The top free-to-play monetization tricks

http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/RaminShokrizade/20130626/194933/The_Top_F2P_Monetization_Tricks.php

by wayprogramming • 12 years ago

152 108 12 years ago

aaronetz3• 12 years ago

God, this is devious. While reading it I was thinking, "where does the sarcasm part end?" but it never did. I mean, as an aspiring indy dev I can understand the need to make a living, but this is in the same league with casino money. I really hope this is just a phase, and people would collectively understand that these games are designed to take your money, and that they're not worth it.

knurf• 12 years ago

Hehe yes, obviously totally not worth it and it will go away (just like the casinos did)!

I'm relieved to see we didn't use any of these tricks with our F2P game. We have an in-game currency, but all purchases are with regular currencies and there is no way to buy power or even in-game money.

aaronetz3• 12 years ago

Sure, there is a place for in-app purchases. But there has to be some moral code involved. I think that in general, paying for consumables is bad, but paying for extra (permanent) features is fine. There may be exceptions to this. There's this website, http://honestandroidgames.com/, that has its own moral code but it is quite restrictive (must have no ads, must be either free, paid or free with a single IAP that unlocks the full game.) I wonder if it is possible to come up with a more flexible moral code for game monetization.

leephillips3• 12 years ago

This is the voice of a high-functioning sociopath. It's shocking because we usually don't hear these things spoken out loud, although by now it's pretty well known, or at least widely suspected, that the top management of many of the most successful corporations are largely sociopathic.

Look hard at the advertising and sales techniques that we are awash in: this is the style of thinking that animates them. Why does a car commercial have music? To trick the brain into making a major financial decision based on emotion, bypassing the rational process. Good for Toyota, bad for you.

One of Steve Jobs' proudest moments, in one of his last keynotes, was announcing an alliance with Zynga. This is the man who spoke derisively of others' "taste".

hatu• 12 years ago

Ramin is criticizing the practices of the big free to play companies by explaining their practices in plain english, he's not saying you should do this (I'm sure some money hungry devs will read this as a guide though).

ericdykstra• 12 years ago

At the end of the article, in the first comment, he says:

"Note that as a rule I do not publish my F2P monetization models. In this case, I am publishing the methods used by others to make money games, and since I only make skill games, I'm not creating any competition for myself. While the information I have provided here should lower the barrier to entry for commercially effective money games, I hope the discussion will lead some of you to consider making skill games instead."

aryastark• 12 years ago

Why would it be a phase? This has been happening since the very first video games were created. It's exactly what an arcade is. We like to look back at games like Pac-Man with nostalgia. And it's easy, since you get to play that game for free anytime you want today. But that game was efficient at separating you from your quarters back in the '80s.

wnevets2• 12 years ago

and look at well arcades are doing now.

benched• 12 years ago

In arcades, the money was still not inside of the game design. In IAP centric games, dollars are inside of the game mechanics.

300bps• 12 years ago

King.com was generous enough to point out that their target demographic for CCS is middle aged women. 80% of their players are women, only 34% of their players are under the age of 30, and only 9% are under the age of 21.

The crux of the article is that people under 25 are particularly susceptible to tricks used to get people to pay for in-game items. To refute that, King would have to say something along the lines of, "x% of our revenue comes from middle aged women". To say, "x% of our players are middle aged women" doesn't at all address the point brought up in the article.

For example, it could be possible that only 34% of CCS players are under 30 but still be responsible for 90% of CCS revenue.

cowpig• 12 years ago

I think this comment, and the article's assertion about age ranges, show that neither you nor the author know any middle aged women addicted to candy crush.

bsder• 12 years ago

Yeah, I seem to remember that Zynga targeted bored, middle-aged housewives from the midwest more than anybody else.

18-25 year olds have probably moved on from Candy Crush. Once they hit the wall, they probably just throw it away for something new.

dec0dedab0de• 12 years ago

Also regarding the same quote, how many of those plays are from young children using someone else's phone/tablet? anecdotal evidence: my son, and nephew are always using my moms ipad to play games when they're at her house.

binarymax• 12 years ago

From Wayne's World (1992):

		Kids know dick.
		I watch 'em in my arcades.


		They stand like lab rats hitting
		the feeder bar to get food pellets.


		As long as they pump in quarters,
		who gives a shit?


		Let me ask you.


		What's your single biggest problem
		in the arcade business?


		Well, uh, keeping the customer
		informed of new product.


		Like our new game called Zantar.


		Zantar is a gelatinous cube
		that eats warriors in a village.


		If you eat a chieftain,
		you go up a level.


		Beauty is, you can't
		get to the next level,


		kids keep coughing up quarters.


		Gelatinous cube eats village.
		It's terrific.

dwd2• 12 years ago

Reminds me of playing games like R-Type in the arcade as a kid. When you died you had about 5 seconds to decide whether to continue or not.

Continuing was always the wrong choice as you would find yourself on the hard level with level 1 weaponry.

wayprogramming• 12 years ago

Reminiscent of Machiavelli's 'The Prince'.

Jare2• 12 years ago

As background for some of the techniques used in F2P, there's a classic reference on behavioral psychology applied to games from 2001, way before the whole F2P phenomenon: http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/3085/behavioral_game_d...

JonFish85• 12 years ago

This is disgusting to me. I'll give you that there's a fine line between pain & pleasure in a game (it takes some pain to feel the pleasure), but this just feels dirty. I've said it before: it reminds me of an abusive relationship.

It starts off great: treat the girlfriend well, give her flowers, treat her like a queen. As time goes by, slowly needle away at her confidence, until she feels dependent on you. Do this so slowly that she doesn't even realize what you're doing. Eventually she is essentially dependent on you, and even if you treat her like garbage, she keeps coming back for more. In fact, she even blames herself for things going wrong.

It's terrible. I refuse to play games that do this. I get that they're incredibly successful, and rake in tons of money, but this is not something I want any part of.

dwd2• 12 years ago

Your relationship example is more about dependency or addiction which you see in game reward techniques to keep players leveling up. Standard fare where there's a subscription model.

This is the other side; more fraudulent than evil. He summed it up in the first paragraph; make it so the player has insufficient information to make an informed [investment] decision.

brianbreslin• 12 years ago

This article would have been way better with visuals for each example.

DanBC4• 12 years ago

"You've read the fun introduction! Wait X minutes, or pay 1 article-gem to continue reading now?"

remon• 12 years ago

"As mentioned in my paper 'How to mention my own papers as often as possible in a single article'..."

mjn• 12 years ago

The cited papers do seem a bit narrowly authored...

Here's a paper by different authors I found interesting, "Dark Patterns in the Design of Games", http://www.fdg2013.org/program/papers/paper06_zagal_etal.pdf

mdorazio• 12 years ago

This is both fascinating and disturbing at the same time. I think many game developers (myself included) struggle with monetization in a market that largely demands F2P games. Using tricks like these is a constant temptation and it's important to see how devious these methods are in their manipulation of gamers. Kudos to Ramin for writing such an informative summary.

DanBC4• 12 years ago

I was reading a review of a game. The game was a clearly labelled demo, and had a single IAP to unlock the full game. The reviewer called this unsavoury.

That's a great shame because it means people offering demos with honestly priced games are called unsavoury and people offering these scummy monetization tricks get more money and cash.

Tohhou16• 12 years ago

You cannot win. All of the self righteous people here calling monetization evil... There are people who legitimately think you are evil if you charge any money. Have ads? You're evil. Charge more than $1? Scumbag! Free game with with no ads and no monetization? Either.. Wow, you're such a nice guy for making this game! It's too bad you don't have any money to make more! Or... it's probably a shit game that's why it's free. No matter what you do there will be people calling for your head.

Let people make their own choices. If people "fall" for "tactics" and say they are "happy" then who is anyone to tell them that can't like and support what they like.

bentcorner4• 12 years ago

That's not a helpful attitude. I'm of the opinion that the current state of IAP is terrible, and as a gamer I hope that it dies.

What would I like to see change? Keep IAP, but limit IAP to things that you can only buy once, and limit the # of IAP items to some reasonable number (say, 10, with permission to increase with human oversight). This retains the ability for developers to offer add-ons and demo play, but removes the capability for freemium developers to milk customers.

Does it destroy the freemium game model? Sure, that's the point.

king_jester2• 12 years ago

This is way off base. We have seen that games with pure ad revenue models can become extremely popular just like games that are pay to win via lots of IAPs. We have also seen that some games do well with simple pay once models, whether its on the store directly or via a single IAP.

The fact of the matter is some forms of monetization are unethical and sacrifice gameplay and enjoyment in order to make more money from players. There are true dark patterns for game design and development. Nobody is saying games have to be free and without ads.

Mithaldu3• 12 years ago

I don't see that in the article at all. At what point does he decry the shareware model as abusive in that article?

DanBC4• 12 years ago

He doesn't. I don't think it is. Here's a review where they call a demo version with paid upgrade to the full version with no other IAPs "tacky".

http://www.pocketgamer.co.uk/r/iPhone/Glyph+Quest/review.asp...

Tohhou16• 12 years ago

DanBC was referring to shareware/demo model as being called unsavory because some people don't like IAP in anything at all ever. "This game would be great except after the first few level it asks me to spend money to buy the full version. It should be free! 1 star, and I'll maybe give 4 stars if the developer makes it free like it should be!" Is a common review.

moron4hire• 12 years ago

reread parent comment. reconsider post.

whichdan4• 12 years ago

I've been playing Puzzle and Dragons for about 7 months, and have probably spent the equivalent of a $15/mo subscription over that period of time. The mechanics to make you pay absolutely feel contrived and scummy; the game strongly limits how much you can play in a given time period (stamina), and playing more than that requires the equivalent of $1. Dungeons also have strange difficulty levels, where the boss is significantly more challenging than the levels leading to it, so after you've invested the time to get there, you have the choice of "paying" $1 each time you are about to lose, or leaving the dungeon and potentially having to "pay" $1 to play more -- especially since the harder dungeons eat up a larger portion of your stamina. The worst, though, is that obtaining better monsters requires a slot-machine style gamble, and each try costs around $5. There's such a high chance of getting a mediocre monster instead, that there's actually a term called "Gung-trolled."

That said, the game is very well designed and a lot of fun, and lends itself well to being played during a short commute. There are a subset of players who make a lot of progress without any in-app purchases, but the game constantly makes you question what's worth more: your time, or $1.

Personally, I would be happier with a $5-10/mo subscription fee, but instead I'm left with a twinge of guilt every time I make an in-app purchase.

Tohhou16• 12 years ago

Why do you choose to play the game then? Who is forcing your hand?

whichdan4• 12 years ago

I enjoy it enough that I consider it an expensive way to pass time during my commute. I still dislike the IAP model, though.

adwf4• 12 years ago

I've often thought that F2P games should be strictly regulated like gambling is. No one questions the 18+ law on fruit machines in the UK, but we allow a roulette style IAP for a F2P game with no regulation?

The worst part is, if you sent kids into a casino, there's at least a chance they'd make their money back!

We regulate gambling because its effects are insidious and the addiction devastating. It can destroy lives. How is "coercive monetisation" in F2P games any different, other than the fact that it's a relatively new phenomenon?

whichdan4• 12 years ago

What sort of regulation are you envisioning?

mcintyre1994• 12 years ago

I can't imagine a set of regulations that would be reasonable. I have friends who have completed all the levels of Candy Crush Saga without spending any money, yet it's probably the most successful example of this ever. According to the article 80% never paid.

For the example you cite I completely agree, taking a casino game and making it IAP is horrible and should be regulated like that. However you word that though, you're going to have horrible developers find a way around it. Anything short of banning IAPs is going to be worked around, and banning IAPs doesn't sound like a reasonable idea.

The other thing is 18+ as regulation, I'd be staggered if that was pulled off successfully. Lots of things on the internet are 18+ and not used exclusively by adults. That's an unworkable regulation by any precedent.

This is really horrible, but I don't see any way to regulate it successfully.

Mithaldu3• 12 years ago

There is one verbal thing that i don't see people do in these types of discussions. Nobody ever boils it down to the very simple fact, this being:

    Some games are built to sell the player cheats.

I do not know if this is because many people discussing this aren't old enough to remember magazines with cheat code sections, or a few years later, the time spent on websites accumulating collections of cheat codes and easter eggs.

Once upon a time things were build into the game to ease testing, or allow players to dick around in the game if they didn't feel like hunting after extra lives, usually used after the game was beaten.

Nowadays some games put these into a New Game + mode, or make them unlockable with achievements.

Other games, especially in the mobile realm however make games that can't be completed sicne they are playable ad infinitum, but are designed so the tediousness ratchets up over time. And then they employ the master stroke:

   They sell the player one-time cheat codes.

DanBC4• 12 years ago

But the worst examples build in things that increase the need for cheats.

Spending 2 units to enter a dungeon, and having those units replenish through a timer or buy an never ending supply via IAP adds nothing to game play but takes money from the player.

It feels a bit like "you enjoy playing this game? Here's a poke with a sharp stick."

Tohhou16• 12 years ago

Or in other words:

Games are built to make players feel powerful. Players understand that money is as much a currency as their time is, and some would rather trade their money to feel powerful than spend their time to build up to feeling powerful.

eterm• 12 years ago

But what if the game knows if you buy the cheats, and it makes you feel more powerful in the short term before hobbling you extra hard in the medium term so you buy more cheats?

So that you buy a token to increase your power but the transaction actually decreases your power, but is cleverly disguised so you don't realise?

The weaker you get, the more "power-ups" you buy, which only makes you weaker and more dependent on power ups.

That's what is particularly evil about some of these mechanisms.

ballard• 12 years ago

It's a balance between making a cool app and making a living. The zines are another part of building the cool and business too.

wudf• 12 years ago

The reason you don't see it is that "cheat" is the wrong word. Cheating means breaking the rules. The shortsighted view you've presented disregards the entire premise of the Gamasutra article, which is that these are money games, not skill games. If you buy an advantage in a skill game, you are cheating, but if you buy an advantage in a money game, you are just playing by the rules.

JeffL• 12 years ago

The thing that I find so disturbing about all this is that it does away with the notion of providing value for value. These game companies are not trying to make the best game possible for their customers, they are trying to manipulate and deceive their customers.

Jare2• 12 years ago

How do you reconcile earning money with giving them "the best game possible" for free? Donationware never worked, so you have to hold something back from them that you monetize. And you have to make sure that thing is desirable.

Of course some developers are going to be gross when doing that, but it is absurd to extrapolate that all F2P games are manipulative and deceiving. If even in the most visible, sophisticated and successful examples of the genre, a huge percentage of people are playing for months without paying a dime, you can't honestly say that the primary element that defines the game is "deceiving and manipulative".

No matter how much technique is put into the monetization design of a game, NOBODY is going to pay if they are not having a good time and being entertained.

wnevets2• 12 years ago

Casinos have known for decades on how to get people to pay for flashing lights and loud sounds with slot machines. These "games" are taking the same principles and going further with them.

hiphopyo• 12 years ago

If one runs AdSense on ones site, are ads for these type of games likely to appear if Google knows the user has been making game-related search queries?

nlh• 12 years ago

The only redeeming thing I can find in all of this is that _some_ game makers actually have a semblance of morals and provide what I call a decent (in both senses of the word) F2P experience.

NimbleBit is (or at least was when I played) one of those studios. I played (and LOVED) Tiny Tower a few years ago. I'd say that game gave me a solid 6 months of casual gaming enjoyment.

It was, in my view, a perfectly fair F2P experience -- you could play the entire game casually - and get to the end - without ever spending a penny. It took a bit longer, sure, but it never got to the point of absurdity. You'd play a bit and know that a new level would be ready in a few days, but there was plenty to do in the meantime.

You could buy Towerbux, though, if you were impatient. They never crossed the line -- it was truly targeted at the impatient. Towerbux could be earned, but that took time, and spending real money was simply something for those that wanted instant gratification.

I think that's a perfectly fair division of players -- almost like sin punishing sin ;) Those that have patience could enjoy the game for free. Those that lacked it could get a quick fix with some real $.

I spent a total of $20 on the game eventually - partially because I too wanted a bit of a speedup, but mostly because I felt so good about the developer's genuineness that I wanted to reward them with some revenue.

sorahn• 12 years ago

HalfBrick studios did this with Jetpack Joyride.

Everything could be done with what was there in game, but if you wanted to do it faster, you could pay. Thats it.

bpm140• 12 years ago

I've long thought that this boils down to trust.

The strong reaction against IAP from many people (including me) comes from counter-aligned goals between the designer and the player in games with IAPs.

In a traditional game, I trust that the designer wants me to finish the game and if I'm stuck, I just need to play a little more or retrace my steps and look for the correct method of continuation.

With IAP-based games, when I'm stuck, I don't know if additional effort is going to be helpful or if I just need to pay the bribe to continue. As a result, I feel like I'm being coerced any time I have difficulty with the game.

The enjoyable tension of well-designed traditional game becomes a constant feeling of coercion to spend more money. It's just not fun.

brownbat• 12 years ago

It's weird to me how many free (just as in beer) tools and games I have installed on my PC over the last couple decades when everything in app stores seems monetized.

What happened?

jal278• 12 years ago

Perhaps a disclaimer on F2P games might help:

"Knowledge of the presence of persuasive mechanisms in a technology may sensitize users to them and decrease their efficacy. Therefore, in some cases, such knowledge might diminish the effectiveness of a generally positive persuasion. This reasoning led us to our design principle: The creators of a persuasive technology should disclose their motivations, methods, and intended outcomes, except when such disclosure would significantly undermine an otherwise ethical goal." [1]

I like the idea of transparency into a company's motivations beyond corporate doublespeak, although not sure how one can enforce transparency.

[1] Toward an Ethics of Persuasive Technology. Berdichevsky, D. and Neuenschwander, E., 1999.

r00fus• 12 years ago

I avoid F2P games just like

I just wish Apple would give me a way to bypass all F2P games in the App Store search (not all IAP games are F2P, e.g.: Carcassonne). Right now, I have to click through and see if any IAP has a "coin" feel to it, and if so, I simply ignore the game.

sanoli• 12 years ago

Wow, this made me feel really naive. I know game developers want to make cool games and make good money doing it, but I didn't know about the devs who didn't care about the former. Again, I guess I'm just naive/unaware about this scene.

The top free-to-play monetization tricks

Related Stories