Dec 172014
 

If one’s different, one’s bound to be lonely.

― Aldous Huxley, Brave New World

 

Lately I’ve been playing this year’s blockbuster. No, not Sunset Overdrive or Destiny (don’t be silly…), I’ve been playing the game that everyone is talking about. That’s right, Kim Kardashian Hollywood! I know what you’re thinking… but under that shiny, cold, brutal exterior lies a work of post-modern genius and as damning a critique of modern life as you’re ever likely encounter. You see, Kim Kardashian Hollywood is actually a tribute to Aldous Huxley’s dystopian masterpiece Brave New World. The developers thought they were being clever and that no-one would notice, but you don’t fool me so easily!

I have to admit that originally they had me fooled too. My first impressions were that this was a brutally cynical piece of F2P design, which at times could be perceived as exploiting young people’s fears. Fears such as body image (you’ll need to fit the right “look” to succeed), popularity (if you don’t have enough “followers” then more famous people won’t acknowledge you), peer pressure (drink and be rewarded for it socially) and sexual pressure (you’re encouraged to make yourself available to others who are more popular in order to boost your fame).

I was wrong.

Brave New Kardashian is actually a heart-wrenching masterpiece. It chronicles the futility of a wretched plebeian (I named mine “Douchebag”, but other names are available) attempting to shake off the shackles of their birth as an Epsilon (or “E-List Celebrity” in the parlance of the game) and ascend to becoming an Alpha (or “A-List Celebrity” as the clever developers called it). From the moment Kim Kardashian waltzed into Douchebag’s life, talked down to her and stole clothes from her workplace ahead of a big party (BFF’s 4 LYFE LOL!), the die was cast.

More “friends” for Douchebag to exploit.

Armed with a new purpose in life, Douchebag became trapped in a life of drudgery and pointlessness (the delicious irony). She started working as few hours as possible in her regular job, in order to have the time to perform routine and mundane tasks elsewhere for even less reward. What little rewards Douchebag did earn would then be spent on trying to do additional mundane things in order to slowly gain more “followers” (a bit like a really shitty cult leader). Like a crack fiend (as well as cult leader), what little cash and energy Douchebag could muster were completely invested in acquiring more. “More followers, give me MOAR FOLLOWERS. FUCK THE CONSEQUENCES!” screamed Douchebag as she continued hungrily down her path of self-destruction neglecting food, family and future. Worse still, she couldn’t even pull off a crack addict’s shabby chic! Her wardrobe was *so* 2013… :(

Douchebag never made it to becoming an Alpha. It took a herculean effort just to get her to the cusp of being a Gamma (or C-List Celebrity in the game’s parlance), at which point it dawned on me that this wasn’t just a “game” and the real messages and metaphor became clear.

In adapting Brave New World to a F2P game, Glu have created a searing piece of social commentary on modern life and the systems and values which media, big business and society have imposed. Values which place celebrity over talent, and fame over social worth. Brave New Kardashian paints a dystopian world where the old don’t exist, art has no value and the only currency is how many sycophants you can acquire, everything else is meaningless.

Knowing how clever the developers are, I suspect if I spent enough time and currency on the game to become an “Alpha”, Douchebag would cease to have any meaning in her life (having achieved her only goal). Like in Brave New World, this realisation of futility would push the protagonist into an existential funk which would culminate in her taking her own life as an ultimate act of defiance against the dystopia in which she lives.

Yep, I’m sure that’s how it ends… Any other outcome is too bleak to contemplate.

Sep 022013
 

The Power of Free

For the longest time, marketeers and behavioural experts have known that one of the most powerful ways to get consumers to part with inordinate sums of cash is to give them something for free.
On the face of it this sounds completely illogical. Why would you spend on something which is free to begin with? Dan Ariely’s excellent introduction to behavioural economics, Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces Which Shape Our Behaviour (a copy of this should be on every F2P designer’s desk) devotes an entire chapter to this topic, titled The Cost of Zero: Why We Pay Too Much When We Pay Nothing. In it he uses various studies to demonstrate that zero cost provokes an emotional reaction in people, which in turn can be manipulated to make consumers do things they wouldn’t normally do.

Examples of this include:

  • People queuing in line for hours for a free product which they wouldn’t normally buy.
  • In studies, customers opted for a “free” service with an inferior offering and greater long-term cost over a superior offering with a nominal cost (free vs.7 dollars). When the price for both increased by one dollar (one dollar vs. 8 dollars), almost three quarters then opted for the more expensive (but better value) option.
  • Customers will buy more than initially intended in exchange for “free” gifts or services. The classic example being Amazon’s “free” shipping service.

Zero is not just another discount, zero is a different place.

“Free” can be more expensive over time, lower quality, not really what we want, less convenient and yet we fall for it time and time again. When dealing with “free”, conventional logic and reason go out the window. This failure to apply common sense thinking when confronted with the word “free” is at the core of why F2P has become so successful, and the reason why games with ludicrous monetisation models continue to to extract inordinate sums of money out of players (often tens of times what a retail game would cost), whereas “fairer” games (where the user is under less pressure to spend) frequently fail. This assumption that players are “logical” and will rationalise and behave in the same way that a developer (who understands the mechanics) might, is in my experience the single most common reason for monetisation models failing in games.

In the first part of this post (here), I stated that gamers are not price sensitive. The argument I made is that when it comes to in-game purchases users are in fact proposition sensitive. As one of the commenters rightly pointed out that users may not be price sensitive with in-game content, but they are in fact extremely price sensitive when it comes to their initial decision to try a new game.

And what better price is there than free?

You know you want it…

I Can’t Stand Losing You

This emotional reaction toward the concept of free goes some way toward explaining the strength of player feeling around F2P. The excitement a user gets out of legally getting something genuinely enjoyable for free is great. Ironically, it’s because they haven’t invested that they become so fiercely protective over it. Any change to the game or its systems (especially around monetisation) is construed as an attempt to “take” the free game away from them.

All you need do is look at the forums for any F2P game after a change, for an indication as to the strength of feeling that users have at the prospect having the “free” thing taken away from them and the fear of it transforming into a “paid” thing. It’s as if the whole basis for enjoyment is the fact it is free, rather than the actual game itself. This despite the fact that the game will almost certainly not be going Pay2Play (I’m yet to hear of a F2P game going Pay2Play), and the users are likely to be people who would normally not think twice about paying for a retail game.

In recent times the gaming press has been shocked at a spate of stories around high-profile game developers receiving abuse and death threats over changes they made to big games. In F2P we’ve been dealing with this for years. Over the past 4 or so years I’ve been subjected to numerous threats, abuse and the like because gamers are scared they will either lose, or see the value diminish of something which cost them nothing to begin with and in all likelihood (as over 90% typically don’t pay) will never invest in.

 

Great Expectations

Perhaps part of the problem is that gamers approach F2P with a certain set of assumptions and expectations, which we as an industry are at times responsible for fostering. The most common ones I’ve encountered being:

“This game is supposed to be free. Therefore, everything should be available to me for free.”
“Paying is cheating.”
“Because this game is free, it’s probably not very good/has quality issues” (Though this is changing thanks to the likes of DoTA, LoL, Planetside, GRO, etc.)

The first two are interesting because they convey a certain naïvety about the nature of business. Users will happily accept free apps with a reduced featureset, but the element of competition in games makes many users feel that placing certain items behind a paywall is unfair. In some instances the higher-level items are not even behind a paywall, they just take time to get to if you don’t want to pay. Even in these cases some users will scream “PAY2WIN!”, which is a bit like complaining your free thing isn’t cheap enough. There are some ludicrous exceptions to this; we once analysed a game and calculated it would take an average user (1-2 hours a day) in excess of 300 years to unlock everything without paying!

On the cheating argument, most users don’t ever consider that even free games usually cost hundreds of thousands (if not millions) to make and maintain. If people don’t pay, the game gets shut down. I’m stating the obvious but it’s not a point which seems to ever cross most players’ minds.

The quality argument was true for a long time. The power of “free” is so strong that throughout the 2000s F2P games didn’t have to be any good to have an engaged community, and developers knew this. With the rise of AAA F2P this is no longer the case. Users are being given more and now demand better as a consequence. The age of unplayable Flash-based shovelware is over.

 

Would I Lie To You Baby?

As an industry, are we being dishonest when it comes to F2P? I would say that this feeling is the real cause as to why users really lose their shit in F2P games.
Some developers pitch games as being “free” but hide the best parts behind a paywall, others make it impossible to compete, whilst others make the user feel powerful and then suddenly take everything away from the user and try and charge them to get the original free offering back. Whether or not these games are still “free” is a question of semantics but some of these practices are disingenuous at best.

What seems to irk players is telling them they’re getting something for free and once they start playing trying to squeeze as much money as possible out of them. I can’t help but shake the feeling that if we spent more time evangelising the qualities of the games we make and less time pushing the “free” element we could shift the debate and get more users onside. Let’s not push games based on what they’re not; there are no free games – games without paying users get shut down. Instead we should focus on selling great games based on what they really are. This is what Riot and Valve have done this well, talking about features and content rather than hammering the “free” message. They primarily make great games which just happen to be F2P, all their communication and presentation is directed at highlighting how awesome their games are rather than focusing their efforts on a message (“this game is free!”) which depending on the F2P game can range all the way from being slightly dubious to an outright lie.

There’s no doubt that “free” is the best way of getting players to try something new. The power of zero cost is indisputable, but with it come strong feelings. If we’re to gain users’ goodwill (and if we’re being totally business-minded)  their willingness to invest, we need to be more transparent about the offerings we do have rather than the initial investment.  If more developers were open and honest about the business model, fewer users would have this reticence to pay for “free” games, as the expectation of it being entirely “free” wouldn’t be there to begin with. By shifting the debate entirely we will end up with users focused on the content we create and more willing to pay for in-game items as a show of support for the game and the developers.

Even if the only goal (for some) is getting to users’ wallets, the quickest and most sustainable way to for all of us to get there is by first giving them something they love and winning over their hearts and minds.

Jun 032012
 

*In the interest of disclosure – I worked for Laughing Jackal for a few months back in 2007

The news of 38 Studios and Big Huge Games recent closures got me thinking about which factors dictate why some developers implode in the most spectacular fashion, whilst others can continue moving along and even thrive despite relative obscurity.

Reasons for failure are innumerable. It’s far too easy to write a piece about failed studios which featured any (or several) of the following:

  • Over-ambition: “Let’s make this really awesome open-world game where you can do anything you like! Design? Leave it to me, I’m an ideas man! We can worry about the design later.”
  • Under-ambition: “We only make hyper-realistic sailing simulators”
  • Leaders with no relevant experience/Studio as a vanity project: “I love playing games! Of course I know how to run a studio!” This one is a bit like me saying, “ME LOVE FOOD! OF COURSE I CAN RUN A SUCCESSFUL RESTUARANT!”
  • Incompetent owners/managers who’d sooner run a failing company (with a 20+ year heritage) into the ground than sell.
  • A culture of bullying – “If you don’t work 90 hour weeks I’m going to fire you and spend your bonus on hats and keyboards.”

*I could list plenty of other reasons, but I’d rather not spend the next 1000 words or so poking the corpses of long-dead dev teams with tragicomic examples of witless leadership.

What’s more interesting to me is how some smaller developers have succeeded. Looking at Hungry Giraffe last week got me thinking about Laughing Jackal and how similar devs and publishers have survived and thrived, and what this tells us about the wider games industry.

Make no mistake about it, the last 4 or so years have been tough, and in few places has it been felt more than in the UK. At one point the 3rd largest development community in the world, the last few years have seen the numbers employed in games fall by approximately 9% (ironically many left for Canada which overtook then UK in 3rd place). Retail sales have been in decline since 2008.

The games industry today (especially in the West) is part of an ideas economy. If you have nothing new, interesting or different to offer, then rest assured that whatever it is you’re doing, someone else will come along and do the same thing cheaper, faster and probably better.

The success of the likes of Laughing Jackal has hinged an ability to look beyond the obvious and identify neglected areas of the market where there is still strong demand.

Back in the mid-to-late 2000s whilst other companies made a dash for Xbox360 and PS3 (often with disastrous consequences) LJ and its “sister” publisher label Midas (same staff effectively) were licensing and localising obscure Japanese PS2 games and selling them in supermarkets at an impulse purchase price-point. This was a smart move as there were still millions of PS2s in circulation which were effectively “forgotten” by the wider industry. For the past few years their other “sister” company (Ghostlight) has been picking up specialist JRPGs and have effectively become a partner for the likes of Atlus in Europe. This at a time when almost none of the bigger publisher outside Japan consider this “niche” market to be worth their while. Now they’re also making PSP Minis and high-score based F2P iPhone titles.

The likes of Bossa, Media Molecule are also great examples of this type of “blue ocean” thinking. Bossa took the city-building social idea and knocked it on its head with competitive play, awesome B-movie styling and monsters (and won a BAFTA for their efforts), whereas MM made a “AAA” PS3 game, but they did it with a (relatively) small team taking a highly creative approach in a genre which they basically had to themselves (and got bought by Sony and won numerous awards for their efforts). I’m not convinced they’d have been quite as successful if  Bossa had attempted a full-price retail PC title, or if MM had attempted to make a “Halo killer”.

Small and independent studios in today’s game dev scene are like guerrilla forces in a pitched battle: if they go head-to-head with bigger and more powerful enemies on open ground, then more often than not they will be crushed. The secret to success seems to be to find the one piece of terrain that’s unique to you – the space you can defend – and launch your attack from there.

May 252012
 

*In the interest of disclosure – I worked for Laughing Jackal for a few months back in 2007

It’s one of the best games you’ve (probably) never heard of.
Hungry Giraffe first came appeared as a PSP Mini earlier this year. Unfortunately for PSP Minis, they’ve got the word “PSP” in the title, so most people instinctively treat them with them kind of aversion usually reserved for people who shout about God in the street (or John Terry).
You need not. Most don’t suck and if you own a PS3 you can download them and play them on a big telly – I didn’t know that until I downloaded OMG-Z and Hungry Giraffe a few weeks back. Birthed straight from the guts of the crew at Laughing Jackal, Hungry Giraffe comes across somewhere between Snake (no, not the crappy N-Gage nonsense) and Fruit Ninja. Needless to say as far as addiction goes it’s right up there with crack cocaine and Nutella.

I was recently asked to test drive the upcoming F2P iOS version. That’s right, iOS. Now you can play it on your iPhone whilst ignoring colleagues in meetings or “supervising” children.
All the original elements are still there, plus they’ve integrated Open Feint scoreboards. So you can engage in willy-waving with your friends and see who can post the highest score.
The level design is top banana. It’s as compulsive as ever, has bundles of charm and is a whole heap of fun. I would even go as far as saying it stands up to the likes of Temple Run in the iOS score-chasing stakes. Plus, how many games have you played which let you feed chilies and drugs to a giraffe? Take a moment to consider this – FEEDING DRUGS TO A GIRAFFE. Try tell me you’ve never wanted to do that… If playing as a giraffe with a recreational drug habit doesn’t warrant a download, then I don’t know what does.

Hungry Giraffe should hit the App Store soon and it’s free.