[In this pointed opinion piece, David Chang, EVP of Business Development and Marketing at online game publisher Gamescampus (Asda Story), discusses what he feels is the error of calling certain MMOs "free to play".]
I would like our industry and media to consider changing how we refer to our game category. In my personal opinion, the term "free to play" rings hollow and, in many cases, is completely inaccurate. In calling our games "free to play," I think our industry generates a lot of unnecessary cynicism and calls our product quality into question.
Unless the game is completely monetized by advertising, then the publishers are relying on a certain percentage of people who play the game to find enough enjoyment out of the game to be willing to pay for enhanced features and items. Reading the commentary out there, I feel that there is a significant portion of people that feel like the term free to play is a bait-and-switch.
The Google Similarity?
First, we should look at our business model as a service that needs to be completely in tune with how a new generation is learning to pay for things; that is, only those things that benefit them, while expecting many other services to be completely without charge. Although it is not a perfect comparison, I do believe there are similarities with Google.
For example, Google doesn’t charge most consumers anything for consuming their most popular service -- search. Google search is certainly a very useful free service! However, Google relies on all of the free traffic and searches to power its money making services -- paid search and other value-added services.
This is perceived to be acceptable because these paid services finance the very useful search service and allows it to be offered for free. In fact, the free search service has been deemed to be so useful, people do not give a second thought to the fact that Google reads very sensitive information about you, what you search for, and what your emails contain (if you use Gmail).
In our game model, almost all content is completely without charge. In fact, we actually rely on most people not paying, as the game communities would be really small without them! The truth is that we need the free community to be active, happy, and engaged with the games we publish; if they are not, then we would have very few people that opt to buy a game item.
In both situations, people receive a valuable service—free search or a free game experience. However, both services do need to make money eventually, otherwise they would not be able to provide these great services for free.
This is where I feel the “free to play” label does more harm than good. I can tell you honestly that my company exists to make a profit, and we do hope that the people that play our games buy in-game items eventually!
A New Label
In terms of a solution, I propose calling our games “MTS Games” (Micro-Transaction Service) or even MTG (Micro-Transaction Games) if you prefer. I think this label, while a bit technical, gets rid of the “As seen on TV” quality stigma and cynicism that “free to play” engenders (it really can’t be free, can it?). Equally important is defining what an MTS game is (and what it is not).
An MTS game would be a game that:
1. Requires no purchase to download and play the game
2. Does not have a level cap or content cap beyond which you need to pay
3. Is at least partially monetized by sales of in-game goods
By calling our games MTS games, I hope to separate our games from the cynicism associated with the “free to play” label. I think the definition above also addresses the bait-and-switch concerns as well, as an MTS game as defined above would not require any purchases to play.
In my opinion, a lot of the dissatisfaction about micro-transactions stem from the fact that many publishers require one to purchase the game at retail or download, and then charge them again to experience additional content. In my opinion, this strategy is actually the most consumer-antagonistic as they require an upfront fee and then charge people again when they want more content.
At least with an MTS game, people can play the game without any upfront costs, and if they don’t like the game, they can walk away without a single fee. Also, recall that for any MTS game to be successful, you need a vibrant community that is only taking advantage of the free services, ala Google.
There is a symbiotic relationship between the free community and those who choose to enhance their experience by purchasing an in-game item, which in turns allows us to offer the service for free to many others.
Models That Can Work
Addressing another bait-and-switch concern is to have the entire game playable—no level-caps or content-caps for free players. In my opinion, games that employ the level or content-cap model are really just distributing trial-versions and end up upsetting players—especially if you are less than clear about what you are doing.
People end up investing time and emotionally connecting with a game only to find out that if they want to continue, they need to pay an admission fee. It is counterproductive. Not only will you lose most players at the pay-gate, the community on the other side (the paying side) will also suffer because of the lack of community -- who wants to pay a cover charge for a club if there isn’t a huge party going on inside!
The last part of what defines an MTS game is that it is at least partially monetized by the sale of in-game goods. I say partially because I do think that there is room here to supplement revenue through ads or perhaps sponsorships if they are appropriate and fit the game property.
Don't Dismiss Advertising
While some cynics may sneer at the inclusion of advertising in a game, I think there is definitely room for it as there is in other areas of our lives (during our TV programs, ahead of movies we pay to see, on billboards along our freeways, etc.).
If it ultimately benefits the game community and is done right, it can be a positive thing for the game. Remember MTS games are all about gathering a critical mass of players and then figuring out how to provide a service to the whole community, paying and non-paying players alike.
Our whole business model has just begun to grow and flourish in North America. I have no doubt that the model offers players of a new generation what they expect out of their online gaming experience and will continue to grow.
But I also feel strongly that now is the time, when our model is just building a name for itself in this industry and its perception is so important, that we should be looking at re-branding from free to play, to instead being known as micro-transaction service providers.
[David Chang is Executive VP of Business Development and Marketing at Gamescampus/OnNet; he previously served as Vice President of Business Development of PlaySpan, the publisher-sponsored in-game commerce network. This editorial originally ran on sister website WorldsInMotion.biz.]
I, too, believe that the title is misleading. I also have to say "Well said!" to the issue of limiting the free users versus making the pay-to-play users amazing. See this Penny-Arcade astrip, for they visualize it much better than I can state it:
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2007/05/11/
Since you are Executive CP of Marketing, what do you think on this question: "Do you draw more people in with the phrase 'free-to-play' or 'microtransaction game'?" I think having 'free' on the box (or webpage, as it may be) is a huge userbase generator, even if it is misleading and hollow. Do I think it is morally right? No. Do I think people who are not aware of the implications that title brings will play THAT game over the one that says "MTS Game"? That's my question.
I think the 'free-to-play' moniker has its merits. For the average, present day western MMO player it will have some stigma about quality, but that is only because they are not used to 'F2P' games that can really stand up to their AAA titles. Once more quality games come into the market this will change.
From a casual gamer and non-gamer viewpoint, I think 'F2P' is still better than MTG or MTS games. Micro-Transaction Service could be a bit much for the new MMO player, or the casual player -- if they do not know what it really stands for. 'Free-to-play' is pretty obvious, and 'free' is always an eye catcher. People will be willing to try it if it has free right on the box -- that is how I have gotten sucked into many a 'F2P' MMO.
And the limiting of players to content is pretty true, unless done properly.
Please, don't use MTG... There millions of gamers who equate MTG with "Magic: The Gathering".
On a more serious note, MTE (Micro-Transaction Entertainment) would be better. You don't want to tell customers that it's a service. "Service" is a business-oriented term and sounds weird from a customer's perspective. I agree with Josh, though: "free-to-play" is best, at least from a customer's perspective. It's the least confusing and most obvious. Businesses should use their own terms internally.
"Free-To-Play" draws people in who would not otherwise play the game. Since MMOs of this type are based on the 1/10/100 idea (for every 100 people that play, 10 buy things casually, 1 buys everything available) you need as many subscribers as possible.
Using acronyms would not only fail to draw players in, it would scare some users off, because of the intimidation factor of getting into something you don't understand. If games are misleading and are using the free-to-play label but are offering gated leveling or micro transactions for more powerful items or characters they are failing to apply the model correctly and will be less successful. This is pointed out in the article.
Really, this article is an argument for setting up Free-to-Play games correctly, by following the numbered guidelines you provide. Changing the naming scheme is irrelevant and counterproductive.
"Zero-subscription" would be the most accurate term. It correctly describes the basic concept, without mispleading or promising anything else. From that point, be it advertiser-subsidized, microtransaction, powered-by-taking-surveys, etc., the exact nature of the service can be described farther into the signup process and description of the game. "Zero-subscription" blankets all of those, and drives home the point: there is no pay-in-advance or commitment or recurring billing to worry about.
I'd also like to assert that games don't have to sell in-game goods in order to be free-to-play / MTG. We sell customizations and convenience features in our online MMO.
While free-to-play may be more compelling from a consumer standpoint, I have seen what Mr. Chang has noted - players who are otherwise happy and engaged complaining that the item mall violates the idea of the game being 'free to play' even if said item mall lacks any item that would radically change or break the game.
That is, the players come expecting literally a free to play service - any and all for free and any action by the company to make money as a sudden appearance of greed and what not. By any other reasonable situation, it would be silly but as this is a game situation, people tend towards a more knee-jerk emotional reaction to it.
While I don't think merely re-branding games as Micro-games (or whatever) would change a lot, I think the major point Mr. Chang intends may at least help make non-subscription MMOs more alluring for players and developers alike. That is, not to look at a product and then figure out ways to add money-making components on to it, but take a core product and build upon it with things people may want; treat the core product as equal in quality. Like a cell phone service plan - people can customize their plan or phone as much as they want, but the core product (being able to use their cell phone) remains the same quality.
First, I’d like to thank everyone for their insightful comments. I had hoped to spark some discussion regarding this topic and my greatest fear was actually that no one would really think that this is an important issue (at least not important enough to comment on).
Here is the thing – is there power in the phrase “Free-to-play”? The answer is absolutely, it makes great ad copy and people get the message quickly and the immediate proposition is offers is attractive.
My basic thought is that at some point we need to get beyond calling these kind of games “free” – it should be understood and accepted that there is a free experience.
Here is an example – I’m old enough to remember when I had friends that actually PAID to use AOL (I used to laugh at them). These days if I wanted to create a site that offered webmail and some content, I would be totally insane to try to charge for these services. Following that line of thought, advertising “FREE WEBMAIL” seems sort of cheesy and out of touch doesn’t it?
My line of thinking is very much along Stephanie’s comment, whatever label we choose to call our games I think influences not just customer perception but also 3rd party industry and our own perception of these games. By sticking with the “Free-to-Play” mentality, you clearly segregate populations (paid and unpaid as the Penny Arcade comic humorously points out). We need to get beyond that and look at the gameplay community as a whole and design the game to service that entire community and make the game fun and enjoyable regardless of whether you pay or not.
A vast number of online gamers are smarter than you might think, that is they are ahead of the curve. They know better than most of us here what Free to Play can mean and that there's usually a fee of some kind somewhere down the line. Using another term like MTE or MTG is, imho, redundant.
The F2P model has some serious potential, but I don't think it is our naming conventions that hold it back. While I appreciate Mr. Chang's point, and I agree with his logic, I don't think this will make the expected impact. Until we address the game quality and the nature of the "cash shop" in the Western market we won't see the possibly huge player base.
There will be some initial growth just from the "free" nature of the games and the ever expanding reach of high speed internet and gaming in general. I believe that this area of gaming won't truly explode until, like Josh said, the quality of the F2P games can rival that of AAA titles. Also, the most successful of these games will implement their cash shop in a way that does immediately break the game. The common phrase in today's F2P game is "Free to play, pay to win." When there are exclusive levels of power that a player can buy, be it through gear or pets or whatever, you've automatically created a caste system that destroys the integrity of the gameplay. Gamers don't want to feel cheated, either in game quality or in game function. Until we address these issues it doesn't matter how we brand these games. They just won't have the staying power that keeps very large numbers of players engaged.
I've played dozens of F2P games and I come across these exact problems in every single one. I'm rooting for this genre and business model, so keep it focused on the customer experience. The last sentence in Mr. Chang's comment sums that up pretty well.
This whole discussion reminds me of those who try to re-label the casual game industry because the word "casual" describes neither the games nor the audience. Unfortunately it's a lost cause, and the industry and market will label things as they will. F2P is here to stay.
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2007/05/11/
Since you are Executive CP of Marketing, what do you think on this question: "Do you draw more people in with the phrase 'free-to-play' or 'microtransaction game'?" I think having 'free' on the box (or webpage, as it may be) is a huge userbase generator, even if it is misleading and hollow. Do I think it is morally right? No. Do I think people who are not aware of the implications that title brings will play THAT game over the one that says "MTS Game"? That's my question.
From a casual gamer and non-gamer viewpoint, I think 'F2P' is still better than MTG or MTS games. Micro-Transaction Service could be a bit much for the new MMO player, or the casual player -- if they do not know what it really stands for. 'Free-to-play' is pretty obvious, and 'free' is always an eye catcher. People will be willing to try it if it has free right on the box -- that is how I have gotten sucked into many a 'F2P' MMO.
And the limiting of players to content is pretty true, unless done properly.
On a more serious note, MTE (Micro-Transaction Entertainment) would be better. You don't want to tell customers that it's a service. "Service" is a business-oriented term and sounds weird from a customer's perspective. I agree with Josh, though: "free-to-play" is best, at least from a customer's perspective. It's the least confusing and most obvious. Businesses should use their own terms internally.
Using acronyms would not only fail to draw players in, it would scare some users off, because of the intimidation factor of getting into something you don't understand. If games are misleading and are using the free-to-play label but are offering gated leveling or micro transactions for more powerful items or characters they are failing to apply the model correctly and will be less successful. This is pointed out in the article.
Really, this article is an argument for setting up Free-to-Play games correctly, by following the numbered guidelines you provide. Changing the naming scheme is irrelevant and counterproductive.
That is, the players come expecting literally a free to play service - any and all for free and any action by the company to make money as a sudden appearance of greed and what not. By any other reasonable situation, it would be silly but as this is a game situation, people tend towards a more knee-jerk emotional reaction to it.
While I don't think merely re-branding games as Micro-games (or whatever) would change a lot, I think the major point Mr. Chang intends may at least help make non-subscription MMOs more alluring for players and developers alike. That is, not to look at a product and then figure out ways to add money-making components on to it, but take a core product and build upon it with things people may want; treat the core product as equal in quality. Like a cell phone service plan - people can customize their plan or phone as much as they want, but the core product (being able to use their cell phone) remains the same quality.
Here is the thing – is there power in the phrase “Free-to-play”? The answer is absolutely, it makes great ad copy and people get the message quickly and the immediate proposition is offers is attractive.
My basic thought is that at some point we need to get beyond calling these kind of games “free” – it should be understood and accepted that there is a free experience.
Here is an example – I’m old enough to remember when I had friends that actually PAID to use AOL (I used to laugh at them). These days if I wanted to create a site that offered webmail and some content, I would be totally insane to try to charge for these services. Following that line of thought, advertising “FREE WEBMAIL” seems sort of cheesy and out of touch doesn’t it?
My line of thinking is very much along Stephanie’s comment, whatever label we choose to call our games I think influences not just customer perception but also 3rd party industry and our own perception of these games. By sticking with the “Free-to-Play” mentality, you clearly segregate populations (paid and unpaid as the Penny Arcade comic humorously points out). We need to get beyond that and look at the gameplay community as a whole and design the game to service that entire community and make the game fun and enjoyable regardless of whether you pay or not.
There will be some initial growth just from the "free" nature of the games and the ever expanding reach of high speed internet and gaming in general. I believe that this area of gaming won't truly explode until, like Josh said, the quality of the F2P games can rival that of AAA titles. Also, the most successful of these games will implement their cash shop in a way that does immediately break the game. The common phrase in today's F2P game is "Free to play, pay to win." When there are exclusive levels of power that a player can buy, be it through gear or pets or whatever, you've automatically created a caste system that destroys the integrity of the gameplay. Gamers don't want to feel cheated, either in game quality or in game function. Until we address these issues it doesn't matter how we brand these games. They just won't have the staying power that keeps very large numbers of players engaged.
I've played dozens of F2P games and I come across these exact problems in every single one. I'm rooting for this genre and business model, so keep it focused on the customer experience. The last sentence in Mr. Chang's comment sums that up pretty well.
Is there actually any science behind this ? It just looks like a tremendously "convenient" figure to me...