"Why don't you sell Triple Town for 99 cents and make tons of money?"
plus.google.com
plus.google.com
So I totally hear his rationale from a game developer's point of view, I really do. But though I'm a developer, I'm also a customer, and I just can't swallow the coin model for games.
I've played Triple Town and thought it was pretty cute, and yes, I'd probably pay 99c for it, maybe even up to $2.99. But I'm not signing up to a lifetime of paying coins to continue playing it long term.
One fundamental issue is that by design, coin based games are going to be 'gamed' to encourage the use of coins, and fundamentally I don't want to participate in a game dynamic where I'm paying for game experimentation with real dollars. It is like me playing a game of chess and having the constant option to drop $20 to buy another queen. Sure it isn't absolutely necessary to win, but it sure helps. Having that dynamic in games just turns me off.
Now I understand the problem of running a sustainable business all too well, having had my own game company go under, but I don't believe this is the solution. I'm not sure what the right one is, and on that front I applaud them for experimenting, but as a customer I personally reject it.
An alternative way to get a continuous stream of revenue is to develop a fan base so devoted that they are happy to donate money or preorder years in advance just to keep you afloat.
503 - Service Unavailable
An Interactive Fiction by Horace The Endless Server Technician
Release 1 / Serial number 110707 / Inform 7 build 6E72 (I6/v6.31 lib 6/12N)
HTTP Error
You are standing at the entrance to Castle Shotgun. The gates are securely locked, with an unappealing sign on the front. The sign reads "Whoops! RPS is having a bit of a wobbly. Don't worry, we'll be back soon!"
To the left of the gates is a large opening in the wall, which Jim is leaning into. John is perched on a small rock nearby, while Alec and Tim are standing on the other side of the gates. A pile of magazines is scattered in a corner.
You can see Jim, John, Tim, Alec and a Refresh Button here.
>
For some reason, I the #content container has a width of zero. Try running `document.getElementById('content').style.width = null` in the console to fix that.
One clear example is, League of Legends. Where you start with set of free champions and you either play or pay to unlock more of them. One can argue that, Valve's TF2 and Dota2 are in similar vein. You of course, don't have to pay to unlock heroes - but you pay to buy cosmetic items (so as you can look cool in-game). So, while you may dislike this model, it looks like it is here to stay.
The other issue is that it seems like often paying wouldn't be much fun either as it makes the game to easy.
More importantly I agree that this model heavily encourages the developer to design around that methodology (well described as "gamed" above).
To be fair, in this specific example - if I recall in Triple Town, the main thing you bought was unlimited play-time ("turns") for $3.99 (which follows the more positive unlock model). After that you could buy the standard coins (the shitty model), but given the design of the game I never understood why you would.
So, the three models of free to play that I see are:
1. pay for perks - this is the traditional "you pay and you get something you can use", be it guns or coins or whatever. The danger with this model is that it is a very fine balance to prevent this from becoming pay to win.
2. pay for cosmetics - DotA 2 or skins in LoL or hats in TF2 or whatever you have. Buy things to change the look of your stuff in game, but buying things has no effect on your success or the gameplay. IMHO almost all free to play games should support this in some way.
3. pay for experience. The things you buy in game don't give you an advantage in the game but instead alter the play style or how you experience the gameplay. League of Legends gives you weekly tasters of the different gameplay experiences the different champions have to offer and you can pay to keep the ones you like best. I believe that this is the model (coupled with #2) that ultimately makes the very successful free to play games stand out from the merely moderately successful ones.
Personally I look at the game business as a sort of "innovator's hustle," where most of the effort is going towards the novelty aspects - even in the design. Traditional/historical games have lasted by remaining captivating for lifetimes, rather than 40 hours, so raising the bar for long-term retention is not an impossibility, provided that a way to market the design over an equally long time exists. But it's far more straightforward to push for marketing-immediate elements(graphics, storytelling, ad campaigns, etc.) and that's led to an industry characterized by budget escalation.
From this angle, F2P's profit engine is primarily running on the basis that more novel and more appealing games can be made via a change in the business model. If the innovation stagnates, so will the market for F2P. But the business model isn't directly at fault for that. Tactics like blind conversion of every existing type of video game into a F2P straitjacket are what make it a fad, one likely to recede to a more reasonable level over time, but not one that goes away entirely.
That's the real pitfall, when that dynamic actively makes the core game design worse.
After thinking about it more, this model is just in its own little boom cycle, and it will go bust too. I've played some of the top grossing in-app purchase games on iOS and they are down right aweful. The audience that is shelling out this money are "newbies" to one degree or the other.
Just like people who sit in casinos pushing a button all day, the audience for these games will never disappear. However, the market for normal games will not vanish. Players will get burned out on these things a lot faster, because a) its on their phone not in a distant casino and b) they don't win money playing them.
I think Valve has the right model, sell in-game items that are not mandatory in order to play the game successfully.
At the end of the day, your player has to want to play your game. If I developed games, I would be asking what keeps a player around for years rather than how do I monetize the player over the long term.
There are exceptions in these games, some that allow you to speed things up with money but you never really need to until you get tired of the whole game anyways. But those games seem to operate as advertising for other games made by the same company (you occasionally get a popup when you launch the game linking to their other new game of the month). So they're only tolerable because they're not trying to extract money from you as much from that particular game. Sort of the exception that proves the rule.
However, as a consumer, I don't want to be part of that model. I don't want to encourage that kind of behavior, and I don't buy those games. As someone who does play many games, I love the boxed software model from a consumer standpoint.
At some point, I think video games need to start costing more. I think indie devs are really selling themselves short with their prices. I don't have any data to back this up, but I see plenty of games that take years to make by dedicated independent developers sell at launch for less than half the price that games normally sell for.
I feel that indie games are being artificially devalued, and that's hurting indie devs. I am willing to put my money where my mouth is and pay double what I pay now for most of my games. I just wish others would as well.
Paying a dollar to play it a little longer to see if it's sufficiently addictive, and then 7 dollars if you want to keep playing it long term, doesn't seem so bad to me - I like the idea of being offered the choice.
These days I'm wary of games that advertise free to play. As if that were something I, as a player, wanted. I see it less as a try-it-we're-sure-you'll-like-it and more of a we-won't-tell-you-what-it-costs and we-can-get-you-hooked-and-you-won't-care-it's-not-fun and maybe a little we'll-keep-changing-it-so-you-keep-needing-to-pay.
There's such strong pressure to have purchases affect gameplay, too. I've seen any number of nice games start out promising that would never happen, and then . . . it happened. I mean, remember when they introduced hats in TF2? Said they'd never, never, never affect gameplay? We know how that went.
So I don't know. For me as a player, that sort of game has an uphill battle to earn my trust. Even if it's awesome now, the pressures are just such that it probably won't be in six months. Not the sort of thing I want to build my cherished family entertainment memories around.
There's also the rather-disturbing phenomenon of a small percentage of people spending an outlandish amount of money on these games. Sure, some of them might be enthusiastic fans, but that seems unlikely to me. Free-to-play games are just . . . not that kind of game. It seems more likely that they're folks with poor judgement, or who are even mentally ill. I don't know, but it doesn't sit well with me.
I'm not a successful indie game publisher or anything, so I don't have a proposed alternative. But I do think I'm not the only one who feels this way, and I'd expect the view to become more prevalent as players gain experience with the model. Free-to-play might be dominant now, but I wouldn't bet on it staying that way.
Actually I don't know how that went. I play bit of Dota2 which has similar model and Valve has always contested that, in-game cosmetics will never affect game play and so far it hasn't. So I am very curious with TF2 hats affecting game play. Care to elaborate?
I am under the impression that some hats have particle effects. If you are playing a spy who is impersonating a character with that kind of hat, the particle effects aren't duplicated.
I would appreciate it if someone who plays TF2 more than me can say how much it affects the gameplay.
The other issue, which is one of the reasons I stopped playing (aside from me pretty much stopping playing video games in general) is aesthetic overload. I don't like the notion of things being called "purely cosmetic" because appearances have meanings. The 9 classes were designed to be recognizable from their silhouettes alone, which is pretty brilliant. But now you can pile an absurd number of things onto your character, completely changing that. Not only do you not know what your opponent is equipped with anymore, you also have an additional psychological blocker to identifying them. And it's just tacky. TF2 was originally a 60s spy movie parody, and I really felt that. Now it's just... everything. It's just a lot less compelling to me.
That's interesting and quite disappointing to hear. In Valve's in-game commentary, they specifically point out that they were trying hard to achieve exactly this (distinctive outlines). It sounds like there's been a complete change for the vision of the game, likely due to personnel changes.
However, TF2 was very much on the right track to have the perfect combination of revenue generating side-items with unchanging gameplay. Just because they've strayed a bit does not mean that it can't be effectively used for other games.
I have heard this about the gambling industry, from colleagues when I used to work at an online gaming company. I think it is true that a large amount of the profits from these type of things come from a small percentage, and often those people cannot really afford to loose such great amounts of money either.
Of Zynga's games, apparently "less than 1 percent [of players] are responsible for between a quarter and a half of the company’s revenue".[0]
[0] http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/zyngas-quest-for-bigspe...
When I was a teenager playing video games all the time, I had a great desire to develop them. Who doesn't? I think that was at least partly responsible for my learning to program. But as an adult, I'm a lot more ambivalent about the industry. Sure, it's art, and some games are awesome, but some also scare me. I can't shake the feeling that some games have a genuine psychological addiction element, and some people might not be well-prepared to cope with that rationally, and the whole thing looks kind of . . . exploitative.
I'm not as sure as I was, when I was 13, that I want to be a part of that.
All but the greatest $60-up-front retail games suck six months later too. Most games just don't have that long of a shelf life - they just aren't designed for such replayability.
But I can name several free-to-play games I thought were awesome a few months ago that I've completely given up on. It's not because they lacked replayability, or because they were less awesome than I initially thought. It's because the games changed, not in ways that improved gameplay, but in ways that increased the pressure to acquire various consumables.
In the free-to-play games I initially enjoyed, I'd have happily spent money on expansion packs -- permanent add-ons that let me experience more of the same sort of fun as the original game. But instead, the games keep changing to be more of a joyless slog, and then they offer to let me skip the slog and get back to the fun for a few bucks. When the game mechanic becomes so dull that it makes sense to charge players to avoid playing, it's no longer a good game.
(Been playing LoL for 4 months and WoT and PoE for about 5 months now)
The key, I think, is in two things.
The first is having more control over your ability to distribute the product in the long term, and cheaply. The retail model meant that old games didn't have any opportunity to continue to get sales. Digital distribution means that old games continue to be available, and they can continue to make quite a lot of money.
The ability to distribute titles yourself means that you don't need to do a big hit all-on-day-one launch to make a sustainable living.
The second thing is the ability for some players to pay more money than others. The free to play model is great at this, but it isn't the only way I think that this can happen.
We have the ability for someone to pay $1000 to become a "Diamond" supporter which gives someone the ability to design a unique item (with guidance from us for balance reasons). They do not get given a copy, it's an item that is now available for the entire player base and enriches the game by providing more content for the players.
This kind of piecemeal support for specific purposes is an interesting area that I think could grow in the future.
The overall message I guess is getting away from the need for a big launch then slump, and moving to something that grows and is sustainable for the long term.
In my own apps with virtual currency I could see this only in a small way as the incentive was low to spend a lot, so this is more based on the experiences I have heard from fellow devs.
Except that I bet you wouldn't. Most players when asked say they would prefer a "fair price, pay once" model. Yet in aggregate they act very differently. If that weren't true we wouldn't now have a market where:
1) Seemingly most people complain about F2P
2) F2P is increasingly the most successful model
I think the people annoyed by monetization efforts are a relatively tech savvy, vocal minority.
>> it often seems that the rest of the players (the 99%, if you wish), have their experience hampered by constant dangling of offers in front of you.
I don't think that's really the case. Again, vocal minority.
But let's say it is. Speaking as a game developer now, we don't have to present the same experience to every player. A "cheap" player may be nearly a lost cause for direct monetization but valuable for word of mouth. If they're not buying we can actually scale back on the amount of ads presented and instead gently persuade them to, say, post their high scores on Twitter. If you're the type of player that likes to brag, then a prompt with a pre-filled Twitter post won't annoy you at all. It's not hard to figure out which player is which and it's not hard to adapt in-game marketing efforts to suit that player.
Sure, there might be a few free to play games out there that break this mold, but I'm at a point in my life where money is expendable but time isn't. I'd much rather spend money up front to play a game that has a good chance at being designed for fun than waste time trying to find a diamond in the free to play rough.
I believe there will always be a place for paid games, but if the market shift towards free to play continues I'll have no problem giving up video games entirely. Will the 'AAA' free to play games like Hawken, Mech Warrior Online, or Planetside 2 be fun to play? Perhaps, but I'll never find out.
Personally I don't play many F2P games and am much more 'core than the center of the market as well. Probably 95% of my gaming time goes to console games and I prefer the biggest budget, most polished titles available (just finished my second character in Borderlands 2). And yes I pay for them up front (and have them delivered by messenger to my home the day they launch, which absolutely makes my day every couple of months).
But as someone trying to build a profitable games company it seems suicidal at this point to not at least attempt to make some form of F2P work with my other design goals. Does that mean I'm going to make shitty games? I don't plan on it. I can say that designing a compelling in-game economy (that can be monetized) is without a doubt the most challenging part of design for me.
You can do what Zynga has done and build games from their monetization outward, but I don't think that's the only way to do it. I hope to do a lot better and I'm sure other companies have or will as well. Don't forget that the F2P model that is now so reviled (by people like you) is relatively new (freemium is not of course) so I think it's a little premature to say that all F2P titles will suck, forever and ever.
I don't. I suspect the 'whales' aren't the 1% that Occupy Everything talk about (the richest 1%), but rather a mix of people who may be able to afford the addiction, but many that are not.
It's probably akin to dealing addictive drugs or promoting irresponsible gambling. It might be legal, but I think it's slightly predatory and on the grey side of ethics/morals/karma or whatever you like to think of as 'do good things, not bad' to others.
If someone can sell a $1000 handbag, why can't I spend $100 on my super-duper legendary Diablo 3 item? It's all artificial scarcity. People who spend money any kind of luxury consumer goods rarely get quality. My mechanical watch is worse at telling time than a quartz watch 1/1000th the price. I don't go to Zürich with a tent because of that.
While I understand and perhaps agree with your larger point, I have to disagree with this claim. LV stuff is expensive, yes, but the product is very good quality, and comes with what is essentially a lifetime warranty.
Yes, LV is several times the price it "should" be. Problem is that everything else is also several times the price it "should" be. In the larger context, I don't really think LV is particularly bad value, or that the sale price/actual cost multiplier is that much different.
And there is simply no such thing as a good handbag for $100, for pretty much any definition of "good" (substitute briefcase if you are male). To sell at $100, the manufacturing cost of a handbag would have to be maybe $10 or $20 max - whatever you think about LV you cannot possibly claim they cost only $10 to make.
$99.
Lifetime guarantee, no questions asked, return anytime.
Now it's not leather, but LL Bean and Jansport and REI do make long-lived quality bags.
The link you quote is to a tote, which is suitable for perhaps taking stuff to the beach. You will not find any professional women coming to the office with this bag, unless it's filled with gym gear or something.
So you pay 10x more for design credibility, rather than something that actually affects the quality or utility of the item?
The idea of a professional woman bringing a Jansport bag to the office is totally unthinkable.
Again, you are comparing the items on intangible benefits which are clearly little more than an emotional feeling telling you that brand A is inherently better than brand B (regardless of the actual item in question).
Promoting an item that is 10x more expensive than another based solely on intangible properties like it has design credibility or it's from an in-fasion brand and that using anything else is simply unthinkable is no better than having me pay 10x more on a game than the average player does.
I, for one, find telling me that I have to buy a certain brand or design that's currently in fashion because not doing so would be unthinkable or I would lack some kind of credibility or the items just don't compare (even though the items actual tangible properties are not even discussed) as exploitative when these items cost so much more than the tangibly-comparable items.
What do you mean by "should"? The products are supporting themselves in the market, so there is justification for that pricing.
As long as you're in your right mind.
It's when I start to think you're not in your right mind, or when the seller knows things about game theoretic implications of the arrangement that you don't understand (Penny Bids), that I take a dimmer view of things. And when there's compulsion or addiction, especially if it's introduced or reinforced by the seller, and the buyer doesn't really understand it . . .
Then it may not be illegal, but it's a dishonorable way to make your fortune.
Vs typical arcade games, where it's just more fun and a bit easier. But you can still have tons of fun without buying IAP. You can typically spend a couple bucks and use those items forever.
In the first example - you have to keep spending as long as you keep playing.
All forms of software development are fine, as long as the developers manage to have some form of sustained earnings from it, which is not so easy as many think.
I really love first world problems.
pjmlp stated "All forms of software development are fine, as long as the developers manage to have some form of sustained earnings from it, which is not so easy as many think." .. in which, in context, he likely meant that those who are inclined to look askance at closed-source companies should realize that there is much sustained value to be derived from such activities. Our community tends to frown on people who advocate the Jim Gray[1] closed-source perspective, so pjmlp was naturally inclined to be defensive.
icebraining was simply taking issue with the portion that reads "All forms of software development are fine, as long as the developers manage to have some form of sustained earnings from it" which, if taken literally, suggests that extreme cases like software that kills kittens is morally good as long as someone makes a buck from it. I am pretty sure that pjmlp did not mean it in exactly this way.
[1] http://www.infoworld.com/t/platforms/microsoft-exec-open-sou...
In many markets that require packaged software like the desktop, usually only closed source software offers a sustainable business.
In the end, if you are able to earn money with closed or open source software depends on the target market of your solution.
Let's change your argument:
Safe driving advocates should understand that safe driving only works with types of commuting paths are relatively short.
In many places where the commuting is rather long, usually only reckless driving offers a way to get to work.
In the end, if you are able to maintain a job by driving safely or recklessly depends on your commuting path.
Does this offer a valid argument for driving recklessly and putting other people in danger?
Of course, I know you find this ridiculous because you don't consider distributing closed source software to be wrong, therefore it's stupid to compare reckless driving to it. But if you're trying to appeal to the people who do find it wrong, that argument simply doesn't make sense.
It's not about being illogical. It's about attributing different values to different things. You may call it dogma if you want, but it's not different than any moral principle.
Maybe your morality is purely based on logic, and if so I'd be genuinely interested in knowing more about it. Or maybe you're amoral, I don't know. But most people have some core guidelines in which we base our decisions (and build logical moral codes upon) which can't be explained logically.
No.
>It's not about being illogical. It's about attributing different values to different things.
No, it's about extremism. Dogma. Closed source is the ultimate evil and will destroy the world! It's not practical. Really, why would absolutely everything need to be open source? The percent of people who actually read the source or actually change something based on it being open source is line noise. Practically speaking, there's little difference in the freedom because it's not exercised in most cases. And in the cases it would be, access to the source code can be (and is, very often) bought.
On the other hand, if your priority is to create a profitable entertainment product, and you'd like to capitalize on the enticement of a well-designed in-game purchasing system, then you should go all the way. If it's to succeed financially, the purchasing aspect of the game has to be the core in which all major design decisions are measured against. If you want to switch to a traditional single-sale system, you have to alter the game design in extreme ways.
Business models are not interchangeable within games, because a freemium system is inextricably tied to the game design.
As someone who hopes to see more games that are made first as a game, and second as a product, I'd like to say that a quality-first focus can carry your game to success, if you have the ability to execute. As long as you don't overextend yourself, like the blog post stated, you should be able to continue making hits if you can maintain quality in design and execution.
Am I misunderstanding the model here? Is the 'recurring' aspect supposed to be from players as a group--a certain percent converting on a monthly basis, without publicity events? Is what clearly looks like a 'purchase game' to me not intended as such? Will I sit down to play some evening only to find a warped experience that's grindy and lame without an infusion of coins? Or is all this talk of free to play really about fully functional trials--asking me for $4 after I'm sure I like the game rather than $1 on a hope? (Something which seems sensible, but I don't see how it would help with a boom/bust cycle.)
I really ought to switch my default association with coins in games from "game mechanic" to "real cash". The times, they are a' changin'.
Tiny nitpick; I think his characterisation of Minecraft is missing the cult aspect:
> (And before you say 'Minecraft', let's give it another decade. :-).
And immediately after:
> Imagine free-to-play games as practiced by a private company that makes games with long term retention for passionate players in a tightly knit community.
Now simply snip the very first part of the first sentence:
> > Imagine <snip> a private company that makes games with long term retention for passionate players in a tightly knit community.
.... that's Mojang, right?
Mojang has that with the "old model" of creating multiple titles for its community. He's predicting that Minecraft won't be played in a few years, and there's a good chance that their next games won't be as big of hits, therefore it their playing the 'game' of trying to create hits.
Wonder what the best example of longevity in a game that doesn't have an element of near constant play required to have the full experience would be?
My source is recollected keynotes I've listened to.
Not really. Mojang could and should do a lot more to leverage Minecraft. I get the impression that Notch unexpectedly wound up with a huge infusion of cash and didn't know what to do with it besides hire a few friends and make an MMO based on programming microchips, complete with its own assembly language.
The amount of torture they put the Minecraft Coder Pack guys through is atrocious. There is no reason why MC should not be "source available" with some creative licensing and host a Steam Workshop-esque mod management center, play Valve and take a cut of each purchase.
All the community has to go on is the Twitter accounts of Mojang's employees and /r/minecraft. Minecraft is awesome, but it's painful to think of the potential that's wasted there.
Timed energy: Check
Triple Town is free to play forever. Eventually, you will run out of moves, but they replenish for free if you wait a while, and you can also buy more moves with free coins that you earn in-game.
Incentivized ads in-game: Check (wrong for both the player and the advertiser)
Update: we've added a 2-minute mode that you can play free, forever, as much as you want, by watching advertisements in between play sessions.
This is the real price of the game:
If you want to eliminate the move counter altogether, there is a one-time fee for lifetime unlimited moves.
Sorry to be blunt, but make a game with real value - not a casual puzzle game with a limited move energy - and the players will buy it.
For some nice mobile packaged games see Avernum and Avadon, Silversword, Mission Europa or The World Ends With You and Ghost Trick.
Have you played Triple Town? You can argue about the ethics of how the developer is making money, but the gameplay is ridiculously solid. Casual or not, it's a genuinely good, original game with a reasonable amount of depth to it.
I can't believe Avernum is still around. I remember my friend playing it on his Mac when we were kids. And I heartily second your recommendation of The World Ends With You. Great game.
Hayday was the last one, and I carefully explained the extortionate business model before doing it. I enjoyed and appreciate Hayday but t'aint no way I'm going to get either of us into that open-ended financial sink.
If people were willing to spend $10 on mobile games -- which is still 80% less than what AAA titles on console and PC cost! -- the "hit-driven" model he describes would be much more tenable. But when everything has to cost 99 cents there's just no way for anything other than a truly massive, once-in-a-lifetime hit to be worth it financially.
They had hit games, made sequels and therefore had the power to push the market value back up again (even by some small increments) but instead they chose to sell for the smallest amount Apple allows again.
If they raise the prices, they'll sell fewer copies. Given that the number of downloads is the primary way to get exposure on the app store, free games have an edge over paid games, and cheap games have an edge over expensive games.
It's my belief that you'll sell more than 4x the copies at $1 than $4. This higher revenue coupled with the increased chance of exposure in the app store makes it a no-brainer.
That's a horrible thing to believe without testing. There are many experience reports of profit boosts when changing price from $1 to $3, for example.
In reading this my concern is almost exactly that of the author. I am interested in creating reasonable long-term revenue sources. They don't have to be hits, all they need to do is trickle in a reasonable level of income per month at a reasonably consistent rate. I'd be interested in hearing from others who have done this and their opinions on the best approaches to making this happen.
A single sale, whether its $1 or $50 means you have to keep making new things to make more sales, vs. a service where you get paid in microtransactions or subscriptions or both allows you to keep selling to existing customers. The LTV is probably higher per customer and it's cheaper because you don't have to keep advertising or advertise as much to get the next sale from an existing customer.
Yet it is quite different: It costs money once, and you get updates for free - and there's no in-game market of any sort, whereas the OP wants no money upfront and tries to get people to buy in-game stuff.
1 million - January 12th, 2011
2 million - April 25th, 2011
3 million - August 7th, 2011
4 million - November 7th, 2011
5 million - February 18th, 2012
6 million - not sure.
7 million - August 15th, 2012
8 million - November 14th, 2012
Source: http://gameblaster64.xandorus.com/sales-numbers Disclaimer: it's my site.
Second source: http://www.destructoid.com/minecraft-surpasses-one-million-s...
There there is - TF2 and Dota2, F2P model. Where you pay to buy cosmetic items, but it does not affect game play one bit.
In those games, you can play without spending real money, but it's going to suck and not be as fun. These are the types of games that have the most backlash because they just seem so "greedy".
In games like League of Legends and Angry Birds, you don't need to spend money to get the real game experience. You can still play just fine as a free player and spending money seems more like a bonus instead of a necessity.
In contrast to arcade games like Mega Jump, Jetpack Joyride and others. Where you can do pretty well with a couple IAPs that will last throughout majority of your time playing.
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.spryfox.tr...
Personally, I am turned off by games where your experience and success is influenced by how much real-world money you are willing to spend. Naturally, there are people for whom this is not an issue, and I'm sure it's extremely lucrative to target them. But I want to believe that there is room in the indy gaming market for both approaches.
If you charge up front some reasonable multiplier of the net present value of that average revenue per user, what is the difference if it's spread out over 10 years or immediate?
I guess my point with that is that as a user, I see free to play in general as being somewhat duplicitous. If it has a price tag on it, I can buy it or not. Even DLC, bad as it may be, has that sort of thing going on. But 'free to play' really means 'I won't tell you how much this will cost you up front'.
The bottom line is that your game has to be really good to make money, because there are so many games out there and many people want to make games, going so far as to spend large amounts of their free time doing it.
Competing with 'free labor' is hard to do. There's no silver bullet, and no business model magic will change that.
It's the same as being a rock star musician, or a professional athlete.
I adore Triple Town. It's the perfect combination of casual "pick up and play"-ness with meaningful and deep gameplay, layered with a fantastic visual aesthetic on top. It's one of the only F2P games I've happily spent real money on.
That being said, it doesn't strike me as an evergreen, "I want people to be active players for ten years" game. Its match-3 mechanic is fantastic, but once you get tired of it you stop playing. When it first came out a lot of my friends were spending hours a day on it for a solid week or two, but I don't know a single person who didn't essentially lose interest and completely give it up within a month.
Spry Fox is clearly trying to combat this fatigue by adding in new gameplay modes, but anecdotally that hasn't done anything to overcome the fundamental problem of people getting tired of the core mechanic. It's still a great game, and I still recommend it zealously to friends asking for iOS game recommendations, but I find it hard to believe that it'll be able to accumulate and sustain a highly-engaged userbase in the long term.
How is "free to play" design anything other than a lottery ticket of another kind? Sure, if you get a free-to-play hit, it's likely easier to quit your day job while resisting the siren call of "grow the company". (because the revenue doesn't all show up at once)
But what are the odds of having a free-to-play hit? What are the odds of keeping it going? Are they even as high as the odds of having a traditional game hit so big that its revenues could support a developer for several years? (if one judiciously sat on the up-front revenue and refused to grow the company)
And by using the broad term "free to play" he's casually conflating the worst of in-app practices ("pay to win", "pay for moves") with the defensible corners that just graft on-going revenue onto largely packaged games ("pay for digital hats", ad-supported gaming).
I've never played Triple Town. I don't know where it falls on the spectrum of "digital hats aren't hurting anyone" to "nice skinner box you've got there". But it seems to me these are very different things and the sins of the latter can't be excused by allusions to the harmlessness of the former.
And beyond all that: The hit-driven nature of game development is no different than in any other medium where people try to create for a living. "One Hit Wonders" are the vast majority of writers, musicians, artists, moviemakers -- even toymakers. Are all those industries "anti-creator" too?
And while free-to-play may not be anti-creator, it incentivizes the worst aspects of creation: stagnation, repetition, pandering, conditioning, etc. And while maybe that makes it easier to run a business, it looks anti-art to me.
Which is to say: in saying it enables developers to provide a lifestyle hobby for their players, it looks more to me like it's going to kill the hobby for everyone.
All that said, I am not against micro-transactions. I am against them when there is no other reasonable way to play the game though, or they are psychologically manipulative. I have probably spent a few hundred dollars on micro-transactions, and the experience left me feeling empty (not unlike a washed up drug addict)...which is why I refuse to buy any more games that use this method in an exploitive manner.
""" Triple Town is requesting permission to: View a list of people from your circles, ordered based on your interactions with them across Google """