"...with Friends" Monetization Question

There's Words with Friends, Draw Something and others similar.
I have a "with Friends" idea though it's not this casual stuff.
Same type of one person takes a turn then waits for the other.
Not really a "with Friends" game but there's some major SEO there

But what are the best methods of monetization on those?
Draw Something has sponsors basically. Words isn't very monetized...
Paying for turns would turn people away.

 

Draw Something has a free version and a paid version with a larger word list. There is also IAP to get coins for color packs and bombs.

 

eh...trying to avoid IAP but I guess it might have to be an option.

 

Why avoid In App Purchases? That's where all the money is. Last research I saw had it worth more than 8 times as much as advertising.

 

http://www.zdnet.com/apple-to-block-in-app-purchase-hack-in-ios-6-offers-interim-fix-7000001319/

edit: Not a reason not to, just a FYI for those that may not know.

 

I know that personally that crap pisses me off to no end. I hate playing a game and then I have to stop to buy the Unicorn horn to go to the next level or buy the sequined tank to kill someone. I want to play a game and go through the whole thing. I'll pay to play but hate to pay to move forward.

Maybe I need to poll people on the income from the game purchase vs. IAP. Though because of all the free stuff, you almost can't sell an app anymore. So many have to go free or .99 cents.

Advertising wasn't really the main target of my question but it probably does answer it best...

Was hoping there might be some other ways that I may be overlooking for this type of game.

 

Just because you can only see one way for IAP to work doesn't mean it's the only way. You mention Words With Friends but how many times did you have to pay to progress in that? It has IAP too. So does Jetpack Joyride. So does any number of games that aren't "pay to win." If you want to be a good developer or designer, think of solutions, not just the problems.

 

Then don't program your game that way. Make it so you can play all the way to the end. But add extra backpacks for people who want to haul more stuff. Or an Armor addition for people who just aren't as quick. Or potions for people who messed up their save game, and have no way past the boss, etc. Or make it a demo version with an unlock. In App Purchases are the biggest way to monetize your game. They're bigger than actual game purchases. Way bigger than ads. A game doesn't have to be obnoxious when using them though.

 

hehe, this annoys me too, but it is a good way to monetize your game

This is still kind of paying to win though, it makes the game easier to play through. The only real way to make non-play to win IAP would be purely aesthetic, costumes, backgrounds, different characters etc.

 

It's only a concept right now but may have to figure out a IAP scheme.
Gaming used to be much easier when you buy a game and play over and over.....

 

It can be, but it doesn't have to be. Set up the IAP so those who don't want to pay can grind rather than pay. Those who have slightly more money than time to grind can pay to skip the grinding. Either player can win the game, and some may end up doing it both ways giving the game replay value. IPA is just a tool, it's only as abusive as it's made to be in my opinion.

That being said, what's wrong with pay to win or pay for the full version if it's done properly? Why would it be that someone who pays nothing for a game you spent hundreds or even thousands of man hours making should be able to play the whole thing? Is your time worthless?

 

If it's a multiplayer game, pay to win is the worst model possible. It totally ruins any balance and essentially sends free users a message that they're worthless. For example in MMOs pay to win is absolute nightmare and makes you drop the game since someone who can afford to spend $300 on virtual goods will kick your ass. That is from player's perspective obviously. I do buy stuff in free games, but if that game is pay to win, I simply won't and will stop playing it instead.
Pay2Win is like real life. You can live, but to live to the fullest you need money, and quite a lot of it. This is not what I want to be reminded when playing a game. I want to escape reality, not simulate it in a game.

 

One need only to pop open a new tab, hit up various gaming forums or forums for the games themselves to find people disgruntled with P2W. It's a mistake to lump all the people that do not like P2W in with those that do not want to pay for a game or believe that a developer should be paid for their work. There are many payment models they are more than happy to support, the hybrid F2P/P2W model is not one of them.

B2P, B2P+DLC, B2P+unlockable levels/content, B2P+vanity, B2P+services, P2P/subscriptions, and the list goes on and on...and on.

No doubt, there are people out there that do not believe they should have to pay for anything. Games, movies, books, music, etc, etc, etc. It's always curious to ask them would they work for free - and - inevitably the excuses start flowing...

...yeah, it's a mistake to lump the folks who are against P2W nonsense with those folks.

The market's crowded, no doubt. It's far easier for people to make games these days that it was in the past (same with music, books, etc). So yeah, we as folks trying to develop/publish/produce - it's going to be harder to stand out from the crowd. You can be one of the dime a hundred dozen...try to scam some money from folks...or you can try to develop a brand, a reputation, a following...

...different strokes for different folks, and all that jazz.

 

Just let me clarify here, the reason for the second paragraph of my post was the idea of DLC and levels seemed to be getting lumped into the "pay to win" category. Though technically, yes the player does have to pay to win these games, it's not like they're just buying the "I WIN SWORD." The two are entirely different things in my mind. For the people who do feel DLC or all other IAP is "pay to win" my question stands.

 

The best way to monetize, is to make something good and popular.

If you cant do that, none of this is even relevant

 

Ah, that makes a lot more sense and is a world of difference, imo - regarding DLC/levels/content. There's a vast difference between providing additional content and providing something to clear content faster...again, imo.

 

Merchandising! Books, MP3s, Artwork, Videos, Coffee Mugs and Key Chains!

 

lol, of course merchandising only works if you....

 

DLC lumped in with pay to win?
Definitely different than getting the Magical Unicorn Saw of Icarus to beat the game.

 

...and how exactly is this bad? if someone wants to pay for cheating, then isn't that the most awesome thing ever for the developer AND the gamer? it's not like his purchase affects anyone else.

 

As long as the game is single player - there are no score boards...any interaction between players, etc... then yep, the fool and his money being soon parted works out well for the developer. As for the gamer, well...would you offer a drink to an alcoholic?

 

It's hardly the same thing is it? That's got to be the worst analogy I've seen for years

 

Marketing and monetization are NOT things you strap on at the end. It's fundamental. You think about game design, art, programming, and timelines. But, yer on your own - you have to think about EVERYTHING. Before you write a line of code, you need to be thinking about marketing and monetization.

Gigi

 

I tried to soften the blow with this one, since there was so much negative feedback on comparing certain developers to crack dealers.

It's funny how "addictive" is supposed to mean something good with gaming. Well, not funny haha....

Computer Addiction, Internet Addiction, Video Game Addiction... guess those are good things too?

 

It's one of those things, where as you start the project - if the goal is to sell the product...then yep, all of this should have come up before that first line.

 

I tried to visualize it. But, I had a hard time picturing the dev that invests months (or years) of their life to build a game, without ever hoping that one day, other people would play it. I can see that money might not be a concern, I get that. But I can't imagine doing all the work I do to make a product, just to make something for ... me. And, as soon as I have to think about how others will experience it, how I will let them know about it, etc... then, that's marketing.

Gigi.

 

Not sure if anybody read this, as far as a tie-in regarding IAP: http://www.pcworld.com/article/259686/androids_piracy_problem_drives_dead_trigger_price_to_zero.html

I could see somebody trying to fight piracy via IAP...
...but then you have to fight this: http://www.macworld.com/article/1167691/what_the_in_app_purchase_hack_means_for_app_makers.html

Sure, the first deals with Android and the second with iOS...but let's not get caught up in the specifics, eh? The gist is there.

 

Remember it's a concept, there is no line of code written yet.
Trying to figure out if there is a better way or less intrusive for lack of a better term right now...probably going IAP and some type of system like Playhaven or Chartboost.

That Android one...you're damned if you do and damned if you don't.

Need a call home feature to lock people out but then you piss off the ones who stole your game and even though you don't care about them, they'll be the ones making the most noise and killing your ratings, etc.
Could have sworn that I read somewehere that Apple has that planned already.