Zi 字媒體

本文原作者：Scott Jon Siegel我們經常忽視了F2P遊戲中玩家直觀了解交易時刻的能力。對於一個玩家來說，交易時刻是他們對自己在遊戲中所花時間、實體貨幣和對遊戲內容的接觸程度進行數據轉換的評估過程。遊戲的小型交易和廣告收益對盈利機制的架構以及調整有著一樣重要的作用。Diagram(from gamasutra)實體貨幣vs.時間和遊戲內容如果遊戲讓玩家為那些本可以通過遊戲體驗獲取的物品花錢，他們會對這件物品的價位進行評估，看看價位是否合適，考慮要獲取這個付費內容需要花的時間是多少。他們還會衡量這個付費內容是否值得花這麼多錢。如果遊戲讓玩家為那些無法通過遊戲過程獲取的內容花錢，他們會對這個內容，以及遊戲本身的價值進行權衡（「這個遊戲值得我花XX錢嗎？」）。但是交易時刻不僅限於實體貨幣的交易。無論什麼時候，只要有交換行為（可以是時間換遊戲內容、實體貨幣換時間、或者實體貨幣換內容），無論有沒有涉及到錢都被認為是一種交易。鼓勵性廣告vs.玩家時間正如我之前所說的，這些價值主張不止對理解小型交易有重要作用，對廣告收益也是如此。如果一名玩家需要看一個視頻廣告來獲取某個遊戲內容或玩法的許可權，他們就會對獎勵和看視頻廣告所花的時間進行衡量，看看這個獎勵是否值得他們花15或30秒來看廣告而獲得。玩家還會思考，將從看廣告得來的內容價值（時間換遊戲內容）和從小型交易購買得來的類似內容價值（金錢換遊戲內容）進行對比衡量。但如果看廣告的獎勵過於豐厚的話會對遊戲的貨幣機制有不利影響，而如果獎勵過於吝嗇，跟玩家付出的時間無法成正比的話，這會減少玩家觀看廣告的次數，這對廣告收益方面會造成不利影響。再來，如果遊戲有強制性廣告（在進行遊戲的過程中彈出的無法跳過的視頻廣告），玩家也會衡量這個遊戲是否值得自己繼續為它流失時間在看廣告上。舉個例子，假如一個玩家每次一定要看個30秒的廣告才能進行2分鐘的遊戲（是的，我真的見過這樣做的開發者），那玩家就會為自己權衡這樣的遊戲時間比例是否公平，以及對有沒有必要繼續玩這款遊戲進行評判。這個故事是要告訴我們：你在廣告收益方面的決定可以對用戶留存率和遊戲貨幣機制兩方面都有不利影響，所以理智地行事。公允價值和MTX遊戲設計就像每個玩家對「有趣」都有自己特殊的評定標準，「公允價值」也根據每個玩家對遊戲不同的價值認定而有所不同。用戶對遊戲可玩性和交易時刻的測試評估可以讓遊戲做出適當調整，這是使遊戲成功最大化的重大影響因素；要知道沒誰能單靠著電子數據表就能贏的。 甚至在遊戲製作準備階段，在構建系統的時候就把玩家的交易時刻考慮在內會是十分有價值的一件事。《天天過馬路（Crossy Road）》（它在MTX和廣告收益方面的盈利相當可觀），它為廣告做出了慷慨貢獻，但同時又能做到不影響遊戲的MTX內容——通過觀看視頻廣告獎勵金幣，這些金幣只能通過遊戲而不是MTX獲得。想要了解更多的《Crossy Road》歷史和有關價值主張的成功經驗，可以看看遊戲開發者2015年的GDC演講。社會價值vs.個人價值最後關於公允價值還有一點要注意的：我相信只有利於個人玩家的遊戲內容和可利於多玩家的遊戲內容——這兩者是大不相同的，這點尤其體現在社會背景下。思考一下這個例子：一個玩家花了2.99美元在一個單人遊戲上，那天以後這個玩家有朋友要來玩集體遊戲，現在這個遊戲說只要要再花2.99美元就可以解鎖多角色玩法。這兩種價值主張一樣嗎？一種是只對一名玩家解鎖額外遊戲內容；而另外一個將增加內容讓一群朋友都可以玩樂，這樣就提供了更多的娛樂和社交體驗。想象你是那名玩家。你覺得哪一個2.99美元更好賺？本文由遊戲邦編譯，轉載請註明來源，或諮詢微信zhengjintiaoWe often take for granted the player』s ability to intuitively understand transactional moments in free-to-play games. For a player, these transactional moments occur whenever they are evaluating the exchange between their time, real money, and access to gameplay or content.This is important for building and tuning monetization through microtransactions, as well as through ad revenue.Real Money vs. Time & ContentIf the player is asked to spend money for something they can earn in the game, they will evaluate whether the amount asked for is fair, given the amount of time it would take to otherwise acquire that content. They will also evaluate whether the content is worth it to them for the amount being asked.If the player is asked to spend money on content that can』t otherwise be earned in the game, they will determine the value of the content, and the value of the game itself (「is this game worth spending x amount on?」).But transactional moments are not limited to real money transactions. Anytime an exchange is proposed (be it time for content, real money for time, or real money for content), it is a transaction, even when money is not directly involved.Incentivized Ads vs. the Player』s TimeAs I said, these value propositions are important to understand not just for microtransactions, but for ad revenue as well. If a player is asked to watch a video ad for access to content or gameplay, they will evaluate whether the reward for watching the video is worth the 15 or 30 seconds the content will take to 「earn」 by viewing.The player will also consider the value of content earned through watching video ads (time for content), versus the same or similar content purchased through microtransactions (money for content). Being overly generous with video rewards can negatively impact monetization, while not giving fair value for the player』s time will reduce their engagement with video ads, negatively impacting ad revenue.Alternately, if the game has forced video ads (unskippable videos embedded within the game flow), the player will also evaluate whether continued engagement with the game is worth the amount of time lost to advertisements. If, for example, a player has to watch a 30-second ad every time before engaging in gameplay that lasts roughly two minutes (and yes, I』ve seen a developer do that), that player will determine for themselves whether the ratio of time-to-gameplay constitutes fair value, and justifies further engagement with the game itself.Moral of the story: your decisions around ad revenue can negatively impact both retention and monetization, so step wisely.Fair Value & Designing for MTXJust as 「fun」 is a subjective assessment specific to every player, 「fair value」 will also vary depending on the degree of value a player places on the game itself. User testing both gameplay and transactional moments can play a big role in determining the proper tuning for the greatest success; you can』t win by spreadsheets alone.Even in pre-production, it』s worth considering transactional moments when building the game』s systems. Crossy Road (which monetizes incredibly well across both MTX and ad revenue), provides generous value for ad impressions, but can afford to do so by having no overlap with the game』s MTX content — video ads reward the player with coins, which they can only otherwise earn through gameplay and not MTX.For more on Crossy Road』s history and successful experiments in value propositions, check out the developers』 2015 GDC talk.Social Value vs. Solo ValueOne final note on fair value: I believe there is a significant difference in the value proposition for content that will only benefit the player, and content that will benefit multiple players, particularly in a social context.Consider this example: A player is asked to spend $2.99 on content in a single-player game. Later that day, the player has friends over playing a party game, and is presented with an opportunity to unlock more multiplayer content for $2.99.Are these two value propositions the same? The one grants additional content exclusively to the player, while the other will add content to a game being enjoyed by a group of friends, providing further entertainment and social experience.（source： ）