有一些公司对维持付费手机游戏市场的活力充满兴趣。而这对于独立开发者来说是有益的。

就像我们所了解的那样，早在几年前手机市场便开始向免费游戏转变。

在《愤怒的小鸟》时期，人们很乐于在手机上花费0.99美元并投入好几个小时去享受游戏乐趣。

在那之后几年，几乎所有人都意识到仅仅为了娱乐而支付高额的费用是不合理的—-至少是在他们测试完游戏是否有趣并为其掏出钱包前。

在2012年和2013年间，市场快速发生了转变，到2013年年末，90%的iOS收益和98%的Google Play收益都是来自免费游戏了。

反弹

从那时以来，我们偶尔也会谈到付费游戏的回归。但不幸的是，所有数据都未能支持这一点。

在着眼于排行榜时，我们能够更清楚地看到免费游戏的主导优势。

monetisation-strategy(from pocketgamer)

现在在iOS平台上的前100名畅销游戏中有99款游戏属于免费游戏，唯一的付费游戏则是《我的世界》。而这种情况已经维持了2年。

有些热门游戏是因为拥有一个手机领域以外的品牌（游戏邦注：如主机游戏，Steam游戏等）而成功挤进前100名榜单中，如《玩具熊的午夜红宫》或《侠盗猎车手》。

而在Google Play上这种情况更加明显。

如今，作为没有IAP的畅销游戏《这是我的战争》排在了第269名。而《侠盗猎车手：圣安迪斯》排在第363名，《几何冲刺》在第416名，《星球大战：旧共和国战士》在第431名。

而在这4款前500名以内的游戏中，只有《几何冲刺》是从手机游戏发展起来的。

而其它出现在这一榜单上但却未使用IAP的游戏都是拥有手机领域外部的品牌。

成功上限

在今天，最优秀的付费游戏能够赚到数百万美元的收益。

这是指那些被苹果选为年度游戏的游戏，如《纪念碑谷》和《罪恶之地》。

但是这些游戏同时也需要许多优秀人才的参与。举个例子来说吧，根据报告，《纪念碑谷》的开发成本高达140万美元，并为开发者创造了590万美元的收益。

如此看来其呈现的回报是投入的4倍多。所以你可以期望着使用这样的模式。

实际上，这也意味着你创造的每4款游戏中便有一款需要被苹果评选为年度最佳游戏。

付费应用

没有一个精明的投资者会将钱投资在这样的业务上。

这意味着如果你的公司拥有VC资金，你们便是在创造免费游戏。这是毫无疑问的。而这也将为独立公司创造一些机遇。

但是你看，还是有些人想要看到付费游戏获得成功的。例如苹果。他们便是一家主张付费的公司，所以事先一次性付费模式总是能够吸引他们的注意。

付费应用同样也拥有自己的优势，如它们能够提高iOS和Android手机之间的转换成本。

app-store-pay-once-play-page(from pocketgamer)

你也可以在其它平台上免费下载你的免费游戏，而如果没有特别情况的话你通常都能继续游戏。而关于付费游戏，你则需要重新付费购买—-如此便提高了转换门槛。

游戏媒体便与苹果展开紧密合作去拯救手机平台上的付费游戏。那些为游戏媒体编写内容的人往往都是硬核游戏玩家。

而这些硬核玩家往往都不会对免费游戏盈利感兴趣。

此外，这也只是因为他们单纯地想要推广付费游戏。毕竟如果我需要事先花钱才能玩一款游戏，那么我就希望至少能在付钱前阅读下游戏评价。这也因此为游戏媒体招来了用户和收益流。

另一方面，如果我对一款免费游戏感兴趣，那么比起浏览评价，我会直接去尝试游戏。

这也将解释为什么像TouchArcade.com等网站会完全无视许多最畅销的免费游戏。这同时也解释了为什么TouchArcade面临财政危机是因为免费游戏的发展。

立基群体

对于一家大型游戏公司来说，他们面对的策略非常明显：只开发免费游戏。

而对于一家小型公司来说，他们还需要面对付费游戏的立基用户。他们知道自己不能与那些拥有大量预算的公司相抗衡，他们同样也清楚如果选择了付费游戏，他们便能够获得一些不错的“同盟”。

较少的最佳收益与较少的竞争间的权衡方式仍然是有价值的。

你必须始终牢记确保你的预算分配是合理的。如果你不能得到苹果的推荐，你最终的结果可能就像《Zombie Match Defence》那样。

或者你会取得像《The Room》那样的成功。不过它也是一款受推荐的年度游戏。

（本文为游戏邦/gamerboom.com编译，拒绝任何不保留版权的转发，如需转载请联系：游戏邦）

Can premium mobile games make a comeback?

By Guest Author

There are a few companies with an interest in keeping the premium mobile game market alive. That might be good for indie developers.

As everyone knows, the mobile market shifted to free-to-play (F2P) games a few years ago.

Back in the Angry Birds era, people seemed happy to pay $0.99 for hours upon hours of entertainment in their phone.

Then, a few years later, everyone collectively realised that paying such princely sums for mere entertainment is clearly unreasonable – at least before they thoroughly get to test play the game before being asked to pay.

During 2011-2013, the market shifted so quickly that by the end of 2013 between 90% (iOS) and 98% (Google Play) of the revenue was from F2P games.

Rebound

Since then, there have at times been talk about the comeback of premium. But, unfortunately, the data does not support that claim.

When looking at the top charts, things have moved even more clearly in the direction of F2P dominance.

The current top 100 grossing chart on iOS is 99 F2P games, and Minecraft. It has been pretty consistently like that for the past 2 years.

Some hit games that have an existing brand outside of mobile (console titles, Steam titles, etc.) can briefly make it to the top 100 list – think Five Nights at Freddy’s or Grand Theft Auto. But the only one that has stayed there is Minecraft.

On Google Play, it’s even more clear.

The top grossing game without IAPs today is This War of Mine at position 269. The next is GTA San Andreas at position 363, Geometry Dash at 416 and Star Wars: KOTOR at 431.

Of these 4 that are in the top 500, only Geometry Dash was a mobile-first game. That is, one single pure premium mobile first game in the entire top 500 grossing list.

The others who got there without using IAPs all had brands from outside mobile.

Capped success

The best premium games today can make revenue of some millions of dollars.

This is for games that get selected by Apple as Game of the Year, such as Monument Valley and Badland.

While that is by no means bad, these games also required a lot of talented people to develop. For instance, it was reported that Monument Valley cost $1.4 million to develop, and generated $5.9 million.

That’s a bit more than 4x return on investment. And that’s the best that you can hope for with this model.

In practise, it means that every 4th game that you make needs to be Apple’s Game of the Year.

Doesn’t work

No investor who can count is going to put their money on such a business.

Which means that if your company has VC money, you make F2P games. No discussion! Which in turn might open up some opportunity for indie companies.

You see, there are some companies who would still like to see premium succeed. Apple for one. They are a very premium company and the pay-once-up-front model appeals to them.

Premium apps also have the upside that they increase the cost of switching between iOS and Android phones.

Your F2P game can be downloaded for free on the other platform, and often you can just keep on playing as if nothing happened. With a premium game, you have to pay again – thus raising the barrier to switching.

Closely allied with Apple in the quest to rescue premium on mobile is the games media. The people who write for games media are often hardcore gamers themselves (otherwise, how would they have ended up in that job?).

And hardcore gamers usually don’t have warm and fuzzy feelings about F2P monetization.

In addition, it’s just in their self interest to promote premium games. After all, if I’m required to pay up-front with real money for a game, I want to at least read a review before paying. Which gives games media an audience and a revenue stream.

If, on the other hand, I am curious about a F2P game, I will just try out the game instead of reading a review.

This goes a long way towards explaining why lots of the top grossing F2P games are completely ignored by the likes of TouchArcade.com. And also why TouchArcade is in financial difficulties as a result of the rise of F2P.

Niche to exploit?

For a large game company, the strategy is clear: develop only F2P games.

For a small indie, there might still be a niche for premium. You know you won’t be competing with the big budget companies, and you also know that you have a few good allies if you do premium.

A tradeoff of a way smaller best case revenue (by a factor of almost a thousand) versus much less competition could still make it worthwhile.

Just remember to keep your budget reasonable. And you might still end up like Zombie Match Defence, if you don’t get a good featuring by Apple.

Or, you might have tremendous success, like the guys who did The Room. They’re another game of the year, though.(source:pocketgamer)