其名字与概念一样邪恶。“付费增值”（游戏邦注：即你获得鼓励在已经付钱的游戏中购买内容）已经潜伏在暗处许多年了，但是随着全新时代的到来，它开始趋于公开化了。在Xbox One中便是如此，模式接受了批发，开发者甚至为了确保该讽刺系统的运行而在设计上做出了妥协。

几乎所有的微软发行的独家报道都突出了某种类型的应用内部购买。例如《Forza Motorsport 5》。尽管玩家可以在《Forza 4》和《Horizon》花钱购买虚拟汽车，但在这一代中系统更是移向了前景。你那真正的现金货币在游戏菜单上始终都是可行的，现在游戏内部的货币的价值 是受限的，伴随着减少的胜利奖励并且大多数有价值的汽车都贴上了高价标签；免费游戏模式已经面目全非了，从而将推动着你去花更多钱但却只是坐在Lotus F1汽车的方向盘后面。

Forza 5（from edge-online）

网络论坛上充满了许多玩家对于付费增值潜变的愤恨，尽管游戏网站在引导的位置上刊登了手写的评述。玩家对于《Forza 5》使用该模式的反应充满了敌意，即游戏通过先降低2/3汽车价格并在之后又上升到这一价格点。

问题非常基本。付费增值意味着配对两个完全相反的业务模式。在免费游戏中，人们都知道基本的体验是免费的，但反过来工作室可以鼓励玩家在游戏中为特定元素花钱。的确，免费游戏从一开始便是作为盈利系统进行设计，它们的核心强制循环是围绕着摩擦和转换概念进行创建。所有的一切都是朝着让玩家到达消费点而创造的。

调查公司GamesAnalytics的首席执行官Chris Wright说道：“我们将其称为用户粘性的门槛。我们投入了许多努力去理解激励玩家花钱的元素，以及这种交叉何时会出现。我们发现在所有游戏（免费游戏）中存在一个最优点，那些会花钱去呈现不同行为的玩家将出现于此。这些玩家将深深地沉浸在游戏中，改变游戏玩法，并经常成为提倡者，去推动病毒式活动。将玩家带到这一点上且不推动着他们过早花钱是非常重要的。

在零售购买中，合同是不同的。你已经支付了一个溢价，从表面上看来这是包含享受游戏所必须的所有内容。关于这点，免费游戏惯例会让人觉得具有剥削性。Size Five的设计师Dan Marshall说道：“免费游戏的传播者会坚持这是关于玩家的选择。他们将坚持如果你愿意的话便能够略过所有微不足道的内容，但事实却并非如此。从一开始游戏玩法便偏离了位置去适应免费游戏机制，并最终破坏了整体游戏内容。这是关于你如何想办法让玩家花钱，而不是如何让玩家获得乐趣。”

全价游戏的微交易并不是什么新鲜事物。一旦宽频速度考虑到广泛的数字发行和无缝的发行后计费系统，业务模式便会开始深入主流零售游戏。艺电的《教父》便是属于最早的例子之一。从东方MMORPG世界中借来“刷任务或付费”机制，游戏允许玩家购买游戏内部的钱去推动他们的帝国命运的发展。《教父》可能是付费增值的首个“病例”，但《FIFA》的Ultimate Team模式将其变成是游戏中最具毒性的变革。Ultimate Team通过“贸易卡”而向许多玩家收钱，如此玩家便能够在线控制构造好的团队。这很有趣，玩家也很喜欢，一部分是因为这让他们觉得是公平的且适当的——在运动场上交易世界杯贴纸的孩子们现在可以在《FIFA 09》中交易虚拟人了。

《质量效应3》和《死亡空间3》的微交易也紧随其后，在2013年2月，艺电的财务总监Blake Jorgensen在一次媒体和电信会议上表示该公司将整合付费内容到他们旗下的所有游戏中。他声称：“消费者喜欢并欢迎这种业务方法。”

我们很清楚为何这种模式如此吸引发行商。2012年9月，育碧的世界在线总监Stéphanie Perotti对投资者说道：“免费游戏是一种非常灵活的业务模式。玩家有能力花费比在传统模式中更多的钱。”当玩家在微笑地支付双倍费用于Ultimate Team模式前，他们已经支付50英镑于《FIFA》上了，这似乎就是一个值得效仿的模式。

但《FIFA》的Ultimate Team模式却是特别的。这是区别于主要职业模式的游戏组成部分—-这是一种选择性的加入，而不是根深蒂固的游戏内容，就像Dan Marshall所提到的妥协式“抢钱”手段。

FIFA（from edge-online）

的确，免费游戏和付费游戏在结构，心理元素和游戏设计原理上都存在着主要的区别。Jamie Madigan（psychologyofgames.com上的博主）便谈论了免费游戏和自我损耗的概念。他说道：“当我们的意志力被耗尽时，免费游戏系统将能有效地压榨我们。最近的研究表明，意志力就像肌肉一样：它会变得疲惫并且需要时间恢复。当意志力被耗尽时，我们的大脑将更容易依赖于更快速的移动，更少需求的系统；我们变得更容易受到不合理决定和常规偏见的影响；所以在我们精神上需要任务或游戏分配后提供内容去压榨我们是一种有效的方法。”

通过在免费游戏《Clash Of Clans》中漫长的时间创造添加干扰与破坏能够创造一个自愿用户，而在零售游戏中，理想的状态通常都是伴随着本身就是奖励的游戏玩法的一个流或整体的沉浸式体验。只要你能够支付79便士，便会不断出现提醒内容告知你能够获得什么而走出该片区域，盈利系统将破坏反馈循环。《Crimson Dragon》是《Panzer Dragoon》的替身，但是游戏那如电影般的快速节奏却被分割成一些冗长且乏味的大块内容。在《暗黑破坏神III》中，许多玩家发现寻找战利品的整体吸引力被网上拍卖屋给破坏了，在这里玩家可以花钱购买到所有道具。前《暗黑破坏神III》游戏总监Jay Wilson写道：“这可能会破坏道具掉落的自然感，让某些玩家觉得游戏缺少奖励。”所以根据玩家的反馈，拍卖屋被删掉了。

即使微交易的执行并未真正影响到游戏设计，它却仍然能从根本上破坏玩家与开发者之间的关系。免费游戏机制专家Oscar Clark解释道：“从购买者的心理角度来看，你是在冒险破坏玩家的信任。他们通过对实用性的期待而支付了一笔预先费用购买了游戏。应用内部购买有可能破坏这种投资价值感，除非你能清楚地呈现出额外的消费能够带给他们一些让人惊艳的东西。”对于持有怀疑态度的玩家来说，游戏世界已经不再是一个虚拟环境了；现在它是一个商店，而创造者也只是一名售货员。

当游戏情节中出现商业元素时，怀疑也会接踵而至。《刺客信条IV：黑旗》的世界中便隐藏着各种可收集的道具。这是否能够提供重玩价值并奖励玩家的探索，或者它们的存在使得育碧可以卖给那些孤注一掷的玩家一个节省时间包去呈现出其地图上未被发现的道具的位置？

但是发行商并不是真的想要回答这些问题。当我们找到艺电，育碧和微软的负责人时，前两个都不愿做出回应，而微软更是直接拒绝。当前的真理是安静地执行微交易，然后只在玩家发出抱怨时进行道歉并做出调整。基于这种方法，有可能现代的付费模式将悄悄地延伸到游戏中。

所以如果付费模式要如此鬼鬼祟祟，开发者们为什么还要这么做呢？有些游戏开发者使用微交易是为了扩展用户。《死亡空间3》的制作人John Calhoun在2013年1月说道：“这里存在许多玩家，特别是来自手机游戏是玩家，他们都习惯于进行微交易。他们会有‘我现在需要这个，我现在就要这个’的想法。他们需要的是即时满足。”

但除此之外还存在其它能够满足这些玩家的方法。像《使命召唤：幽灵》便重新设计了多人游戏开启系统，让任何玩家只要能够集齐Squad Points便都能够使用所有武器，这能推动着他们去完成游戏内部的操作并提升排行。这并不算一种即时满足，但却很接近，并且也不会破坏游戏中玩家可享受的系统。

Zee-3（创造了《Magnetic Billiards》）的Ste Pickford在谈到玩家受挫时说道：“这是游戏设计师已经了解并领悟到的问题。这也是我们为何会添加像滑动难度关卡等新功能的原因，如此玩家便能够略过一个boss或困难的战斗，或者像任天堂的Super Guide，或者在新的《马里奥》游戏中，当玩家于一个关卡中失败过多次时提供给他们白色的Tanooki西装。这会让玩家觉得他们购买了游戏，并有权去访问游戏中的所有内容，即使他们并不是那么擅于玩游戏。”

Dead Space 3（from edge-online）

开发者似乎希望他们的游戏能够足够慷慨。Turn 10的Dan Greenawalt便解释《Forza 5》的代币系统允许那些想要获得捷径的玩家通过‘作弊手段’而支付名义上的费用。也许该工作室相信这是真的—-对于《Forza 4》是如此，但是《Forza 5》明确的设计导致游戏频繁地尝试着鼓励玩家掏钱包。

Turn 10及其它开发商所采取的更好的防御措施便是残酷的游戏开发成本转移。随着每个新技术的发展，AAA级游戏开发成本不断提升，但零售游戏的销量却仍未取得显著的发展。艺电的Jorgensen已经预测到第八代平台的开发成本将提升5%至10%。而将成本转移到玩家身上便是支持失败的开发模式的唯一方法。

但推卸责任是不公平的。难道索尼，微软和任天堂不应该承担起责任去降低授权费用，并且由发行商与开发商们更好地管理产品开发。Rebellion的联合创始人Jason Kingsley说道：“新技术和创造性解决方法以及游戏销售理念的改变都意味着预算的下降。尽管有些开发领域，如创造一个高质量的主角模式变得更费成本，但又有谁阻止你去创造一些基于较低价格点并提供AAA级体验的较小的游戏？比起钱，游戏设计更多的是关于创造性。”

如果说繁荣的独立创造领域呈现给我们某些内容，那便是创造性能够胜过技术。出现在下一代发行窗口中的一款高评级游戏有《Resogun》，这款类似《Defender》的2D射击游戏。《我的世界》通过迷人的视觉效果赚取了数    百万的收益。《DayZ》和《腐烂国度》都提供了比《生化危机6》和《寂静岭：暴雨》的结合更接近后世界末日的紧张感。

当然了，游戏必须让人感到惊讶，但这并不意味着每年要加倍预算的投入。Marshall说道：“奇观可以源于不同形式。这不只是映射于角色模型的眼球上的内容。就像《No Man’s Sky》在VGX Awards上大出风头便是一大奇观。这是会让你大吃一惊的美术设计。这是带有曲折并吊足你的胃口的编剧。这是让你在忙于工作时也恨不得跳进游戏中的机制。这便是奇观。这是只有游戏产业能够做到的。这是我们需要专注的内容，并且做到这点也并不昂贵。”

对于某些游戏来说，可替代的选择也许只是彻底地包含免费游戏——至少基于这种方法玩家知道他们在哪里，并且设计并不需要妥协。Games Bried的创始人，同时也是免费游戏盈利著作《The Curve》的作者Nicholas Lovell说道：“任何创造性过程都是艺术，游戏设计也不例外。传统的付费模式已经创造了一个难以管理的创造性方法，并导致了高调的失败——想想RealTime Worlds和37 Studios。这也导致了游戏虽然卖的不错，但却难以满足内在的期望，如最近的《古墓丽影》。免费游戏业务模式能让公司创造出较小的体验，保证市场需求然后继续去支持它。”

索尼曾经提出《Gran Turismo》本身作为一个平台，让玩家能够以一个真正的现金价格添加自己喜欢的汽车。在《GT6》的1200辆汽车中，你将驾驶几辆？即使知道自己从未驾驶任何其它汽车参加比赛，你是否还会买进GT-R或LaFerrari？你是否会乐于每周基于短期尝试基础去体验不同的汽车？

因为索尼是在2005年创造出这一理念，所以《英雄联盟》基于后一个模式而成为世界上最大的一款游戏。如果《Forza 6》或《Gran Turismo 7》是免费游戏并适用于世界上的每一台Xbox One和PlayStation 4，那么这些游戏将从那些愿意购买他们喜欢的汽车的休闲玩家身上赚到多少钱？

付费增值是无效的产业强加在玩家身上的一种税收，并且存在更棒的可替代选择。这将导致玩家彻底拒绝该模式，并推动开发者朝着更好的方向去逆转付费增值模式。

（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）

The next-gen cash grab: why ‘paymium’ fundamentally compromises console game design

By Edge Staff

The name is as ugly as the concept. ‘Paymium’, where you’re encouraged to buy content in a game you’ve already paid for, has been lurking in the shadows for years, but it’s become overt with the arrival of a new generation. This is particularly true on Xbox One, where the model has been embraced wholesale, with developers even compromising design to make the cynical system work.

Almost all of Microsoft’s launch exclusives featured in-app purchases of some kind. Take Forza Motorsport 5. While players could pay real money for virtual vehicles in Forza 4 and Horizon, the system moved to the foreground this generation. Your real cash currency is forever visible in the game’s menus; the value of in-game currency is now limited, with reduced prizes for victory and huge price tags on the most desirable cars; and the Free Play mode has been gutted to force you to spend more money just to sit behind the wheel of a Lotus F1 car.

Internet forums are filled with gamers reacting with indignant horror to the paymium creep, while game sites post hand-wringing editorials on where it will lead. Players’ reactions to Forza 5’s use of the model were so hostile that the game was patched within a month, slashing car prices by up to two-thirds and upping the prize pots.

The problem is fundamental, though. Paymium means pairing two diametrically opposed business models. In free-to-play titles, there is an understanding that the basic experience is free, but in return the studio can encourage players to pay for certain elements throughout the game. Indeed, free-to-play titles are designed from the ground up as monetised systems, their core compulsion loops built around concepts of friction and conversion. Everything is geared towards getting the player to the point at which they’ll spend.

“We call it the threshold of engagement,” Chris Wright, CEO of research company GamesAnalytics, says. “We have done a lot of work to understand what motivates players to spend money and when that crossover occurs. We find there is an optimum point in all [F2P] games where players who spend money exhibit a very different behaviour. These players will become very engaged in the game, change how they play and often become advocates, driving viral activity. Getting players to this point and not pushing them to spend too early is very important.”

In a retail purchase, the contract is different. You have paid a premium price, which is ostensibly for all the content necessary to enjoy the game. In this context, free-to-play conventions can feel exploitative. “F2P evangelists will insist it’s about player choice,” says Size Five designer Dan Marshall. “They’ll insist that you can skip all this nickel-and-dime stuff if you want, but it’s not even remotely true. Gameplay is bent out of position right from the off to accommodate F2P mechanics, and the whole game crumples flat as a result. It becomes about how you get the player to pay, not how you get the player to have fun.”

Microtransactions in full-price games aren’t new. As soon as broadband speeds allowed for widespread digital distribution and seamless post-release billing systems, the business model started creeping into mainstream retail titles. EA’s The Godfather was among the earliest examples. Borrowing the ‘grind or pay’ mechanic from the eastern MMORPG world, the title allowed players to purchase in-game money to boost their crime empire’s fortunes. The Godfather might be patient zero for paymium but FIFA Ultimate Team made it viable as gaming’s most toxic revolution. Ultimate Team charged for packs of player ‘trading cards’, the constructed teams available to play with online. It was fun and players loved it, in part because it felt fair and because it felt like it belonged – the kids who traded World Cup stickers in the playground could now trade virtual men in FIFA 09.

Mass Effect 3 and Dead Space 3 microtransactions followed, and in February 2013 EA’s chief financial officer, Blake Jorgensen, told delegates at a media and telecoms conference that the company would be putting paid-for content into all its titles. “Consumers are enjoying and embracing that way of business,” he declared.

It’s easy to see why the model is so appealing to publishers. During an investor call in September 2012, Ubisoft’s worldwide online director, Stéphanie Perotti, stated, “Free-to-play is a very flexible business model. The player has the capability to spend more than in a traditional model.” And when players are already paying ￡50 on FIFA before doubling that on Ultimate Team with a smile, it must seem like a model to emulate.

But FIFA Ultimate Team is special. It’s a part of the game kept separate from the main career modes – an opt-in extra lots of players have come to enjoy, rather than the entrenched game-compromising cash grab Dan Marshall mentions.

Indeed, there are key differences in the structure, psychology and game design philosophy of free and paid-for titles. Jamie Madigan, who blogs at psychologyofgames.com, talks about free-to-play games and the concept of ego depletion. “F2P systems hinge a lot on hitting us when our willpower is exhausted,” he says. “Recent research has suggested that willpower is like a muscle: it gets worn out and needs time to regenerate. While it’s low, our brains are more likely to rely on the faster moving, less demanding systems; we become susceptible to irrational decisions and routine biases, so hitting us with offers after mentally demanding tasks or portions of a game is effective.”

Interruption and disruption via lengthy build times in the F2P Clash Of Clans can create a willing customer, whereas in retail games the desirable state is usually one of flow and of total immersion, with the gameplay being its own reward. The constant reminders of the things you could achieve if only you would pay 79 pence will drag you out of that zone, and monetised systems disrupt the feedback loops. Crimson Dragon is a Panzer Dragoon sequel in all bar name, but the game’s swooping cinematic pace has been dissected into tedious grindable chunks. In Diablo III, many players feel the whole appeal of hunting for loot was destroyed by the online auction house, where everything was available for a price.”[It] can short circuit the natural pace of item drops, making the game feel less rewarding for some players,” wrote ex-Diablo III game director Jay Wilson. The auction houses are being dropped based on player feedback.

Even if the implementation of microtransactions genuinely has no effect on a game’s design, it can still fundamentally damage the relationship between player and developer. “From a buying psychology perspective, you risk breaking the trust of the player,” explains Oscar Clark, a specialist in free-to-play mechanics. “They bought the game by paying an up-front [cost] based on an expectation of utility. In-app purchases can undermine this sense of invested value, unless you can clearly demonstrate that the additional spend is bringing them something amazing.” For the sceptical player, the gameworld is no longer a virtual environment in which to abandon oneself; now it’s a shop, and the creator is just another salesperson.

Once commerce enters the scenario, so does suspicion. Assassin’s Creed IV: Black Flag is filled with collectible trinkets that are hidden throughout its world. Is that to offer replay value and to reward exploration, or are they there so that Ubisoft can sell desperate gamers a Time Saver pack revealing the locations of undiscovered items on their map?

But publishers don’t really want to answer these questions. When we approached Electronic Arts, Ubisoft and Microsoft for comment, the first two failed to respond, and Microsoft declined. The philosophy at the moment is to implement microtransactions quietly, then apologise and tweak the economy only if players complain. In this way, it is hoped the modern paymium model will creep into games largely unnoticed.

So if paymium is something to be furtive about, why do it? Some game developers talk about using microtransactions in order to expand the audience. “There’s a lot of players out there, especially players coming from mobile games, who are accustomed to microtransactions,” Dead Space 3 producer John Calhoun told CVG in January 2013. “They’re like, ‘I need this now; I want this now.’ They need instant gratification.”

But there are other ways to appease those players. Call Of Duty: Ghosts has redesigned its multiplayer unlock system, making all weapons available to players of any level so long as they can amass the Squad Points, which are given out for completing operations in-game and ranking up. It’s not instant gratification, but it’s closer, and it doesn’t break the systems built for players to enjoy.

“This is a problem that game designers already understand and appreciate,” Ste Pickford of Zee-3, creator of Magnetic Billiards, says about player frustration. “This is why we have relatively new features like sliding difficulty levels, so players can [skip past] a boss or difficult battle, or Nintendo’s Super Guide, or giving players [an invincible] white Tanooki suit in the new Mario game if they fail a level too many times. There’s a sense that the player has bought the game, and they have a right to access all the content, even if they’re not very good at the game itself.”

Developers seem to want their games to be generous, then. Turn 10’s Dan Greenawalt has explained that Forza 5’s token system is to allow players who want shortcuts to access ‘cheats’ for a nominal fee. Perhaps the studio believes that to be true – it was true of Forza 4, certainly – but Forza 5’s clear design compromises result in a game that makes frequent attempts to encourage withdrawals from players’ wallets.

A better defence for Turn 10 and other developers is the sheer brutal cost of game development. With each new technological advance, the costs of triple-A development are increasing, but sales from retail games remain relatively static. EA’s Jorgensen has forecasted a five to ten per cent rise in development costs on eighth-gen platforms. Passing that cost on to players, they might argue, is the only way to support the failing development model.

But it’s unfair to pass the buck. Shouldn’t the burden instead be on Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo to lower licensing fees, and on publishers and developers to better manage product development? “New technological and creative solutions, and changes in the idea of how games should be sold, mean that budgets can come down,” Rebellion co-founder Jason Kingsley says. “While some areas of development, such as making a high-quality main character model, have become more costly, who’s to say you can’t make smaller games sold at a lower price point that provide a triple-A experience? Game design is more about creativity than money.”

If the thriving indie sector has shown us anything, it’s that creativity can win out over technology. One of the most highly rated games of the next-gen launch window has been Resogun, a 2D shooter that harks back to Defender. Minecraft has made millions from charming chunky visuals. DayZ and State Of Decay each provided more post-apocalyptic tension than Resident Evil 6 and Silent Hill: Downpour combined.

Certainly games have to amaze, but that doesn’t necessarily involve doubling the budget every year. “Spectacle comes in many shapes and forms,” says Marshall. “It isn’t just the level of bump mapping on a character model’s eyeballs. Spectacle is No Man’s Sky stealing the show at the VGX Awards. It’s art direction that takes your breath away. It’s scriptwriting with twists that make you gasp. It’s mechanics that have you itching to play while you’re stuck at work. That’s spectacle. That’s what the game industry does like no one else. That’s where we need to focus, and it doesn’t have to be expensive.”

The alternative, for some titles, may be just to embrace free-to-play entirely – at least this way players know where they stand, and the design needn’t be compromised. “Any creative process is as much art as science, and game design is no different,” says Nicholas Lovell, the founder of Games Brief and author of F2P monetisation book The Curve. “The traditional paid model has bred a bloated and difficult-to-manage creative approach, which leads to high-profile failures – think RealTime Worlds and 37 Studios. [It also leads to] games that sell well but fail to meet internal expectations, such as the recent Tomb Raider title. The free-to-play business model enables companies to create smaller experiences, validate the market demand and then to continue to support it.”

Sony once suggested the notion of Gran Turismo as a platform in its own right, a base game into which you’d slot your favourite cars for a real cash price. Of the 1,200 cars in GT6, how many will you drive? Will you stump up for a GT-R or a LaFerrari, knowing you’d never race in any other car anyway? Would you be excited to try different cars every week on a short-term trial basis?

Since Sony floated the idea in 2005, League Of Legends has become the biggest game in the world based exactly on the latter model. If Forza 6 or Gran Turismo 7 were free-to-play games piped into every last Xbox One and PlayStation 4 in the world, how much money could those games make from casual players willing to buy their favourite cars?

Paymium is a tax forced onto players by an inefficient industry, and better alternatives are available. It will take players rejecting the model entirely to force developers in that direction, but perhaps it will only take a few more Forza 5s – games so abundantly compromised that they need their economies rewritten from scratch – to turn the tide against paymium for good.（source：edge-online）