Free-to-Play model game attraction

Hi all,

After looking around the forums for a bit, mainly at the Showcase thread, I started to wonder if the Free-to-play model repelled other developers away from playing or learning about the game or increased their interest?

Personally I feel I'm more drawn to games require buying. I think I'd get a more refined experience from a paid game, even if it was cheap, so it's quite common for me to completely dismiss F2P titles.

Thoughts and opinions?

 

This is pretty vague question because it all depends on what the pricing model is and just how "crippled" the game experience is without pumping in money. The F2P concept in itself doesn't turn me away. It ultimately comes down to just how much do I need to spend on this game to fully realize the game experience. For example, I used to play Kingdoms of Camelot on Facebook a few years back. When I hit $125 buying this thing and that thing I said "this is insane" the game itself sucks and forces players to either constantly be playing or else purchasing. The game was more work than fun. The other option was to spend, spend, spend. So I gave my account to another person who was in my clan or whatever it was called.

 

When I see paid games I expect it to have all features packed + being treated same like other players in the game. E.g: Call of Duty doesn't have such business model because they don't sell weapons/items for real money - you level up to get them. Basically you invest time instead of money.

In F2P games mostly there is inequality between P2W users (who pay for items in game) and F2P users (who don't). Don't get me wrong there are excellent F2P games out there like Team Fortress 2 or Counter Strike.Weapons they have does not affect gameplay (but at least balances it). E.g You may have weapon which deals massive damage, but slows you down. As a result you can be a veteran player but F2P.

I can speaks hours and hours about them but take a look at this video:
It shows you how F2P done wrong.

Hope this helps!

 

Nice video

 

The problem with free to play is it requires you to get million of downloads to make any money. If your game is niche, then you are going to have a bad time. What you need to do is take your game to the next level and sell it as a PC game where people are still going to pay for games.

As a consumer you know that the developers probably designed the game to eventually frustrate the user (requiring grinding) to buy gold. Imagine if FF7 was a mobile game -- it would eventually start taking you days to level up. But something like dota 2 -- where you start customizing your characters or buying voice packs, is the better way of doing it.

 

I suppose Mobile and PC F2P models are/can be very different in terms of grabbing my interest.
I tend to avoid looking at the free lists on app stores mainly down to the fact I assume most F2P titles require money/time past a certain point, of which I don't have much to spare of either. Say if the game Breach and Clear was F2P I'd probably never have played it, but instead it's the one mobile game I keep going back to.
Say lots of people had the same assumption and avoided F2P just because it is F2P, then it could be turning away paying customers from the game. I'm curious which mobile games would be more successful if they didn't use the F2P model.

As for PC, the assumption carries less weight for me. Some of the biggest games showcase that their F2P models work, which other developers can learn from and evolve. But also the one game that's got the most money from me after getting is CS:GO and that's not even F2P. Maybe a hybrid business model like that can be better then F2P for some games?

Edit: Forgot to mention CS:GO probably works best, as it's cheaper then most titles, as I guess it offsets the price with the in-game purchases. People pay what they want to a degree

 

Voted "less likely". F2p is a major flaw to me, i`d rather pay upfront/monthly.
Path of Exile is a great f2p game(thats the only f2p game on which i spent my money on). They only sell cosmetics and additional space for items to store. But thats one of a few f2p games that its business model does not make them pay-to-win.
On the other hand you have recently released Archeage which is basically p2w, haven't even bother installing it.

 

The first thing I think of when seeing F2P is the pathetic excuses for MMORTS games strewn all across the web now, and like half the prominent games in the mobile market. That being said, I see that model, and it's unlikely I'll give a game even 2 seconds of my time. It CAN be a good model IF you're in it solely for the money because you can get some serious high rollers if you attract them, but that's about it.

If you're focusing on actual content, like say, an intricate storyline, or mechanics beyond either canned strategery and/or competitive FPSes, stick with an upfront cost.

 

Monetization is as hard as game design. +1 for beginning to explore the topic and, though there is no right answer, there are some common themes:

• 81% of mobile revenue is from F2P, expected to grow to 95%+
• Paid-up-front is easier to design and harder to market.
• Some consider F2P with ads to be the most ethical business model (see Ben Cousins talk)
• The most successful F2P games have no ads, allow extensive play without paying, and have lots of IAP's that players WANT to purchase (LoL, Hearthstone, Candy Crush, Clash of Clans, ...). These models are the hardest!

I've released products with ads, up-front-purchase, IAP's, totally-free, and hat-in-hand. Each is hard, in it's own way, and continues to remind me that "obscurity is the real enemy."

Gigi

 

@Gigiwoo interesting stuff! Might be hard to tell, but did you notice increased engagement on any of the models?

My new questions is, is it possible for small devs to get the required numbers of players to make it successful without large marketing budgets?

 

I'm pretty closed minded about this I guess, but I generally don't give F2P games a chance. I feel that the term in general is dishonest (there is nothing free about these games), and I can't stand gameplay being compromised for monetization. I'd far rather pay a known amount upfront and be able to just enjoy a game.

A few months ago, my wife and I each got ~$30 in free credits from an Amazon appstore promotion. I spent mine on traditional cost model games ($2 here, $5 there, I have a bunch of games now). My wife downloaded a Strawberry Shortcake cake making game for my daughter to try, and ended up spending all of her credits to unlock stuff in the game. And she still doesn't have everything. It's absolutely ridiculous.

 

@Gigiwoo I'm curious now, what kind of luck have you had with ad-driven models? I was gonna dabble a bit but heard the rates are *AWFUL* for mobile. Like you HAVE to have the next Flappy Bird to get more than pocket change out of it.

(That being said, I wasn't even thinking of that. Subconsciously I just see ad-funded as free rather than 'freemium'. Go figure.)

 

Could IAP's + ads work in a cookie clicker game? Let's look at the data. For the month of August (which is before my new game), I made $760 from IAP's and up-front purchases (on iOS), and about $20 from Ads (on Google). With Tap Happy, I am using both ads and IAP's, which is new for me. However, it's only been live for one week, so I need more data (*hint hint*).

Here's a few lessons I've learned:

• The Penny Gap is real. I earn more with higher product prices - $4.99 > $2.99 > $1.99 > $0.99. Downloads go up a little at each step, and yet don't overcome the loss of income.
• Having more products increases my overall revenue. Sounds obvious, and yet, it's not linear.
• Product title & keywords matter (and Google doesn't have them - which makes Android TOUGH)
• There are niche audiences

As for Tap Happy, I need more feedback. Maybe my ads are broken, maybe the game sucks, or maybe it's too early... either way, I've made $0 from ads thus far.

Gigi