Deciding how players should pay for your game is never easy. Microtransactions are currently favored in the Facebook space and other venues, but there are just as many direct price models that have proven effective. If both models work, which one do you choose?
A panel at the D.I.C.E. Summit last weekend asked such a question to two industry professionals: Min Kim — vice president of Marketing for Nexon — and Matt Johnston — senior producer for PopCap Games. The panel was moderated by Adam Sessler — editor in chief at G4.
Early on, Kim described that going free opens the player base to everyone.
“What we believe is that our games are social experiences,” he said. “We feel that people move into these games in packs, and if we charge up front, we’ll lose a part of that pack.”
Nexon’s Maple Story recently received 1 million registered shoppers. The game has been free to play since it launched in 2005 and has more than 7 million players. PopCap, however, has found success in both the free-to-play and retail markets. The Bejeweled franchise alone has been profitable on Facebook, Steam, and PopCap’s own website. The company also publishes physical copies.
“I’m not afraid to give something away because I know a certain percentage of people will want to play,” Johnston said about making all games micropayment-based. “It’s just how that transaction happens … Maybe you have a game you ship initially at a low price point, and you sell content in as DLC. That way, they get a good value for the 10 bucks or 5 at first, and if they want more, then they can get some more levels or meaningful content. That way, it becomes a platform you can continue to publish on. It’s a workable compromise [between free and pay models].”
The two reached a consensus about piracy. If the game is free, and the money comes from inside the service, then there isn’t any need fight piracy.
“We don’t care about piracy too much because we’re used to giving our games away,” Johnston concluded.
[Source: G4TV]
