作者：Josh Foreman

在我开始设计自己的首款手机游戏时，我就尝试领会免费体验（F2P）模式的概念（我是一名美术人员/设计师，所以这对我来说是个新词）。如果我要采用这种模式，我就会把它做好，令其更具道德性，从设计角度来看，还会让它具有审美性。换句话说，我并不想在一款现成的游戏之上生搬硬套一个商业模式。因为根据我所知道的情况，这种做法多半只能以悲剧收场。

我读过许多关于这个话题的文章，并且从中受益匪浅。尤其是出现在评论中的争论。但我还没有看到关于这个话题的优秀探索。为了明确这一点，现在我提供一个我当前的计划总览。我的首个项目实际上是一次以极小的范围展开的练习，当时只是为了让自己熟悉将产品推向市场这一过程。希望我的所有大型错误可能发生在这个过程中。所以，我要开发一款简单的迷宫游戏。我想点与众不同的地方在于，我要为这款游戏添加一点探索感。多数此类游戏不是含有无聊的点击数字关卡选择，就是要点触含有节点的线性路径。我想让自己的元游戏地图采用更为整洁的方向，但实际上却含有可探索的大陆。每个内容都有不同的主题，你将在地图中通过之前关卡中所收获的足够点数来解琐地图上的关卡。但因为我并不想让它呈现线性特点，所以得在多个关卡设置大量出口，这样你所获得的点数也可以直接引向与对应出口相关的下一个关卡。

这就是我的一个小小的创新，我也对这个训练游戏的这个设计很满意。这里就出现了我的一个困境。我不喜欢付费墙的理念。我觉得它有点卑鄙。之所以不说它极为卑鄙，是因为毕竟没有人强迫你玩游戏。它实际上将游戏转变成了一个可升级成完整版本的样本游戏。但如果我推出样本，我就会增加这样的描述。这并不是我的本意。我只想制作一款大多数人都能够不花一文钱就能玩的游戏。我想设置那种因为玩家觉得可以付费购买更精美的修订版本，或者节省时间/精力跳过棘手环节的IAP功能。你看出其中的问题了吗？

我欣赏让玩家因为喜爱游戏而付费加速进程的理念，但并不喜欢其中的挑战性（或者受挫感）。我可以想象自己在玩一款《洛克人》或《恶魔城》这种免费游戏的时候，进入了一种让自己受挫和烦恼的环节，觉得自己会错过这个环节之后的内容，所以有必要花点钱通关。但这看起来就像是潘朵拉的盒子。我们很容易设计人为地将玩家置到相关位置的难度曲线。我想这是付费墙的一个良好基本定义。

Flow channel(from gamasutra)

理想情况下，我们设计师想让玩家处于心流状态中，即他们不会感觉到焦虑或无聊的情况。F2P付费墙是一个有意打破流状态的难度尖峰，将玩家推向一个焦虑区域。有一部分玩家会因为不愉快的体验而停止玩游戏。

有部分玩家会坚持下去，并努力熬过去，最终克服困难。有些玩家会花钱购买升级道具或解决方法，攻克这个难度高峰，以便继续玩游戏。

因为我想让自己的设计具有美学愉悦感，所以我不想制造难度尖峰。但由于游戏设计的常见问题就在于每个玩家都有不同的技能水平，所以一位玩家的完美心流对另一人来说可能又是太容易和无聊的体验了，对其他玩家来说也有可能是令其愤怒的伤疤。就是后面一个群体让我很困难。在我看来如果付费墙是一个难度峰值，如果有些玩家在游戏中表现很糟糕，即使是最简单的内容对他们来说也很棘手，那么可以推动游戏进程的付费墙就成了F2P游戏中的一个必要选择。

所以调整这一困境的一个方法就是在商店中提供非游戏进程的道具，令其具有纯粹的艺术美感。这可以解决问题，但却不能完全解决我的困境，因为这样的游戏仍然会排斥菜鸟玩家。与体育运动不同的是，我们电子游戏设计师的使命是为缺乏游戏所需技能的玩家带来乐趣。我们拥有难度模式、作弊码、通关攻略，以及付费获胜和付费推动进程的设计。我制作游戏多半是因为自己喜欢为人们提供有趣的体验。如果一个简单的模式和通关攻略还不够，那么极度糟糕的玩家仍然可以通过我所设置的付费系统绕过难度尖峰从而享受游戏体验。

所以为何不在游戏中免费添加相同的游戏进程机制呢？因为我知道这会破坏各种技能水平的玩家的流状态。它会让人们在遇到一点点小障碍时就产生利用该机制的冲动。而我则认为优秀的游戏体验是一系列紧张和放松的过程，所以破坏这一过程就会破坏我所追求的美感。

所以我们还有办法在F2P框架中实现我所追求的道德性和趣味性吗？这基本上只能是我的一个设想。我并没有寄希望于让它成为F2P游戏变革，但我确实不想令我的道德感或艺术感让步。（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）

Can FTP have pay-to-progress without pay walls?

by Josh Foreman

The following blog post, unless otherwise noted, was written by a member of Gamasutra’s community.

The thoughts and opinions expressed are those of the writer and not Gamasutra or its parent company.

As I’m starting to design my first mobile game I’m attempting to grapple with the concept of Free To Play for the first time in my career.  (I’m an artist/designer, so this is a new world for me.) If I’m going to do it, (and from my research it seems at this point like a bad idea not to) I want to do it well, do it ethically, and from a design perspective; do it aesthetically.  In other words, I don’t want to shoehorn a business model on top of an existing game.  From what I’ve read, that always ends in tears.

I’ve read every article and book on this subject that I could get my hands on, and that has been very helpful.  Especially the debates that always appear in the comments.  (I hope to get a good one here.)  But I haven’t really seen a good exploration of this one topic I’m stuck on.  To make it clear, let me provide an overview of my current plan.  My first project is pretty much a practice run with a very small scope just to get a pipeline established and run myself through the ringer of getting a product to market.  Hopefully I’ll make all my BIG mistakes on this one.  So it’s just a simple tilt-a-marble-through-a-maze game.  There’s about a thousand of them out there.  One thing I wanted to do differently than those I’ve played is to add a bit of a sense of exploration to the metagame.  Most of these games either has a boring tap-a-number level select or a linear path with nodes to tap.  I want to take my metagame map in a more literal direction, actually having continents to explore.  Each content will have a different theme and you’ll be unlocking levels on the map by getting enough points in the previous level.  But since I don’t want it to be linear there will be multiple exits on many of the levels so that the points you earn will be directed toward the next level that is associated with that exit.

So that’s my teeny tiny innovation, and I’m happy enough with that for this practice game.  So here’s where my dilemma crops up.  I don’t like the idea of a pay wall.  I feel like that’s a little sleazy.  Not a LOT sleazy, because after all, no one’s forcing you to continue playing the game.  It just essentially turns the game into a demo that can be upgraded to a full game.  But if I’m handing out demos I want to be forthcoming with that description.  And that’s not what I want to do.  I want to make a game that the majority of people can play to completion without paying a cent.  I want any In-App-Purchases that happen to be because the player feels like paying for the aesthetic modifications available, or saving time/energy to bypass a tricky part, is worth it to them.  Did you spot the problem yet?

There’s a part of me that loves the idea of players being able to buy progress if they enjoy the game but are not enjoying a particularly challenging (ie frustrating) part of it.  I can imagine myself playing a free game of Mega Man or Castlevania and getting to a part where I’m just frustrated and annoyed, and feeling like I’m going to be missing out on the content AFTER this part, so it’s worth a buck to pass it.  But that seems like Pandora’s Box.  It’s all too easy to design difficulty spikes (or create them accidentally!) that put players in that position artificially.  I think that’s a good basic definition of a pay wall.

Ideally, we designers want to keep the player in the Flow channel…

Where they are not feeling anxiety or boredom.  A FTP pay wall is a difficulty spike that purposely breaks flow, pushing the player into the Anxiety area.  Some percent of players will stop playing due to the unpleasant experience.  Some percent will persevere and struggle and struggle and eventually get by it. (IF there actually IS a way to do so.)  And some percent will pay to get a powerup or workaround that breaks through the difficulty spike allowing them to continue the game.

Because I want my design to be aesthetically pleasing I don’t want to make difficulty spikes.  But the perennial problem of game design is that every player has different skills so that one player’s perfect flow is another’s too-easy, boring experience, is another’s rage-inducing trauma.  It’s that latter group that troubles me.  It seems to me that IF the pay wall is a difficulty spike, and IF there are some players who are so bad at the game that even the simple stuff is hard for them, then there necessarily will be pay walls in a FTP game that sells any kind of game progression.

So one way to fix this dilemma is to offer no game progression in the store.  Keep it purely aesthetic.  That does solve the problem but that doesn’t solve MY dilemma completely because the game will still exclude bad players.  Unlike physical sports, we video game designers have the blessed power to bring enjoyment to those who lack the skills that our games demand.  We have difficulty modes, cheats, walkthroughs, and yes, pay-to-win and pay-to-progress.  I make games mostly because I like giving people interesting experiences.  And I don’t want to exclude a bunch if there’s a way not to.  That is my attraction to pay-to-progress.  If an easy mode and walkthroughs aren’t enough, a really abysmally bad player can STILL get to enjoy the experience I’ve designed by just paying to blast through a difficulty spike that I never intended to BE a spike.

So why not just add the same game progression mechanic but for free?  Because I know that will destroy the Flow for people of average-to-high skill.  It will just be too tempting to reach for that mechanic the moment a little healthy tension is built up.  I’m of the philosophy that a good game experience is a series of tension and release moments, so destroying that process is destroying the design aesthetic I’m striving for.

So IS there a way to accomplish what I want in an ethical and fun way within a Free to Play framework?  Basically I’m just thinking out loud here.  I didn’t ask for this Free to Play revolution, but I sure want to make sure it doesn’t make me compromise my moral or aesthetic sensibilities. Please let me know what you think!  （source：gamasutra）