作者：Jake Parmley

在Red Fox Insights最近关于电子竞技游戏玩家的探索报告中，我们研究了美国和英国游戏玩家的游戏，观看与购买行为。这一报告的一大亮点便是发现了玩家对于免费游戏的看法。

为什么开发者正逐渐远离免费游戏

在衡量了定价模式偏好后，我们发现82%的美国用户和87%的英国用户更喜欢一次性消费游戏。尽管产业更倾向于电子竞技游戏，可选择的定价模式以及体验内容的新方式，但玩家仍然更喜欢事先付清费用的游戏。

f2p(from gamasutra)

免费游戏已经是一个成功的游戏平台，是提高用户粘性的一种方式也是帮助开发者赚取收益的源泉。如今一些最大型的游戏都整合了免费游戏模式并获取了巨大的成功。像《英雄联盟》，《神之浩劫》，《坦克世界》和《炉石传说》都吸引了大量的用户，创造了强大的合作关系并重塑了电子竞技和游戏领域。

但尽管如此，还有大量的游戏玩家更倾向于非免费游戏模式，并且许多开发者也都注意到了这点。

第一人称射击游戏

今年最大型的一款电子竞技游戏《守望先锋》便已经通过了有关定价的探索阶段。当《守望先锋》的首席设计师Scott Mercer在暴雪嘉年华上公布了这款游戏的定价时，这一探索阶段便算结束了：

“从一开始我们便知道这是一款有关英雄的游戏。随着我们深入游戏开发并添加更多英雄到游戏中，英雄交换便成为游戏中一个真正重要的元素。所以提供给玩家足够多的英雄进行交换，即让玩家在着眼于其它团队时会说，‘让我们改变阵列’便成为了《守望先锋》的核心内容。为了支持这一内容，我们需要设置21个英雄。”

因此该团队选择了一次性消费模式，即让玩家在游戏发行时便能够使用所有角色（游戏邦注：以此去支持游戏中的“英雄交换”机制）。

将《守望先锋》带进一个人们不能接受“只有免费游戏的付费第一人称射击游戏”领域是一种冒险。Scott和暴雪团队都非常重视这次行动。他们参考了其它付费第一人称射击游戏，对此Scott说道：“我们已经考虑过这点，但我们同时创造的又是一款不同的游戏。我们将着眼于所有数据。我们会认真阅读来自玩家社区的反馈。我们会认真询问自己一些复杂的问题，然后在游戏发行后我们将认真明确什么对于《守望先锋》来说才是对的。”

第一人称射击游戏：付费vs免费

《守望先锋》并不是唯一一款面对定价模式挑战的游戏。同为“英雄射击游戏”的《LawBreakers》是一款多人游戏，并且是以免费游戏模式出现的。但是Boss Key Productions的创始人Cliff Bleszinski却在2016年的GDC大会上宣称将改变《LawBreakers》的定价模式：

“我们进行了许多次讨论和研究。虽然有些硬核免费游戏表现得很好，但是对于我们来说我们并不希望引诱玩家去购买‘能量’或其它东西。很多硬核玩家在听到免费游戏时往往会有一些负面的反应，因为他们会认为这些游戏都是骗人的。”

而这种看法和研究刚好与Red Fox Insight的发现不谋而合。玩家总是会因为担心游戏内容和进程被阻隔在付费墙之后而不敢轻易碰触免费游戏。所以Boss Key最终重新将《LawBreakers》打上了“电子付费游戏”而非免费游戏的商标。

类型划分

Red Fox Insights基于某些元素划分了我们的定价模式研究—-其中一种便是类型偏好。在美国，喜欢第一人称射击游戏的玩家更倾向于一次性定价模式。所以这影响着《守望先锋》和《LawBreakers》离开免费模式而转向事先购买的消费模式。

相比较之下，MMO粉丝更倾向于每月订阅，而MOBA粉丝则更喜欢免费游戏。

fpsf2p(from gamasutra)

消费者想要的是什么

最近还有另一款从免费转向付费模式的游戏，即Trion World的《Atlas Reactor》。根据Gamesindustry.biz，一款游戏从订阅或付费定价模式转向免费模式并不是什么新鲜事。反而一款游戏从免费模式转向一次性销售模式更新奇。

Trion Worlds的首席执行官Scott Hartsman讲述了为什么从免费模式转向一次性消费模式对于策略游戏《Aelas Reactor》更有帮助：

“当我们着眼于来自alpha测试和beta测试的数据时发现，很多人的反馈都表示他们真正希望在打开游戏时便能够面对所有选择，这对于我们来说便意味着呈现给他们所有角色。当我们在考虑这点时我们是以游戏设计师的角度进行思考，‘如果更多人能够基于更多方式去玩游戏其实将更有益于游戏。所以似乎这会是一种双赢的局面。”

Scott继续说道：“对于我们来说，这是关于实践什么是消费者想要的，什么是适合游戏的，以及什么是适合游戏创造者的优势的逻辑。“

结论

免费游戏适合许多游戏以及那些喜欢“没有准入门槛的方法”的用户。甚至连暴雪的《炉石传说》也适合这种模式，即购买额外的促进包去强化桥牌便是源自现实世界中的纸牌收集游戏。

但如今，越来越多开发者为了能够事先提供给玩家完整的游戏内容而在逐渐远离这种模式。

（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）

Why Devs Are Backing Away From Free-to-Play

by Jake Parmley

In Red Fox Insights’ recent report, Exploring the Esport Gamer, our research identified the playing, viewing, and purchasing habits of gamers across the US and UK. One highlight of the report were findings around player perceptions of Free-to-Play games.

Why Devs Are Backing Away From Free-to-Play

In measuring pricing model preference, we found that 82% percent of US audiences, and 87% of UK audiences preferred games with a one time fee. Despite the industry’s focus on esports, alternative pricing models, and new ways to experience content, gamers still prefer games with a single upfront cost.

Free-to-Play games have established themselves as a viable platform for esports success, a means of fan engagement, and a source of revenue for developers. Some of today’s biggest games have embraced Free-to-Play models and found huge success. Games like League of Legends, Smite, World of Tanks, and Hearthstone draw massive audiences, generate huge partnerships, and have reshaped esports and gaming landscapes.

Even still, the majority of gamers prefer non Free-to-Play models, and major developers have taken notice.

FPS Are Taking Notice

One of this year’s biggest releases and esports next breakout hit, Overwatch, has stumbled through an exploratory phase involving pricing. This exploratory phase ended when principal Overwatch designer, Scott Mercer, addressed Overwatch’s pricing during BlizzCon:

“From the beginning, we knew this was a game all about heroes. As we continued to work on it and add more heroes to it, hero-switching became a really key component. To really provide for a breadth of heroes to allow for that switching – to let people look at the other team and say, ‘OK, let’s change our lineup a little bit’ – became core to Overwatch. To support that, we need to have our 21 heroes [available for everyone].”

Thus the team adopted a one time fee, allowing gamers access to all available characters at launch – effectively supporting “hero-switching”. Overwatch

Thrusting Overwatch into the historically lukewarm reception of “multiplayer only, premium priced FPS” was a risk. Scott and the Blizzard team took this move seriously. Referencing other premium priced FPS, Scott noted “It’s something we have to consider, but we’re also a different game. We’ll look at all the data. We’ll look at feedback from the community. We’ll ask ourselves some hard questions, and then after launch we’ll figure out what’s the right thing for Overwatch.”

FPS: Premium vs Free-to-Play

Overwatch isn’t the only game that has faced pricing model challenges. Fellow “hero-shooter” LawBreakers is multiplayer only and was revealed as a free-to-play. However, founder of Boss Key Productions, Cliff Bleszinski announced pricing changes to LawBreakers while at GDC 2016:

“We did a lot of discussions and even more research. There are some core free-to-play games that do well, but for us, we didn’t want to go down the well of players buying ‘energy’ or other sleazy things. A lot of core gamers have a negative reaction when they hear free-to-play because they think they’ll get ripped off.”

This perception and research aligns with Red Fox Insights’ discoveries. Players seem hesitant to latch onto free-to-play games for fear content and progress will be locked firmly behind pay walls. As a result, Boss Key re-branded LawBreakers as a “digital premium title” instead of free-to-play.

Segmenting by Genre

Red Fox Insights segmented the results of our pricing model research by several factors – one of which was genre preference. In the US, players who prefer FPS, prefer one time fee pricing models more than any other genre. This lends credibility to decisions being made by Overwatch and LawBreakers, to deviate from free-to-play models in favor of upfront purchases.

Note that compared to the sample population, MMO fans have a greater preference for monthly subscriptions, while MOBA fans have a greater preference for free-to-play games.

What Customers Want

Another recent title making the switch from free-to-play to premium is publisher Trion Worlds’ Atlas Reactor. Gamesindustry.biz reports how it’s not unusual for a game to transition from a subscription or a premium price model, to free-to-play. It’s more rare to see a game going the other way; swapping from free-to-play to a single point of sale.

CEO of Trion Worlds, Scott Hartsman, spoke about why switching from free-to-play, to a one time fee made sense for the tactical game, Atlas Reactor:

“We started looking at the data from the alpha, the data from the beta, and a lot of people’s feedback was generally around the idea that they really just wanted to be able to just pick up the game and have all the options open to them – in our case that means all of the characters, all the freelancers. When we think about that as game designers we go, ‘well, if more people have more access to more ways to play it actually makes for better games and much better match ups. And so it seemed really like a win-win from both their point of view and ours.”

Scott continues, “For us, it’s about applying the logic of what customers want, what fits the game, what fits the strengths of the people making the game.”

The Bottom Line

Free-to-play suits many games and certain audiences appreciate the “no barriers to entry approach.” Even Blizzard’s own Hearthstone appears naturally suited for free-to-play, where purchasing additional booster packs to enhance a deck is an idea mirrored by real-world card collecting.

However, more devs are backing away from Free-to-Play in order to give audiences full game content up front. For more research exploring the esports gamer, genre preference and purchasing habits check out Red Fox Insights report on Exploring the Esports Gamer.（source：Gamasutra）