
The top free-to-play monetization tricks - wayprogramming
http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/RaminShokrizade/20130626/194933/The_Top_F2P_Monetization_Tricks.php
======
JonFish85
This is disgusting to me. I'll give you that there's a fine line between pain
& pleasure in a game (it takes some pain to feel the pleasure), but this just
feels dirty. I've said it before: it reminds me of an abusive relationship.

It starts off great: treat the girlfriend well, give her flowers, treat her
like a queen. As time goes by, slowly needle away at her confidence, until she
feels dependent on you. Do this so slowly that she doesn't even realize what
you're doing. Eventually she is essentially dependent on you, and even if you
treat her like garbage, she keeps coming back for more. In fact, she even
blames herself for things going wrong.

It's terrible. I refuse to play games that do this. I get that they're
incredibly successful, and rake in tons of money, but this is not something I
want any part of.

~~~
dwd
Your relationship example is more about dependency or addiction which you see
in game reward techniques to keep players leveling up. Standard fare where
there's a subscription model.

This is the other side; more fraudulent than evil. He summed it up in the
first paragraph; make it so the player has insufficient information to make an
informed [investment] decision.

------
binarymax
From Wayne's World (1992):

    
    
    		Kids know dick.
    		I watch 'em in my arcades.
    
    
    		They stand like lab rats hitting
    		the feeder bar to get food pellets.
    
    
    		As long as they pump in quarters,
    		who gives a shit?
    
    
    		Let me ask you.
    
    
    		What's your single biggest problem
    		in the arcade business?
    
    
    		Well, uh, keeping the customer
    		informed of new product.
    
    
    		Like our new game called Zantar.
    
    
    		Zantar is a gelatinous cube
    		that eats warriors in a village.
    
    
    		If you eat a chieftain,
    		you go up a level.
    
    
    		Beauty is, you can't
    		get to the next level,
    
    
    		kids keep coughing up quarters.
    
    
    		Gelatinous cube eats village.
    		It's terrific.

~~~
dwd
Reminds me of playing games like R-Type in the arcade as a kid. When you died
you had about 5 seconds to decide whether to continue or not.

Continuing was always the wrong choice as you would find yourself on the hard
level with level 1 weaponry.

------
Mithaldu
There is one verbal thing that i don't see people do in these types of
discussions. Nobody ever boils it down to the very simple fact, this being:

    
    
        Some games are built to sell the player cheats.
    

I do not know if this is because many people discussing this aren't old enough
to remember magazines with cheat code sections, or a few years later, the time
spent on websites accumulating collections of cheat codes and easter eggs.

Once upon a time things were build into the game to ease testing, or allow
players to dick around in the game if they didn't feel like hunting after
extra lives, usually used after the game was beaten.

Nowadays some games put these into a New Game + mode, or make them unlockable
with achievements.

Other games, especially in the mobile realm however make games that can't be
completed sicne they are playable ad infinitum, but are designed so the
tediousness ratchets up over time. And then they employ the master stroke:

    
    
       They sell the player one-time cheat codes.

~~~
Tohhou
Or in other words:

>Games are built to make players feel powerful. Players understand that money
is as much a currency as their time is, and some would rather trade their
money to feel powerful than spend their time to build up to feeling powerful.

~~~
eterm
But what if the game knows if you buy the cheats, and it makes you feel more
powerful in the short term before hobbling you extra hard in the medium term
so you buy more cheats?

So that you buy a token to increase your power but the transaction actually
decreases your power, but is cleverly disguised so you don't realise?

The weaker you get, the more "power-ups" you buy, which only makes you weaker
and more dependent on power ups.

That's what is particularly evil about some of these mechanisms.

~~~
Tohhou
If you spend $60 on a AAA game which makes you feel powerful is it less evil
than spending once $2 in a F2P game which also makes you feel equally
powerful? Is it only more evil once the user has spent more than $60 to feel
powerful, or is it only the fact that the user can spend a little at a time to
feel powerful that makes it evil compared to the one off $60 purchase?

~~~
TeMPOraL
Do you see that the problem is with people who _deliberately use state of the
art manipulation methods_ , backed by tons of cognitive science research, to
milk people for their cash?

There's selling, and then there's just stealing from people. Many F2P border
on the second one.

~~~
dllthomas
So if I'm a gifted salesman who's hit upon those methods by chance and paying
attention, that's fine, as long as there's no Science?

~~~
TeMPOraL
This is irrelevant.

It's fine if you use Science as long as you sell me something of real value,
so the transaction is win-win for both of us. It's not fine if you trick me
into buying things that have little or no value for me. Also, if you had
something valuable to sell, you wouldn't need manipulation tricks.

~~~
dllthomas
It's not a devastating rebuttal to everything you were saying, but it is
highly relavent as a pompt for you to clarify your point - which this is a
good start at. I don't think we're quite to somewhere cogent, though; real
value is subjective, so I'm not sure exactly how we draw that line -
particularly when it comes to entertainment. If a salesman convinces me to buy
the pricier golf clubs, maybe I will have a "better" experience out playing
golf, but under what conditions is that "real value" when I would have had fun
and got exercise either way?

------
DanBC
I was reading a review of a game. The game was a clearly labelled demo, and
had a single IAP to unlock the full game. The reviewer called this unsavoury.

That's a great shame because it means people offering demos with honestly
priced games are called unsavoury and people offering these scummy
monetization tricks get more money and cash.

~~~
Mithaldu
I don't see that in the article at all. At what point does he decry the
shareware model as abusive in that article?

~~~
DanBC
He doesn't. I don't think it is. Here's a review where they call a demo
version with paid upgrade to the full version with no other IAPs "tacky".

[http://www.pocketgamer.co.uk/r/iPhone/Glyph+Quest/review.asp...](http://www.pocketgamer.co.uk/r/iPhone/Glyph+Quest/review.asp?c=57026)

~~~
Mithaldu
Ah, i didn't realize that you were referring to a completely different
article. I read that one and have to say i think you're not seeing the subtle
differentiation he is making. He is not against shareware altogether.

He's slightly annoyed that the game doesn't outright explain that it's a
shareware/demo/whatever, which is a reasonable complaint when you keep in mind
that many other games do this by having their demos labeled "Lite" or similar.

------
whichdan
I've been playing Puzzle and Dragons for about 7 months, and have probably
spent the equivalent of a $15/mo subscription over that period of time. The
mechanics to make you pay absolutely feel contrived and scummy; the game
strongly limits how much you can play in a given time period (stamina), and
playing more than that requires the equivalent of $1. Dungeons also have
strange difficulty levels, where the boss is _significantly_ more challenging
than the levels leading to it, so after you've invested the time to get there,
you have the choice of "paying" $1 each time you are about to lose, or leaving
the dungeon and potentially having to "pay" $1 to play more -- especially
since the harder dungeons eat up a larger portion of your stamina. The worst,
though, is that obtaining better monsters requires a slot-machine style
gamble, and each try costs around $5. There's such a high chance of getting a
mediocre monster instead, that there's actually a term called "Gung-trolled."

That said, the game is very well designed and a lot of fun, and lends itself
well to being played during a short commute. There are a subset of players who
make a lot of progress without any in-app purchases, but the game constantly
makes you question what's worth more: your time, or $1.

Personally, I would be happier with a $5-10/mo subscription fee, but instead
I'm left with a twinge of guilt every time I make an in-app purchase.

~~~
adwf
I've often thought that F2P games should be strictly regulated like gambling
is. No one questions the 18+ law on fruit machines in the UK, but we allow a
roulette style IAP for a F2P game with no regulation?

The worst part is, if you sent kids into a casino, there's at least a chance
they'd make their money back!

We regulate gambling because its effects are insidious and the addiction
devastating. It can destroy lives. How is "coercive monetisation" in F2P games
any different, other than the fact that it's a relatively new phenomenon?

~~~
whichdan
What sort of regulation are you envisioning?

~~~
adwf
I'd probably suggest some sort of restriction on IAP amounts. Under-16s in the
UK can play fruit machines, but only upto a £5 jackpot before it gets
classified as adult gambling where serious amounts of money can be lost. This
is on the assumption that people won't bother putting more than £5 in, as they
know that they won't make a profit. This assumption doesn't hold in the IAP-
world as the "profit" for the player is ostensibly, having a fun time.
Although as the article shows, in reality a lot of these game monetisation
tactics are really about players paying to remove an artificially enforced
_pain_ on the player, rather than to increase the fun.

So maybe just a hard limit on _total_ IAP purchases for each game targeted at
under-16s.

Also, the same restrictions that apply to gambling advertising should apply to
F2P/IAP games, for the exact same reasons.

The trickiest part about it would be defining what _is_ an acceptable game vs.
an unacceptable game for the purposes of regulation. When does an acceptable
F2P game like Team Fortress 2 become an unacceptable game like Candy Crush
Saga? Maybe there are some people out there who think TF2 is completely
unacceptable too.

I'm not saying it isn't difficult, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.
In my mind I see both gambling and these F2P "money" games occupying the exact
same ethical arena.

EDIT: The hard cap on IAP purchases for under-16s doesn't even need to be all
that low, it just needs to exist _at all_. Placing it at £30 would limit the
potential damage done to the child, whilst also being relatively fair to the
game company as it's roughly the same price as a game bought off the shelf.

------
aaronetz
God, this is devious. While reading it I was thinking, "where does the sarcasm
part end?" but it never did. I mean, as an aspiring indy dev I can understand
the need to make a living, but this is in the same league with casino money. I
really hope this is just a phase, and people would collectively understand
that these games are designed to take your money, and that they're not worth
it.

~~~
leephillips
This is the voice of a high-functioning sociopath. It's shocking because we
usually don't hear these things spoken out loud, although by now it's pretty
well known, or at least widely suspected, that the top management of many of
the most successful corporations are largely sociopathic.

Look hard at the advertising and sales techniques that we are awash in: this
is the style of thinking that animates them. Why does a car commercial have
music? To trick the brain into making a major financial decision based on
emotion, bypassing the rational process. Good for Toyota, bad for you.

One of Steve Jobs' proudest moments, in one of his last keynotes, was
announcing an alliance with Zynga. This is the man who spoke derisively of
others' "taste".

~~~
ericdykstra
At the end of the article, in the first comment, he says:

"Note that as a rule I do not publish my F2P monetization models. In this
case, I am publishing the methods used by others to make money games, and
since I only make skill games, I'm not creating any competition for myself.
While the information I have provided here should lower the barrier to entry
for commercially effective money games, I hope the discussion will lead some
of you to consider making skill games instead."

~~~
leephillips
I know. Please read the reply to hatu I left 15 minutes before your comment.
In case it's still not clear: "this is the voice" means the author is letting
us hear this voice, not that he personally is one of them

------
300bps
_King.com was generous enough to point out that their target demographic for
CCS is middle aged women. 80% of their players are women, only 34% of their
players are under the age of 30, and only 9% are under the age of 21._

The crux of the article is that people under 25 are particularly susceptible
to tricks used to get people to pay for in-game items. To refute that, King
would have to say something along the lines of, "x% of our revenue comes from
middle aged women". To say, "x% of our players are middle aged women" doesn't
at all address the point brought up in the article.

For example, it could be possible that only 34% of CCS players are under 30
but still be responsible for 90% of CCS revenue.

~~~
cowpig
I think this comment, and the article's assertion about age ranges, show that
neither you nor the author know any middle aged women addicted to candy crush.

~~~
bsder
Yeah, I seem to remember that Zynga targeted bored, middle-aged housewives
from the midwest more than anybody else.

18-25 year olds have probably moved on from Candy Crush. Once they hit the
wall, they probably just throw it away for something new.

------
bpm140
I've long thought that this boils down to trust.

The strong reaction against IAP from many people (including me) comes from
counter-aligned goals between the designer and the player in games with IAPs.

In a traditional game, I trust that the designer wants me to finish the game
and if I'm stuck, I just need to play a little more or retrace my steps and
look for the correct method of continuation.

With IAP-based games, when I'm stuck, I don't know if additional effort is
going to be helpful or if I just need to pay the bribe to continue. As a
result, I feel like I'm being coerced any time I have difficulty with the
game.

The enjoyable tension of well-designed traditional game becomes a constant
feeling of coercion to spend more money. It's just not fun.

------
Jare
As background for some of the techniques used in F2P, there's a classic
reference on behavioral psychology applied to games from 2001, way before the
whole F2P phenomenon:
[http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/3085/behavioral_game_d...](http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/3085/behavioral_game_design.php)

------
nlh
The only redeeming thing I can find in all of this is that _some_ game makers
actually have a semblance of morals and provide what I call a decent (in both
senses of the word) F2P experience.

NimbleBit is (or at least was when I played) one of those studios. I played
(and LOVED) Tiny Tower a few years ago. I'd say that game gave me a solid 6
months of casual gaming enjoyment.

It was, in my view, a perfectly fair F2P experience -- you could play the
entire game casually - and get to the end - without ever spending a penny. It
took a bit longer, sure, but it never got to the point of absurdity. You'd
play a bit and know that a new level would be ready in a few days, but there
was plenty to do in the meantime.

You could buy Towerbux, though, if you were impatient. They never crossed the
line -- it was truly targeted at the impatient. Towerbux could be earned, but
that took time, and spending real money was simply something for those that
wanted instant gratification.

I think that's a perfectly fair division of players -- almost like sin
punishing sin ;) Those that have patience could enjoy the game for free. Those
that lacked it could get a quick fix with some real $.

I spent a total of $20 on the game eventually - partially because I too wanted
a bit of a speedup, but mostly because I felt so good about the developer's
genuineness that I wanted to reward them with some revenue.

~~~
sorahn
HalfBrick studios did this with Jetpack Joyride.

Everything could be done with what was there in game, but if you wanted to do
it faster, you could pay. Thats it.

------
mdorazio
This is both fascinating and disturbing at the same time. I think many game
developers (myself included) struggle with monetization in a market that
largely demands F2P games. Using tricks like these is a constant temptation
and it's important to see how devious these methods are in their manipulation
of gamers. Kudos to Ramin for writing such an informative summary.

------
JeffL
The thing that I find so disturbing about all this is that it does away with
the notion of providing value for value. These game companies are not trying
to make the best game possible for their customers, they are trying to
manipulate and deceive their customers.

~~~
Jare
How do you reconcile earning money with giving them "the best game possible"
for free? Donationware never worked, so you _have_ to hold something back from
them that you monetize. And you have to make sure that thing is desirable.

Of course some developers are going to be gross when doing that, but it is
absurd to extrapolate that all F2P games are manipulative and deceiving. If
even in the most visible, sophisticated and successful examples of the genre,
a huge percentage of people are playing for months without paying a dime, you
can't honestly say that the primary element that defines the game is
"deceiving and manipulative".

No matter how much technique is put into the monetization design of a game,
NOBODY is going to pay if they are not having a good time and being
entertained.

------
wayprogramming
Reminiscent of Machiavelli's 'The Prince'.

------
jal278
Perhaps a disclaimer on F2P games might help:

"Knowledge of the presence of persuasive mechanisms in a technology may
sensitize users to them and decrease their efficacy. Therefore, in some cases,
such knowledge might diminish the effectiveness of a generally positive
persuasion. This reasoning led us to our design principle: The creators of a
persuasive technology should disclose their motivations, methods, and intended
outcomes, except when such disclosure would significantly undermine an
otherwise ethical goal." [1]

I like the idea of transparency into a company's motivations beyond corporate
doublespeak, although not sure how one can enforce transparency.

[1] Toward an Ethics of Persuasive Technology. Berdichevsky, D. and
Neuenschwander, E., 1999.

------
r00fus
I avoid F2P games just like

I just wish Apple would give me a way to bypass all F2P games in the App Store
search (not all IAP games are F2P, e.g.: Carcassonne). Right now, I have to
click through and see if any IAP has a "coin" feel to it, and if so, I simply
ignore the game.

------
sanoli
Wow, this made me feel really naive. I know game developers want to make cool
games _and_ make good money doing it, but I didn't know about the devs who
didn't care about the former. Again, I guess I'm just naive/unaware about this
scene.

------
wnevets
Casinos have known for decades on how to get people to pay for flashing lights
and loud sounds with slot machines. These "games" are taking the same
principles and going further with them.

------
brianbreslin
This article would have been way better with visuals for each example.

~~~
DanBC
"You've read the fun introduction! Wait X minutes, or pay 1 article-gem to
continue reading now?"

------
brownbat
It's weird to me how many free (just as in beer) tools and games I have
installed on my PC over the last couple decades when everything in app stores
seems monetized.

What happened?

------
hiphopyo
If one runs AdSense on ones site, are ads for these type of games likely to
appear if Google knows the user has been making game-related search queries?

------
remon
"As mentioned in my paper 'How to mention my own papers as often as possible
in a single article'..."

~~~
mjn
The cited papers _do_ seem a bit narrowly authored...

Here's a paper by different authors I found interesting, "Dark Patterns in the
Design of Games",
[http://www.fdg2013.org/program/papers/paper06_zagal_etal.pdf](http://www.fdg2013.org/program/papers/paper06_zagal_etal.pdf)

