道具。

《Candy Crush》的开发者选择同时使用时间和挫折感：你最多可以失败6次，再次之后你就需要等待1个小时的时间才能复生，或者你也可以选择购买生命包。而挫折感也可以通过消费得到缓解。有些较高的关卡是基于运气，而如果你不能在合适的情况下进行有效结合，你便会遭遇失败。

当你已经沉迷于游戏中时，他们便会将游戏难度推到更高，而当你在同一个关卡遭遇反复的失败，你便可以选择退出游戏或者购买特殊的道具。《Candy Crush》让玩家能够选择花1美元购买5种额外的推动道具，并因此去缓和他们的挫败感。

作为开发者，你的角色是创造能够娱乐玩家的作品。而所有的盈利技巧都必须与娱乐玩家相平衡，或者着眼于你将如何推动玩家的耐性与挫败感。《Candy Crush》尝试着去保持节奏—-开发者已经创造了一些额外的复杂关卡，并利用这些关卡赚取了更大的利益。同时他们也利用较简单的关卡去提高玩家的满足感。

关于免费模式，我想说有些类型很合适，但是也有些类型则未必。我们在《iBlast Moku 2》中整合了一些免费元素，但是因为这与一开始的理念相违背，所以我们最终决定不发行。

从盈利角度来看，我真的觉得免费游戏是这个产业的未来。当我们着眼于游戏排行榜时会发现，像《割绳子，时光之旅》这款在付费游戏排行榜上占据了第一位的游戏在畅销游戏排行榜中却位列37。而在它之上的游戏则都属于免费游戏。

我们的最新游戏《Happy Street》便是在一开始就设定好的免费游戏。开发免费游戏并不轻松，但同时我们也不会轻易掉进盈利陷阱中或忘记了玩家的乐趣。就像我们便竭力避免带有盈利性的游戏玩法—-我们主要是利用定时器和大量的硬货币。

在模拟/建造类游戏中，你也可以销售付费内容，但是我们必须避免创造至高无上的内容。而真正需要注意的是保持所有游戏机制的平衡，并且不要忘记我们创造游戏的初衷是带给玩家乐趣。

（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）

Paid vs. free-to-play: Advice from notable mobile studios

By Mike Rose

At the start of 2012, myself and a couple of friends finally decided to have a crack at something we’d been talking about for many months prior — making a mobile game.

Earlier into development, one topic came up over and over again: Would we make it a paid game, free-to-play, or some sort of mish-mash of the two models?

We argued over the finer points of each model for hours at a time, and eventually I decided that there was an easier way to solve it. I emailed various mobile developers who had dipped their toes in both the free-to-play and paid market, gave them a taster of our game idea, and asked them whether they’d be willing to donate advice regarding the direction we should take.

A few notable names gladly got back to me, and along with my team, we made a decision based on these answers. Alas, we shelved the game later into the year, as we each became far busier at our respective day jobs, and simply couldn’t get together as often to work on the game.

Now, 16 months later I’ve decided to put my original question to the same developers, to see how their advice has changed given how the mobile market has progressed over the last year.

The original email

What follows is my original email, proceeded by the answers I received from each developer, first from the start of 2012, and then from this week:

This is Mike Rose from IndieGames.com and other assorted places of the writing. Hope you’re well! I was hoping to ask you a quick bit of advice if that’s OK.

I’m currently starting up development of a smartphone game with a couple of friends, and we’re putting together a puzzle game that we’re hoping will prove popular. Obviously I’m very much aware of the paid vs F2P aspect of App Store pricing, and we’re currently weighing up which direction we should go in. Since you’ve had great success with F2P, I was wondering if you’d be so kind as to give your opinion on which I would be best going for!

I’ll give a little background on what the game is about – it’s essentially a puzzler that throws up conundrums on the screen, ranging from maths problems to logic puzzles to real head-scratchers, with a story that links all the puzzles together. There’s a little more to it than that, but that’s the core idea.

Our initial idea was to make it a 99c app, but having researched F2P a bit, we’re now wondering whether making it free with IAP would be a better idea. When it came to which IAP we’d implement for this idea, we were thinking that players would be able to purchase hints for the puzzles, so that if they get stuck, they can buy hints on how to solve it. We were also considering having additional puzzle packs, so the main story of puzzles would be completely F2P, but then players can buy additional blocks of puzzles that don’t affect the story if they so choose.

Does any of this sound logical? I have no idea whether any of what I’ve just said would work commercially… we just have an inclining that if we put it out as a 99c app, it will barely sell and then be confined to the depths of the App Store. If you have any thoughts, big or small, I would really love to hear what you think.

Cheers

Mike

Nimblebit

Nimblebit’s David Marsh was kind enough to get back to me with advice. At the time, his studio had just released Pocket Frogs, and was gearing up towards the release of its hugely popular Tiny Tower — both free-to-play titles.

Most recently, Nimblebit released Nimble Quest for iOS and Android, a sort of Snake meets RPG meets tower defence style game. Below is March’s original response to me, followed by an updated response from this week.

01/24/2012

Hey Mike,

we have had such success with F2P stuff that I fear anything I have to say is going to be pretty biased. I think it is safe to say though that the main hurdle on iOS is getting people to install your game, and that becomes a lot easier to do when it is free.

How you can structure F2P with your game can vary wildly depending on what type of game it is. Some people put in IAP and still make it 99 cents or higher, and then depend on dropping it to free later as a promotion. Some make it free from the get-go with IAPs built in. Unfortunately we have never done a F2P trivia / puzzle type game, so I don’t have a lot of sage advice for good ways to structure IAP in that setting.

I know of many similar types of games that do have non-consumable extra level packs as IAP like you mention, and I think that can work well and it makes sense with the structure of the game. Consumable IAP definitely can be more successful financially over the long run, but I think it is a real challenge to figure out a way that consumables make sense in a puzzle / trivia type setting. Some people sell skips or hints like you mention. I wouldn’t be afraid of experimenting with both.

None of what you mention sounds crazy, and is probably the first things I would experiment with too. Good luck!

04/22/13

Hey Mike,

it’s been 16 months – would my answer be the same? I think in two words my new answer would be “it depends.”

Even over the last 16 months the App Store has seen pretty incredible growth, which means a couple of things. One is that the people at the top are getting massive amounts of downloads, and subsequently earning mountains of cash. The flip side is that now it’s even harder to get visibility climbing the charts, since the download numbers you have to compete with are insane.

It’s harder now than it’s ever been to get the huge download numbers that make F2P work. In light of that, I still think it makes sense to go free if you have a game with broad appeal that you could imagine sitting on top of the charts.

When almost everyone is a potential fan of your game, your mobility on the charts is more lubricated. If you don’t think you have a shot at the top of the charts, if you have a more niche game – I think you can do well by making your game paid, or paid with IAP.

I think if we could launch Nimble Quest again, we might try going that route. There is a tipping point where the power of free really takes off, but if you are not going to hit that point – it can make more sense to start paid.

Unless you think you are going to have a really crazy launch with millions of downloads, there is little risk in starting off paid, you can always experiment with going free at a later point.

Kiloo

Jeppe Bisbjerg from Subways Surfers dev Kiloo also fired advice off in my direction. Here were his responses, both 16 months ago, and now.

01/25/12

There really isn’t any magic formula as to what you need to do. Some games flourish by being freemium, others by being $0.99.

If you’re afraid your game will get overshadowed by the hundreds of titles that launch every week, then perhaps free is the best way to go to make sure that people at least notice your game.

I get the feeling that you’re a smaller, new company so my guess is that you don’t have the funds to create large marketing campaigns. In this regard, remember that the iOS market is extremely crowded and competitive.

Generally, we always try to create the best possible game, no matter the price, I encourage you to do the same thing. If your product is polished and fun enough, people will notice it. Word of mouth can be a very powerful thing, especially in this day and age.

04/23/13

Everything depends on the game in question. Not all premium games make good free-to-play games, not all free-2-play games make good premium games.

One thing you can never discard is quality, execution of style and player experience. Discovery and market position will flourish from a polished product.

Business models can help you in a crowded market, but basically it all boils down to direction, vision and attention to detail.

Godzi Lab Games

These third and final pairings of advice were sent to me by Jerome Lanquetot, co-founder of Godzi Lab Games — best known for mobile titles like iBlast Moki and Happy Street.

01/24/12

Hi Mike,

I’d be happy to help you with what we have seen on our side.

Unfortunately F2P puzzle is not the best match for F2P games. We have been thinking about it for quite a while with iBlast Moki 2, and we decided to release it as a paid game. The best for F2P is when you have a currency which unlock new content, and best is if the content is unlimited such as time. In a puzzle game, apart from unlocking new levels or hints, it’s limited.

We actually submitted a F2P version of iBlast Moki including those 2 unlockables (hints and levels) which was rejected due to the usage of virtual currency – they didn’t want us to use virtual currency. We might fall back to a simpler version with IAP.

It’s not a trivial answer for your type of game. If you can find more than those 2 IAPs, it might worth it (such as bonuses or powerups) – otherwise, I’d release a paid version first, and an F2P version later.

04/24/13

Hi Mike,

today I still think a F2P puzzle is a lot harder to monetize than other F2P genres, mostly because the content is limited and requires a lot of level design.

Candy Crush is the best example of highly successful F2P puzzle. They have more than 250 levels and are still producing a lot of content and find new gameplay mechanics with every update to keep their current userbase. That’s a lot of content, 2x more than what Angry Birds has.

The other thing that’s hard in general with an F2P game is balance – to monetize you have to create gameplay mechanics which involve timers, and some developers will also play with frustration to push the player to buy bonuses or boosts.

In Candy Crush they chose to monetize both time and frustration: you can fail a maximum of 6 times before waiting for an hour for your lives to regenerate or buy a pack of lives. And frustration is solved with the bonuses you can buy. Some high levels are purely based on luck, and if you don’t get the right combination at the right time there’s no way you can make it.

They push the difficulty quite high once you are already addicted to the game, and when you start failing more than 20x at the same level over and over, either you quit the game or you buy the special bonuses. Especially when you see you only had one jelly left to clear and you saw the exact move to get it. Candy Crush leaves you the option to buy those 5 extra moves for one dollar and your frustration will be relieved. That happened to me more than once.

As a developer, your role is to create a product that entertains the player. With those monetization techniques you are balanced between entertaining the player, or seeing how far you can push the player’s patience and frustration. Candy Crush manages to play with the pacing quite well – they have created a few of those extra hard levels that monetize a lot than the rest of the levels. And in between, they have some much easier levels which increase the player’s satisfaction until he reaches the next hard level.

Regarding the F2P model in general, some genres are definitely more adaptable than others. We integrated some F2P mechanics into iBlast Moki 2, but we decided not to release it as it was not designed for it even if it was done from the ground up.

In term of monetization, I definitely think F2P games are the future. You can look at the charts, and a game like Cut The Rope: Time Travel which is #1 in paid games is only #37 in top grossing games. All the titles above are free games.

Our last title Happy Street is an F2P game designed from the ground up with F2P game mechanics. Developing an F2P game is not easy, as it’s not easy to fall into the trap of monetization and forget about the player enjoyment. For us we are avoiding gameplay aimed at monetizing frustration – we mostly use timers and we are quite generous with the hard currency.

In the simulation/building genre, you can also sell premium content, but we have to be careful not to create supremacy goods. The key is to find the right balance between all those gameplay mechanics, and don’t forget that we are making games for players to enjoy first.(source:gamasutra)