

The Top Free-to-Play Monetization Tricks - adambratt
http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/RaminShokrizade/20130626/194933/?

======
Udo
These "techniques" are incredibly frustrating to discover for all the gamers
who are not likely to fall into these traps. Granted, those are the ones being
actively filtered out of the user base for the most part, be it through choice
of subject matter or game mechanics - but since these things have become so
widespread I became wary of trying out new games in the App Store in general.

The last time I made an in-app purchase was for Elder Sign: Omens, a very
simple game of chance that I like primarily because it reminds me so much of
the fun I had playing the Arkham Asylum board game. Anyway, they offer a
straight deal: a fixed sum (no intermediate currency) for additional content.
That's it and I feel comfortable and justified buying that even though it's
not a challenging or elaborate game.

I would never buy stuff if a game uses any of the shady tricks described in
the article, but what's really poisoning the pool for all game developers is
my increasing unwillingness to invest time into games that I don't already
know in order to avoid that sort of disappointment. So what they're really
doing is ruining it for everyone in the long run.

Maybe straight-up, no-tricks games should have a seal or something ;)

~~~
andyhmltn
That sounds more like DLC than pay to win. I'm totally okay with it in games.
There's a number of games (the most notable is GTA IV in my eyes) that have
DLC content that adds a LOT of extra time and fun to the game.

But it can be done wrong to. That's the reason I won't buy BF4. They are
intent on releasing DLC _before the game_. That's just shady and it doesn't
add anything to the game.

~~~
Justsignedup
This is done trickingly in recent games via DLC. The DLC will give some
"boosts" like an item that is a bit more powerful than anything you can get
early on. It won't tip the end-game but it will tip the early game. Just
better enough to make you spend an extra 5 bucks on your 60 dollar purchase.

------
andyhmltn
This whole 'pay-to-win' thing has made the free to play games go downhill in
quality so much in the app store. I don't download free games anymore because
I know the majority of them will bombard me with push notifications and
'incentives' to get me to cough up £19.99 for some magic keys.

Here's a novel idea: Charge me £4.99 for the game and let me play it. I _don
't mind_ paying for a decent quality game. I would rather pay for a game than
download a free one that's unplayable without a tonne of in app purchases.

~~~
RyanZAG
Unfortunately, most people do mind. That's why this stuff is so rampant. As
the article says, when it comes down to paying, people will see £4.99 listed
as a price and decide "nah, I have this other game I tried that I can still
pay". No sale. However if the price says 'free', people click the install
button and think "I'll give this a try later".

Basically, you are still in the minority, and most people do not shell out
£4.99 for a phone game. They do, however, shell out 5 crystals for an extra
rope so that they can "just beat this stage already"!

It's terrible and preys on human failings. The people who are most likely to
fall for this are the people who are least likely to be able to afford to pay
the rent. The free escape into a world where they can have positive
reinforcement from daily troubles is now giving them negative reinforcement
until they pay up. Capitalism is fairly cruel.

~~~
andyhmltn
It really is a shame and it's a symptom of the whole 'race to the bottom' that
goes on in the app store. In a way, I see _why_ people put these practices in
place. You can't charge over a certain amount (as you said) without bombing in
sales. In reality some of these games need a lot of work to get the out the
door. I'm aware of a few app store games that took months of a full studio's
time to release. Yet still, people see it's over £0.69 and say 'Nah, that
little game isn't worth it.'

~~~
socillion
It's because the app store is an extraordinarily poor discovery mechanism for
games if they aren't free - people won't pay for something they can't tell if
they will enjoy, and app stores simply don't provide enough information to
answer that question.

~~~
GFischer
The app stores are extremely poor discovery mechanisms, full stop.

I won't develop mobile software unless I know there's an alternate marketing
channel.

I do believe there's money to be made, but the way to reach people isn't
through the store.

------
bravura
What's interesting and gruesome about the "free-to-play" (F2P) game market is
this:

Game companies can extract the most money from players if they exploit
patterns of human dependence and addiction. An understanding of techniques for
creating addiction is---in fact---a competitive advantage.

~~~
dfsdfasgdsgasf
They're just like casinos in that respect. The worst part is that some people
are very vulnerable to these kinds of tactics, often the people who can least
afford it.

On the other hand, reinforcement learning requires systems of rewards -
meaning that the games do provide something that is intrinsically valuable to
the players (i.e. they must enjoy the game or they wouldn't get "addicted" to
it).

How could you clearly tell the difference between a game that has been
designed to maximise player enjoyment and a game that has been designed to
exploit human addiction? What kind of legislation could be used to protect
players? Personally I don't know, I think it's a fascinating subject though.

~~~
unsignedint
This makes casino look much better then...

With casinos, at least you can convert in-store purchase back to real
currency...

Not only you can't do that with in-app-purchase, it often won't survive game
uninstall/reinstall, let alone renewing to new device...

------
smackay
Required reading for anyone who has children and indeed for anyone making
purchases of any kind, anywhere.

The Behavioural economics page on Wikipedia,
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioural_economics](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioural_economics)
is a little dry but a good source of references. I can only claim to be
somewhat (vaguely) aware of the subject but having a good introduction from
TFA certainly kicked my critical thinking skills out of their complacency.

~~~
obiterdictum
On a related note, for anyone interested in this, I recommend reading
"Predictably Irrational" by Dan Ariely[1]. He does actual studies and
discusses a lot of these things (bias to loss aversion, change in behaviour
when 1-layer detached from cash) and more.

[1] [http://www.amazon.com/Predictably-Irrational-Revised-
Expande...](http://www.amazon.com/Predictably-Irrational-Revised-Expanded-
Edition/dp/0061353248)

------
noelwelsh
Interesting stuff. Everything there is straight out of basic behavioural
economics. One technique I didn't see mentioned is intermittent rewards.
Basically, if you are only rewarded some of the time for performing an action
you're more likely to repeat than if you're rewarded every time. See
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinforcement#Intermittent_rein...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinforcement#Intermittent_reinforcements)
It's the basic mechanism that drives grinding in games like WoW.

Now the big question is, how better games ("skill games") be monetised? Nobody
really wants to play manipulative games, but it's not clear to me how you can
effectively monetise free-to-play. Any ideas?

~~~
socillion
On OP's topic, another trick, used very effectively in League of Legends, is
to mismatch the cost of store items and the premium currency (in-game cash
equivalent). $15 buys 1500 credits, the intended purchase costs maybe 800 -
people are more likely to repeat purchase, exploiting the sunk cost fallacy.

Intermittent reinforcement is commonly exploited in the form of thinly
disguised gambling in games, it's a huge part of Valve's sales (crates) in
Dota 2 and Team Fortress 2.

A few common monetization strategies for skill games:

\- Selling shortcuts. Players don't really mind being given the options of
spending money or additional time in game, barring extremes. Indeed, if not
made available by the game vendor, this is often handled by 3rd parties - the
market for in game currencies is measured in billions of dollars per year.
These shortcuts to a goal can be seen in many games that merely sell
additional _options_ which have minimal effect on gameplay.

\- Cosmetics and other status items. Team Fortress 2 is a good example -
people will buy anything that makes them look different from everyone else in
multiplayer games.

\- Limited time products. Lots of games have started selling bundles (in
denominations like $50 and $200) to early adopters that let them distinguish
themselves from those who started playing later on or did not pay up. Path of
Exile and anything by Perfect World are examples.

Games without any multiplayer elements would likely find it hard to use these.

~~~
GFischer
League of Legends is an excellent example of a free-to-play game where
purchases don't seem manipulative.

IIRC, they've said that they make most of their money out of the cosmetic
aspect ("skins").

The other thing they do is to enable people to pay to get the new game
characters ("champions") faster than the free players (who have to "grind" to
get them, and carefully consider their purchases).

------
fhd2
The kind of techniques described in the article are horrible indeed.

But there's a good kind of F2P. There are games that you download for free,
which are essentially a demo. Once you finished that, you can buy the full
game via IAP, this is pretty brilliant from a player's perspective. It's a
shame that we use the same term for that.

I suppose the good thing about F2P in general is that it might just bring a
very important message across to the general public: There is no such thing as
a free lunch.

~~~
pja
Likewise IAP that don't affect gameplay seem to me to be a fairly innocuous
way to monetise your player base too, but they probably only work well in
multi-player games where they tap into people's desire for individuality and
display.

Valve has become a master at this of course, even if they did almost stumble
into it by accident when they starting making TF2 hats. They're going down the
same route with DOTA2 IIRC.

~~~
chii
Its unfortunate that it doesn't make enough money to just sell levels as their
IAP. The app store competition is very darwinian, and the "strongest" survives
- where strong means profit generating.

------
otikik
This is a great list of all the things I never want to have in any of the
games I work in. Otherwise I would feel as a slimy cheat.

------
danso
> _This is my favorite coercive monetization technique, because it is just so
> powerful. The technique involves giving the player some really huge reward,
> that makes them really happy, and then threatening to take it away if they
> do not spend. Research has shown that humans like getting rewards, but they
> hate losing what they already have much more than they value the same item
> as a reward._

Eechh...I would hate to play a game like this. It's not just the money factor,
but the feeling that I'm being extorted, and that paying is the only way to
succeed in the "life" inside this gameworld. This kind of decision would
immediately make me ask existential questions like, "Why do I care so much
about my status in this virtual world?" and then quit playing.

Then again, I'm someone who is a complete sucker for "Show your appreciation
by tipping the creator" type of pitches, maybe even giving more than I would
pay for the game's upfront price (in terms of dollars, for mobile games).
There's the "reward" of "I'm being such a good gamer, recognizing the hard
work of this developer"

~~~
rafd
I experimented with a pay-what-you-want model for a language learning game,
and it was always hugely motivating to see players choose to pay 4.99 instead
of 0.99. Financially, half of our income has come from players paying more
than they need.

On behalf of non-coercive indie game devs, thank you!

------
eieio
Some of the tricks in the article are unbelievable.

>At this point the user must choose to either spend about $1 or lose their
rewards, lose their stamina (which they could get back for another $1), and
lose their progress.

I can't imagine playing a game that threatened to take away my items if I
didn't give them money.

~~~
chii
its insidious...i would instantly stop playing as soon as i find out, no
matter how good the game is.

------
enobrev
I'm not a fan of these tactics at all as a developer or a consumer. The
simplest way I've found to avoid these games is to cross reference the "Top
Free" and "Highest Grossing" lists on the play store.

------
dschiptsov
Under-developed "rational" brain before 25 years of age is a funny meme. Most
readers should stop here.)

Difference in spending between cach and credit card attributed to "layering"
is another meme. Correlation is not causation. The effect is, probably, based
on the fact that there almost always bigger sum of money on the card than in
cash in a pocket, so, the loss seemed less significant.

As for monetization strategies, it seems that nothing can beat "status items"
(same as in so-called real life) such as "armors", "cloches" and all those
"things" one could display and compare with others.

But so many papers..)

~~~
tzs
> Under-developed "rational" brain before 25 years of age is a funny meme.

What's funny about it? It seems to be backed by science [1] [2].

[1]
[http://hrweb.mit.edu/worklife/youngadult/brain.html](http://hrweb.mit.edu/worklife/youngadult/brain.html)

[2]
[http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1411647...](http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=141164708)

~~~
dschiptsov
Because one cannot reliable test such assumptions due to multiple very
different factors in play (multiple causation). "Prefrontal cortex as the seat
of rational brain" is just a meme - a huge over-simplification, as rationality
itself.

It is more sane to talk about control of emotions - ability of an activity in
one region of the brain interfere with, or tame other activity in a different
region, which requires "training" of appropriate "networks" via repeated
exposure to certain behavioral patterns (experience). This could be attributed
to ageing, that adults just had more practice of self-control, but it will be
just another meme, because each process of maturation is unique, due to almost
intractable number of factors involved.

Even cross-culturally, my beat is that if some could compare group of "typical
US students" with a group of Asian "Buddhist monks" of the same age, there
will be significant differences in prefrontal cortex activities.)

Read some Marvin Minsky for great good.)

------
chii
wow, there's some really subtly evil techniques in there...and yet, these
techniques are netting the business owner millions in revenue.

I really wish its possible to earn similar revuenu, but with "clean" tactics
(i.e., making a really fun game that also has artistic value). Unfortunately,
it seems reality isn't so.

~~~
belandrew
Minecraft made $240 million in 2012 and did nothing besides provide good
gameplay with regular updates.

Evil tactics like these are not needed.

