| Tomas Majernik |
|
I think it works too, although You need to position Your game well. Position it for free to play market, or position it for "hardcore" gamers like Starcraft 2 for example. I belive if Starcraft 2 was free to play, Blizzard would make much less profit. So yes, feemium works, but You have to target big, yet specific audience.
|
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
| Rick Kolesar |
|
|
I don't think free-to-play has won and I don't think it has to "win". What has won is the ability to price your game at whatever price you want (if that means free, then fine). Gone are the days of every game on the shelf being $50. Game makers now have the freedom to adjust their prices on the fly and react to an ever changing marketplace (and customer base).
And saying "free-to-play" has won when it's such a new idea is a bad thing. Let’s see 2-3 years down the road if the companies can make profits from their game a not live off investment/IPO money. |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
| Ian Bogost |
|
|
Is this article a strawman?
Making money from free but not profits from free = "it works?" It shows that high-leverage speculative financial instrument businesses like Zynga are fine, but does that count as "working?" Does that justify "moving on" from the debate? |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
| Weston Wedding |
|
Nor does a year prove a business model, unless you really limit your view to the extreme short term.
Then again, this article is another aimed at a debate that doesn't even obviously exist outside of Nicholas Lovell editorials about freemium models. The debates about freemium are of ethics and whether freemium SHOULD exist. Not whether it can succeed from a financial perspective. People were having that debate a half a decade ago. |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
| Robert Green |
|
|
Nor does having a lot of entries in a 'top grossing' chart in any way mean that great games are being made. It's the time of the year when 'game of the year' awards are being handed out, and I have yet to see any traditional gaming sites say any of their favourite games this year were freemium.
In fact, many of those 'games' barely even count as games at all - they have no win/loss conditions and require no skill on the part of the player. Which is not to say that Mr Lovell is wrong, just that as someone who has been playing videogames for decades, the idea of retail games being replaced by these freemium 'games' is quite troubling. |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
| Michael Joseph |
|
|
Wal-mart is winning. So what.
The debate was never really about whether freemium games could make money. The core of the debate was always about quality, exploitation and other dubious business practices and models. That debate is never going to go away so long as there are major players out there with no regards for goodness. The question is, will that real debate be a constant albatross around their necks. Maybe. If it's in their interest to turn over a new leaf they will silence their critics and maybe turn them into proponents. EDIT: Oops. Just saw Weston Wedding's post above. What he said! |
|
|
| Victor Perez |
|
|
Nothing is proved with Zyngia, right now is just a potential business... but not a true. Nobody remember the dot com bubble?? We will see...
What is proved is the online selling instead of box selling.. that is true. Do you want to survive? your game must have a online distribution format... And Free to Play, it is not true.. someone pay... the new ways to brings customer to your products as giving free playing time or any other way .. that is MARKETING men... Online Marketing. Just think in Online.. but do not try to imitate the latest "business success", because sometime it is not what it seems to be.. |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
| Luis Guimaraes |
|
|
Far as I know EA was doing quite well with it's play4free portal, specially Battlefield Heroes. Also, Infinity Blade have basically covered it's development costs with in-apps only, having the selling price mostly for profit. And dozens of asian companies have been surviving for so long focusing on freemium model.
|
|
|
| James Coote |
|
|
F2P = opportunity cost.
$1 today is better than $3 in 6 months time. Furthermore, you have all the costs to run a F2P game while you're wating for that $3 to come in. I think what we will see is a hybrid F2P-Freemium model, where players can pay to unlock everything now or just pay as and when they need an extra item here or run out of gold and need a little extra there. |
|
|
| Jamie Mann |
|
|
"Zynga floated and raised $1 billion at a valuation significantly above that of Electronic Arts.
(The poor performance of Zynga stock post-IPO and the negative sentiment from the analysts don't take away from this amazing achievement.)" Um. Yes, yes it does, actually. The value of an IPO is mostly driven by hope and hype. There was this little thing a few years ago, called the dot-Com bubble that you may have heard of... Beyond that: has Freemium really "won"? I've absolutely no doubt that it's currently profitable, but what about the long term? What happens when there's more competition? Again, I seem to recall a time when internet advertising was a high-profit system... and when everyone jumped onto the bandwagon, the click-through values dropped like a rock. You can still make money from it, but you have to work a lot harder than you used to - and there's a lot of disreputable companies poisioning the system and driving end-users to use tools such as ad-blockers. Or how about MMORPGs? For a while, they could do no wrong, either. Or social games - they've dropped from their peak. Or... |
|
|
More: Social/Online, Smartphone/Tablet, Exclusive, Business/Marketing