Gamasutra: The Art & Business of Making Gamesspacer
View All     RSS
September 22, 2014
arrowPress Releases
September 22, 2014
PR Newswire
View All





If you enjoy reading this site, you might also want to check out these UBM Tech sites:


 
Is Peter Molyneux Spearheading The Future Of Free-To-Play?
by David James Ballard on 02/15/14 02:11:00 pm   Featured Blogs

The following blog post, unless otherwise noted, was written by a member of Gamasutra’s community.
The thoughts and opinions expressed are those of the writer and not Gamasutra or its parent company.

 

Note: This was first posted to my personal blog before part 2 of the interview was published. Minor edits were made for tone. Original here: http://bit.ly/NMlAXt

In an interview with PocketGamer, Peter Molyneux discusses a new monetization strategy for 22 Cans’ crowdfunded Strategy/god game Godus. If you are a games fan or have any knowledge of the industry at all, you’ve likely just had a strong reaction to that first sentence based on your opinion of Molyneux.  But, what interests me about this story is not so much the game itself, but the message being delivered in the interview

So, with that said, it is important that I add:

I am not specifically endorsing or discounting this game. This post is an opinion/prediction piece on it’s potential impact on free-to-play (f2p) games.

While very few details have been shared, Godus claims to possess a monetization system never seen before in any game. Molyneux criticizes contemporary f2p strategies, likening them to "taking a huge hammer and smashing our customers with it." He speaks vaguely about how Godus will differentiate itself: 

“We can’t be so crude in making the first thing we teach people in these games how to speed things up by spending gems. That’s absolutely insane.” 

Instead, he encourages a different point of view altogether, arguing that “free-to-play” is a misnomer: 

"There cannot be a term that is less true. What we need is a new term. And that term is more like ‘invest-to- play’. What really are we doing? We are tempting people to invest some of their money into a game.”

He concludes by positing the idea that games ought to be viewed as a hobby, and presumably we ought to provide investment opportunities to hobbyists in order to enrich their experiences:

”..to tempt people to think about being proud about investing. Before we even talk about monetisation, we want players to feel like Godus is a hobby (not just a game).” 

Indeed, one might cite DLC, expansion packs, new campaigns for your favorite tabletop RPG, dice, monster manuals and other ancillary items as examples of investments made by hobbyists. All of these things add new dimensions to the core product. There is a clear correlation between dollars spent and depth of content. But how does that translate to a seemingly organic world where content (presumably) won’t be fractured into various expansion packs and supplemental IP? 

One interesting point is that players will not even have the ability to spend money until the game deems you ready. Molyneux explains: 

"You’ve got to be subtle about it and slowly layer in those mechanics. The point we introduce monetisation depends on the player, and the game maker has to get you into the right mindset."

Without knowing more about the systems we will see in Godus, it is difficult to say exactly how 22 Cans will implement this vision in a mobile context. if you are feeling industrious, you could play an early access version of the game on Steam. If you are already playing, please feel free to share your predictions and insights. 

Regardless of the specifics, I believe this may bode well for the future of f2p, or invest-to-play (i2p?) if you like that language. My thoughts below:

Godus will launch to mixed reception

Particularly on mobile. It will likely enjoy more success on PC, where fans of Populous and Black & White will praise Molyneux’s return to “god games” after years of rubbish. If history is any indication, his fans will drink it up while his critics wave the bloody shirt of broken promises and hype. That being said, it may well be his most successful title since the Fable series. 

It will be a “First Mover”

I believe Molyneux will surprise us. As the game gains ground, established publishers in the f2p space will balk at the inefficacy of the monetization scheme, pointing out that it is not raking in Scrooge McDuckian piles of money on a daily basis like their games; so everyone should settle down and buy some gems or an extra life. Quietly, Godus will have an impact on user behavior that will turn a few inquisitive heads. They will observe that players’ dollars are yielding an experiential return intrinsic to the game experience, rather than a “patience tax” in the form of time accelerators and pain relief.  

It will be emulated

Free-to-play as we know it must surely change or die - It may take a year or a decade, but it will happen. Once we have exhausted every dime-squeezing tactic, depleted every IP and aesthetic that appeal to your quirky Aunt, and run out of nouns synonymous with “gems,” the whole thing will become stale and the market will once again force us to innovate. As the success of traditional f2p mechanics wanes, we will begin to turn to new solutions. I predict that Godus will be successful enough to influence these new systems and solutions, even if it doesn’t get the credit right away. 

It is a pretty good idea

"Invest-to-play" is an interesting choice of words. Webster defines investment as a 

“Process of exchanging income for an asset that is expected to produce earnings at a later time. An investor refrains from consumption in the present in hopes of a greater return in the future.”

Current f2p practices actively encourage repeat consumption in a cycle that usually does not build up to a meaningful whole (because it is more like a sequence of purchases than an investment). A shift to an “investment” model is an interesting notion. Players invest real money in virtual “assets” (game systems/mechanics/world) on the promise of yielding returns which intrinsically add new dimensions to the experience. Cyclical, compulsive consumption does not achieve this because there is no real ROI. That is not to say that there is no satisfaction or value assigned to consumption. There is. But it is temporary - like buying and eating a delicious cheeseburger from a fast food joint. You pay money, receive burger, enjoy it savagely in the parking lot, bits of lettuce and pickle dangling from your maw with the crazed expression of a hopeless man hopped up on bath salts… and the experience is over (until tomorrow). This is certainly a type of value. If it wasn’t, f2p games would not be amassing the great fortunes they are famous for.

The problem, as we know, is that these fortunes are created by an infinitesimal group of users (the infamous “whales”) who consume compulsively and frequently. This model is lucrative (for now), but it is not particularly inclusive and ultimately unsustainable. For the vast majority of gamers (especially old-schoolers and core gamers), spending to gain more access to the same gameplay or paying a “patience tax” does not equate to a meaningful ROI. 

What I like about the “investment” proposition is that it has the potential to welcome players of all types, not just the ever-sought-after “moms,” non-gamers, and casual players. Like all good investments, it also carries the possibility of long-term value and happiness, as opposed to the temporary satisfaction of repeat purchasing.

It will be Challenging

The most obvious challenge facing 22 Cans - or any developer bold enough to challenge the status quo - will be to provide good investments i.e. great games worthy of your continued financial support. It is already exceedingly difficult to nail down the right balance of innately fun gameplay with a sound monetization strategy. To do so with a system that is, as Molyneux puts it, as “fresh and as new and as different from anything you’ve ever seen in any game” will be that much more of an undertaking. In order to create good investments, players’ experiences must be rewarded through authentic, dimensional impact on the game (which could create variability in scope and scale). This is more complicated than tweaking parameters and shilling consumables. 

Will Godus be a breakout success? I don’t know. Will 22 Cans change the face of f2p gaming as we know it? Maybe. Probably not. Definitely not overnight. But, the fact that they are willing to take a gargantuan risk in a famously risk-averse arena is encouraging and the fact that DeNA is publishing may be a sign of the times. I, for one, welcome a sea change. Lord knows I need better games to play on the toilet. 

The interview closed with this sentence:

"There has to be a better way." 

Mr. Molyneux, sir… On this much we can agree. 


Related Jobs

Wargaming.net
Wargaming.net — Chicago, Illinois, United States
[09.22.14]

Engineering Manager
Phosphor Games Studio
Phosphor Games Studio — Chicago, Illinois, United States
[09.22.14]

Sr. Programmer – Unreal Engine 4 (UE4)
Wargaming.net
Wargaming.net — Hunt Valley, Maryland, United States
[09.22.14]

Graphics Software Engineer
Wargaming.net
Wargaming.net — Chicago, Illinois, United States
[09.22.14]

Lead UI Engineer






Comments


Jacob Pederson
profile image
I thought I would be against F2P forever, until I met Path of Exile. I spent around $80 on it after playing it through a few times over its lifespan. Why? Because Grinding Gear treats their freeloaders with respect, never expecting anything from them, and yet offering an amazing experience on par with games which charge $60 upfront, and then ask for more! It sounds corny, but it's true, build a relationship with your customer and they'll be insanely loyal. Treat them like money fountains, and they'll pop off to the next thing before you know it.

Maybe other F2P games make more money, but they can't say that their customers love them. I doubt the average F2Player even knows the developers name . . .

Eric McConnell
profile image
I remember paying $20 in Realm of the Mad God. Not because I wanted premium currency, because I enjoyed it for 3 months and wanted to give them something for it. I wish I could successfully make a f2p game with a tip jar as the monetization technique

Kujel s
profile image
@Eric McConnell:That is a F2P technique I could support, I don't know if the bean counters would but we are entering an age where they have less influence :)

David James Ballard
profile image
Right! I was just having a conversation with some friends about the old Shareware days. Perfectly reasonable value proposition. The same goes for the arcade, where there was a clear "pay-to-play" model mixed with the social experience of playing with a group looking over your shoulder. Modern f2p takes the compulsion of arcade, the gating of shareware, and supplants real socialization with spam via social channels; effectively combining the psychologically negative aspects of those experiences. That is a terrible way to do business. Free-to-play only survives by flipping this lens and focusing on positive player experiences - rewarding the time and financial commitment of your fans. Seems awfully simple when you put it that way...

Michael Joseph
profile image
I think the god game genre is a bit lost. It's stuck under the huge shadow cast by its sibling the Real-Time Strategy. Both genres are about real-time control of many units to accomplish goals. But whereas the god game uses indirect methods of control, the RTS uses direct control of mindless units resulting in much more frenzied gameplay.

God games are hard to make I think because developers are too afraid of embracing indirect control of units because they're afraid of making a slow paced, thinking persons game that is not easily marketable. That's why the gameplay of next generation god games like Godus employ methods that force players to act quickly and negate the effects of their own control scheme. They also implement things like rally points which serve as clumsy versions of unit group select and move commands. God games need to stop with the self loathing and RTS envy... or just be an RTS if that's what you prefer to be.

Molyneaux is well known for his marketing hyperbole.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_god_video_games
relatively small list

Will Hendrickson
profile image
Brilliant idea! I love this approach on monetization.

Nick Harris
profile image
What about?

P2A = 'Pay To Accelerate'

I think that F2P would have a better image if it avoided 'Pay To Win' and concentrated on making supplementary income from players who would rather spend a little extra, now and again, as they lacked the spare time to advance at the game's natural pace. An adult may only have a few hours in each weekend to play their game, whilst a child can spend a couple every evening in the week. This model works best in single-player games, but it would also suit PvE cooperative multiplayer which (due to a lack of the antagonistic PvP aspect) it could develop a social aspect that accepted Microtransactions in exchange for cosmetic items (hats, hairstyles, clothes, pets and steeds). PvP on the other hand is better suited to annual full-price releases, or monthly subscriptions - which amount to the same thing, more or less, whether it be Call of Duty or EVE: Online.

Personally, I didn't mind spending about £100 on Forza 5 Motorsport, first getting the Steelbook edition with extra cars and then spending £40 worth of Car Tokens one weekend on all the cars I planned on ever trying out in the game when they were having a sale. I treat it the same as any hobby, like model railways, which can prove to be very expensive the more you get into them. A child may like to play a variety of games, whilst a hobbyist adult may only like his virtual train set.

http://kotaku.com/to-buy-all-of-this-games-dlc-youll-need-over-2-
000-1412153921

...or those people who are really, really, into their flight simulator:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBgSZIGSjGQ

All I will say in parting, is that in order to make games more like a hobby there must always be a continuity of progress between episodes and sequels of the same game. Mass Effect managed it, but Call of Duty resets your progress rather than providing you with extra things to unlock on the soldier you had in the previously bought game - to balance this out there would need to be a way to match players of similar experience against each other, so that neophyte latecomers were never thrown into a match with 'old-hands' but had a chance to learn the maps and unlock the weapons new to this sequel with players of similar experience and equipment (if not skill).


none
 
Comment: