
"Why don't you sell Triple Town for 99 cents and make tons of money?" - mmastrac
https://plus.google.com/105363132599081141035/posts/Lce7wEJApEr
======
nicpottier
This is a pretty good take on what being a small indie dev is like. I've been
through that exact cycle, of building a portfolio of games, having some big
hits fund growing the company, then taking on bigger projects before the
inevitable collapse. In our case that collapse actually came from our primary
platform disappearing (thank MS for buying Danger) and our failure to pivot
well enough into the new hyper competitive iOS market.

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.

~~~
moultano
This is a really interesting story:
[http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/11/03/how-natural-
selec...](http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/11/03/how-natural-
selection-2-was-saved-and-made-by-fans/)

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.

~~~
TeMPOraL
Site doesn't work right now, but has an awesome 503 error, powered by [0].

    
    
        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.
    
        >
    
    

[0] - <https://code.google.com/p/parchment/>

~~~
robert-boehnke
You can play it here: <http://error.rockpapershotgun.com/>

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.

~~~
afterburner
Ha, nice. Try talking to all four guys.

------
Dove
I'm not so sure. As a player, I was initially excited about free-to-play
games. I viewed them as a rebirth of shareware, a try-before-you-buy sort of
thing. But having played a few, and having had a few games I bought go that
direction, I'm not nearly so enthusiastic now. They almost always suck, or
turn out to suck after they add in-game purchases. Even the games I would have
held up as shining examples of "doing it right" sucked six months later.

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.

~~~
gnufied
> I mean, remember when they introduced hats in TF2? Said they'd never, never,
> never affect gameplay? We know how that went.

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?

~~~
ansible
_So I am very curious with TF2 hats affecting game play._

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.

~~~
natesm
Well, when TF2 came out, it was laser focused. Every class had a role, and was
strong and weak against certain other classes. So now, you throw a bunch of
new items, and it loses that. The sniper is weak to spies, that's how it's
supposed to be. So then the sniper gets given a shield that makes spies unable
to stab him, and a jar that he can throw on the ground and reveal them.
Engineers were weak to snipers, but now they can take control of their
sentries and manually shoot things outside of the normal range. So the end
result is that everything ends up becoming pretty okay against everything. I
haven't played the game for a long time so I don't remember everything.

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.

~~~
ansible
_Well, when TF2 came out, it was laser focused. [...] The 9 classes were
designed to be recognizable from their silhouettes alone, which is pretty
brilliant._

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.

~~~
lelandbatey
As someone who has played 1000+ hours of TF2, I do agree that this is
dissapointing. Some items have changed silhouettes, and that can hurt
gameplay.

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.

------
Negitivefrags
I don't think that free to play is necessarily the answer. And I say this as a
developer of a free to play game.

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.

~~~
notintokyo
Big spenders or "whales" are much ignored when considering how to make money
with a game. There really are people out there that are willing to spend
thousands a month on a social game. You could even think that all the other
players merely exist in the game to entertain that small slice that really
brings in the money.

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.

~~~
ripperdoc
I believe it has been widely recognized that Zynga, GREE, etc earn most of
their revenues from "whales". And I think it's an ok practice. But in order to
get the money from the whales, 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. As a player, I'd rather pay a small sum once to avoid
the virtual currency - and find other ways to create whales (e.g., as
suggested, more like content creation, sponsoring and some vanity items).

~~~
panacea
>And I think it's an ok practice.

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.

~~~
Erwin
Do you similarly oppose all luxury brands? There's no quality difference
between a $5000 LV handbag and a good $100 one exception fashion, trends and
branding. Once you get past about €100/bottle, quality of wine making process
rarely increases, it's all just hype.

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.

~~~
venus
> There's no quality difference between a $5000 LV handbag and a good $100 one
> exception fashion, trends and branding

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.

~~~
trhtrsh
[http://www.llbean.com/llb/shop/73142?feat=504163-CL2&pag...](http://www.llbean.com/llb/shop/73142?feat=504163-CL2&page=women-
s-microlight-tote-bag)

$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.

~~~
venus
I don't want to sound like an asshole but the brands you mention are all "deep
budget" brands and have no design credibility whatsoever. The idea of a
professional woman bringing a Jansport bag to the office is totally
unthinkable. They are not even remotely comparable to an LV handbag.

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.

~~~
dkersten
_have no design credibility whatsoever_

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.

------
ghshephard
This article has to be one of the most honest, rational, and clear eyed review
of what it takes to be successful, long term (10+ years), as an independent
game developer. While 4-6% of the talented game developers might be able to be
successful playing the hit-game increasingly backloaded with more expensive
collateral, the other 95%+ would be well advised to read Daniel Cook's
article. And then read it again.

~~~
sounds
I only wish entrepreneurs doing any social/mobile/web app would read it. (I
think the lesson, evaluating different sources of income, applies to more than
games.)

~~~
pjmlp
The ones that think about how closed source software is evil should read it as
well.

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.

~~~
icebraining
So it pays a salary, therefore it's moral? Seems a terrible argument to me.

~~~
pjmlp
So now closed source software is immoral?

I really love first world problems.

~~~
icebraining
That's irrelevant to the quality of your argument.

~~~
thetrumanshow
I think I can be of service here...

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...](http://www.infoworld.com/t/platforms/microsoft-exec-open-source-model-
endangers-software-economy-582)

~~~
pjmlp
My point is that open source software usually only works with types of
solutions where you can build consulting services with, or force the clients
to use some kind of software as service.

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.

~~~
icebraining
What I think you don't understand is that such considerations are irrelevant
to someone who considers the distribution of closed source software to be
wrong.

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.

~~~
flyinRyan
So what you're saying is that it's pointless to argue with such people because
they're not arguing logic but rather dogma? I agree.

~~~
icebraining
Would you support slavery if I showed you that it's much more efficient than
paying people?

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.

~~~
flyinRyan
>Would you support slavery if I showed you that it's much more efficient than
paying people?

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.

------
lifeformed
The business model should fit the design of the game, not the other way
around. If you try to force a freemium model into a traditional game, you
cheapen the whole thing. The quality of your game design should be your
selling point, not cheap in-game nags and enticements. It's like if Apple
subsidized MacBooks with on-screen advertising. Sure, it could make a buck,
but if your core vision is a quality product experience, this goes totally
against that, and it defines your brand into something you may not have hoped
for.

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.

------
Dove
I checked out Triple Town, curious what sort of game someone looking for both
strong ties with players and recurring revenue would produce. What I found was
a game with a single $4 purchase that unlocked everything. That definitely
suits me as a player, but I don't see how it constitutes recurring revenue. It
looks and feels like an option to just buy the game. If it turns out not to
be, I'll feel betrayed.

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.)

~~~
smackfu
I'm not super familiar with the game either, but since you can buy $5 worth of
coins, I doubt the $4 actually unlocks everything.

~~~
Dove
Oh! I completely missed that you can buy coins.

I really ought to switch my default association with coins in games from "game
mechanic" to "real cash". The times, they are a' changin'.

------
willvarfar
Lovely, insightful article.

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?

~~~
cookiecaper
>.... that's Mojang, right?

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.

~~~
bculkin2442
As a involved member of the Minecraft community. I can tell you that there is
work being done on a Minecraft API, but I have no clue on a ETA. Also, I don't
think they really have any plans on how to monetize things.

------
Revisor
Let's have a look at the immoral gameplay checklist:

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.

~~~
jamesgeck0
"Sorry to be blunt, but make a game with real value - not a casual puzzle game
with a limited move energy..."

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.

------
pom
His points are well taken, but as I player I refuse to participate in this
business model. On the other, I _would_ buy this game for more than one
dollar, because it looks like it's worth more than that. Too bad.

~~~
cageface
My objection to this model is that the way it's usually implemented means that
I can circumvent any challenge in the game by spending more money. This
completely upends the effort/reward equation for the game and makes me feel
like I'm just a monkey playing a slot machine.

~~~
dmboyd
It really hinges on whether the game is a discrete artwork, kind of like a
book or a movie, noone wants to have to pay to see the ending(pay $10 to
defeat the boss), or whether it is a developing story and the Pay to play
choices are analogous to something which makes sense, i.e. pay your taxes or
else you become an enemy of Captain Hector.

------
smacktoward
I don't work in the mobile-games space myself, but it feels to me like the
real problem here is the massive collapse in accepted prices that market has
seen.

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.

~~~
89a
Blame Rovio, Tiny Wings and Whoever makes Wheres My Water etc.

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.

~~~
MiguelHudnandez
No publisher singlehandedly has the power to push prices up.

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.

~~~
trhtrsh
> It's my belief that you'll sell more than 4x the copies at $1 than $4.

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.

------
robomartin
I find this discussion very interesting. I have been working on a series of
educational apps (game-ish) for children, mostly for iOS now. I can't bring
myself to place ads on these apps or otherwise monetize other than simply
selling them for a fixed price. One approach I have taken is to have some of
the apps available for free while the others are not. The theory being that
the free apps might drive customers towards the paid apps. Too early to tell
if this is a good strategy.

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.

------
programminggeek
This dev is 100% right. Games as a service are probably a more sustainable way
to go than a $1 sale and you're done. Most great businesses survive on repeat
business - Apple customers tend to buy multiple iphones, ipods, ipads, and
macs. Microsoft customers tend to buy multiple PCs or copies of Windows and
Office. Google customers tend to keep buying ads and users tend to keep
clicking them.

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.

------
aristidb
Too bad he only mentions Minecraft in passing, because in some ways I think it
tries to learn from the same problems: It tries to stay fresh to be able to
attract new buyers, and it's so open-ended that it has a lot of replay value.
So it still sells quite handily (the speed seems to have slowed down somewhat,
but a few days ago, it was announced that they had sold 8 million copies for
PC - and that doesn't count the millions of XBox 360 copies at all).

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.

~~~
mcherm
But he DOES mention Minecraft, by saying to see what it's like in a decade.
Now, if there were 10 examples like Minecraft, then I don't think he could
dismiss it so freely. But with a single exception... it is reasonable to
consider it an outlier.

------
pcl
So... what's the business model? Do his games have ads in them? Upsells?
Something else? "Free-to-play" doesn't sound like a compelling long-term
standalone strategy, given my (non-gamer) assumptions about that term.

~~~
ido
F2P means you don't pay upfront for the entire game but instead pay for in-app
purchases (items for your character etc).

~~~
kunaalarya
Exactly. Check out Jetpack Joyride on iOS or Android to get an idea of what
the business model looks like.

~~~
gnufied
There are really two types of F2P models (possibly more). One where by paying
you can actually unlock things that affects game play. For example, League of
Legends. You can pay to unlock champions and that obviously affects your
gameplay. Or, Eagles in Angry bird. You can use an Eagle to get over a
difficult level.

There there is - TF2 and Dota2, F2P model. Where you pay to buy cosmetic
items, but it does not affect game play one bit.

~~~
socialist_coder
I would say a 3rd type are games like Dead Trigger and most of the "-Ville"
type clones.

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.

------
fishtoaster
To nitpick just a little, didn't Blizzard have significant success producing
packaged hits for over a decade before WoW?

~~~
namdnay
Yeah, and he seems to ignore Id Software too

~~~
trin_
didnt Id make most of their money with the licensing of their engines (id tech
1-5)?

~~~
allenp
Interesting question. According to this site:
<http://doom.wikia.com/wiki/Sales> between 1993-1999 Doom and Doom II sold a
combined 4 million units (gross over $120 million worldwide). Not sure what
they made from licensing.

------
jaggederest
At some level you have an average revenue per user.

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.

------
greatscott22
There is a lecture about Triple Town's monetization model that is available
online, where they discuss what they did wrong with Triple Town and what they
learned from it: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UH0-9url3KY>

------
lazerwalker
Everything he says is spot-on, but what's unfortunate is I'm not sure how
applicable it is to Triple Town.

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.

------
mindstab
I was interested he didn’t point out that having a hit free game != having a
hit paid game and the conversion rate form free players to paid is like
catastrophically small. additionally free games spread via word of mouth way
more virulently because they are free, everyone can try. to spread a paid game
you need EACH damn person to pay for it, the word of mouth won't even spread
as far. I think anyone who even thinks a 1% conversion rate of fans is insane
based on no data. Based on data I'd bet its much much less than 1%. Which is
why most paid games have to drop a metric fuck ton of $ on advertising.
Building sized 10 storey starcraft 2 poster ads aren't free nor are super bowl
tv slots for WoW ads. Same for books and media which is how we then end up in
the publisher model system. Publishers front a ludicrous amount of money and
pump ass loads into advertising to get the word out. That replaces all the
free word of mouth and at least the idea of the game reaches a more optimal
maximal audience. Still small conversion but yeah.

------
roc
This sounds like a slight-of-hand argument.

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.

------
gavanwoolery
You can make a good living off of fixed price games - micro-transactions have
only become popular in the past 5 years or so (at least in the US). The game
industry was very profitable long before micro-transactions. Does not matter
if you are doing mobile, PC, etc. You probably will not make _as much_ money,
but you at least can feel guilt-free about your work (if micro-transactions do
make you feel guilty). Many fixed-price games have made millions of dollars on
mobile (for games that cost a few hundred thousand to produce, at most).

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.

------
anigbrowl
On a wholly irrelevant side note, Daniel Cook looks like my identical twin. I
didn't make the connection with Triple Town and got a nasty fright when I
clicked on the link.

------
mvzink
I'm surprised Guild Wars (especially 2) hasn't been brought up. I don't know
about a game like Triple Town, but ArenaNet's sort of hybrid model seems
promising: up front fee for a great, complete game, and more opportunities
with the "coin model" (gems). They also have e-sports going for them, which is
one of many things that encourages the long term relationship that Daniel
mentions.

------
djandrew
Most of the games I make are free to play and have a resource that can be
earned as well as paid for. This allows the player to buy time. Time that
would have been spent earning the resource. So, if you are a patient player
you can play free with ads, if not, buy some of the resource, and I'll remove
the ads. This model has worked very well.

------
gokhan
For a well thought free-to-play model generating tons of money, I would
nominate World of Tanks, a MMO PC game.

------
logn
Well, I wanted to try Triple Town, but on facebook I see this: "This app may
post on my behalf, including your high scores and more." Sorry, that's not
something I'm willing to "pay".

~~~
trhtrsh
It is spyware on G+ too:

""" Triple Town is requesting permission to: View a list of people from your
circles, ordered based on your interactions with them across Google """

------
mtgx
And people said developers would not make money on OUYA since it only allows
the free-to-play model, when in fact these type of games have been topping the
charts in grossing income for a while.

