Eric Hautemont（Days of Wonder首席执行官）

我并不知道为何这些情况对某些愤世嫉俗者来说如此难以接受，实际上这可能就是事实——越来越多的F2P手机游戏开发者在竞争一小撮数量有限，并且可能正在不断减少的鲸鱼用户，这或许可以解释为何“用户获取”成本一直在飙升。

Teut Weidemann（育碧在线专家）

那种认为鲸鱼用户仅局限于特定人群的假设是错误的。鲸鱼并不是现成的，而是培养起来的。最关键的是要有合适的游戏。所以鲸鱼的数量没有上限。

Eric Hautemont

也许对，也许不对：鲸鱼可以培养也会消失。一名前Zynga高管曾经告诉我“人们喜欢我们的游戏……再后来就讨厌这些游戏了！”

Ben Cousins（DeNA欧洲游戏工作室主管）

关于鲸鱼用户将会“看到自己行为的错误”这种假设是基于所有鲸鱼都“显然”会后悔消费行为的推论。Zynga的没落与F2P无关，而这一切却都与Zynga有关。

有项EEDAR调查表明，F2P游戏中的多数消费者并不后悔自己的消费行为。

“用户获取”成本的急剧飙升是因为每用户平均收益增长所致，而后者又是因鲸鱼数量的增长所致。

信息来源：我曾经在一家专注于推动用户获取成本的公司就职三年。

Eric Seufert（Gamefounders导师）

我不认为“鲸鱼”用户数量会停止增长。

*全球智能手机普及率仍在持续增长，预计到2014年底全球智能手机用户将达到17.5亿，超过了2012年时的10亿（数据来源：eMarketer）。智能手机普及率在美国仍持续增长，已从10月份的第三季度增长至2014年1月的66.8%（数据来源：华尔街日报）。

*显然，比起付费下载，用户还是更青睐免费游戏。在2013年App Store中的免费应用比例已经从77%增长至92%。（摘自mobileminute数据）

*在2013年苹果向开发者支付的收益就增长了两倍以上。截止2013年1月，苹果已向开发者支付70亿美元；截止2014年1月，苹果已支付150亿美元（游戏邦注：App Store发布于2008年）。

更多的智能手机，更多免费应用，以及更多收益会产生更少（或者数量相同）的鲸鱼用户吗？这并不可能。但用户获取成本也因为更多鲸鱼用户进入这一生态圈而不断攀升。开发者并不会盲目在用户获取渠道上花钱，他们是根据终身价值来投入。如果用户获取（以下简称UA）成本一直上升，那就意味着这一市场仍具有盈利空间。

Eric Hautemont

或者说UA成本上升仅仅是因为有太多公司投入大笔资金追逐同一批用户（或者说是同一批用户数量并没有随着游戏公司投入的营销资金的增长而增长）。

我早年曾经是一名VC，也见证了许多由VC支持的公司在早期的互联网泡沫中的非理性投入。当时许多人还认为花8美元获取一名用户是合理的，但结果证明事实并非如此。

时间可以证明一切……

Emily Greer（Kongregate首席执行官及联合创始人）

我完全同意Eric Seufert的观点。也要指出手机游戏领域的每安装成本（CPI）也正在上涨至与开放网络领域每用户获取成本（CPA）相同的水平。

我并不认为过去几年手机游戏领域的UA营销投入是非理性的，但我认为当前的UA价格不但合理（根据我们某些游戏的终身价值来看），而且是不可避免的。多数游戏都能够进行具有盈利性的投入吗？并非如此。但多数主机游戏并不会在电视广告上投入庞大营销预算，而《使命召唤》和其他高端游戏却做得到。

Eric Seufert

我无法想象有哪家开发商能够进行无法盈利，但却会提升整个市场CPI的大手笔投入。虽然一些小型开发者和发行商几乎都会这么做，但它们还没有强大到足以推动市场的程度。而大型公司则是富有盈利性地进行投入。

Ben Cousins

没错。

我就效力于这样的公司。

其运行原理如下：

“我们这款游戏的终身价值（LTV）为2美元，所以我们在UA的投入上不可以超过1.5美元”

新游戏发布了。

“我们这款游戏的LTC是5美元，我们可以将这款游戏的竞标价抬升至4美元！”

但并非如此。

“我们的LTV是5美元，但我们以2美元获取鲸鱼用户存在难度，所以我们必须将竞价提升至4美元。”

今天的商业竞争很激烈，赢家可以大获全胜。人人都在为新游戏拼出最高价。唯一推动UA成本增长的机制是每用户收益的增长，而其发生原因正是鲸鱼用户的增长。

Eric Hautemont

有意思。我之前对GREE和DeNA的印象就是，他们投入的营销成本超过了收益潜力，难道我想错了？

如果你的新LTV增长至5美元，为何要将竞价提升至4美元，而不是控制在1.5美元，并全力以赴追求利润？

以4美元的成本获得5美元远比花1.5美元得到2美元更糟糕。你还不如用以1.5美元购买旧用户，并获得2美元的LTV。

Ben Cousins

我还没有听说过哪一款DeNA游戏可以用超过当前的LTV来购买用户。

我不能代表GREE，但DeNA的西方业务自日本开始管理ngmoco时就是100%的盈利。

你显然并不会将所有游戏的UA增加至4美元，但这有助于你出更高的价格，因为你获得的用户越多，每用户成本就越高。

增加一个LTV更高的游戏的竞价，有助于你进一步扩大用户基础，之后（如果你拥有大量游戏）你就可以交叉推广其他产品，从而增加用户在不同游戏之间的LTV。

Eric Seufert

你调整优化曲线，并不一定将竞价提升至仅次于LTV的水平。如果我每个用户的利润是0.15美元，并且获得了1000万用户，我就能够比每个用户1美元/100万用户这种情况更具盈利性（通常是因为1000万的用户水平可以让你获得榜单排名优势）。这一点变得很复杂，因为CPI并不会随着用户量的增长而增长，但通常来说，最大化利润包括在LTV上升时增加竞价。

Oscar Clark（Applifier倡导者）

所有的优化手段都是有意义的……但用户获取及粘性则是需要建立在一款优秀游戏基础之上的杠杆。我们必须不断以制作更棒的游戏为目标。

Teut的话一语中地，他称鲸鱼并不是“现成”的而是培养起来的。这是玩家生命周期以及鲸鱼消费行为是粘性高的玩家（在游戏中逗留时间够长并乐于经常消费）的一种症状。

拿Zynga来作比较也是公平的，但如果看看他们在游戏中销售的商品类型就是另一回事了。这些通常是关于时间或虚荣的商品。不会为长期玩家提供太多便利，但我怀疑问题在于玩家融入游戏的速度超过了Zynga调整的速度。

我仍然认为这一数据很有趣但并没有特别的意义。使用平均数假设的是这里存在一个数据之下的普遍分布曲线。我怀疑这并非事实，在游戏表现范围中，大部分表现糟糕，仅有一小部分表现出色。我还不知道将所有下载了游戏的玩家计算在列这种法则到底有没有意义。下载是没有门槛的。这正是F2P游戏中究竟有多少人是因为付费墙而不再访问游戏的关键要点。（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）

[Gamesbriefers] Are there too few whales?

By Gamesbriefers

Eric Hautemont CEO of Days of Wonder

I don’t see why these stats would be tough for any cynic to swallow: instead, they might just prove a point – that there is a growing number of F2P mobile developers and $ competing for a limited, possibly diminishing, number of whales; this would also help explain the exponential rise in “user acquisition” costs.
Teut WeidemannTeut Weidemann Online Specialist at Ubisoft

The assumption that whales is an attribute fixed to certain human beings is wrong. Whales don’t exist, they grow. All it takes is the right game. So there is no limit on whales.
Eric-Hautemont1Eric Hautemont CEO of Days of Wonder

Maybe, maybe not: whales grow and die, too. As a former exec at Zynga once told me “People loved and loved our games… until they hated them!”

Ben Cousins Head of European Game Studios at DeNA

The assumption that whales will ‘see the error of their ways’ is based on the idea that all whales ‘obviously’ regret spending. Zynga’s fall is nothing to do with F2P and everything to do with Zynga.

There is specific research that show the majority of spenders in F2P games do not regret their purchases (EEDAR).

“the exponential rise in “user acquisition” costs.” is caused by an increase in the average revenue per user, which is caused by an increase in the absolute number of whales.

Source: three years working for one of the companies responsible for pushing up the UA costs.

Eric Seufert Mentor at Gamefounders

I see no reason to believe that the number of “whales” has stopped growing:

- Global smartphone penetration continues to grow: expected worldwide smartphone penetration by EoY 2014 is 1.75BN, up from 1BN in 2012 (source: emarketer). Smartphone penetration continues to grow in the US, too; it increased by 7% from three months ended October 2013 to tme January 2014, to 66.8% (source: WSJ)

- obviously consumers continue to prefer freemium games to paid downloads; the percentage of freemium apps in the App Store jumped from 77% to 92% over the course of 2013 (source: mobileminute)

- The cumulative amount of money paid out developers by Apple more than doubled in 2013 *alone*; by January 2013, Apple had paid out $7BN, and by January 2014, Apple had paid out $15BN (the App Store was launched in 2008) (source: Forbes).

Could more smartphones, more freemium apps, and more aggregate revenue possibly result in fewer (or the same number of) whales? Sure, but it’s not likely. But user acquisition costs are rising precisely *because* more whales are entering the ecosystem. Developers don’t blindly throw money at UA: they spend based on LTV, and as segmented LTV rises, so do targeted bids. If UA prices are rising, it’s a sign that there’s more money to chase.

Eric Hautemont CEO of Days of Wonder

Or UA prices could be rising simply because too much money is going after the same pool of users (or a pool of users that isn’t increasing as fast as the pile of money being thrown to acquire them).

Having been a VC in an earlier life, and having witnessed first-hand lots of irrational spending among VC-backed companies during the prior dot-com boom, paint me skeptical. Back then many also thought paying $ 8 for CPA was justified; until it turned out, it wasn’t so much the case.

Time will tell…

Emily GreerEmily Greer CEO and co-founder at Kongregate

Completely agree with Eric S. Would also point out that the high CPIs in mobile that everyone is shuddering about are just rising to the level that CPAs have been at on the open web for years where game developers are competing head-to-head with e-commerce bids.

I do think some money has been spent irrationally on UA in mobile in the last few years but I think the current prices are not only reasonable (based on the LTVs we’re getting on some of our games) but also inevitable. Will most games be able to spend profitably? No. But most console games don’t spend significant amounts on TV advertising while Call of Duty and the other top end can. It’s a similar power curve of performance dynamic.

Eric Seufert Mentor at Gamefounders

FWIW I cannot think of a single developer that is spending unprofitably at a scale that would appreciably increase overall market CPIs. Small devs and some of the publishers almost certainly are, but they’re not a big enough force to move the market. The big guys are spending profitably.

Ben Cousins1Ben Cousins Head of European Game Studios at DeNA

Exactly

I work for one of these companies.

It goes like this

“Our LTV for this game is $2, we can’t afford to spend more than $1.50 on UA”

New game gets launched

“Wow! Our LTV for this game is $5, we can up our bids to $4 for this one!”

It is NOT

“Our LTV is $5, but we are having trouble acquiring whales at $2, we need to up our bids to $4″

The business is aggressive nowadays. Winners make it big. Everyone is immediately bidding the maximum they can for new games. The only mechanism driving increased UA costs is per-user revenues increases, and that’s happening because there are more whales.

Eric-Hautemont1Eric Hautemont CEO of Days of Wonder

Interesting. I was under the (apparently mistaken) impression that Gree and DeNA scale backs in the Valley where due to their spending having gotten ahead of their revenue traction (in the Western world). Was I wrong?

If your new LTV increases to $5, why up your bid to $4 then, instead of keeping your bid at $1.50 and taking all the excess in profits?

Getting $ 5 at a cost of $ 4 is marginally worse than getting $2 for $ 1.50, btw (you’d be 14% better off spending that $4 to purchase your older users at $ 1.50 and netting $2 in LTV).

Ben Cousins1Ben Cousins Head of European Game Studios at DeNA

I’ve never known of any DeNA game in the west ever be permitted to acquire users at more than current LTV, including my own (aside from very small amounts in soft launches).

I can’t speak for Gree, but the DeNA western business has been 100% profit focussed since Japan started managing ngmoco.

You obviously don’t increase to $4 across the board, but it enables you to go higher, and that helps because the more users you ask for, the higher the cost per user.

Increasing bids from a higher-LTV game enables you to scale the userbase further than previously possible and then (if you have multiple games) you can cross-promote into other products to increase a users LTV as they move across the entire portfolio.

eric seufertEric Seufert Mentor at Gamefounders

You shift the optimization curve, you don’t necessarily ratchet bids up to just below LTV. If I make $.15 in profit per user for 10MM users, I’m making more aggregate profit than if I make $1 in profit per user for 1MM users (often because the 10MM level gets you chart position). This gets complicated because CPIs don’t increase linearly with volume acquired, but generally speaking, maximizing profit involves increasing bids when LTV goes up.

Oscar ClarkOscar Clark Evangelist for Applifier

All the optimisation stuff makes sense… but acquisition and engagement are levers which have to be built on the basis of a great game. We have to constantly aim to make better games.

Teut hit the nail on the head when he said Whales don’t ‘exist’ they grow. It’s about Player Lifecycle and whale spending behaviour is a symptom of Engaged players who are retained and delighted long enough to commit to regular spending.

The Zynga comparison is fair until you look at the type of goods they sold in game. These were generally about vanity or time. Neither built much Utility for long term player’s; at least in hindsight. However I suspect the issue was that players evolved faster than Zynga adapted.

I still hold to this data being interesting but not particularly meaningful in this form. The use of averages assumes that there is a normal distribution curve at work below the data. I suspect that this isn’t the case and there is such a range in games performance with a majority performing poorly and a minority doing vastly better. I also wonder if the principles of including all players who download makes any sense at all. There is no barrier to download. That’s the point if F2P how many people are prevented from assessing a game at all by the pay wall who might have spent something in time (perhaps even becoming whales)?（source：gamesbrief）