Good Free-to-Play Games (Part I)

In Part I of this article, indie game developer Howard Go expresses his philosophy on making good free-to-play games.

I begin this with a disclaimer: I am an indie game developer who just happens to make a living from making free-to-play games. I am one-half of a team of two. We’ve been making games full time for just over three years now.

Free-to-play games have gotten a lot of bad rep and this is more true as of late, especially as some games ruined what were good games by adding in-app purchases in an update or doing a sequel that suddenly changed the gameplay by going freemium or paymium instead of the solid premium paid game that they once were. And I think my opinions on freemium apply to paymium as well, so I might as well cover both.

This is part one of my view: whether freemium or paymium, if what you get initially is of value and then IAPs are introduced by way of packs or levels or some special premium value (and by this I include unlimited simultaneous multiplayer games and the removal of ads — I actually miss that in many games now), then it is entirely the player’s choice to feel I want more of the same fun and to determine if the packs/additions are worth their cost. They already got their money’s worth for what they paid for if it was initially paid and if they had fun for about an hour with a free game, then they can judge if spending money is fine for another similar hour (like a free taste of a dish to see if you want to buy a pack, snack, or meal). Obviously, I mean a good free-to-play game gave some amount value of value at the onset. My rule of thumb is about an hour of fun. That’s short for a console game, but decent, I believe for a mobile game. I’ve played some awesome paid games on mobile that I finished in an hour or two, and I felt I got my money’s worth (though wanting to play some more because I enjoyed it so much is another thing).

Just to be clear: I’ve spent plenty of money on arcade games, saved up to buy games for the consoles I’ve owned when I was younger, and still continue to spend a bundle on mobile games (paid, freemium, and paymium). And there are a number of games where I spent a lot of money on without thinking or feeling I was cheated. I believed I got my money’s worth. For anyone who spent more than a console game’s worth in the arcade or a mobile game to finish whatever game you were hooked on, you know what I am talking about.

This is part two of my view: whether freemium or paymium, if you need to spend in order to move forward in a game that does not involve packs or levels, but rather the ability to move forward is dependent on some energy level or being equipped with certain tools, weapons, or power ups before you can successfully continue, then it is very close to being poorly done or it is very obviously poorly done. The key, I believe, is in creating enough of an opening so that anyone who plays can continue down the road, playing through the levels without feeling that unless they buy an item, let’s say a gun, that they can only afford via an IAP (meaning grinding won’t work) will get them to move forward. Making a player wait is not a bad thing. Making a player ask friends for help is not a bad thing (for both player and game developer). Mobile games allow for breaks. Being told to wait a few hours before something can happen is fine. But there are limits. Basically, my rule of thumb is that if it will allow me to successfully grind because I persevere or progress because I am good at the game, then the IAPs do not ruin the game. The patient and the skilled can enjoy the game, not just the spender.

Temple Run, Subway Surfers, and Jetpack Joyride are all among my favorite endless (runner/side-scroller) games. They remain fun whether or not you spend. That you spend is entirely your choice and will not affect the fun value of the game in any way. I love that. Disco Zoo is a great game for grinders and for spenders. But some games are so unbalanced that grinding becomes too tedious too soon and the return of investment (in this case, time) is not felt. That’s a bad game right there. Much more so because it makes it clear to the player than only spenders will progress or, even worse, have any resemblance fun.

There are puzzle games that became almost insanely impossible to finish and only get harder and harder. I think the good ones allow the (re-)entry of easy levels enough times to make it fun for the player again. It says, here’s a break so you can enjoy the game again. Which is basically how I see any good RPG game. Easy enemies, followed by a tough boss, followed by easy enemies, almost ad infinitum. It’s what makes it playable.

Bad games, whether premium, freemium, or paymium, don’t respect the balance.

Howard Go is ½ of MochiBits. His current interest in game design involves game balance, retention, and monetization. He taught philosophy for five years then sold out to work in the corporate world for seven years, finally escaping into the world of game development in December 2010.

Game Design: Creating a System Formula (Part IV)

In Part I, game designer Bud Leiser explains how to use the Fibonacci series in system design. In Part II, he shows the grind gap and how the amount of grind can quickly accelerate when using the Fibonacci series. In Part III, he discusses how to evaluate the curve based on design goals. In Part IV, he suggests how to progress from the general guideline to cover all other elements in the game.

Actually…I could see implementing this curve into a real RPG if: for the player to survive we would probably have to give lots of item drops and a low cost way of healing outside of combat. (Final Fantasy health potions anyone?).  We can also try to figure out what strategy the player will use to overcome this curve: What might happen is players grind longer at a given level to buy his armor and boots.
They might even skip weapon levels, instead of buying each one progressively they might save up money to buy 2 levels ahead, and then use that powerful sword in combat, if he has enough health to survive 1 combat he could use cheap healing outside of combat. In other words relying on that high level sword to get him through 1 combat and not worrying about keep up with armor until absolutely necessary. If we wanted to encourage this type of play we could set the monster damage levels at rates unlikely to kill a player in a single combat. Drop potions frequently and even give the player armor pieces as common rewards. Assuming he has free time out of combat to heal up to full without being attacked, this would be a completely valid RPG style.

-Or-

You could create these cost progressions using “suits” (Armor, gauntlet, belt, boots, helmet, weapon). Then assign % of that to each piece. For example:

Suits	Total Cost	Weapons	Sword Cost	Armor	Armor Cost	Helmet	Helmet Cost
A	50	20%	10	25%	13	10%	5
B	100	20%	20	25%	25	10%	10
C	150	20%	30	25%	38	10%	15
D	250	20%	50	25%	63	10%	25
E	400	20%	80	25%	100	10%	40
F	650	20%	130	25%	163	10%	65
G	1050	20%	210	25%	263	10%	105
H	1700	20%	340	25%	425	10%	170
I	2750	20%	550	25%	688	10%	275
J	4450	20%	890	25%	1113	10%	445
K	7200	20%	1440	25%	1800	10%	720
L	11650	20%	2330	25%	2913	10%	1165
M	18850	20%	3770	25%	4713	10%	1885
N	30500	20%	6100	25%	7625	10%	3050
O	49350	20%	9870	25%	12338	10%	4935
P	79850	20%	15970	25%	19963	10%	7985

With this we have a general idea of how much the player is making and how much things should cost.

The most important thing is we didn’t have to spend hours making these prices individually. 

We have at the very least a general guideline. And we once we have a guideline that works, that we understand, and that curves the way we want to (meaning the player progresses at a rate that we want them to, and slow down where we want them to). We can now add elements wherever we want. And feel free to Fudge the numbers, give the player a cool Fire Sword and increase the value 10%, or 5% or 500gp.

[This article originally appeared on Bud Leiser's personal blog.]

Bud Leiser beat Nintendo’s original Zelda when he was just 3 years old. Then went on to win money and prizes playing: D&D Miniatures, Dreamblade, Magic the Gathering and The Spoils. He’s just returned from Vietnam where he helped manage Wulven Studios as their Lead Game Designer. He was responsible for creating internal projects, game design documents and communicating with clients to help them succeed in the post-freemium app market.   

Game Design: Creating a System Formula (Part III)

In Part I, game designer Bud Leiser explains how to use the Fibonacci series in system design. In Part II, he shows the grind gap and how the amount of grind can quickly accelerate when using the Fibonacci series. In Part III, he discusses how to evaluate the curve based on design goals.

OK so clear up some assumptions that we didn’t discuss earlier. We didn’t talk about it but we assumed: Monsters get harder at each new level, thus requiring the bigger swords to kill safely. We assumed that we were killing 1 monster per combat and that each combat took the same amount of time. (This is inherently assumed in our simplified progression rate because we just said “monsters” killed. What it could really mean is “units of monsters” if the game pits you against 3-4 weak monsters in 1 combat. If you don’t understand what I just explained here then just ignore it, it’s complicated stuff and not really necessary unless you are already a designer and thought I was doing something wrong.)

• 28 (almost 300%)
• 34
• 42
• 51

Now I haven’t even assigned a time value to any of this yet, but already I can tell just by looking at this formula that the player is going to have a very good early curve up until about level weapon 8. After that however getting weapons is going to be very time consuming.

So what do you do now? Well, you need to make some important design decisions. Is this the right time for a player level to plateau? If you built your game for players to explore most of the world, and get their abilities, and really enjoy the game at levels 7-12 this is probably a great curve. Because the player can reach levels 5+ relatively quickly and then the game will begin to slow down and by the time he reaches level 8 the progression really slows down giving him plenty of time to  enjoy the upper levels.

-or-

If however you want players to “power through” the first 20 levels; than either this curve is way too harsh or you will need to throw in lots of additional help. Such as quests that give big rewards, or lots of item drops.

-or-

You could use this curve for the first 8 levels. And then create a completely new curve.

And the reality is all of these solutions *can* work. You just have to decide what your goals are. How do you want the game to feel? How soon do you want to give players a sense of power over the world?  Where (in time and power level) do you want the player to really slow down? Where will players have the world really open up to them and let them explore.

Now remember, we did this with just a Sword cost. 
(Which really could stand for EXP levels, or rifles or anything super useful to the player)

We didn’t even cover things like ranged weapons, axes, armor, boots, capes, helmets, potions and special items. So it’s completely broken right? Sorta….but not really. We'll discuss this next.

[This article originally appeared on Bud Leiser's personal blog.]

 Bud Leiser beat Nintendo’s original Zelda when he was just 3 years old. Then went on to win money and prizes playing: D&D Miniatures, Dreamblade, Magic the Gathering and The Spoils. He’s just returned from Vietnam where he helped manage Wulven Studios as their Lead Game Designer. He was responsible for creating internal projects, game design documents and communicating with clients to help them succeed in the post-freemium app market.  

April 2014: Copycat Games

April 2014's topic, Copycat Games, was suggested by Alan Au.

Cloning, or copycatting, a game is nothing new.  But has it increased?  We've seen rampant cloning in the age of Pong and in the age of social games.  Have these copycat games been good or bad for the industry?

In one recent study of innovation, researchers at Indiana University concluded that with more imitation, more diverse solutions were found, leading to net societal benefit.  More exactly, they found that imitation was never complete imitation, but imitation with slight micro-variations that led to better overall product design.

Does this conclusion ring true of the game industry, where we can copy a game design and simply swap art assets?  Do we have clones or remixes?  What do you think?

I welcome articles on this topic.  As always, submission guidelines along with submission procedure can be found on the right hand side of the blog.  Topic suggestions and articles are appreciated!