|
How do you get hardcore gamers interested in your free-to-play game? What is the perfect tension between compelling gameplay and frustration? Designer Pascal Luban explores the lessons he learned since moving to freemium.
Once upon a time...
Five years ago, an India-based studio that wanted to develop a freemium shooter contacted me. I had experience working on shooters targeted at core gamers. I was lead level designer on the multiplayer versions of both Splinter Cell: Pandora Tomorrow and Chaos Theory, and I also designed CTF-Tornado, the leading map of the UT3-AGEIA Extreme PhysX mod. Free-to-play seemed to focus on casual gamers only -- at least that was the perception we had in the West. I wondered how they could mix.
But freemium was already quite developed in Asia at that time. I discovered that some game designs targeted at hardcore gamers are actually quite suitable to freemium gaming. My Indian client could not finance the full development of its project and eventually went bankrupt (not because of my design, I hope!) But thanks to this unexpected understanding of freemium games, I discovered a lot about them in the process. In particular, I learned three lessons:
- Freemium is not a game genre, but a business model that can actually be applied to most game designs, including hardcore titles.
- Most design rules of casual freemium titles are not adapted to core-focused games. That's a true paradox. The design of a freemium core-focused game must not mimic the successful design principles of casual freemium titles.
- The real difference in design is that a freemium game should be designed as an endless and dynamic application, one that is constantly renewed.
When the craze about freemium games started in the West thanks to the successes of Zynga, Playfish and others, I knew that this new economic model would eventually affect the way we design games for our traditional hardcore audience (you can read my feature on the megatrends of game design, published in 2008).
Early observers saw in freemium games a fad that only affected casual gamers. Some developers even scorned this way of monetizing a game. They were wrong. Freemium is creeping into traditional games, and is here to stay.
Most leading publishers are seriously considering adapting some of their core-targeted IPs to this new business model. EA was one of the frontrunners with Battlefield Heroes. Valve has adapted Team Fortress 2 to this model. Ubisoft is working hard on the development of freemium versions for Ghost Recon or Heroes of Might & Magic, and Activision even signed a deal with Tencent for a free-to-play version of Call of Duty for the Chinese market.
My purpose, then, is to share the lessons I have learnt from my experience on designing freemium games for a hardcore or mainstream audience and to describe what I believe are the best practices.

First things first: The concept
A game concept leads to a set of choices that will have a deep impact on the content -- and success -- of a game. That is even truer for our concern here. When defining the concept for a freemium game targeted at demanding gamers, one must bear in mind two key points:
Be first, or be creative. The awful truth about freemium games is that you stand a much better chance of success if you are first in a given genre, or at least, the first to offer a different experience to the player. Unlike what is happening for traditional games, freemium copycats have a hard time prospering.
It is actually quite logical. Freemium games are designed to retain players as long as possible by offering them rich and complex progression trees where you invest time and money. When you have reached a high level in a game, with all the benefits it gives you, you don't want to start a new game. There won't be dozens of successful freemium shooters or car racing games on a given platform.
The alternative is to be creative -- to offer a significantly different game experience to the players. Most current shooters are suffering from a certain lack of creativity. I am ready to bet that some of the upcoming freemium shooters will revamp the genre, because this economic model will lead designers to think differently about their game. Exe Games' Brick-Force could be a good example to follow. This is a first person shooter, but mixed with Minecraft-like gameplay where the player builds his own maps.
Think service. It used to be that games were seen as stand-alone products. Recently, in order to prolong the shelf life of their blockbusters, publishers got into the habit of planning add-ons such as new maps but they remain rooted in the stand-alone logic. Modern Warfare 4 will succeed Modern Warfare 3, which itself succeeded Modern Warfare 2. You get the point. The freemium version of hardcore IPs will go one step further. Why? Well-thought freemium games are designed as services, not stand-alone products. They have, engraved in their genes, the need to constantly upgrade themselves. World of Tanks upgrades itself every two to three months with new maps, new vehicles, and even new game modes and game engine upgrades. The game also features a so-called "tankopedia" which is regularly updated with game-related info AND historical backgrounds. If you are a tank buff, WoT is not just a game; it is a hub for your passion where you can meet other fans like yourself.
Which consequences will that have on a game concept? The key gameplay features must support a great number of meaningful variations. League of Legends offers a single game mode and only two maps, but it features a dazzling array of heroes that are all significantly different from each other. For the freemium shooter I worked on, we focused on the side equipment of the players. The reason was simple: In a contemporary shooter, you can't introduce many variations on the weapons within one category; a handgun remains a handgun even if you alter its basic abilities. But there are a lot of gadgets and external assistance a soldier can use in the field and they can affect its tactics with more variations that a gun. We thought that could lead to much richer progression trees.
|
FTP has been stuck in a rut of only being able to generate money through frustration-generating game mechanics, and it definitely works. However, it's unfortunate to see that not many designers have tried monetizing in other ways.
For example, Team Fortress 2's recent Mann Up tickets. It's impossible for play Mann Up maps without them no matter how much you grind, but you can play newbie maps for free without restrictions. However, if you want more of a challenge and a chance to play with other dedicated players, you can pay a dollar to play each map. You're paying for the opportunity to face new challenges rather than the old "give players a partial or semi-broken system and force them to pay to fix the system."
You cited League of Legends as an example, but Riot Games is very strongly opposed to selling power. Any content that affects gameplay can be reasonably obtained without real cash. League of Legends does do a decent job of freemium. It does its "frustration" curve by offering in-game currency bonuses to new players and a level up system that grants new features. When you reach the maximum level, the game unlocks the final feature: ranked mode, where it becomes very important to own many different types of heroes to counter-pick your opponent. Thus, new players get many rewards early while experienced players are encouraged to spend cash on heroes and cosmetic content to stand out among other ranked players.
I think it's also worth mentioning that making a change to your economic model, even a minor one, can have a major impact on player opinions, which can affect sales. Even League of Legends suffered this. Riot Games tried to introduce a new price tier of hero skins that was slightly above the average, but below their premium tier. The skin had an overwhelming amount of negative feedback as players perceived this as an attempt to drive the average skin price up. The skin sold very little. Even players who loved the skin refused to buy it on principle.
That being said, I do favor the freemium model when done right. This is a fantastic article, giving the low-down to game designers working with the model.
@Christian: I'd like to compare on how the numbers and success of Battlefield Heroes measures up to the success of games that have been cited as side-stepping "Pay for Power" like TF2, LoL, and Tribes. People who are vocal are also incredibly invested in a game, while those who are quiet tend to pick up a game after a few days then drop it.
I do not remember anywhere in the presentation where they said the actual vocal opponents of paid items actually went back on their words and proceeded to buy those items.
If I understood it correctly it was more a case of this vocal minority who then proceeded to leave the game, and despite that the game still had a viable population and proceeded to make more money.
The only thing that can be learned from this presentation is that you can sacrifice your more hardcore population to make some quick bucks and that a vast majority of people don't have any idea what items are fair or unfair.
In my opinion the consequences of their shift in policies toward item with powers will have consequences in the long run, even though it made them more money in the short-term. Time will tell. They sacrificed any hope their game can have to foster an hardcore population for short-term gains.
BFH could of been something pretty special, its FTP design I would argue kept it from getting there.
I agree the design of BFH was one of the best I've seen for multiplayer games and there was a lot of strategy into the game if one looked past the casual visuals.
But then there was P2W, where one is faced with the following options:
a) buy power and have non-paying players become boring to play against.
b) stop playing because paying players are impossible to beat.
What they don't realize is that all they did was remove the most hardcore part of their population that actually knew they were being ripped off or unfairly treated. The game population is probably too casual to realize they are being milked.
They pretty much killed any hope their game could grow a reputation, and that for short term gains. They had a product that could follow the same growth as the like of LoL, but now that they have switched to this P2W mentality, nobody will play that game seriously or recommend it.
As the article points out, the steps to successful frustration-based monetization are (1) make a good game (2) make players want to keep playing the game and (3) screw them as deeply up the ass as possible. The three steps are the key point here: players who care enough about the game to complain about it are players who are invested enough in the game to be right at the border of phases 2 and 3.
I think there are two kinds of player out there: those that look ahead when they start playing a game, look at the item store and try to anticipate what kind of ass-screwing they'll get based on the kinds of things for sale; and those that don't look ahead and just play.
The forward-looking players aren't going to be monetized by the game at all because they're going to churn out between phases 1 and 2: they aren't going to let themselves get caught and they aren't going to let themselves be frustrated.
The people complaining on the forums are people who, it seems, are genuinely SURPRISED by the reaming to which they are subjected at the hands of F2P developers. They seem to think they were actually going to have a fun, free experience and by the time the compulsion to pay hits they're too deeply involved to easily disengage. They're upset and post about it, but it's too late, they have to pay anyways.
The real problem I see with frustration-based F2P design is that it seems unsustainable: how often are people going to fall for the same bait before they stop playing F2P games? How many times will people be coerced into paying through frustration before they wise up? To be sure, there's a not-meaningless subset of the population who will never wise up. But I suspect that the current profitability of F2P games based on frustration-induced payments is only going to last as long as a untapped population of innocent victims remains.
"The real problem I see with frustration-based F2P design is that it seems unsustainable: how often are people going to fall for the same bait before they stop playing F2P games?"
You're right. But by that time, the early movers in the F2P market will have made their fortunes and moved onto other business models.
So the people who got ripped off complain but because they opened their wallets in the first place they aren't 't opponents of F2P? Some logic there.
If your actual customers are your most vocal complainers then you're not doing your job correctly.
The "create the problem-sell the solution" popular F2P model is short-term in it's thinking a diametrically opposed to creating a long-term business, especially one so reliant on long-term customer engagement. Something that is critical for a product requiring such a heavy investment up-front and a long development cycle. The issue is the MMO market in not big enough to sustain (or, I would argue, to even have adopted this model in the first place).
When I witness so many AAA-titles, with 4-6 year development cycles, coming out to raging fanfare and struggling six months later, it is obvious something is not right in MMO land. When I review the presentations from so called "experts" who don't really understand the market to begin with (all I see is reporting on trends, which does not make one an expert) and see such negligent comments from those responsible for the industry that incorrectly believe that can dish out anything to their customers and they will take it, I know you are witnessing an industry in trouble and also ripe for disruption on the incumbents.
I would have figured that the rapid increase in customer dissatisfaction, higher churn rates on new titles and increased rise of crowdfunded projects would have at least woke one industry executive from their clueless perch, but I guess I was wrong and this industry is in bigger trouble than I thought.
Of course we need to wait to see how much it has grossed since its release, but early signs show that the game is likely to make a lot of money, and that by without relying on frustrating the player.
Now I'm enjoying it well enough (though I liked the original better, as it was more cleanly designed), but it follows the suggestions of this model.
The question is not how many people are playing it and spending now, the question is in 9 months to a year.
Zynga did very well for a while, then people realized that the games were rigged, and stopped playing the new ones. PS2 isn't designed to force people out, the way Zynga games were, but we'll see.
Cheating and griefing is also a problem. SOE has been very aggressive about it, but I wonder if it'll work.
And yeah, I spent some real money on PS2. I don't mind, I have the money, and I don't want to spend that much time.
Still, the model I would prefer, if you must do a non-subscription game, is the Guild Wars one - make people pay for the account. Helps a lot with the griefing/cheating.
Still, I prefer subscription models, because freemium games never feel entirely fair, and I don't like the way they encourage the devs to be constantly playing psychological tricks to get me to spend more money. I'd far rather pay $15/month and earn everything through play.
I also spent money here. But the caveat being there isn't enough pull to spend freely, I spend with greta reserve, and I refuse to spend more because of the evil payment scheming. All tranactions final no matter how much they change the dynamics. You don't have that fear in LoL.
The major fdifference here is while purchasing a gun your product can be altered. And since their is no other intrinsic value to your purchases other than gameplay advantages it creates more than aggravation if your purchase is nerfed 2 weeks after the game begins. Wherein in LoL, simply "owning a figure" has personal value as well as play value ~ or potential at least. As well as there being trust in the corporation that doesn't change it's policies on regular basis to meet a marketing goal ~ Sony in my book has a piss poor record for custmer satisfaction. Their sole reason for continued existence being that they do actually using game models that actually work/innovate.
I did not play the game, but I talked to people playing it and from their perspective the purchases they make are *not* upgrades, they are merely ways to customize their playstyle.
All F2Ps have to rely on time-as-a-price to fuel player activity, BUT it doesn't imply that this time should be spent in frustration.
It's pretty much about making your customer feel good about their purchase instead of them feeling like they have been forced.
PS2 and LoL proves that all you need to do to create a game that will gross money and generate support is to encourage genuine player interaction and make them active in your game, done!
No need to play mind games! One day or the other players will wise up and see that they are being played as fools, this day you WILL lose their money!
Also, implying convincing you to pay $15/month for the same content doesn't involve some psychological tricks either...
The subscription model is going to go through a crisis for two reasons:
- People don't have the time to make the most of that $15 spent.
- It creates a barrier of entry in a world where we want people to flock to our games.
Paying to remove frustration might be dangerous to long term engagement because it robs the player of that essential growth, the development of skills, the frustration and ultimate joy that mastery brings. this also applies to games that are Pay-To-Win. Money used to substitute for skill can also hurt long-term engagement because mastery and skill are no longer required.
We know that flow and a sense of mastery (or the illusion of mastery) are what makes games highly engaging. So what if monetization served to enhance flow and mastery? It's no so far fetched when you consider that we already spend money to enhance both of these things. My favorite personal example are LEGOs. It's interesting to note that complexity and frustration increase the more I spend. The kits range from $5 mini-sets to the $300 Mindstorms uber-kit. The amount of money spent does not make things any easier for me but I am able to see the value of my investment when I've completed the kit. I was able to internalize the rewarding experience that frustration, triumph, and mastery bring where I begin to value that more than the money I spend.
Can we do this with Freemium Hadcore games? Can we monetize to enhance flow and mastery without affecting the intrinsic satisfaction of achieving these two experiences? I think it's a worthy goal because it leaves you with more engagement and none of the cynicism that follows when the curtain is pulled back and players see what's really happening.
Yes I am being intentionally cryptic :)
"Frequent, but short, game sessions foster addiction."
The future fate of SWTOR?
Blacklight Retribution, for example, is a very fun and generous F2P shooter. The default gear is quite strong and arguably the most versatile loadout in the game. But everything in the store (at least when I played it) is horribly overpriced, like "$5 for this attachment" overpriced. I got so annoyed with that game because I liked it enough to spend money on it, but there was nothing worth purchasing.
Again, my apologies if somewhere in the article defined the audience. But I didn't get to it on the first page and stopped reading. Kinda pointless reading 'how to design for a particular audience' when the audience was not defined.
Mid-core gamers are in the middle, with play sessions usually over 30 minutes and occasionally over 2 hours. I see mid-core as a transition state between casual and hardcore. Sometimes real life will push a hardcore player down to mid-core, but they will usually attempt to move back up.
Whales are very difficult to define. Many here have attempted to do so. The primary characteristics are compulsive/addictive personalities, and a poor ability to keep track of money. These same individuals would be called "Marks" in Las Vegas. Note that whales can have casual, mid-core, or hardcore play lengths. Those that play competitively in pvp games also tend to have the "bully" and "low self-esteem" characteristics, based on my many interviews with them.
Note that whales don't have any more money than people in the other categories, they just are not as sophisticated in how they spend it. There are hardcore gamers that will be willing to spend $1000 per month but they will require value for that money. The trend in the industry as it targets whales is away from quality and towards unbalanced and smaller products.
I agree with you here that the original author could have defined hardcore better. Confusion between hardcore and whale players leads many to come to false conclusions about business model efficacy. Also note that Zynga, for all its failings, brought a huge number of new casual (mostly women) players into the space. This meant that a year or two ago there was this huge bulge in the distribution on the low end of the playtime scale (where the casual players were). Now those new players are getting bored and are ready to step up to mid-core games, but there is a marked shortage of mid-core games available to them.
Most independent studios seemed to be making casual games, and AAA studios are making hardcore games. Those few studios in the middle like Wargaming.net, RIOT, Kixeye, and Kabam, are doing really well for themselves.
A few years ago, the novelty of "free" was sufficient to get eye-balls on a game - but not so much today. In today's highly competitive F2P landscape, titles face exactly the same go-to-market requirements as retail titles, to build awareness, secure distribution and acquire players.
In addition, the F2P model also has the critical requirement to be able to convert, re-acquire and monetize players; via data collection (who is playing, how, and what do they do?), a sophisticated ecommerce platform (to customize offers based on individual user preferences), and tools to communicate with the player base (to bring those offers in front of them) via a variety of different media.
The organization and infrastructure needed to successfully deliver and operate an online business from acquisition to monetization mainly resides with publishers (some are better than others at it), just as we thought the age of publishers was over.