Anyone who has experience with free-to-play games notices how different they often are compared to buy-to-play games, often with how much freedom they afford the player. This isn't just a coincidence or solely because many free-to-play games are produced cheaply and uncaringly, but a result of how different monetization schemes push developers to make various choices about the design of their games. Here, I'll be looking at specific monetization methods and the choices they push designers to make.
Buy-to-Play
The most common monetization method for games is to simply purchase a title once to keep. As long as one still has the disc/cartridge/license, they can play the game with no questions asked. While additional content may be purchased in the form of new levels, characters, or game modes, these are typically developed after a game is initially released.
One of the main advantages of buy-to-play as a designer is that there are fewer pressures to worsen the game experience in order to encourage players to pay after already beginning the game. This allows designers to craft the experience they want to instead of having to push advertisements or gate content behind paywalls and such.
However, buy-to-play games also encourage games to be designed towards the lowest common denominator, which can grate against certain gameplay intentions. Fewer people are going to try a game they have to pay up front for, and if they are met not met with immediate satisfaction and familiarity, they are more likely to refund the game. It's a tough sell to get people to spend on a game they might not even enjoy at first when they could play a variety of free-to-play games.
Ethically speaking, buy-to-play is the most sound. There are very few underhanded tricks exclusive to buy-to-play monetization models. In addition, the initial barrier of the purchase price of a buy-to-play game actively discourages developers from implementing schemes which could drive off potential consumers, though games with already established consumer-bases will often implement some of the tricks of free-to-play titles.
Subscription-Based
Popular for MMOs, the subscription based model asks players to pay a recurring fee, usually monthly, in order to play the game during the payment period. In addition, subscription-based games may ask players to pay an initial purchase price as well as pay for large content expansions. This is not a common monetization model anymore, but it does come with unique design challenges.
One of the benefits of subscription-based models is that it affords many of the freedoms of buy-to-play models but with a steadier income stream in order to support long-term, continuous development. Designers can focus on making the best game possible through extensive iteration and players get the benefit of constant new content.
The downside is that producing solid content for years and years takes its toll on developers. It's difficult to make content that is both satisfying and lasts long enough for players to feel that they got their money's worth from the game. This encourages designers to make games that are somewhat grindy, as making players repeat content in order to access the next wave of content as soon as it releases is an easy way to extend playtime.
When it comes to the ethics of subscription-based models, much of what applies to buy-to-play models is true here. There is less incentive to introduce shady business practices, but subscription-based models uniquely benefit from tactics that prey on player investment. FFXIV's housing system, for instance, encourages players to stay subscribed to the game to keep their in-game home, as homes are both expensive to purchase and in limited supply. As such, players will keep paying subscription fees in order to maintain their in-game housing, which in turn encourages the players to keep playing to get the most out of their subscription. Not only does FFXIV make additional money from these subscriptions, but those players get further entrenched into the ecosystem of the game, making it easier for Square Enix to sell microtransactions to those players.
Free-to-Play in General
Since there are many different elements in free-to-play models such as premium currencies, gachapon, optional subscriptions, and advertisements, I will first cover the aspects shared by the various models before diving into specific elements. After all, many free-to-play games use multiple monetization methods and each element can be included in buy-to-play and subscription-based models as well.
The greatest advantage of free-to-play models are that they are accessible by nature, allowing developers to experiment with different gameplay ideas. People are far more willing to try something new if it's free than if they have to pay up front, especially on storefronts that do not offer refunds. As such, developers can bank on casting a wide net to ensure they grab the interest of people who may not have thought they'd enjoy the game instead of designing towards the least common denominator.
The downside of free-to-play models is that games need to be designed around pushing the alternative monetization schemes in order to draw income. For instance, a game might limit how much the player can play it each day unless the player spends money, or a multiplayer game might offer distinct advantages to players who shell out a few dollars. After all, having a large player-base can only do so much if the players themselves never pay for anything.
There's nothing particularly wrong with free-to-play from an ethical standpoint, but the various monetization schemes can be incredibly problematic. However, some of the features present in free-to-play titles like timers which limit play time per day may actually be beneficial to preventing game addiction.
Currency-Based Monetization
One of the most common monetization models, the currency-based monetization method involves players purchasing in-game currency that they can spend to improve their gameplay experience. In many games, this takes the form of accelerating time-gated processes such as XP Boosters or build-time accelerators. Some buy-to-play and subscription-based games include these types of currencies as well, but they are most common in free-to-play titles.
Currency-based models are less restrictive in design than other monetization models models and can sidestep some of the design problems posed by gachapon or advertisement monetization. It does not rely on having a diverse roster of playable characters like gachapon and doesn't necessarily hinder pacing like advertisements.
Unlike gachapon and advertisement models, however, currency-based models don't really lend themselves to any particular gameplay loop. In addition, currency models are typically placed on top of the other models, so its advantages of freedom are often moot.
When it comes to ethics, the currency-based model is not inherently terrible, but there's a myriad of shady schemes companies like to pull. For instance, companies can strategically price items and currency in order to get players to overspend on high-quality items by making items cost just a bit more than a single currency pack. This forces the player to purchase multiple currency packs for just one item, and then the leftover currency encourages the player to purchase additional currency packs to make use of what they already had leftover. In addition, the use of multiple currencies and enormous in-game shops can result in the dreaded confusopoly, which aims to overload the player with information and false choices in order to get them to spend money.
Gachapon Monetization
Gachapon, also known as lootboxes, is a form of monetization where players spend money on a randomized product. This has become an increasingly common form of monetization in both free-to-play titles as well as buy-to-play games, particularly in the mobile market. In fact, Gachapon games are often regarded as their own genre. Most games with this form of monetization focus on an enormous cast of characters or cosmetics that players receive at random.
Gachapon monetization creates a strong foundation for a gameplay loop, where players can earn "pulls" from the gacha to unlock new characters who the players will play with to then earn additional pulls. This creates a self-paced gameplay loop that constantly gives players a novel experience each time they receive characters. Even with character cosmetics, players will be encouraged to try characters they don't normally play if they suddenly receive rare or visually unique skins.
While gachapon is great for a specific gameplay loop, it struggles when placed in alternative game structures. If there's nothing notable or unique about items in a random pool, then players won't bother with it. In addition, designing an enormous roster is incredibly taxing and requires a large team of developers constantly working to keep steady content updates out, much like a subscription MMO.
The randomization element of gachapon monetization certainly makes it the most ethically dubious method by default. Gachas are specifically designed to be as addictive as possible by using the basic principles of operant conditioning. Such conditioning is most effective when a reward is offered after a task is completed a random amount of times. In this instance, the task is making a "pull" while the reward is the desired character. In addition, the character rosters can create an ensnaring guerilla marketing situation where players will get particularly attached to specific characters via fanart and will spend money to acquire those characters when they otherwise would not be bothered. Even players who play for free can spread the influence of the game to entrap potential whales.
Battlepass Monetization
A variation of traditional subscription-based models, battlepass monetization involves the player spending money for the ability to unlock content over a period of time. Rather than receiving the content all at once, the player has to play more of the game to acquire said content before the battlepass's duration is up.
An advantage of the battlepass system is that it synergizes well with multiplayer games. These games are meant to be experienced over a long period of time with dynamic difficulty coming in the form of matchmaking as well as player skill increasing over time. By encouraging players to engage in the game more often with a battlepass system, multiplayer games not only increase the overall skill of the playerbase, but also improve the matchmaking system by gathering additional data.
The way battlepasses incentivize repeated engagement has issues when applied to single-player experiences. In addition, they can frustrate players who just want the content they paid for rather than needing to purchase the "privilege" of being able to grind for unique items. The time-gated nature also means content may be lost forever, which is incredibly problematic for archival purposes.
Battlepasses face a similar ethical dilemma as gachapon, as they are both designed to make players engage with the game as much as possible. Players are pushed to play a game in an unhealthy manner in order to "get their money's worth" from the battlepasses, so to speak. While battlepasses may contain a large amount of content, they also serve an insidious purpose to keep players within a much larger monetization ecosystem, entrenching them and encouraging them to spend additional money on other items.
Advertisement Monetization
Common for mobile games, advertisement monetization is simply turning players into a product for potential advertisers by placing ads inside of the games. These may appear during play, during loading screens, as forced breaks between game sessions, upon player loss, etc. In addition, there may also be an option for a player to turn off ads by either paying a small fee. This can also be turned on its head by allowing the player to turn ads on for in-game rewards such as additional currency.
Out of all the free-to-play monetization methods, this can be made the closest to buy-to-play models with a one-time fee that turns off advertisements. As such, it shares most of the benefits available to buy-to-play monetization, albeit with some restrictions. Advertisements encourage designers to create short bursts of gameplay, so as quickly cycle a player between various advertisements. Arcade-like games that emphasize rapidly escalating difficulty in short gaming sessions are naturally a good fit for this.
One of the biggest issues facing advertisement monetization is that it can cause a game to be viewed as cheap and tacky, especially when using lengthy advertisement. If used outside of an arcade-like setting, advertisement monetization can also heavily disrupt gameflow by artificially creating a pause in gameplay.
While advertisement monetization doesn't have many of the ethical issues that come from the player-side monetization methods, data collection to sell to advertisers can be quite problematic. In addition, all of the issues involved with advertising in general are brought into games with advertisement monetization.
Concluding Thoughts
Each form of monetization has its caveats when it comes to both designing and playing games. However, I firmly believe that the buy-to-play model is the best model for home gaming, though my qualms with other monetization methods are mainly due to the ethical issues they pose. In addition, there are more monetization methods to games than listed here, such as PWYW games (common for pen and paper games) as well as pay-per-session games (used by arcade games), though these are rather uncommon for home console.
Next time, I'll be covering how to make interesting and powerful characters for use in character-based multiplayer titles such as fighting games and hero shooters.
Comments