Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login

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.

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact