Free to wait games, how can the wait or pay mechanic be used.

Started by
27 comments, last by cyberpunkdreams 8 years, 10 months ago

Don't forget when it comes to these kinds of games you aren't focusing on the average user for income, you're focusing on the "whales" (We give our customers such ... pleasant names).

The general philosophy behind these... well lets face it, crappy games, tends to be the game is designed to keep free users active to feed to the whales (the people who pay) and do it in such a way that nobody notices.

As my post about Extra Credits notes, the way to make a GOOD game is to make paying something fun and not burdensome... but it's a hell of a lot easier to do the above mentioned method :D

Personally I'm never paying to avoid waiting, too many other things I can do with my time. I frequently pay for content, though, and my experience tells me that it's a far easier model to make work on average... just not on mobile.

Advertisement


Good point Unduli, when game mechanic matches the theme of a game it's easier to understand and remember. It's probably the reason more than one Wait or pay mechanic exists.
Still if we look at Candy crush even if the mechanic isn't explained or works with the theme, it still has the ability to work.
So it doesn't have to work with the theme, but it's better if it does?

It works for Candy Crush but it doesn't change the fact that it is bordering on annoying and exploiting players. These "casual" games ( it is a term I hate , they are usually casual for chimpanzees or any creature spared few neurons for reflexes ) target people actually non-player in gamer standards. Their understanding of reward and dopamin levels are quite different. It is not realistic for someone for example killed Alduin and saved the world at TES:Skyrim to feel excited same as passing a level at Candy Crush.

It's actually once again about convincing player imo. For example as Deflinek said, it's a way to convince player to evade an imminent attack or keeping yourself in competition or elevating quickly. But this need a tailored gameplay where C&C can fit.

SimCity Build-It also have a pay or wait mechanism but as there is no active competition but a passive one, it isn't really forcing unless you put yourself in a bad situation (like not enough utilities for population and have to wait countless hours)

PS : You may be interested in this topic @ http://www.gamedev.net/topic/663553-freemium-and-whaling/ as well

mostates by moson?e | Embrace your burden


I wouldn't pay to didn't have to wait just because it won't change anything. I mean what's the point if I pay today (even if it's like $0.5 for 1h) then tomorrow I'll face the same problem again on another queue? I may be more willing to pay if I gain something NOW. Like an attack is coming and if I can finish that ultra-mega-weapon before it I'll earn a lot of ultra-mega-coins from attacker.

I originally picked one hour because it was the point that most players where willing not to pay but still wait, strangely a bad business decision now that I think about it.

I made a test run with games using normal wait time, to find that all of the premium currency provided was ignored. It was only when we played a RTS of my make (Soldier ,Tanks and Planes; as I call it or Rock,Paper,Scissors as most know it.) that anyone spend there premium currency.

When one of the players notices others massing one kind of unit thy would counter it by, buying the stronger one with the premium. In all the other games there was no reason to spend money.

So for people to spend money on a product there must be a demand, economics 101.mellow.png

Lucky I did my tests, now I only feel like a idiot instead of losing money like one.


The question should be "what is the most you would ever pay for a game on single purchase?" In that case I would say $10 or at most $20 if game is good and I see the value in purchase. I also probably wouldn't buy more often than once a month.

Or a better question yet, how much is the least you would pay?

I found that in my test run that no one wanted to work with or wait for change, so all dealings where made in easy $1 bills even if it meant having a excess of one unit.

I kept the money this time, can't have free game night every night.


Don't forget when it comes to these kinds of games you aren't focusing on the average user for income, you're focusing on the "whales" (We give our customers such ... pleasant names).

The thing I am attempting is to get rid of whales and for now turn to dolphins, if it works I will turn to schools of sardines and dreams of a whole ocean of people paying how thy want and for what thy want.


PS : You may be interested in this topic @ http://www.gamedev.net/topic/663553-freemium-and-whaling/ as well

This is very useful, thanks.

From my tests I learned that the theory and practice of my ideas where at opposite ends, so I turned to the world and looked for similar business models to the game models we use.

There are the store purchases: These are the potato chips and some times chips dip that you buy, games and there DLC, you buy and expect a amount of quality worthy of the money.

Even if you know it's unhealthy and not very filling at times.happy.png

Then there is subscription: Going to the gym or maybe a pottery class, these are the subscription MMOs. Thy are entertaining and you expect some kind of award at the end, or you give up half way.

Games with microtransaction: These are like pools or funfairs where you have a tuck shop for treats and often have to pay per ride or entry, a lot of MMos use this instead of subscription. Wait or pay looks like it should be here but it isn't.

So what is Wait or pay then?

Gardening, some thing you do on weekends and only needs watering during the week, some thing that needs attention every now and again and some fertilizer to speed things up.

Unfortunately the fertilizer companies are greedy and so have almost stopped the growth of plants, allowing the plants to grow only slightly to remind you that thy could have grown on there own.

Looking at this I can see a that a better way to make money would be to allow players to buy different kinds of plants. A second thing to attempt is to allow players to sell the fruits of there labours so thy can expand there garden with it. I already have a few ideas and the other topic gave me more.

What are your ideas and opinions and what do you think of my metaphors?

Im with you on your dream of a sea of fish Ninja, but there's a reason the entire industry of freemium is built around whales :) Sad as it is. On the plus side, if you break that trend there's a lot of money to be made. World of Tanks did a pretty good job, but isn't mobile (Still, if you google a lot of post mortem / sales info on them you'll see their income per player is both amazingly high and an amazingly higher percent of all players).


Im with you on your dream of a sea of fish Ninja, but there's a reason the entire industry of freemium is built around whales Sad as it is.
Yea, as much as players complain thy still keep playing these games and spending money on them. Then there is the fact that these games are truly amazing, true art of making money. If half of the time spend on market research was used to improve the game, it would be something great.
I have thought about how I would make the game, what follows are just the guide lines and still need work. All criticism will be appreciated.
Also this is just idea, so if you like it you can use it.
Target audience: Males fifteen to twenty-eight afterwards interest could/should drop rapidly.
Theme: Post apocalyptic.
Once again the world has ended suddenly, with so many strange new scientific discoveries and so many dangerous old ones who can blame it.rolleyes.gif
Now a mere hundred years after the unknown event people thrive again, in a large city known as Metropolis. With so many new people being born each day, it up to you the player to scavenge, grow and mine new resources.
We here at Metropolis will provide you with every thing you need to get started and give you credit, for resources you provide. There will also be other groups out there looking; nothing wrong with some healthy competition now is there?
The player starts with a group of three to four people. All of the people different with likes and dislikes and with different skills.
Skills are Building, Farming, Mining, Scavenging, Medical, Fighting. The player will always start with a builder the others are random.
Likes and dislikes are more complex and will consist of kinds of people to any object that exists in the game.
A key feature to this game will be that there are more things the player can buy than can fit on the players map. I hope that with a large variety of object and limited space, players will built bases that differ in the way they play, allowing them to express them self and value there creation more.wub.png
Building will all have benefits and side effects, players will interact with the building with the people. Each person has to be kept happy or they will act out of order and even present a threat to the base
Also I think that there should be no building cap, if there is space on the map and the player can deal with the side effects then they can build it. This will result in strange bases, as players attempt to exploit the game. However this could potentially destroy the games economics when the players succeed; player sharing resources will add to obligation but also involve a danger to the economy.
¯\_(?)_/¯ Sorry for the wall
In game resources are Sustenance, Materials and Fuel with each being worth more than the previous one. Credit is the premium currency and can be bought for real live money or earned by selling resources. This however is a survival game and players will often choose between credit or there base, hopefully a straining but entertaining choice, it's here that the most pressure will be placed on there actual wallets.
There will be scavenging mode, the single player campaign that the player can use to slowly harvest resources. A other special feature of the one player mode is that it's where players get artifacts of the past that allow them to produce these strange old devices. These artifacts are things like guns,planes and even old ovens; things that will help the player but they can't build. These artifacts can be bought from the store and shared among players.
A territory mode, that sees players competing for ground under the rules enforced by the Metropolis judge, a kind of PvP mode.
Raids where instead of struggling to find that two hundred fuel you need to get credit you steel it from someone else, this is the same as raiding a players base in Clash of clans.
I want to use a filtering down system, as I call it, where players can share resources and other items with clan members. The reason I call it filtering is because it allows one paying customer to drag along none paying customers, sounds like whales right?unsure.png
This is where the hard part comes in, I am hunting for dolphins. I want the friends who game together, the older brother who plays the game with his younger brother, the group of colleague who discovered they like the same game and the parent who wants to control the spending of there child.
It's not like it's any thing new, we all have friends who we pay for when we get drinks or buy there snacks when we see the new Hobbit movie. It also helps to lessen the ground between paying and none paying customers.
I know it looks like this could harm the none paying customers but thy will still get treats from just being in a clan, also the nature of these players that drives them to squeeze out as much from a game will earn them allot of treats. With this I will attempt to destroy the rivalry between developer and player, after all if a player uses five accounts to create a supper base maybe he deserves one he is playing five times as much as other players.
This is a heavy ¯\(°_°)/¯ WALL!
Edit: I almost forgot draining, the player will spend resources but with so many options to gain them there needs to be drains. There will be the usual boost and such for high costs, but this game needs more. I am thinking about consumption where players have to feed there people and keep generators running.
I am conflicted by this as it means a player could lose there base if something happens in the real world, if the player is hospitalized it would undo all of what they made.
It could also make the game compulsive buy forcing players to play each day.
There are more details but lets deal with these first.
I know that this is just theories and have to be tested, but we could at least hammer out a few things now. Criticism and opinions please.
Only comment on the parts that interest you, there is no obligation here.wink.png
Wow, that is one huge thread derail :p. ... By the OP?

DenshaDeD_ch01p16-17.png

It's the "or pay" part that riles me up. It provides the game developer with actual incentive to make the waiting unpleasant for the player.

This.
They want you to pay, so why not make the free path hell?

Game companies very rarely get the Wait-or-Pay system right, and I personally just avoid them.

Were I to design my own, I would take the following approach:
I can disenfranchise my players by getting them to a point and then forcing them to pay or drive them off via boredom.
Since the players will be spending less time per individual in the game, more players need to pay overall at least once. Luckily they have pressure to pay, so indeed more of them will, once or twice.
We can safely assume the following:
Player 1: Pays twice, quits in a while.
Player 2: Pays once, quits early.
Player 3: Never pays, quits early.


Or I can just focus on making the game fun and keeping the players around for a while, which also increases the chances of them paying. Now we have this:
Player 1: Plays for a while, pays once, quits after a long time.
Player 2: Plays for a while, pays once, quits after a long time.
Player 3: Plays for a while, pays once, quits after a long time. Maybe pays once again before quitting.


If you’re going to make the same money in the end, just taking a little longer to get it, why not aim to provide a pleasurable experience overall? You might even make more money, and players will appreciate your approach and come back for your next game.

L. Spiro

I restore Nintendo 64 video-game OST’s into HD! https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCCtX_wedtZ5BoyQBXEhnVZw/playlists?view=1&sort=lad&flow=grid


Wow, that is one huge thread derail . ... By the OP?

I have to apologize, I am in the progress of changing to night shift; Please forgive the ramblings of my sleep deprived mind. I thought of deleting it or at least cleaning it up but it makes sense...In a way that dreams do, for five seconds after you wake up.

I think what I was trying to say is that by rewarding the players for playing, with currency to spend at the shop, it would be less than ideal feeding grounds for whales.

Nice pic Nypyren, where is it from?


Were I to design my own, I would take the following approach:
I can disenfranchise my players by getting them to a point and then forcing them to pay or drive them off via boredom.
Since the players will be spending less time per individual in the game, more players need to pay overall at least once. Luckily they have pressure to pay, so indeed more of them will, once or twice.
We can safely assume the following:
Player 1: Pays twice, quits in a while.
Player 2: Pays once, quits early.
Player 3: Never pays, quits early.

Or I can just focus on making the game fun and keeping the players around for a while, which also increases the chances of them paying. Now we have this:
Player 1: Plays for a while, pays once, quits after a long time.
Player 2: Plays for a while, pays once, quits after a long time.
Player 3: Plays for a while, pays once, quits after a long time. Maybe pays once again before quitting.

Making the games engaging is the ideal and the goal of every developer I hope. The problem is that immersing the player into a game takes time, so the the way I will be attempting to make the game engaging by allowing the player to create some thing of there own, bit by bit.

I could give the player a lot of fun things to do, then with each thing completed the player progresses but this is more of a Grind or pay game.

If we look at candy crush we can see that it's still a wait or pay game, even if the maximum time to wait is only thirty minutes. It has short entertaining game play then suddenly stops, just long enough to stop players from playing. This creates a clear exit for the player.

Candy crush then charges your life every half hour, to five lives that is two and a half hours for full lives and any half hour after that you don't get any lives unless you used them.

Clash of clans gives you limited workers, once the game reaches the day cycles you could use the time players workers will take, to monitor players routine. Once a worker has been given a task and the player attacked and resources used, there session ends. If you don't log in your resource will be stolen or reach a point where it's maxed.

The thing both these games do and all other wait of pay games do, is give the player a fun game then kick them out suddenly and remind them that if thy don't return later thy will progress even slower.

I am willing to bet that there doesn't even need to be time, I could at random stop the player and then ask them to either turn the game off and on or pay, to make money.

The sudden kick seems to be the largest down side, it needs to be smooth out.

Nice pic Nypyren, where is it from?


I don't know, I just saw it posted on other forums a while back.

This topic is closed to new replies.

Advertisement