Gamasutra: The Art & Business of Making Gamesspacer
7 Ways to Fail at Free-to-Play
View All     RSS
October 24, 2014
arrowPress Releases
October 24, 2014
PR Newswire
View All





If you enjoy reading this site, you might also want to check out these UBM Tech sites:


 
7 Ways to Fail at Free-to-Play

November 13, 2012 Article Start Previous Page 3 of 3
 

Turning it Around

After several months of tuning the UI in Monkey Drum, adding a character customization system, being featured by Apple, and being reviewed by several sites, the app was still failing financially. At this point, we had a thought: Why not release a separate, "deluxe" version for an up-front price, without the in-app-purchase? We would tune the in-app currency earn rate to be even more forgiving, and simply remove the option to buy additional currency. We would also put it in the Education category, as this seemed to be where it was appreciated the most.

This "Deluxe" version worked out considerably better for us -- Apple featured it in the New and Noteworthy (Education category) for four weeks, a better featured slot than the original had ever achieved, and we were able to earn better than the average iOS app.

It was still not a smashing success, but it easily made 20 times or so what the free version did. We believe this worked out for us because the app itself was very appealing and fun, and we were able to drive customers from the free-to-play version to Deluxe with a launch popup, and from the in-app store where we suggest that users may want to check out the deluxe version if they don't want to bother with IAPs. It was basically the lite/full version model, but kind of retrofitted in.

I would suggest that if your plan is to release your app as "free-to-try" with a paid upgrade to the full version, then please, please consider releasing a separate paid version as well. There is a large portion of users who will gladly pay you $2.99 upfront if the app is highly rated and looks entertaining.

But if all you have is a free version, a large portion of these otherwise willing customers will be lost in the long path from download, to play, to delight, to desire for more, to payment. It's just a matter of statistics, if you think it through.

In our case, building the "Deluxe" version as a separate app took us perhaps two weeks; it was well worth the time. It also gave us a fresh pass at Apple's editorial team (which paid off in the form of a N&N feature) and allowed us more visibility worldwide in various pockets of the app store. It's all about visibility.

A Note on Flippfly

Perhaps you've read through this list, and rather than identifying an action plan for your next F2P game, you've spotted some patterns that kind of turn you off. This was the case with us as well.

We don't like the idea that "whales" are what we need to sustain our games. We don't like the idea that only 3 percent or so of our users will ever experience our games in their fullest, and that the other 97 percent will probably be left wanting, if we're "doing it right."

We also don't like the idea of spending a significant portion of our time analyzing and tuning our user flow towards an in-game store, rather than focusing on the game itself. And we especially don't like the idea that even our paying customers will be nagged for additional money in a never-ending cycle of microtransactions that never quite satisfy. We want to build memorable and unique gaming experiences, and in-game monetization -- in its most effective form -- seems to always get in the way of that out of necessity.

These reasons form a large part of why we changed our direction as a company away from mobile as our primary focus. We're very proud of Monkey Drum. We went out of our way to be ethical with it, and with over 80,000 users, we have never had a single complaint about the in-app purchases, despite our core audience being five to seven year olds. And we don't believe that F2P is necessarily "evil." But when we looked at the reality of what it takes to really thrive in free-to-play, we decided that we'd rather be able to focus more of our time on making great games.

So we made the decision to refocus ourselves on the PC platform, where there is still a thriving community of gamers who are willing (indeed, who often prefer) to pay for their games upfront rather than piecemeal. Our first major game release, Race The Sun, will ship for PC for somewhere around $10, with an early purchase discount much like that of Minecraft. It will have a free-to-try demo with many of the lessons we've learned from our F2P experiment, and a paid mobile version will come later -- if it makes sense.

We couldn't be happier with this decision so far.


Article Start Previous Page 3 of 3

Related Jobs

Bohemia Interactive Simulations
Bohemia Interactive Simulations — Prague, Czech Republic
[10.24.14]

Game Designer
Next Games
Next Games — Helsinki, Finland
[10.24.14]

Senior Level Designer
Activision Publishing
Activision Publishing — Santa Monica, California, United States
[10.24.14]

Tools Programmer-Central Team
Crystal Dynamics
Crystal Dynamics — Redwood City, California, United States
[10.23.14]

Senior/Lead VFX Artist






Comments


K Gadd
profile image
Your explanation behind point two reads like 'being profitable in free to play requires being evil', which I hope isn't the gist of your point here. I agree fundamentally with your premise that monetizing whales in an edutainment app is not a great idea.

Is your point simply that your attempts to avoid monetizing whales impaired your ability to monetize normal customers? Or do you think that any free to play game must fundamentally be built on revenue from whales, and as a result edutainment is a poor choice for f2p? I think the second half of this point is relatively clear but the tagline for that point and the first half obscure your meaning a little.

Kirk Black
profile image
Good point, Kevin. When I read through the article, my take was that their mindset was "don't be evil" (common amongst indie developers who are doing it first and foremost for love and passion) and didn't want their players and fans to feel they were contorting the game design to suck money from unsuspecting children. The reality they are proposing is a balance has to be struck between passion and financial reality rather than viewing the choice as being evil (and profitable) or not evil (and bankrupt).

I know I personally grapple as a developer with how to create and execute a game design that is both fun but creates reasonable incentives to spend money without my players feeling like I'm purposely "screwing" them so they have to spend in order to succeed. I personally liked the MMO subscription model from that perspective: you pay for access which keeps the game and the finances largely separated so developers can do what they want and need for love of the game and players simply pay for access to the game. Micro-transactions are ripe for contorting a game design to feel like it's tuned to force you to pay if you really want to get the full experience.

Simon Ludgate
profile image
@Kevin, throughout the article I kept thinking "this shouldn't be an F2P game at all" and that was confirmed by the end of it when they released a deluxe version. I think the "target whales" and "don't be evil" can be reconciled though: you just need a game that can target whales in a non-evil way. I think point 2 is basically concluding that unless a game can target whales, it can't be a successful F2P.

@Kirk, as you point out, a successful subscription game requires a good quality GAME, and a successful F2P game requires a good quality monetization strategy. I think this article demonstrates that F2P isn't the "win-all" its sometimes portrayed as and I think subscription is still very viable... if a game can meet the quality levels that justify a subscription.

Aaron San Filippo
profile image
Definitions of evil vary. There are very few examples of highly successful F2P games that *don't* utilize the whale factor in some way, at least that I've seen. I wouldn't say it's evil, it's just not a direction we wanted to go.

F2P is also in its infancy - there are a lot of innovators in this space, and I think long term the methods that win will be the ones that create the most value for players ( see Dan Cook's feature on this too.) It's just not an area we're passionate about making work.

Christian Nutt
profile image
Actually, while I was editing this, I really got some perspective on the whole "whales" thing. The problem is that the discussion of whales was generally framed by douchebags who want to pump as much money out of these people in the least ethical way -- or at least that's how it's often perceived. But the idea of "paying fans" -- people for whom the game has value and who will pay for it in the long run because they care about it and play it a lot -- is not offensive at all. The issue, I guess, will be designing mechanics that don't stop those people from enjoying the game yet encourage them to pay. If I feel too prodded by an F2P game I'm kind of out the door. But that's also because many of the F2P games I've played aren't worth sticking around for in the first place.

Jeremy Glazman
profile image
@Aaron "Definitions of evil vary. There are very few examples of highly successful F2P games that *don't* utilize the whale factor in some way, at least that I've seen. I wouldn't say it's evil, it's just not a direction we wanted to go."

...but you specifically say in the article that you thought it was "evil" to incentivise monetization. That's just a bizarre philosophy, honestly, especially since it's pretty clear from this article that the motivation behind Monkey Drum was first and foremost to create a profitable app.

The point about these new business models that seems to be lost on so many developers is that they allow you to find new ways to provide value to your players. Listen to what Gabe Newell has been saying for a while now about 'value propositions', and take a look at Steam to realize how effective (and not "evil") this idea is.

Being "evil" is a completely separate discussion that revolves around game design and mechanics. Monkey Drum wasn't designed around anything like "pay to win" or thinly veiled compulsion loops, so how was being "evil" even part of the discussion?

Aaron San Filippo
profile image
@Jeremy - I didn't mean to say that monetization was evil, but rather that we wanted to avoid the trappings of some F2P games where there's a repetitive, compulsive loop that drives you to eventually pay so you can avoid the monotony. Certainly not all F2P models use this though! I think you're right on in mentioning the "value proposition" - that's kind what my point #1 is all about.

I definitely wouldn't say that "being evil is a totally separate discussion" because almost by definition, the monetization *is* tied intimately together with the game design. So being ethical about it has to be part of the discussion, IMO.

Aaron San Filippo
profile image
For those of you who read my little blurb at the end and are curious about what we are doing as an alternative to chasing the F2P craze, I wrote a post about it on our website yesterday:

http://flippfly.com/news/announcement-crowd-funding-flippfly-styl
e/

Also - thanks for the discussion here. Hopefully this was helpful for the folks who are pursuing F2P, and inspiring for those looking for alternatives. Best of luck to you all!

Nicholas Lovell
profile image
My definition of how to successfully make money from whales is:
"make it possible for people who love your game to spend lots of money on things they value".

I don't think that is evil.

Aaron San Filippo
profile image
I agree, in theory. The devil's in the details :)

I find it a little repulsive, personally when the "thing I value" that the game is asking me to spend money for - is my time.

As an example (from a game I'm totally addicted to, by the way,) "Super Monsters Ate My Condo" makes it impossible to earn enough coins through play to use the best list of "powers" and so if your choices are (1) grind for 3 or 4 games to earn enough to do your best, or (2) pony up a buck or two so you can play for awhile at maximum mastery. So yes, I "value" these fun powers because they give me the best chance at a high score, but in reality, what I'm paying for is the ability to not have to grind in a less fun environment.

Thankfully, they also offered a $1.99 permanent upgrade that just doubled your coin earn-rate, and I gladly paid for this (on top of the $0.99 I'd already spent.)

Again, my point with this article wasn't to say "going after whales is evil" but rather - whales are probably a necessary component of F2P, and incidentally the model as a whole is one we've decided not to pursue.

Christian Nutt
profile image
One thing is that lots of games that we PAY FOR already ask us for inordinate amounts of our time to achieve things! How many games force you to play through a whole bunch of repetitive content to gain levels or unlock characters / outfits / etc? It's a common tactic in console games. So that's the flipside of the whole issue, I think, or at least another way to look at things.

The quote Nicholas pulled is exactly the one that struck me the most. I think that's a great philosophy. It's just not what the F2P segment is known for.

Jeff Alexander
profile image
Even merely allowing whale-ish behavior without explicitly encouraging it requires that you believe all those whales those customers who spend $20 or $200 (every month!) on a game that, if premium, would have a one-time cost of $1.99 are making utterly rational and wholly uncoerced decisions that you have no legitimate authority to question. That's a tall order when dealing with such unusual behavior. I'm not sure how I'd go about convincing myself it's not evil to let whales whale when I have the ability to stop them.

Christian Nutt
profile image
That's why looking at them as "whales" is wrong, and encouraging the behavior is sketchy.

Look: I spend $40-60 on a console or handheld game, pretty cheerfully in most cases. If you can extract that "LTV" from me by giving me a good game experience that's free up front, in an ethical way, I don't think I'd complain.

Paul Boyle
profile image
"make it possible for people who love your game to spend lots of money on things they value".

The problem is that very few developers create products worthy of love by a few. I'm not deriding developers - I am one myself. But think about most apps. They're worth being liked by many, but 'loved' by noone. They're not Starcraft. They're not SMB. If they are, they're the millionth iteration of that genre.

So we're not talking about using the *very old* art model of having many people view a painting freely, but a few rich patrons who love the work and are willing to pony up the dough to keep the artist in watercolors.

Moral developers realize that they're not creating a product worthy of love. These are not products that challenge the mind and hearts of their users. They're not going to have a lasting impression on anyone. Like? Yes, sure! Definitely many apps are likeable. But F2P dictates that, instead of having the many people who like your app pay something, they get it for free. A few people who like it will pay appropriately but not enough.

Which leaves use with what F2P actually does, to get by, which is target whales. It targets people who 'love' something beyond any reasonable scale of the value it could be worth. These people are not patrons of the arts, guys. They're people with poor impulse control. They're people who don't rationally evaluate the worth of something. This is why "pay for instant gratification" is the dominant IAP strategy, one way or another, in F2P. And many articles you will read will tell you that those people aren't rich people spending within their leisure budgets either, they're people spending beyond their means.

And targetting people who have a weakness like that, as your primary source of revenue? I would say that that fits most definitions of evil.

Justin Sawchuk
profile image
Actually its not imoral at all, usually these games and you could ask yourself I could spend 3-4 hours grinding or shell out ~$50) and the kids that have more free time will just sit there grinding away but the busy people with some extra cash and not alot of free time will rather pay out.

Hakim Boukellif
profile image
You're forgetting that the people offering to let you skip grinding for 3-4 hours in exchange for money are the same people that made it necessary to grind for so long in the first place. Creating artificial demand by putting segments in a game where you need to do a lot of grinding before you're able to progress for the purpose of getting people to pay isn't exactly what I'd call "moral".

Also, spending $50 to progress in a game while for that same amount of money you could buy 1-5 large-scope games, that'll last you for weeks if not months without asking for more money, seems to me like a skewed perception of value.

Tim Elder
profile image
"many articles you will read will tell you that those people aren't rich people spending within their leisure budgets either, they're people spending beyond their means"

From what I'm seeing on my project, the big spenders are almost exclusively busy professional or business owning middle aged women. These aren't people who would play StarCraft or SMB and are looking for an entirely different experience from interactive entertainment.

This is one thing that F2P (amongst other things) has opened up - a significantly different audience to the young male with ample time to burn.

We're also seeing that they're generally not engaging with the "pay to skip the grind" aspects of the game (which are fairly light anyway) and are generally paying for the premium cosmetic enhancements.

"Moral developers realize that they're not creating a product worthy of love"

Maybe some aren't, but perhaps this is exactly what some developers are striving for. Whether they can achieve it or not is another matter, but if the goal of your dev project is to create something that the audience genuinely loves (or at the very least highly values) is it so bad to allow people to pay as much as they want?

Ian Hamblin
profile image
I agree with Nicholas also. If you create value with your game, then you deserve to reap the rewards of that in as many ways as possible.

You can then take those rewards into future projects and contribute more value to the world. It's only evil if you don't deliver value i.e. sell a car to someone for full price, that you know is about to break down.

tony oakden
profile image
thanks for sharing. Your mobile experience is similar to mine.

Justin Sawchuk
profile image
I remember paying something like 9.99 in army of darkness defence because I was on the second last level and had spent an insane number of hours in the casual game (so once your invested and hooked you dont really care). Even my brother who never buys any mobile games did pay 4.99 in the game kingdom rush ios game.

Even if you were able to get 1% to 3% of 80k its only 800 to 2400 customers at what 99 cents a pop its still going to be a failure (with freemium games its all about download numbers). You would need to get a million downloads in order to get 10k customers, if you dont have different levels of money you are shooting yourself in the foot.

Mark Nelson
profile image
@Justin. I just ground and ground until I beat Army of Darkness Defense. Closest I ever game to paying. I ultimately found a way to congest near the gate and rack up tons of cash.

I was playing on a iPhone 3G, so the sluggish performance probably had something to do with being able to react faster than the enemy attacks. 100s of archers, soldiers, knights, etc. Ash firing away all those spells.

Even now brings a smile to my face. :-)

In this case the grinding was tons of fun. Trying to 'stem the tide.'

Alexander Symington
profile image
You tried to make a game that doesn't the exploit the compulsions of players, that doesn't disrupt their immersion with nagging requests for purchases, that doesn't intentionally unbalance their experience regardless of whether or not they comply. A good game and a moral game.

You didn't fail at free-to-play. Free-to-play failed you.

Jeremie Sinic
profile image
If grinding is not fun, then the game is wrong. Pay to skip the grind means you are telling your customers: "sorry, we know it's not fun, but if it were fun, would you pay to skip it?"
I am thinking more and more that the only way to truly let whales pay unlimited amounts without altering the gameplay is to either sell only cosmetic items or additional real content (expansions like maps or levels, not power ups) or add a "Donate" button.

Carlo Delallana
profile image
I like monetization that allows me to bypass time investment without negating the skill investment. Magic 2013 is a great example of this and more. I can earn cards the hard way, which is still enjoyable and actually makes me a better player, or just purchase them which in turn enhances the game in numerous ways.

Luke Ambrogio
profile image
I think the point to extract from this article is that with F2P, unlike other other traditional business models, real life payment must be an indelible part of the gameplay design. Ultimately the whole structure of the game must be as much about having an enjoyable experience as well as being able to make the experience more enjoyable by injecting money, with the knowledge that the more money you put into the game the more it becomes enjoyable. In that respect the article helped me identify mistakes in my game design as much as my business model.

I understand why the author would feel these aspects to be "evil". Most passionate game developers would find including payment requests as a core element of gameplay to go against what we they believe in, but ultimately it's a choice which has to be done at the start of the design.

And unless the game deceives the player into what is being purchased and for what reasons there's nothing immoral or unethical. If the player doesn't like the price proposed to make the game more enjoyable they don't pay it. This applies to one-time payment or subscription-based games as much as F2P.

Aaron San Filippo
profile image
Yep, I agree. To be clear, I don't think F2P is "evil." We just decided it wasn't a direction we wanted to keep pursuing.

Christina Carter
profile image
F2P has been around for so long that I feel we should have already moved past the arguement of "evil", and instead focusing on how to make it more fun for players so they pay. I can't help but seeing most of the time the "evil" argument is nearly always made from the developer's point of view. This is how 'I' feel it would be evil, not how your players (who are your customers) feel. If you provide a core experience that is fun and engaging, and then provide additional items (without a low ceiling) that enhances these fun elements, then why can't you charge for it? The players have voted by their wallet that F2P is the dominant business model, and you're saying all those paying customers have all been cheated? Is it not at all possible their idea of fun is different to yours?

I met countless players who may never have played a game if not for F2P. And I have always been surprised by why they think the game is fun to them. Taking FarmVille for example, I met a player (a middle age woman) who's lived a city life all her life and she's so busy with her daily life it's very hard for her to find peace and quiet. She loved FarmVille because it gave her a chance to 'imagine' having a farm and she occasionally paid for things she liked here and there. This is a loyal fan. Your players are not like you. In fact, statistically speaking, developers are so few in percentage in the player community your players are most likely not like you if we're talking about a casual audience.

Douglas Scheinberg
profile image
Anyone here familiar with Magic: the Gathering, in either its cardboard or digital incarnation? That's a game that has a HUGE "whale" factor. I'm not sure how evil the whole "trading card game" business model is to begin with, but I love Magic enough that I actually am willing to spend hundreds of dollars a year on it.

John Kuraica
profile image
I made a very polished game for iOS, spend many thousands of dollars on development. Was a very highly rated game and was in the top 50 slot for a shot time, until it was auto pirated. Sales dropped while downloads surged (and not from iTunes!). Needless to say I did not make my $$$ back....

After lessens learned, second game was designed with Free 2 Play in mind. One full year after release, its still in the top 10 free games slot on the Mac App Store. Its also extremely successful on Facebook (over 1.1 million MAUs) as well as with many other portals and platforms. We are now working on our second Free 2 Play game while our first is still going strong. I am a firm believer in the Free 2 Play business model.

I wish you guys lots of luck with your games!

Cheers

-John


none
 
Comment: