资深游戏设计师Raph Koster 谈从10个方面提高留存率

原作者: Raph Koster 译者：Vivian Xue

无论是好是坏，“游戏即服务”（Games as a service）已经在行业内普及开来。曾经，它被称为MMO商业模式，因为除了MMO游戏以外其它游戏都算不上服务。

但显然，服务型游戏不一定是MMO，比如《糖果传奇》。“游戏即服务”也并不意味着游戏必须是含有微交易的F2P模式。“游戏即服务”是一种商业战略，而F2P是一种收入模式。

过去我们提升收入的服务方式有：

1. 提供免费内容吸引用户入门，并以其他收入来源为支撑，例如付费会员补贴免费用户，或者应用内广告。

2. 点餐式服务/按项目收费（a la carte），用户可以花钱体验部分服务，无需长期订阅。

3. 定期更新内容刺激免费用户重复订阅。

4. 订阅层（subscription tiers）——提供一个基础套餐，和几个功能更丰富的套餐，同时保留额外收费的项目。

5. 针对单个用户推出一次性促销，推销内容不包含在订阅层中。

事实上，有线电视公司和移动运营商会同时使用以上所有的服务方式。因此，如果你拥有一项服务，赚钱的方式有很多，并且可以说，成熟的服务型企业会采用尽可能多种服务方式。

但这一切背后的真相是：

没有用户留存，持续服务就无从谈起

这也是为什么某些游戏类型更适合服务模式。如果某种类型的用户留存能力较好，那么你就可以把它打造成“游戏即服务”模式。它是否适合F2P模式是一个另外的、次要的问题。很多游戏类型生来就具有内容易消耗、快餐化的特征，玩家只会断断续续地玩。它们很难单独支撑起一项服务（如果和多重服务结合在一起，它们也许能有不错的表现）。

我们可以把留存能力总结为两点：

1. 游戏在各个阶段都能吸引玩家很长时间。

2. 人们每个月至少想重玩一次游戏。

连《龙与地下城》都符合这些标准。嘿，许多经典的桌游都符合这个标准，否则人们就不会再下象棋和围棋了。

但不幸的是很多游戏达不到这些标准。我们所要讨论的是游戏作为一种一次性的体验和成为一种爱好、日常娱乐之间的区别。

它们究竟有什么不同？举个例子，现在有两款游戏，它们的销量或下载量完全相同，蓝色区域代表试玩游戏的用户总数。游戏A很流行，但流行时间不长，每个玩家只玩了一天就不玩了。游戏B留住了玩家，90%的用户第二天会继续玩。它们的收入潜力是红色曲线以下的区域，也就是该游戏的活跃用户。游戏B的玩家更加活跃和热情，因此它的收入会更高。

好吧，那我们该怎么做呢？

下列方法能有效提高留存率。这不是一份详尽无遗的清单，但我认为它涵盖了大部分基础。如果你想让人们重复玩你的游戏、甚至把它变成一种爱好，以下是你最应该做或考虑的事。

1. 定期更新内容

好处：打游戏时，我们总是很享受消耗内容/获得新内容，比如打败敌人、收集奖励、或是推进情节等等。它为玩家提供了一个清晰的现阶段目标，甚至是下个阶段的目标，并且能够长久地吸引住玩家，只要在当前游戏机制上变换一下内容就可以了。正是利用这一点，解谜类游戏纷纷加入了saga地图，从而在服务化的道路上越走越远。你还可以通过破坏当前的游戏平衡来实现这一点 (尽管很危险！)。除了长久地吸引玩家，这种方法还很容易盈利，大多数F2P游戏基本上就是靠不断向玩家输送“内容”赚钱，游戏本身实际上没什么变化。

缺点：昂贵，非常昂贵，并且人们低估了它的代价。如果你的游戏仅依靠内容更新，错过一次更新将导致你失去玩家。尽管如此，定期更新内容仍然是最有效的方法。

2. 玩家对账户的投入

好处：这个方法实行起来非常简单，通常适用于RPG式的游戏机制。在玩家资料界面设置点赞按钮也算一种方式；它的目的其实就是让玩家花时间让账户变得更加华丽。离开游戏意味着丧失积累的一切，以及更重要的，社区中的地位。

缺点：只有当玩家能向社区展示个人账户状态时，这种方法才能发挥最佳作用，但这意味着你需要花精力建立并管理社区。此外，随着你不断增加新内容，游戏会变得过度复杂，这可能会疏远新玩家。最后，玩家的实际影响力比游戏里的等级地位更重要；如果玩家永远不会被降级（就算转玩别的游戏也不会有损失），那么这种方式可能无法提高留存率。

3. 玩家对游戏内世界的投入(建造、安置房屋等)

好处：建造类游戏正是利用这一点来留住玩家。不同于升级角色的投入——玩家如果退坑，可以卖装备回钱去玩别的游戏——这些建造内容永远只能留在游戏里。如果这些建造内容是集体合作完成的，玩家就更难以舍弃它们，因为它们代表着一连串的社交关系。它还有助于实现下列的其它几种方法。

缺点：设计应用的成本太高，需要储存的数据量太大，并且它带来了一些与空间、公共展示等相关的设计挑战。

4. 建立社交关系，如组队、游戏公会，等等

好处：社交是游戏与用户之间的主要粘合剂。即便是单人游戏也会试图通过剧情使玩家产生共鸣、带入自己的经历，从而发挥社交属性的作用。社交关系所带来的相互义务、经济往来、群体认同等等，对于提高游戏留存率起到了巨大的作用。宽松的社交环境通常比紧密的社区更能留住玩家。

缺点：公会成员经常会集体退坑，因此你不会希望玩家全部加入同一个公会。此外，社交关系还会带来问题与矛盾，这意味着你要管理社区、调和矛盾等等。你需要丰富的管理经验，因此即便可以说它是提高留存最有效的方式，它同时具有挑战性，经常会导致相关的员工精疲力竭。

5. 交易与套利玩法

好处：无论是真钱还是游戏货币都可以进行交易和套利。谋利是一个强大的动机，它吸引玩家不断参与游戏，有时甚至超越了游戏本身的乐趣。无论是真钱还是虚拟货币交易，它本身是一种持续的、挑战性的活动，这意味着它可以替代游戏内容，使游戏以不可预测的方式不断更新自己。

缺点：如果玩家可以在游戏里氪金，许多玩法会很快丧失乐趣。无论是使用真钱还是虚拟货币，你需要一个强大的经济系统支撑交易，并且动态的虚拟经济比静态的虚拟经济设计起来要难得多。

6. 极致的游戏深度

好处：国际象棋和围棋之所以经久不衰正是因为它们的深度，当然还有《星际争霸》。一款游戏拥有足够深度和复杂性，让玩家不断获得新启发、发现新玩法，永远不会感到无聊，这是游戏设计的至高追求。十年来，我发现了一条真理：”如果你的游戏值得玩家为其写攻略，这是个好兆头。”

缺点：你是一名足够优秀的游戏设计师吗？实话实说，很少有人是；深度和复杂度设计是极其困难的事。此外，游戏的高技巧性会导致其上手困难。

7. 玩家间的竞争

优点：玩家间的竞争是游戏深度的来源之一。它也是几个世纪以来游戏的常规设计，以至于这类游戏拥有一个专门的名称“orthogame”（基于一组商定的规则和某种排名方式之上的两名选手之间的比赛）。

缺点：注意，零和游戏(即以一方胜利一方失败为结局)可能会导致玩家弃坑。一般玩家输的比赢得多，因为有一小部分胜率特别高的顶尖玩家。结果是长期以来，大部分仅提供零合模式的游戏只留住了十分之一的玩家，比如基于角色升级机制的RPG。如今，游戏的竞争玩法融入了很多我们这份清单中提到的项目，比如有的游戏通过内容更新极大地改善了这种情况。现在还有一种策略是游戏只为高级玩家提供服务。

8. 发挥用户的创造力

好处：这种方法的具体形式有很多。它的成本也出奇的低。如果玩家能通过创作盈利，它将更有效地刺激留存，但即使不能它也很强大，只要用户创造内容能得到传播并获得观众。

缺点：如果不注意，它的成本可能会高得惊人。此外，创造力很大程度上取决于观众的反应，所以你必须提供基础设施支持玩家进行分享、展示等等。这样玩家才能从观众那里获得支持与喝彩，这也是促使他们继续创作的潜在动力。正因如此，创造力通常需要在社交环境下展现其价值，从而最大程度地提高留存。

9. 剧情

好处：肥皂剧的留存策略：通过连续的剧情使观众产生投入情感（通常是对某个角色，而非情节或背景）。幸运的是，写作虽然很难，但也是一门古老的学科并且存在相关的专业知识，完全可以为游戏所用。当剧情和人们普遍认同的神话、节日元素等深度结合，它将极大地提高游戏的留存。也可以通过内容更新来实现这一点；事实上，经典的MMO扩展包既是内容更新也情节推进，和如今电视剧“季”的概念差不多。

缺点：它拥有与内容更新相似的缺点(内容更新指的是可消耗玩法或内容，不是剧情)。很多游戏类型不适合套用人物剧情。不要仅依靠推出游戏章节，除非你能保持更新节奏，因为一旦你的故事走到尽头，留存率也触底了。

10. 涌现式玩法（Emergent Play）

好处：涌现式玩法源于系统深度、模拟等，它通常与游戏的广度有关、而不是深度。不要去思考创造一个类似象棋的游戏系统，而是思考创造许多独立的小系统，它们单独看起来没什么深度，但能够以惊人的方式交互。创造一个这样的系统可能比你想象的容易。

缺点：它也可能极为困难，特别是在平衡方面，似乎只有少数设计师有能力做到。它可能引发玩家的抵制，使你的游戏朝着不可预知的方向发展。

最后

以上这些很多都能有效地结合，不过它们也可以独立地发挥作用。比如，如果您有丰富的模拟元素，玩家将创造涌现式的内容，接着你可以利用它创作剧情，把它和内容更新结合起来。涌现式玩法和动态经济以及用户创造力结合起来，将提高游戏的丰富程度。

留存率提高后，你就可以思考如何盈利了。如果玩家已经把你的游戏当成了日常娱乐方式，你还赚不到钱，那只能说你不够努力。再次强调：服务型游戏不是一个贬义词，它不代表着贪财谋利，它不一定要采用F2P模式。它仅仅意味着作为开发者和玩家们都期待游戏能长久地运营下去。

本文由游戏邦编译，转载请注明来源，或咨询微信zhengjintiao

For better or worse, much of the games market is moving to games-as-a-service. Once upon a time, this was known as the MMO business model, because all MMOs were games-as-a-service, and virtually nothing else was.

Obviously, a lot of GaaS games won’t be MMOs. Candy Crush Saga is a service, but it’s not an MMO. Nor does GaaS mean the game has to be free to play with upsells via microtransactions. GaaS is a business strategy, and F2P is a revenue model.

In the past we’ve seen services of all sorts drive revenue in lots of ways:

-free sampling to get you in the door, supported by other revenue streams such as other paying members subsidizing free users, or advertising
-a la carte offerings which let you dip into a service without an ongoing commitment
-periodic upgrade offers to take you from that free tier to something with recurring payments
-subscription tiers — a low basic offering and a few richer ones catered to specific demos, which retain the ability to a la carte for specific features
-individual one off upsells for special events that are never covered by the sub tier

In fact, cable companies and phone service both do just about all of the above at once. So there’s lots of ways to make money, if you have a service, and arguably, mature service businesses use as many of them as they can.

But underneath it all is one inevitable underlying truth.

There is no ongoing service without retention.

This is why some game genres work better than others as services. If you can figure out how a given genre can retain, then you can make it work for GaaS. Whether or not it works for F2P is a separate, secondary question. And a lot of game types are built to be consumable, snackable, or played very intermittently. By their nature, they will work poorly as the sole anchor for a service (they might work great in the context for a service that has multiple offerings).

Retention boils down to two key measures:
1. The game holds people a long time — meaning, across sessions.
2. The game is something people want to play again at least once a month.

Even something like a Dungeons and Dragons campaign meets these criteria. Heck, many classic tabletop games meet this criterion, or else people wouldn’t still be playing chess and go.

But an awful lot of games don’t. What we’re talking about is the line between a singular experience and something that can become a hobby, a regular pastime.

What’s the difference, in practical terms? Take two games. They sold or gave away the exact same number of copies; the blue is the cumulative number of users who tried the game. Game A was popular, but for a short period of time; each player lasted a day. Game B retained players; 90% of players stick around to the next day. The revenue potential is the area under the red curve, which is the game’s active users. Game B has access to a lot more passion, a lot more interest, and therefore also a lot more money.

OK, so how?

The following mechanics are proven to drive retention. This is a non-exhaustive list, but covers most of the bases, I think. These are mostly things you do with a game over time, in order to drive people to play it again, or turn it into a hobby.

1. A steady content trickle

Pro: Consuming content as you move through a system can be very compelling. It could take the form of defeating, collecting, plot advancement or more. It gives a clear aspirational goal for the session, and likely for the next session, and can hold people as long as the content keeps ringing changes on the basic mechanics. Leveraging this is how puzzle games were “saga-fied” and became viable as services. Even blowing up the current game balance and shifting it around can accomplish this (though it’s risky!). Also easily monetized; most F2P games basically rely on constantly offering users more “stuff” without actually changing the game very much.

Con: Expensive. Like, very expensive. Like, people underestimate how expensive. And if you are solely dependent on this and miss an update you can actually lose your audience. Regular updates is best practice nonetheless.

2. Persistent profile investment

Pro: A familiar approach that is easy to implement, usually via RPG-style mechanics. Even piling likes into a profile counts here; it’s basically about having a persistent profile that accrues over time. Leaving would mean the loss of the accrued value, and more importantly, the standing in a community.

Con: Works best if there’s a community to display the profile to, which you then have to build and run. Also, you tend to add new content at the top, which can alienate new players, gradually over time, via a host of mechanics ranging from mudflation to game overcomplexity. Lastly, real community prominence is more valuable than the level number proxy you give it; if the player can move to another setting and retain that prominence, this may not serve as a retaining anchor.

3. In-world investment (building, housing, etc)

Pro: This is what save games in building games do. Unlike character investment which can be sort of portable, this can never leave the game. It is also even more powerful if collaboratively built, because it then implies also building a set of social ties. It also serves as an outlet for a couple of other methods listed below.

Con: Expensive to design and implement, data-intensive to store, and it introduces a host of design challenges around space, public display, and more.

4. Social connections, such as teams, guilds, etc

Pro: Social groups are the primary glue in games in general. Even single-player games have huge social characteristics to them around widely shared experiences and common ground. Social ties introduce a host of extremely powerful things like mutual obligation, economic exchange, group identity, and so on (see my old talk on social mechanics for tons more). Looser connections and community can often work better than a tight-knit community.

Con: Guilds often migrate games as a whole, so you want your user tied to the community via multiple touch points that aren’t in the same guild. Social connections also bring drama, which means community management, moderation, and much more. There’s a vast amount of expertise involved in engaging in governance here, and even though this is arguably the most powerful tool in the arsenal, it’s also very challenging and causes burnout in staff on a regular basis.

5. Economic play and arbitrage

Pro: This might happen with real money, or it might happen with play money. The profit motive is incredibly powerful and will keep players engaging in your experience well past the point of actual enjoyment. Regardless of whether it’s real or fake money, though, the fact that it is effectively a self-generating set of ongoing challenges means that it’s a substitute for content. The game keeps refreshing itself in somewhat unpredictable ways.

Con: If using real money, it can quickly chase out more playful ways of engaging. Either way, it requires a robust set of systems that enable trade, sales, and so on, and dynamic virtual economies are much harder to design and balance than static ones.

6. Extreme game depth

Pro: This is of course the classic method used by chess and go, but also games like StarCraft. A game that has enough depth and complexity to it that players continually see new heuristics ahead, new ways to improve, and effectively never see the game as boring, is in many ways the Holy Grail of game design, particularly when paired with multiple ways to play (variants, restarting with alts, classes, speedruns… lots of ways to do this). A rule of thumb I have used for over a decade is “it’s a good sign if your game merits a player-written strategy wiki.”

Con: Are you a good enough game designer? Few are, frankly; this can feel like capturing lightning in a bottle. Also, be aware that high skill ceiling often doesn’t play well with accessibility.

7. Player vs player competition

Pro: Other players are a free source of depth. This has also been a default tactic for literally centuries, so much so that it has merited being called the “orthogame,” almost the default historical format.

Con: Watch out for zero-sum play (one winner, one loser) causing players to be chased out. The typical user loses more often than they win, because the most skillful players tend to take up a disproportionate number of the wins. The result is that historically, most services based solely around this managed to only get 1/10th of the population of services based on cumulative character mechanics like RPGs. Today we’re seeing a melding of competitive play with other items on this list, such as content trickle, which hugely ameliorate this. There’s also the current common tactic of offering the game as a non-service and having a service only for the higher echelons of players.

8. User creativity

Pro: It can be in various forms. It can also be surprisingly cheap to build. Extra powerful if it can be monetized by the player, but powerful even if not, as long as user creativity has a publicity channel that garners audience.

Con: It can also be crazy expensive to build if you’re not careful. Also, creativity depends on audience to a very large extent, so you must have infrastructure to support sharing, showcasing, and so on, in order to drive the social proof and the acclamation that are underlying motivations to engage in the behavior. Because of this, creativity often works best when in the setting of a social network that valorizes it.

9. Story

Pro: The retention tactic of the soap opera: emotional engagement (typically with characters, not plot or setting) via ongoing narrative. Fortunately, writing, though hard, is also an ancient discipline and the expertise is out there to do this, is games can only be persuaded to leverage it. This also gains leverage when combined with community: if deep enough via lore, easter eggs, and pockets to explore, it can be strongly retentive. Can also play well with regular content trickle; in fact, the classic MMO expansion was both a content dump and plot advancement. Today seasons are a modern equivalent.

Con: It has similar issues to content trickle (which should be defined as consumable gameplay or content, as opposed to narrative). Characters can be hard to shoehorn into a lot of game genres. Just don’t rely solely on episodic unless you are positive you can hit a release cadence, because when the story arc ends, often so does your retention.

10. Emergent play

Pro: arises out of systemic depth, simulation, etc, and usually interacts with game breadth as opposed to depth. Don’t think having one chess system; think having many smaller systems that are individually not as deep but which interact with one another in surprising ways. It can be surprisingly cheap to implement a system like this.

Con: It can also be brutally hard, particularly to balance, and only some designers seem to have a knack for it. It can lead to enormous community outcries, and your game moving in totally unexpected directions.

In the end

Many of these play with each other very powerfully, but can also exist independently. Like, if you have rich sim, players will create emergent content, which then you can turn around and leverage into your broadcast narrative, and tie content releases to. Emergence tied to a shifting economy and creativity leads to rich places. And so on.

Once you have retention, you can worry about how to make money. If you can’t make money from a userbase that has decided to make your game into a lifestyle choice, well, you’re not trying. Again, it doesn’t imply a particular business model: a service-based game is not a dirty word, doesn’t mandate constant moneygrubbing, doesn’t mean it has to be free to play. It just means that you the developer and you the player are in it for the long haul. (source：Gamasutra)