| Ramin Shokrizade |
|
|
It makes perfect sense that Jared used to be a gold farmer. I was one of the early successful gold farmers and that early group really got a sense of what players were willing to pay for early on.
Despite the 97% failure rate of products in China, the one thing they do really well there is that they build their games around their monetization design, and the game design is secondary. Every game there has a monetization tech working on it, and in some cases they have one for every *server*. Here in the West if we consider monetization at all it usually means applying analytics to games after they are designed and we totally lose the opportunity to design our games to monetize. If the West could take monetization design more seriously, or if the quality of game design in the East could improve, some truly amazing (and profitable) games could be the result. If you want to know why a company would need to open up 224 servers per week, this is explained in detail in my "How 'Pay to Win' Works" paper: http://gameful.org/group/games-for-change/forum/topics/how-pay-to-win-works The information for this paper was mostly gathered from playing Chinese browser games, some of which I was the top player on all servers while researching (for those that think I only understand Western markets). This was on a $20 per server budget. As Jared points out, games in China are so cheap, and so quickly copied, that the emphasis is on very fast ROI. There is no emphasis on player retention and thus their use of monetization models that reduce product lifespan are not a problem. Companies in the West that use similar techniques and then lose most of their players in the first month should not be surprised. The idea of guild levels is great and I have been trying to pitch this to a lot of Western companies, but the idea seems very alien to players who have not played Chinese games. The monetization potential here is massive. I think the best take-away I can suggest on this excellent presentation is that Western game design is more advanced, Easter monetization design is more advanced, and the most successful products will be future hybridized products. Trying to take the game design from one continent and the monetization design from another continent and just slapping them together will not work. Both need to be modified for effective hybridization. |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
| Nooh Ha |
|
This is a really fascinating insight into the Chinese MMOG market.
|
|
|
| Kevin Bender |
|
A lot of these tactics seem... unethical. My personal favorite is "AFK Mode" where you pay them, by the hour, to not play their game. Oh and with the infinite leveling, if you forget to turn it off, you could be paying them forever. Why would you give your credit card information to these kinds of people?
|
|
|
| Dave Ingram |
|
|
This is very insightful and interesting, and now I understand why I was always under-powered in Conquer Online back in the day. This also gave me insight into the the amount of socialist influence in U.S. culture today, which is reinforced by some of the comments here.
|
|
|
| Andrew Mai |
|
Very interesting article as well as the perspectives given by comments. As a Game Publisher myself I must agree with various opinions that games are exploited. As long as hard dollars get invested, thousands of dollars spent creating games and lots of money goes into server hardware and whatever comes with running a browser or online game monetization is not the worst that can happen.
As the basic article was about "whales" I do have a slight disagreement by means of preventing people (like gambling) from spending too much on their addiction. But I guess that "self-prevention" in our industry is still far behind as our direct daughter industry gambling. @Ramin: I would have mentioned Zynga as this is the classic model of microtransactions and its working for FBs sake, Zynga without FB and the masses of users would not be viable on the long run. Actually they have found the ultimate cash cow... and FB is definately partner in crime. @some earlier commentors: -> Dave: there is some point in your comments, but as all industries the gaming industry is a "pretty young" industry that was enabled while the PC rose over the past 15 years and got a foot in the door with the rise of the internet some 10 years back. Don't expect things to be "self regulated". It will take a long time until local legislation, or individual companies will find a non intrusive way into peoples PC. As someone mentioned the "housing" bubble... Gaming is a bubble as well and under the line and the end.. only the best will succeed. However: China has a great potential and I had the chance to talk to some Chinese publishers some days back and must say ... they got great ideas and potentials for upcoming games ... lots of European and US based companies will get wet feet! |
|
|
| Stephen Chow |
|
Totally agree all facts ...Chinese market is much more similar to JP and KR. Launch with massive and monetization events to drive 7 day ARPPU. Very low conversation rate but high ARPPU, poor retention. Game life cycle usually <=30 days.
The reason why China is popular for web game is because the entrance is very low, but the user exp is very poor and bad. I believe the market will shift quickly to mobile such as Androa and iOS for next 2 year. But developer has to deal with jail break and farmer. Another example, If you look at JP market mobile card battle game, every month release 100 games on featured or smart phone, it's very similar launch strategy like rolling server and event drive monetization. This strategy might work in western. Why? Just look at top 5 ranking mobile games in US market: Rage of Bahamut. A total JP team dev and operating a game in western market. The only difference between JP,KR with China is the K-factor, viral and social in JP and KR is much stronger because the CPI is twice than US in JP and KR. |
|
|
More: Social/Online, Business/Marketing, Exclusive, Video