Close
Are you sure? Are you sure you want to report this comment? I understand, report it. Cancel

Fair to Play: Fixing Free To Play

Fair to Play: Fixing Free To Play

Wed 05 Sep 2012 1:26am GMT / 9:26pm EDT / 6:26pm PDT
MobileSocial

PlayScreen's William Volk talks about the problems with freemium and offers a potential solution

The following is a guest editorial from PlayScreen CCO William Volk.

Games have seen an evolution in financial models, from premium (paid for) to 'Free to Play' or 'Freemium' games. On the iPhone eight of the top 10 grossing games are Freemium. Nonetheless, making Freemium work turns out to be a real challenge for a large number of developers.

Case in point:

Mikengreg Games LLC, a two-year-old start-up in Ames, Iowa, launched a freemium iPad game called "Gasketball" earlier this month. Inspired by the basketball game H.O.R.S.E., the free version of the iPad game has already been downloaded more than 420,000 times.

Yet only 1% of users have gone on to pay $2.99 to get the full version of the game. Although the game doesn't sell virtual goods, it does sell additional in-app features that can improve a player's moves. (Source: "When Freemium Fails" / The Wall Street Journal.)

So how did we get here, and how do we fix it? To figure that out, let's look at how and why all of this got started.

Before there was IAP (In App Purchases) there were 'lite' and paid versions of games. Publishers would release a free, but limited version of a game. The idea was to give players a no-cost way of looking at a title before committing to a purchase.

Promoting a free app was always cheaper than a paid app. Players were simply more willing to try a free app.

"Frankly, many players simply do not want to pay for digital goods or content"

Meanwhile, on Facebook Zynga and others were making decent change with free games that featured digital goods that could be purchased. In some cases these items allowed players to progress at a faster clip. In others (PlayScreen Poker, for example) they were 'consumables': poker chips that eventually run out. Even though a small percentage of users participated in these in-app purchases, Facebook's virality enabled these games to be promoted at low cost. Pretty much everything you did in these games ended up being a post on your or your friend's wall.

The concept of 'Freemium' goes back even further. In China, game piracy was so rampant that the Freemium model made sense as a way to effectively monetize games in an extremely challenging market.

Where did Freemium go wrong?

1. Many of the Freemium apps rely on 'whales' to support the non-paying users. For example the reported figure is that only 1.3% of Zynga's monthly players are paying players. That model only works if these 'whales' can be persuaded to spend a great deal. One way that is done is to use psychological techniques that exploit addictive behaviors.

2. Some Freemium games have IAP's to give players advantages (better weapons, stats, etc.) that they can use against other players, unbalancing the game.

3. Frankly, many players simply do not want to pay for digital goods or content.

You can see a swing back to 'normal' paid apps in some cases. For example Zynga's new iOS game Horn is a 'Paymium' $6.99 game with in-app items. More notable is Final Fantasy Dimensions which is offered in a 'Paymium' $2.99 version, with additional chapters for $9.99 apiece - OR - a buy it all for $28.99.

To be fair, these are high production AAA apps. Still there have always been successful paid apps on iOS. Tiny Wings, Angry Birds etc. But even with 30 years in the game business I can tell you that predicting what titles will hit pay dirt is more art than science. It's a gamble.

So what is "Fair to Play" and why should I care?

Fair to Play has its origin in the old arcade model of gaming. Put your quarter(s) in and play the game. But there's more to it than that.

"If you're a social/mobile developer, not depending on whales feels great"

We originally released a free iPhone version of Crickler in 2011. Our business model then was to give players a limited number of "puzzle credits". Starting to solve a puzzle cost one puzzle credit. Although we had a loyal base of users, we still got complaints when players ran out of credits. It turns out some players just didn't want to pay.

One way to deal with that was to add Tapjoy. Watch an ad, earn credits. We also rewarded users who completed puzzles and bragged on Facebook or Twitter. The results were surprisingly positive: the revenue from the in-app purchases and/or ad units covered 90 percent or more of the value of the puzzles users play. That's a huge contrast from the 1.3 percent daily app purchases (DAP) that other Freemium apps often have to deal with.

Fair to Play - By awarding puzzles for social actions (bragging) or watching a commercial we allow users who simply do not want to do an IAP to continue to play the game. We might even give players more credits than they expended to play the puzzle in the first place for bragging on Facebook. Being generous (versus milking players to the last dollar) has resulted in days where 10 percent of the players went for IAP or "Earn a Credit" activities.

If you're a social/mobile developer, not depending on whales feels great. Based on our experience with this peculiar puzzle game, we expect to see many more studios try a Fair to Play approach. Taking down artificial paywalls in favor of a more healthy back-and-forth between players earning and spending in-game currency might be the only way to address the shortcomings of Freemium, saving countless studios (and jobs) in the process.

_ _

Volk began his career in 1979, on the launch team of the computer game division of Avalon Hill, now a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc. Volk also served as the Vice President of Technology at Activision, Inc. in the 1990s-where he was responsible for the development of the first CD-ROM entertainment project, The Manhole, and the tech behind Return to Zork. To learn more about PlayScreen, please visit www.playscreen.com.

8 Comments

Anthony Gowland
Lead Designer

155 428 2.8
Rewarding players for using their social circle or watching video ads. Truly revolutionary concepts, turns out your prediction that other companies may try these approaches came true about years ago.

Also interesting that you lump other "earn a credit" activities in to your 10% conversion figure, rather than giving out real numbers for IAP conversion, ad views, and social broadcast.

I would have paid for Crickler, since I like the idea of the puzzles. It's just the implementation of the game is terrible, so I would never put money in to it in IAP.

Posted:A year ago

#1

Brian Smith
Artist

193 77 0.4
Old arcade model = Fair to play.... GIVE ME A BREAK. Consoles prospered against this rip off business model of gaming and as far as I can remember, it wasn't a customer favourite.

Posted:A year ago

#2
I think this free to play idea will be a rip off... you star playing and then halfway through the game it asks you to buy a the next level or pay for an extra life and so you have top stop playing and fetch your credit card which is stupid. I don't mind paying 50 euros for a game as long as it delivers some 40 hours of good gameplay and a good story in singleplayer and that's it

Posted:A year ago

#3

James Prendergast
Research Chemist

730 410 0.6
More notable is Final Fantasy Dimensions which is offered in a 'Paymium' $2.99 version, with additional chapters for $9.99 apiece - OR - a buy it all for $28.99.

This is the model I prefer though, if possible, also putting in an ad-supported/social aspect as in Crickler would also be good. The most important thing is I get to choose how I consume the game - whether it's as a "lite" user where I can say: "I think this game is okay and I'll see how it is but limit my weekly/monthly spending to 0 - 5 and then I can choose to stop or continue to pay more... OR I can have a higher initial outlay but not have to worry about on-going costs.

Posted:A year ago

#4
Crickler has a 4.5 Star rating, so I'll disagree with your assessment :-) Do make sure you have the latest update.

TapJoy to IAP? About a 3:1 ratio of participants. BUT we think we need to make this easier for the user. New stuff in the works.

I think this model works best if the you have a content based model. I still thing the simple paid model works as well, it's just that with the number of apps out there, marketing a paid app is risky.

Posted:A year ago

#5

Michael Gunter
Monster Hunter

16 5 0.3
Crickler has a 4.5 Star rating, so I'll disagree with your assessment :-) Do make sure you have the latest update.
'moted by the man himself... I do like reading articles about developers that "get it." Granted most of my experience is with PC free-to-play games (I'm just not much of a "mobile/smart phone" gamer), but they often seem interchangeable in terms of whose point you are arguing. Many of the comments I see about F2P on PC games usually gripe about the mobile scene, even though they are vastly different in my eyes as far as demographic is concerned.

kudos to you

Posted:A year ago

#6
If publishers do that ... force players to pay to continue a on-going game session ... then they risk the same sort of blow-back that occurred with Freemium apps. This 'deal' should be transparent. Not hidden.

Posted:A year ago

#7

David Phan
Co-Founder & President

10 3 0.3
The Gasketball low conversion rate issue was primarily due to a poor initial design by the developers (they admitted this themselves) that made it very difficult for their players to purchase the full game upgrade. I believe they've gone on since then to make it more accessible in a recent update.

DP

Posted:A year ago

#8

Login or register to post

Take part in the GamesIndustry community

Register now