Turning it Around
After several months of tuning the UI in Monkey Drum, adding a character customization system, being featured by Apple, and being reviewed by several sites, the app was still failing financially. At this point, we had a thought: Why not release a separate, "deluxe" version for an up-front price, without the in-app-purchase? We would tune the in-app currency earn rate to be even more forgiving, and simply remove the option to buy additional currency. We would also put it in the Education category, as this seemed to be where it was appreciated the most.
This "Deluxe" version worked out considerably better for us -- Apple featured it in the New and Noteworthy (Education category) for four weeks, a better featured slot than the original had ever achieved, and we were able to earn better than the average iOS app.
It was still not a smashing success, but it easily made 20 times or so what the free version did. We believe this worked out for us because the app itself was very appealing and fun, and we were able to drive customers from the free-to-play version to Deluxe with a launch popup, and from the in-app store where we suggest that users may want to check out the deluxe version if they don't want to bother with IAPs. It was basically the lite/full version model, but kind of retrofitted in.
I would suggest that if your plan is to release your app as "free-to-try" with a paid upgrade to the full version, then please, please consider releasing a separate paid version as well. There is a large portion of users who will gladly pay you $2.99 upfront if the app is highly rated and looks entertaining.
But if all you have is a free version, a large portion of these otherwise willing customers will be lost in the long path from download, to play, to delight, to desire for more, to payment. It's just a matter of statistics, if you think it through.
In our case, building the "Deluxe" version as a separate app took us perhaps two weeks; it was well worth the time. It also gave us a fresh pass at Apple's editorial team (which paid off in the form of a N&N feature) and allowed us more visibility worldwide in various pockets of the app store. It's all about visibility.
A Note on Flippfly
Perhaps you've read through this list, and rather than identifying an action plan for your next F2P game, you've spotted some patterns that kind of turn you off. This was the case with us as well.
We don't like the idea that "whales" are what we need to sustain our games. We don't like the idea that only 3 percent or so of our users will ever experience our games in their fullest, and that the other 97 percent will probably be left wanting, if we're "doing it right."
We also don't like the idea of spending a significant portion of our time analyzing and tuning our user flow towards an in-game store, rather than focusing on the game itself. And we especially don't like the idea that even our paying customers will be nagged for additional money in a never-ending cycle of microtransactions that never quite satisfy. We want to build memorable and unique gaming experiences, and in-game monetization -- in its most effective form -- seems to always get in the way of that out of necessity.
These reasons form a large part of why we changed our direction as a company away from mobile as our primary focus. We're very proud of Monkey Drum. We went out of our way to be ethical with it, and with over 80,000 users, we have never had a single complaint about the in-app purchases, despite our core audience being five to seven year olds. And we don't believe that F2P is necessarily "evil." But when we looked at the reality of what it takes to really thrive in free-to-play, we decided that we'd rather be able to focus more of our time on making great games.
So we made the decision to refocus ourselves on the PC platform, where there is still a thriving community of gamers who are willing (indeed, who often prefer) to pay for their games upfront rather than piecemeal. Our first major game release, Race The Sun, will ship for PC for somewhere around $10, with an early purchase discount much like that of Minecraft. It will have a free-to-try demo with many of the lessons we've learned from our F2P experiment, and a paid mobile version will come later -- if it makes sense.
We couldn't be happier with this decision so far.
|
Is your point simply that your attempts to avoid monetizing whales impaired your ability to monetize normal customers? Or do you think that any free to play game must fundamentally be built on revenue from whales, and as a result edutainment is a poor choice for f2p? I think the second half of this point is relatively clear but the tagline for that point and the first half obscure your meaning a little.
I know I personally grapple as a developer with how to create and execute a game design that is both fun but creates reasonable incentives to spend money without my players feeling like I'm purposely "screwing" them so they have to spend in order to succeed. I personally liked the MMO subscription model from that perspective: you pay for access which keeps the game and the finances largely separated so developers can do what they want and need for love of the game and players simply pay for access to the game. Micro-transactions are ripe for contorting a game design to feel like it's tuned to force you to pay if you really want to get the full experience.
@Kirk, as you point out, a successful subscription game requires a good quality GAME, and a successful F2P game requires a good quality monetization strategy. I think this article demonstrates that F2P isn't the "win-all" its sometimes portrayed as and I think subscription is still very viable... if a game can meet the quality levels that justify a subscription.
F2P is also in its infancy - there are a lot of innovators in this space, and I think long term the methods that win will be the ones that create the most value for players ( see Dan Cook's feature on this too.) It's just not an area we're passionate about making work.
...but you specifically say in the article that you thought it was "evil" to incentivise monetization. That's just a bizarre philosophy, honestly, especially since it's pretty clear from this article that the motivation behind Monkey Drum was first and foremost to create a profitable app.
The point about these new business models that seems to be lost on so many developers is that they allow you to find new ways to provide value to your players. Listen to what Gabe Newell has been saying for a while now about 'value propositions', and take a look at Steam to realize how effective (and not "evil") this idea is.
Being "evil" is a completely separate discussion that revolves around game design and mechanics. Monkey Drum wasn't designed around anything like "pay to win" or thinly veiled compulsion loops, so how was being "evil" even part of the discussion?
I definitely wouldn't say that "being evil is a totally separate discussion" because almost by definition, the monetization *is* tied intimately together with the game design. So being ethical about it has to be part of the discussion, IMO.
http://flippfly.com/news/announcement-crowd-funding-flippfly-style/
Also - thanks for the discussion here. Hopefully this was helpful for the folks who are pursuing F2P, and inspiring for those looking for alternatives. Best of luck to you all!
"make it possible for people who love your game to spend lots of money on things they value".
I don't think that is evil.
I find it a little repulsive, personally when the "thing I value" that the game is asking me to spend money for - is my time.
As an example (from a game I'm totally addicted to, by the way,) "Super Monsters Ate My Condo" makes it impossible to earn enough coins through play to use the best list of "powers" and so if your choices are (1) grind for 3 or 4 games to earn enough to do your best, or (2) pony up a buck or two so you can play for awhile at maximum mastery. So yes, I "value" these fun powers because they give me the best chance at a high score, but in reality, what I'm paying for is the ability to not have to grind in a less fun environment.
Thankfully, they also offered a $1.99 permanent upgrade that just doubled your coin earn-rate, and I gladly paid for this (on top of the $0.99 I'd already spent.)
Again, my point with this article wasn't to say "going after whales is evil" but rather - whales are probably a necessary component of F2P, and incidentally the model as a whole is one we've decided not to pursue.
The quote Nicholas pulled is exactly the one that struck me the most. I think that's a great philosophy. It's just not what the F2P segment is known for.
Look: I spend $40-60 on a console or handheld game, pretty cheerfully in most cases. If you can extract that "LTV" from me by giving me a good game experience that's free up front, in an ethical way, I don't think I'd complain.
The problem is that very few developers create products worthy of love by a few. I'm not deriding developers - I am one myself. But think about most apps. They're worth being liked by many, but 'loved' by noone. They're not Starcraft. They're not SMB. If they are, they're the millionth iteration of that genre.
So we're not talking about using the *very old* art model of having many people view a painting freely, but a few rich patrons who love the work and are willing to pony up the dough to keep the artist in watercolors.
Moral developers realize that they're not creating a product worthy of love. These are not products that challenge the mind and hearts of their users. They're not going to have a lasting impression on anyone. Like? Yes, sure! Definitely many apps are likeable. But F2P dictates that, instead of having the many people who like your app pay something, they get it for free. A few people who like it will pay appropriately but not enough.
Which leaves use with what F2P actually does, to get by, which is target whales. It targets people who 'love' something beyond any reasonable scale of the value it could be worth. These people are not patrons of the arts, guys. They're people with poor impulse control. They're people who don't rationally evaluate the worth of something. This is why "pay for instant gratification" is the dominant IAP strategy, one way or another, in F2P. And many articles you will read will tell you that those people aren't rich people spending within their leisure budgets either, they're people spending beyond their means.
And targetting people who have a weakness like that, as your primary source of revenue? I would say that that fits most definitions of evil.
Also, spending $50 to progress in a game while for that same amount of money you could buy 1-5 large-scope games, that'll last you for weeks if not months without asking for more money, seems to me like a skewed perception of value.
From what I'm seeing on my project, the big spenders are almost exclusively busy professional or business owning middle aged women. These aren't people who would play StarCraft or SMB and are looking for an entirely different experience from interactive entertainment.
This is one thing that F2P (amongst other things) has opened up - a significantly different audience to the young male with ample time to burn.
We're also seeing that they're generally not engaging with the "pay to skip the grind" aspects of the game (which are fairly light anyway) and are generally paying for the premium cosmetic enhancements.
"Moral developers realize that they're not creating a product worthy of love"
Maybe some aren't, but perhaps this is exactly what some developers are striving for. Whether they can achieve it or not is another matter, but if the goal of your dev project is to create something that the audience genuinely loves (or at the very least highly values) is it so bad to allow people to pay as much as they want?
You can then take those rewards into future projects and contribute more value to the world. It's only evil if you don't deliver value i.e. sell a car to someone for full price, that you know is about to break down.
Even if you were able to get 1% to 3% of 80k its only 800 to 2400 customers at what 99 cents a pop its still going to be a failure (with freemium games its all about download numbers). You would need to get a million downloads in order to get 10k customers, if you dont have different levels of money you are shooting yourself in the foot.
You didn't fail at free-to-play. Free-to-play failed you.
I am thinking more and more that the only way to truly let whales pay unlimited amounts without altering the gameplay is to either sell only cosmetic items or additional real content (expansions like maps or levels, not power ups) or add a "Donate" button.
I understand why the author would feel these aspects to be "evil". Most passionate game developers would find including payment requests as a core element of gameplay to go against what we they believe in, but ultimately it's a choice which has to be done at the start of the design.
And unless the game deceives the player into what is being purchased and for what reasons there's nothing immoral or unethical. If the player doesn't like the price proposed to make the game more enjoyable they don't pay it. This applies to one-time payment or subscription-based games as much as F2P.
I met countless players who may never have played a game if not for F2P. And I have always been surprised by why they think the game is fun to them. Taking FarmVille for example, I met a player (a middle age woman) who's lived a city life all her life and she's so busy with her daily life it's very hard for her to find peace and quiet. She loved FarmVille because it gave her a chance to 'imagine' having a farm and she occasionally paid for things she liked here and there. This is a loyal fan. Your players are not like you. In fact, statistically speaking, developers are so few in percentage in the player community your players are most likely not like you if we're talking about a casual audience.
After lessens learned, second game was designed with Free 2 Play in mind. One full year after release, its still in the top 10 free games slot on the Mac App Store. Its also extremely successful on Facebook (over 1.1 million MAUs) as well as with many other portals and platforms. We are now working on our second Free 2 Play game while our first is still going strong. I am a firm believer in the Free 2 Play business model.
I wish you guys lots of luck with your games!
Cheers
-John