Gamasutra: The Art & Business of Making Gamesspacer
View All     RSS
October 31, 2014
arrowPress Releases
October 31, 2014
PR Newswire
View All
View All     Submit Event

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

Free 2 Play and the Four Currencies
by Lars Doucet on 11/15/12 10:09:00 am   Expert Blogs   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.


Cross-posted on my personal blog.

One of my most popular articles was "Piracy and the Four Currencies", which explains the economics of piracy in terms of four "psychological currencies": money-dollars ($M), time-dollars ($T), pain-in-the-butt dollars ($P) and integrity-dollars ($I). Purchases don't just cost money; they also cost different amounts of time, pain-in-the butt, and (sometimes) moral integrity. 


Quick Summary

In the article, I argue that piracy, though it costs 0 $M, has a non-zero $T, $P, and $I cost, because the pirate must know where to search, risk exposure to malware, and do something illegal (which has a variable $I cost depending on one's outlook). Developers can compete with piracy by removing invasive DRM and practicing good customer service, which lowers $T and $P costs.  How much weight an individual gives to each currency varies widely.  For example, a wealthy person may value convenience over money, a busy person may value time the most, and someone with strong convictions might refuse to compromise their beliefs ("spending" $I*) for money's sake alone.

*Exactly what $I represents varies with ideology.  For example, Richard Stallman would put a large $I cost on using proprietary software, whereas I do not, and strict vegetarians might assign an $I cost to fur coats.



Free 2 Play


Now, let's apply the  four currency model to Free 2 Play games. 

F2P is clearly here to stay.  It's seen big success with Angry BirdsTeam Fortress 2, and given a new lease on life to MMO's that aren't World of Warcraft.  However, we've also just witnessed the spectacular implosion of F2P standard-bearer Zynga, and seen article after article about popular, critically-acclaimed F2P games that garner little revenue. 

The debate is heated, so let's step back, put down our pitchforks (on both sides), and see what's going on.



First of all, F2P competes well with piracy, because the barrier to entry couldn't be any lower.  Downloading an F2P game costs no $M, little $T, no $P, and no $I (for those who feel guilty about piracy).  


Though FTP has no $M cost, it inserts $T and $P costs throughout the game to encourage players to pay $M instead.  This is the opposite of a traditional game, where there is no extra $T, $P, or $M cost once you've bought the game (invasive DRM, DLC, and bad design notwithstanding). 

According to some best practices of F2P design, developers should intentionally inject inconvenience into games, which players can remove in exchange for money.  This means barriers, time sinks, and "dual-currency" systems where players can pay real money for rewards, or grind for hours instead. 


In this way, traditional games are like laser printers: expensive to buy, cheap and easy to operate.  F2P games are like ink jets: cheap to buy, but expensive and sometimes a pain to operate, especially if the company has questionable business tactics

On the one hand, F2P gives players options. Lots of people have no money but plenty of time and/or plenty of pain-in-the-butt tolerance.  Furthermore, it enables players to purchase things "a-la-carte," in case there are only certain aspects of the game they really want.  These are good things. 

On the other hand, F2P adds inconveniences and compromises the "magic circle" by constantly asking the player for money.  These practices are why some designers call F2P "evil," and not just because they're luddites* who are afraid of change, as some have implied.  If anything, F2P is a return to the past as much as it is a step towards the future.  We've been here before, and it's called The Arcade

Despite my reservations and general grumpiness, I do think F2P can drive great things - you only have to look at Team Fortress 2League of Legends, and Triple Town to see that.  But it still deserves a critical eye. 

*As an aside, the historical Luddites have been grossly misrepresented by industrialist propaganda and (incorrect) associations with religious fundamentalism.  I highly recommend the book Rebels Against the Future by Kirkpatrick Sale for an alternative viewpoint.

When (and why) F2P Fails

Let's look at some F2P games that have failed and see if the four currencies can tell us why.

The developers of Punch Quest and MonkeyDrums have suggested that their games failed because they were too nice - i.e., they embraced F2P but still hung onto the idea that they could "delight" their customers into paying more for the experience.  I feel for these teams and applaud their willingness to be so open with such a painful experience, so let's see if we can learn from it.

 As I mentioned in Pay What You Want and the Four Currencies, the simple act of making something free removes the $I cost of not paying.  This is why donationware doesn't work - nobody pays because you gave them permission not to.  By making too much content easily accessible or free, customers feel no obligation to pay.  If you ask for the sale, however, there's a good chance you'll get them to pay, especially if there's a free sample.  

Traditional game design has trained us to maximize the value we are giving players for their money, charge them once for it, and call it a day.  F2P requires an entirely new perspective that doesn't focus on delivering all the goodies in one big package.  It seems these developers had a hard time choosing between F2P and traditional design.  So, let's take a quick look at tradition.


The Evolving "Traditional" Model

In the past, video games were sold in retail stores as packaged goods that you bought sight-unseen. Retail is certainly on the decline, but those who use this fact to decry up-front pricing* are attacking a straw man. "Progress" doesn't happen in only one direction, and the traditional model has been evolving right along with the others. 

*In fairness to Dan, he's right that charging 99 cents for all of TripleTown would be insane, and I'm largely a fan of his approach to F2P design.  That said, I can think of more than just a few indie developers who use the up-front pricing model without relying on mega-hits to succeed.


We'll use ourselves as an example of the "neo-traditional*" model. With Defender's Quest, we relied on a lengthy, compelling, browser-based demo to drive sales. This allowed us to make good revenue without the benefit of major portals like GOG and Steam, although we were eventually able to attract their attention. We  survived by selling directly from our own site and free Flash portals like Kongregate, where we leveraged their microtransaction engine to sell an online version of the game.


*We seriously need a better name than that.


Furthermore, although the price is up-front, it's by no means "fixed." We started at $6.99 when we launched in January but made so many coupons available that anyone paying attention could nab it for $4.99.  Meanwhile, we handed out free promotional codes left and right. 

We eventually raised the price to $14.99 for the gold edition launch but started with a "launch sale" of $9.99 through the first week on Steam.  And as everybody knows, Steam and GOG are fond of periodic sales with deep discounts, and we will be participating in every event they invite us to. Furthermore, we have some crazy plans of our own, so stick around for our one-year anniversary next October 30th.  Because players know that games often go on sale, they can exchange $M for $T by waiting for a price drop. 

The ability to sell a game year-round, at variable prices, while keeping the majority of the revenue is a far cry from the old days of having a one-month shelf-life in a retail store and collecting a few percentage points in royalties - if you were lucky. That's the old traditional model, and I'm happy it's dying. 

However, the advantage of the new traditional model is that it gets the financial exchange out of the way up front, which lets developers focus solely on game play rather than a string of tiny sales pitches. Furthermore, it avoids fracturing the game's shared cultural experience into low and high-paying tiers.  I realize that the traditional model has the potential for a smaller player base and lost income from "true fans" and whales, but I have some ideas about that and, more importantly, have no doubt that the model will continue to evolve to meet these challenges. 

Finally, and I think most importantly, the traditional model and F2P have much to learn from each other. They are points on a spectrum rather than fixed binary alternatives.  The "neo-traditional" model incorporates many aspects of both, but takes it in a different direction than a typical iPhone game or console title for sale at GameStop.


Summing up F2P

F2P brings with it new opportunities, audiences, and markets, but it's not magic. Simply put, instead of front-loading the $M cost, it sprinkles alternative $P and $T costs throughout the experience as inducements to make you pay $M.

 F2P pros:

  • Raises the ceiling on how much a single player can spend
  • Lowers the barrier to entry almost entirely
  • Opens up new genres and embraces new audiences

F2P cons:

  • Not a good fit for many genres (especially those focused on narrative)
  • Injects financial motivations directly into the game
    • Annoys players
    • Can corrupt the design (c.f. Zynga)

Closing Thoughts

Furthermore, those obsessed with growth* as the sole metric of the industry's sector-by-sector health should be slapped with a large, wet trout.  Facebook, mobile, and other once-emerging trends are obviously here to stay, but reports about the traditional industry's decline have been greatly exaggerated, especially because NPD results are grossly misleading.  And contrary to popular wisdom, the explosive growth of mobile has not doomed Nintendo's handheld market, though I can't say the same for the PSVita.



Retail sales of console games do seem to be on the decline, but the slowdown in PC sales should not be taken as an indication that PC software developers are in trouble. For example, eventually you get to the point where everyone who wants a car has one, so although it's harder to sell new ones, more cars are being driven than ever before.  Similarly, sales of new PC's have peaked because they are powerful enough, and, with a little maintenance, a decent rig can last you the better part of a decade. This is bad news for people like Dell who need to push hardware, but for those of us who just make games that run on the dang things, times couldn't be better.

Mobile platforms will eventually reach their saturation point, too, and then the pundits will start shouting that mobile is dead, and eyePhones are the Next Big Thing.

So do yourself a favor; play a great Free2Play game or two. Then play some great traditional games by friendly indie developers. Then slap a pundit with a fish.

*Second side note: the single-minded focus on "growth" is a major fallacy of modern economic thought. See Tim Jackson's Prosperity Without Growth for an alternative viewpoint. 

Watch CNBC and take a shot every time a pundit says "growth."

Related Jobs

InnoGames GmbH
InnoGames GmbH — Hamburg, Germany

Mobile Developer C++ (m/f)
The College of New Jersey
The College of New Jersey — Ewing, New Jersey, United States

Assistant Professor - Interactive Multi Media - Tenure Track
Next Games
Next Games — Helsinki, Finland

Senior Level Designer
Activision Publishing
Activision Publishing — Santa Monica, California, United States

Tools Programmer-Central Team


Dave Reed
profile image
I like the '4 currencies' concept. But for consumers, the biggest issue with F2P is that the cost (whether $M or $T+$P) is rarely clearly defined, and is often endless (well, until you stop playing). You can never own the game.

This might not be a big deal for the most casual players. But if you really enjoy a game, you might want to keep on playing it on and off for years, which you're unlikely to do if it keeps begging for money, or if you have to keep buying consumables for a shot at beating your old high-score.

Lars Doucet
profile image
Indeed - this also brings up the specter of game preservation, both for the individual and for the historian. If F2P requires server-side hijinks, it makes games even more fragile cultural artifacts than they already are.

Eric Salmon
profile image
I have a similar problem with Subscription MMO's (particularly if they delete inactive characters after a short time, like Final Fantasy XI. If you've spent years building a character, you don't very well want to just let it die. Then you're stuck paying even when you're max level and out of content most of the time.

To this day, that's my favorite MMORPG--but I lost my first character and then never went past the 30 day trial again. I had the same problem with X-Box Live (though I anticipate PSN will be paid in the coming generation).

As Lars said, and I hope many developers listen, F2P and Freemium are not the best models for all games; many many of us just want to pay an upfront cost, own our game, and play it whenever and however we please for the rest of our days for no additional cost (whether it be in $M, $T, or $P). That's also one of the principle issues we have with always-online DRM.

Kevin Bender
profile image
There was just so much in this article that i liked... nice piece

Luis Guimaraes
profile image
One can also look from a more core player POV and consider F2P as ($M+$I) vs ($T+$P), specially if P2W is a reality. The same way a traditional game can have a $T cost if it's full of filler or un-skippable stuff.

But in the end, thinking as a player, while readying "traditional costs this, F2P costs this" I was only think about asking "so, which game is better?".

Tim Hargreaves
profile image
Just read the series this morning and really enjoyed it. I think this is the best article of the three, and most relevant to developers. At the end of the day, a lot of pirates are pirates, or just broke, so they're going to pirate anyway. I don't know if trying to "convert" them is worth the time. However, as you've shown by referencing two F2P games that didn't do so well, understanding the F2P design basics are a great tool for an indie dev.

Bisse Mayrakoira
profile image
Modern F2P (yes, I know there are variants...) is almost the polar opposite of the classic arcade model.

The F2P model I'm talking about is the one that cripples the player, bores the player, gates the player or inconveniences the player and temporarily lifts those limitations for a cost.

In the arcade you always pay your credit up front. In return you get to play the full game - not diminished in any way, no sections of the game locked off, not with a crippled avatar. If you are good enough, you can play right to the end. For an arcade game it is fatal to bore or inconvenience the player, or appear unfair. Such things cause players to abandon the game in favor of other games in the arcade which do not suffer from the same faults. Every new credit the player puts into the machine is an indication that they liked what they have seen so far (including the thing that killed them).

Consider the shape of the payment streams of the two models over time. The player of the arcade game may initially survive a couple of minutes at a time. As they grow more skilled, their credit buys them more and more entertainment. When they are sufficiently skilled to clear the game, they might be getting 45 minutes of playtime out of that one credit. The deal is quite transparent - every time you put in a credit, you pretty much know what you are buying, there's no deception. In addition, it effectively rewards the most dedicated customers with more value. This is in stark contrast with F2P which initially reels its players in with promises of "free", and earns its profits by bleeding its most dedicated customers dry with every psychological manipulation they can think of.

Lars Doucet
profile image
Hadn't quite thought of this. Useful insight!