Players have been long-familiar with the "grind" -- that cycle of intentionally-designed, often mind-numbing, repetitive tasks meant to impede progress.
Many free-to-play game designers have focused on monetizing the grind (they like to call it a form of "friction") by letting players pay to get past it. As a result, we see a lot of free-to-play games that focus on monetizing the grind instead of focusing on making the game fun.
Gree SVP Anil Dharni has been thinking about the grind, about free-to-play and about what players want. He co-founded Modern War and Crime City developer Funzio, a free-to-play developer. Major Tokyo-headquartered mobile game company Gree bought the studio last year.
Now at Gree, he's looking at advocating game design that focuses more on the fun instead of the grind. The issue is that he's not 100 percent sure Gree can make as much money that way.
"Typically you see a lot of people are making the players grind and grind in these games, and you'll be playing for speedups, and just things that you just use for energy refills," he explains.
"How do you evolve that game design where you increase the pool of paying users [through free-to-play], but you don't profit through grinding mechanisms -- you actually do it through more fun?"
It's still an open question for Gree and many other developers who want to make genuinely fun games and run a business. And then there's the other related question that free-to-play developers are familiar with: Will people pay you for fun that's free?
I ask him if Gree has any firm, internal data on what kinds of games make more money: the ones designed for high friction, or the ones with low friction, that let the players have a longer or deeper experience before paying.
Gree will be putting its metrics tracking to the test to find a concrete answer.
"We don't have anything specific there, yet. But we're pushing for [lower friction]," he says. "That's a pretty big trend at Gree that we are currently exploring, and testing constantly."
Anil is a fun guy to interview. I chilled-out with him for a few at last year's Casual Connect.
We ended up talking about the OUYA since it was buzzin' at the time.
Basically I walked away from the conversation with the image of Gree as a company that's open to trying new ideas in F2P content, whether it's in the mobile or TV space.
If they're looking into more sensible, lower friction methods to monetize gameplay elements, it doesn't surprise me. Beneath the amiable exterior of Gree's operation is a ridiculously deep stockpile of player metrics, so if there's traction to be had with more creative in-app monetization ideas, there's probably a compelling angle there to justify the attempt.
They're sorta re-focusing on mobile game development in the US instead of that big platform push of recent years. Most of that work went back to Japan ops.
Of course it can be done, but I'm betting it's much harder. And if they want a reliable stream of hits, I wouldn't put much hope in their ability to stomach the necessary risk.
I think I like what he's saying here, but it still seems pretty vague to me. The idea of monetizing fun sounds good, and I wholly support reducing "friction" since I think it would in turn reduce churn. Yet I wonder exactly how it would work without the support of monetized grinding.
Most literally I interpret monetized fun as "paying for more fun than can be gotten for free." In some ways, monetizing grinding does this by allowing players to skip the most negative parts of games, the grind, to maximize the total time spent doing the most fun parts.
However, since Dharni is trying to change things, then the idea must be to pay to add more fun to the game. Right? Yet that sounds like a pay wall or even pay to win, which disincentives several play styles. Somehow, the game has to encourage people to spend money without begging or pestering you for it.
An idea comes to mind based on two games I have played: Fallen London and Marvel - Avengers Alliance. It comes down to using payment as a helpful but not mandatory option for success in solo experiences, while providing an evolving experience in multiplayer that encourage repeat investment to stay on top while still somewhat rewarding those who can't or won't fund it as much. While Fallen London best exemplifies the idea for solo play, Avengers Alliance nonetheless does this well but is a great example of the multiplayer.
Fallen London is an expansive, free-to-play interactive fiction with social aspects, and it seems to accomplish paying for fun without hindering the experience for lower or non-paying players. While there is an abundance of actions available both through drawing cards and in areas, some of them require in game currency to be chosen, while others allow you to pay and skip some grinding. Only some do it, and none of them are absolutely necessary to grow as a character. Some are one shots, others are beginnings to new story branches, but they manage to entice the player with further play without stratifying the paying from the non-paying to a serious degree. Of course, it still allows you to skip the grind of waiting for energy by paying, but the experience point grinding is largely negated in favor of offering actual experiences.
As for Marvel - Avengers Alliance, it's one of the most generous social games I've played. I admit, the PvP tournaments are geared in a pay to win way. However, it's only one facet of a game that consistently expands on campaign and game content and regularly runs limited time events which can be accomplished without having to pay in order to succeed. There have been several games that have churned me out simply because it became impossible for me to finish any event without buying in-game currency, so that M-AA can maintain this approach by not making it an absolute necessity outside of competitive play is admirable. Plus, the continuing updates provide new items, characters, and adjustments, resulting in some older ones changing in usefulness compared to new and interesting ones.
Nonetheless, I think monetizing grinding works because it's one of the best things to monetize. Grinding amounts to spending time accruing resources so you can actually enjoy the game, so allowing people to actually buy resources and save that time for enjoyment makes sense. However, it is no easy task to determine when expediting play and resource accrual goes from being "pretty helpful" to "mandatory," let alone while appealing to a broad audience at the same time.
I've been publishing on this subject for two years now, and I've had some very enjoyable conversations with GREE intellectuals. The difficult thing with metrics is that while almost every company I've talked to likes to say they do a lot of "A" vs. "B" testing, all I have seen so far is "A" vs. "A" testing and they have not tried "B" yet. This article implies that they have at least started the search for "B" even if they have not found it yet.
On the subject of grinding, my new Engagement Equation shows how/why grinding affects the customer over time, and I will suggest that while creating a mechanism to alleviate grind can drive sales, it is a relatively low order mechanism and will not bring in the real money. The higher order engagement mechanisms all involve social interaction and this is not being used because, frankly, it requires a lot more design proficiency.
Yea this is pretty vague and i'm not sure how that would work.. if you're having fun, you shouldn't be reminded to pay something.. F2P is great, but it really does hamstring some game experience possibilities.. sometimes is just nice to pay (or not) for something and know it's done.. being reminded to pay no matter how you mask it is a buzz kill.. you know it cost you real something.. and if you use it too much you will have to pay more for it.. sure we know time is a cost.. but its still not the same as money cost..
Like with Punch Quest.. i have yet to pay anything for it.. and i love the game! i could donate to just be nice and probably will at some point, but my point here is that if i give them money to get past the grind i'll have no reason to keep playing.. because it's a game of grinding and friction.. if I pay to get everything ($15).. i'll probably stop playing.. if i pay even a little i'm just speeding up that end game moment.. which do i really want to do? i'd just assume stop playing and have something to come back too.. because having everything will pretty much = zero fun.. sure i can still push myself but i imagine it means i'd get further and take longer to die which also is not really desirable as it means more time to play each session.
I've paid for one F2P game. An old Zynga game called "Ghost Racer" back in 2008 or so. I played the game for free for a long time then i hit the final car that was near-impossible to buy between fewer victories having peaked in my best racing with the gear available.. i wanted to experience the final car so i opted to pay $5 (mind you i'd been playing this for months free) and buy the last car..
i did it.. played the new car for maybe 20min and never played again.. so i look at other F2P games that follow the upgrade path basically in the same light.. now am i mad that i paid ghost racer to basically stop playing? no, because i had invested so much time and had fun playing it so i could see that i basically was just paying at the end the experience.. kinda like paying your check at a restaurant after a good meal..
Also when i look at jet pack joyride, temple run and others.. i personally enjoy the game and the grind is part of the experience.. trying to do better with each attempt.. using consumables for me is a downer especially if i'm saving up money to buy at least something persistent like a new jetpack or character... where boosters never offer their value back.. 1000 coins for a booster in JPJR.. which even with a doubler you might get 200 coins back.. after that you're just in a tougher part of the game and likely to die before you actually earn back your 1000 coins let alone come out ahead..
Also many of these games also offer no storage of your purchases so if you do give them money for your game so while i realize when i paid to play a coin op game back in the day at the arcade.. i didn't leave with anything there either, but with cloud services becoming more accessible and reliable. i feel like if i did want to invest money into something it would need to be something i know can be restored..
"How do you evolve that game design where you increase the pool of paying users [through free-to-play], but you don't profit through grinding mechanisms -- you actually do it through more fun?"
There's that dreaded F-word again....FUN. Does Fun = Engagement? I'm not quite sure. Stepping outside of games, the activities we stick with scratch that deepest of human needs called meaning, or purpose. We stick with an activity, like learning to play and mastering the guitar, because we have created a meaning around it. Meaningful and purposeful activities allow us to learn more about ourselves and connect with others who share the same purpose. Friction for friction's sake leads to player burnout.
We ended up talking about the OUYA since it was buzzin' at the time.
Basically I walked away from the conversation with the image of Gree as a company that's open to trying new ideas in F2P content, whether it's in the mobile or TV space.
If they're looking into more sensible, lower friction methods to monetize gameplay elements, it doesn't surprise me. Beneath the amiable exterior of Gree's operation is a ridiculously deep stockpile of player metrics, so if there's traction to be had with more creative in-app monetization ideas, there's probably a compelling angle there to justify the attempt.
They're sorta re-focusing on mobile game development in the US instead of that big platform push of recent years. Most of that work went back to Japan ops.
Most literally I interpret monetized fun as "paying for more fun than can be gotten for free." In some ways, monetizing grinding does this by allowing players to skip the most negative parts of games, the grind, to maximize the total time spent doing the most fun parts.
However, since Dharni is trying to change things, then the idea must be to pay to add more fun to the game. Right? Yet that sounds like a pay wall or even pay to win, which disincentives several play styles. Somehow, the game has to encourage people to spend money without begging or pestering you for it.
An idea comes to mind based on two games I have played: Fallen London and Marvel - Avengers Alliance. It comes down to using payment as a helpful but not mandatory option for success in solo experiences, while providing an evolving experience in multiplayer that encourage repeat investment to stay on top while still somewhat rewarding those who can't or won't fund it as much. While Fallen London best exemplifies the idea for solo play, Avengers Alliance nonetheless does this well but is a great example of the multiplayer.
Fallen London is an expansive, free-to-play interactive fiction with social aspects, and it seems to accomplish paying for fun without hindering the experience for lower or non-paying players. While there is an abundance of actions available both through drawing cards and in areas, some of them require in game currency to be chosen, while others allow you to pay and skip some grinding. Only some do it, and none of them are absolutely necessary to grow as a character. Some are one shots, others are beginnings to new story branches, but they manage to entice the player with further play without stratifying the paying from the non-paying to a serious degree. Of course, it still allows you to skip the grind of waiting for energy by paying, but the experience point grinding is largely negated in favor of offering actual experiences.
As for Marvel - Avengers Alliance, it's one of the most generous social games I've played. I admit, the PvP tournaments are geared in a pay to win way. However, it's only one facet of a game that consistently expands on campaign and game content and regularly runs limited time events which can be accomplished without having to pay in order to succeed. There have been several games that have churned me out simply because it became impossible for me to finish any event without buying in-game currency, so that M-AA can maintain this approach by not making it an absolute necessity outside of competitive play is admirable. Plus, the continuing updates provide new items, characters, and adjustments, resulting in some older ones changing in usefulness compared to new and interesting ones.
Nonetheless, I think monetizing grinding works because it's one of the best things to monetize. Grinding amounts to spending time accruing resources so you can actually enjoy the game, so allowing people to actually buy resources and save that time for enjoyment makes sense. However, it is no easy task to determine when expediting play and resource accrual goes from being "pretty helpful" to "mandatory," let alone while appealing to a broad audience at the same time.
Still doesn't mean it isn't doable though.
On the subject of grinding, my new Engagement Equation shows how/why grinding affects the customer over time, and I will suggest that while creating a mechanism to alleviate grind can drive sales, it is a relatively low order mechanism and will not bring in the real money. The higher order engagement mechanisms all involve social interaction and this is not being used because, frankly, it requires a lot more design proficiency.
Like with Punch Quest.. i have yet to pay anything for it.. and i love the game! i could donate to just be nice and probably will at some point, but my point here is that if i give them money to get past the grind i'll have no reason to keep playing.. because it's a game of grinding and friction.. if I pay to get everything ($15).. i'll probably stop playing.. if i pay even a little i'm just speeding up that end game moment.. which do i really want to do? i'd just assume stop playing and have something to come back too.. because having everything will pretty much = zero fun.. sure i can still push myself but i imagine it means i'd get further and take longer to die which also is not really desirable as it means more time to play each session.
I've paid for one F2P game. An old Zynga game called "Ghost Racer" back in 2008 or so. I played the game for free for a long time then i hit the final car that was near-impossible to buy between fewer victories having peaked in my best racing with the gear available.. i wanted to experience the final car so i opted to pay $5 (mind you i'd been playing this for months free) and buy the last car..
i did it.. played the new car for maybe 20min and never played again.. so i look at other F2P games that follow the upgrade path basically in the same light.. now am i mad that i paid ghost racer to basically stop playing? no, because i had invested so much time and had fun playing it so i could see that i basically was just paying at the end the experience.. kinda like paying your check at a restaurant after a good meal..
Also when i look at jet pack joyride, temple run and others.. i personally enjoy the game and the grind is part of the experience.. trying to do better with each attempt.. using consumables for me is a downer especially if i'm saving up money to buy at least something persistent like a new jetpack or character... where boosters never offer their value back.. 1000 coins for a booster in JPJR.. which even with a doubler you might get 200 coins back.. after that you're just in a tougher part of the game and likely to die before you actually earn back your 1000 coins let alone come out ahead..
Also many of these games also offer no storage of your purchases so if you do give them money for your game so while i realize when i paid to play a coin op game back in the day at the arcade.. i didn't leave with anything there either, but with cloud services becoming more accessible and reliable. i feel like if i did want to invest money into something it would need to be something i know can be restored..
There's that dreaded F-word again....FUN. Does Fun = Engagement? I'm not quite sure. Stepping outside of games, the activities we stick with scratch that deepest of human needs called meaning, or purpose. We stick with an activity, like learning to play and mastering the guitar, because we have created a meaning around it. Meaningful and purposeful activities allow us to learn more about ourselves and connect with others who share the same purpose. Friction for friction's sake leads to player burnout.