Facebook Requiring Game Developers To Adopt Its Credits System
January 24, 2011 | By Eric Caoili 24 comments More:
Facebook is notifying game developers that they will need to implement Facebook Credits, its universal virtual currency system that the site takes a cut from, to their titles on the social network starting July.
Introduced in June 2009, the Credits system allows users to purchase virtual currency that they can spend in all participating apps and games on Facebook. It's meant to serve as a more portable alternative to game- and publisher-specific options, which have stricter limits on where people can use their virtual currency.
Many of Facebook's biggest game developers have already integrated Credits into their games, with some like Electronic Arts and CrowdStar even signing five-year agreements to use the universal virtual currency exclusively. Around 150 developers have added support for Credits across 350 titles during the system's beta-testing phase.
The social network admits some developers might not be happy with this requirement for their titles, which is why it's announcing the change five months in advance. Deborah Liu, Credits' product marketing manager, said the company wants to "have an open conversation with developers", according to a report from TechCrunch.
Facebook has a big incentive to make Credits mandatory for all its games, as the site takes a 30 percent cut on transactions with the virtual currency, while developers receive the rest. It also argues that having a standard system will lower the barrier of entry for users wanting to buy virtual currency compatible with multiple applications.
Developers can continue using other virtual currencies alongside Credits, but Facebook will require users to buy Facebook Credits that would be then used to buy those virtual currencies.
Facebook will offer special benefits to companies that use Credits exclusively, including early access to product features, as well as "premium promotion" on the site with featured placement on the Games Dashboard, premium targeting for ads, and new co-promotion opportunities.
"Over the next five months, we will work closely with developers to onboard those who are not yet using Facebook Credits, collect feedback to improve the product, continue to innovate on the user experience, and help developers grow their revenue on Facebook," says Liu,
She adds, "We're excited to give Facebook users the confidence that when they purchase Facebook Credits or receive them as a gift, they can spend them in any game on Facebook."
Better to not begin with Facebook to begin with, than hear in a few years about how Facebook isn't succeeding like it once did.
Basically, going viral and gaining fans that way is much better than going to the trap that is Facebook. Too many people are rushing there. Only a fraction of users actually care about the game they are playing, and do it because their friends do.
I'd say it could help devs. Especially smaller ones in that if someone picks up their game and they already have credits in the bank then its easier to get someone to pay.
Last year I made plans to develop for facebook , but they put me off from doing it. I told myself it would be something I would look into later. Now I think it is something that I will just not do.
Why are game developers so adamant on getting 100% of everything. Do you think that tapping into a huge audience is worth nothing? I don't get it. Is Facebook supposed to be a charity? If you were marketing your game some other way would you insist that the marketer work for free? What about the App Store? It takes 30%. Is that a rip off as well?
Funny, because I can tap an even bigger audience on other sites. Media runs with Facebook so long as it's popular. Do you work on a dev team? These decisions matter.
We'd rather release our games through Newgrounds, Steam, and Kongregate rather than go this route.
Well, those are all different demographics and you are missing out on a big one excluding Facebook. Ideally you dev for them all if possible. I also doubt you can tap a bigger audience than Facebook at the moment. In theory yes, but the hurdles are bigger elsewhere.
Agreed Tim. Plus you are still free to offer any of your previous payment methods. Only FB's currency should be ADDED. Meaning that it will just be another potential cash entry for your game. Cash you could have missed out on...
Sure they take money, but they also provide the platform & the 'wallet'. It's really not a rare case that someone loaded lets say 5 dollar worth of credits on their account, spent 50%, starting to play your game and decides to spend the remaining money there 'because its there anyway'
Ah ye.. I guess I misinterpreted "Developers can continue using other virtual currencies alongside Credits, but Facebook will require users to buy Facebook Credits that would be then used to buy those virtual currencies.". Hmm, but still I think in long term standardization will be beneficial, as the currency method matures.
The only surprise is that it took Facebook this long to drop the hammer. It's not that big a deal for developers who don't already have a game on Facebook; it just means a different revenue structure to consider when deciding whether or not to do a Facebook game.
Certainly if you can use Facebook to help build an audience, and your game doesn't only exist on Facebook, you can decide whether the 30% fee is worth the additional exposure.
Wait, so what happens if your game in no way shape or form supports the purchasing of any form of currency? What if there's nothing to buy in your game or application? Would they force implementation in a game for users to purchase nothing?
(Facebook games like this are probably in the minority, but still..)
Here are a couples of point of Why facebook credit is unlikely to be used by devs :
1. One of the basis of Free 2 Play games is to avoid user being able to put a real price in $ on items they buy. Facebook Credits does the complete opposite. If all game were to use Facebook Credits, people would start to look how much an item cost comparing it to other games.
One counter-measure is to convert those Facebook Credits into an other in-game currency using packs that the user needs to buy. This lead to the second problem.
2. By using Facebook Credits, the path required by the user to buy an item increase greatly (that means you will loose potential consumer). If he wants to buy an item, he first need to be directed to page to recharge is Facebook credits. Then he needs to select his payment methods, go back to the game, buy a pack to convert to the game currency and finally is able to buy the item.
3. Not matter what people say 30% is a huge cut-off for medium and small games. There are far better payment solutions like Paypal which provides a better revenue who only takes 3.4% + 0.25c per transaction (and it goes lower , the more you sales)
Having this be a manditory requirement would definitely deter me from considering development for Facebook if I were to start my own project with limited resources. It seems as if Facebook apps cater more to businesses with money who can afford it. Facebook has evolved to be more of a marketing tool rather than a social website.
It almost seems as if Facebook is forgetting what helped them get to be this big. Now that these large corporations see Facebook worth investing in, Facebook can forget the little guys.
If they don't make this optional, I wouldn't be surprised if the smaller, indie developers finds another platform to develop for. Although Facebook will have money coming from the bigger corporations, the apps culture that started on Facebook will move on.
I've thought about this over night and the real problem is that they are cutting off an important money supply to all of the other micro-t providers. Once they choke out the competition they can decide to move to a different percentage and if Facebook is the only place that a majority of gamers play then FB can do whatever they want to dev's.
Royalty share percentage points between large corporations and content providers have a long history of tipping towards Goliath over time.
So, if someone spends their FBC on my game, do I get the cash equivalent?
How are devs supposed to get paid from FBC purchased through another game? Do we make money when one of our users purchases FBC through our game and not if they didn't?
"While you're navigating through space, please feel free to buy *insert add-on you'll never use* with your Chuck E. - uh, I mean Facebook Credits.
Please, feel free to flame.
Basically, going viral and gaining fans that way is much better than going to the trap that is Facebook. Too many people are rushing there. Only a fraction of users actually care about the game they are playing, and do it because their friends do.
We'd rather release our games through Newgrounds, Steam, and Kongregate rather than go this route.
Sure they take money, but they also provide the platform & the 'wallet'. It's really not a rare case that someone loaded lets say 5 dollar worth of credits on their account, spent 50%, starting to play your game and decides to spend the remaining money there 'because its there anyway'
Certainly if you can use Facebook to help build an audience, and your game doesn't only exist on Facebook, you can decide whether the 30% fee is worth the additional exposure.
(Facebook games like this are probably in the minority, but still..)
1. One of the basis of Free 2 Play games is to avoid user being able to put a real price in $ on items they buy. Facebook Credits does the complete opposite. If all game were to use Facebook Credits, people would start to look how much an item cost comparing it to other games.
One counter-measure is to convert those Facebook Credits into an other in-game currency using packs that the user needs to buy. This lead to the second problem.
2. By using Facebook Credits, the path required by the user to buy an item increase greatly (that means you will loose potential consumer). If he wants to buy an item, he first need to be directed to page to recharge is Facebook credits. Then he needs to select his payment methods, go back to the game, buy a pack to convert to the game currency and finally is able to buy the item.
3. Not matter what people say 30% is a huge cut-off for medium and small games. There are far better payment solutions like Paypal which provides a better revenue who only takes 3.4% + 0.25c per transaction (and it goes lower , the more you sales)
It almost seems as if Facebook is forgetting what helped them get to be this big. Now that these large corporations see Facebook worth investing in, Facebook can forget the little guys.
If they don't make this optional, I wouldn't be surprised if the smaller, indie developers finds another platform to develop for. Although Facebook will have money coming from the bigger corporations, the apps culture that started on Facebook will move on.
Royalty share percentage points between large corporations and content providers have a long history of tipping towards Goliath over time.
How are devs supposed to get paid from FBC purchased through another game? Do we make money when one of our users purchases FBC through our game and not if they didn't?