Purchasable Premium Currency - Clash of Clans Hey everyone, today I am going to introduce and explain one of my most familiar fields in design: Free to Play Mobile Games Monetization .
Disclaimer: This by no means represent that this is my favorite topic, there is oftenmost stigma on designing games for profit. History When phones first transitioned from feature slates to the smart era (the first iPhones and Android devices), games were naturally inherited. Java games commonly cost money and the first cycle of games on smartphones cost money (Angry Birds and Doodle Jump have an initial price tag of USD1). From a luxury to a commodity, the App market has since matured to mainly comprise of Free games (I still do sincerely appreciate many innovative paid titles in the market). Microtransactions Otherwise referred to In-App Purchases (IAP), they form the profiteering basis of all Free to Play games in which all readers here would be familiar with. Let's jump to the various sub-topics from here on... Direct Content Purchase Commonly used on western releases, users pay for what they want. No frills here, you pay for what you want. Here is a quick list of common content users pay for:
Currency Purchase This is where things start getting interesting but not unfamiliar. A big majority of the grossing (highest revenue) games have currencies in them, most often consisting of 2 or more types: Premium (Hard currency) and Free (Soft currency). Premium Currency Usually represented by gems or jewels, users purchase a small to big amount of currency for many of the game's core content functions. If they have more than a single usage, they serve as the unifying currency to spend the same thing for a variety of things in the game:
The last one listed is a tricky one, games that allow for currency exchange often drive complex and/or layered economies. On hindsight, it's oftenmost for designers to set content progression in a game based on time and effort sinks in the game. In Part II, I will be covering about known tricks that mobile games employ to encourage free users to convert to paying players so stay tuned! Thanks for reading!
0 Comments
The terms in the title would refer to the familiar strategies known in information processing. This post is definitely not to explain the terms but to explain some of my personal insights towards using a dual-sided approach towards game design.
Games can really be complex to piece together, especially to avoid feature creeping. Most ideas I've seen from experience are structured and visualized from a top-down approach. A most common ideation process would often go as such:
Well, that indeed went fine and has defined a lot for the game's structural system. However, the above idea didn't sound too far off from common games out there, in fact, kind of plain. Let's see how it would go if we'd go with a bottom-up approach.
No lies, the latter definitely took more time to come up with as an example. But hey, the 2nd one seems like a lot of fun even though it's lacking a bit of systems that hold it in place in which the top-down approach would help. So what was wrong with the former top-down approach? Well, I'll put it as because of how steps 1 to 5 has already defined so much of how the game is, it'll be much harder for designers to instill creativity into the game. Weapons designed from step 6 onward may probably lean towards dealing damage and killing enemies. It sorta limits the game due to the boundaries set. Thus, a mix and match of both approach can really help merge systems and creativity together. I hope this could provide insights for anyone brainstorming for their next cool game! Ciao~ |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
February 2018
Categories |