A Look at Puzzle Games

In this article, game designer Sande Chen reflects on the level design of puzzle games and how allowing the player to win can help in the success of the game.

One year, at the Austin Game Conference, I was exhausted, not from partying, but because I had stayed up all night trying to progress through Puzzle Bobble.  My college friend had the original arcade machine and since I could use the same quarter over and over, I stayed with it.  I noticed almost immediately spikes in difficulty, remarking how I felt that one level was out of place because it was especially hard and the levels after it were easy in comparison.  Considering that the player also gains proficiency, gauging the increase in difficulty or challenge between levels must be an interesting exercise. 

Photo Credit: Andrés Álvarez Iglesias

In addition, there is a luck variable to these puzzles since colors can randomly get scarce on you.  It's the same way with Candy Crush Saga, that when you need red candies, you feel like all the other colors keep on showing up.  I especially hate using up moves while waiting for a certain color to show up in a line.  This probably contributed to my decision to delete Blossom Blast Saga.

I mean, I do have a certain amount of patience with difficult puzzles and in most free-to-play games, a player may have access to power-ups or boosters that can make uneven level design tolerable, but when my puzzle-solving efforts feel like frustration rather than fun, then I'll just quit.  Especially when I feel like it's a luck-related factor.

Candy Crush Saga showers me with free gifts, but that's not the only reason why I still play Candy Crush.  I fully realize Candy Crush Saga has that luck component but despite that, I still manage to have fun with it.  The way the levels are designed, I always feel like I have a chance at solving the puzzle because I'll be one or two moves out.  That motivates me to keep on playing because sooner or later, I'll feel like I'll solve it, even if it takes a long time.  If I don't see that possibility of winning, then I'll throw my hands figuratively in the air and mutter, "This is impossible!"  I can see why players are motivated to buy extra moves because it's almost ... just almost... there.  Unlike with Candy Crush Jelly Saga, another I deleted, I did have those boosters in Candy Crush Saga, so if I did feel like I had come across an impossible level, I could help myself out.

I also play Candy Crush Soda Saga, which I like better, even though there aren't free boosters given out there.  I've noticed that after I've been at a puzzle for a long time on Candy Crush Saga, something remarkable will happen such as a color ball and a color bomb ending up next to each other.  I have no idea if that was just the allotted time needed for this lucky occurrence to happen or if the designers were specifically thinking about helping me along.  It would be great if this were a matter of design.

In the past, I was in charge of designing a mah jong solitaire game.  In those types of games, there are the ones where it's possible for the player to have a puzzle without a solution. Alternately, there are the ones that use an algorithm to make sure there was always a solution to the puzzle.  I suppose in the former, a player would be able to get out of that unsolvable state with a booster.  I chose the latter because I always wanted players to be able to win without using boosters.  It seems unfair that the player could be presented with a puzzle that couldn't be solved without a booster.  After all, I wanted the player to stick around for the next level or game.

Challenge is great, but too much challenge leads to frustration, which can lose players.

Sande Chen is a writer and game designer whose work has spanned 10 years in the industry. Her credits include 1999 IGF winner Terminus, 2007 PC RPG of the Year The Witcher, and Wizard 101. She is one of the founding members of the IGDA Game Design SIG.

IGDA Webinar: Designing for F2P From Day One

In this video, game monetization consultant Ethan Levy discusses how the free-to-play business model impacts game design decisions.

Unfortunately, the IGDA Webinar series has gone on hiatus while the initiative is re-evaluated.  Please give us feedback.

Ethan Levy is an 12 year veteran game designer and producer who has contributed to over 50 shipped games across every genre and platform. He has worked at companies including Pandemic Studios, EA, BioWare and Playfirst. In 2012, Levy founded FamousAspect to serve as a monetization design consultant with a focus on free-to-play games for PC, console, mobile, tablet and web.

IGDA Webinar: Monetization

In this video, game designer Chris Crowell reviews different monetization strategies and illuminates further the concept of free-to-play and play-to-win.

Remember to sign up for the next IGDA Game Design Webinar on Wednesday, September 17 featuring Ian Schreiber on game balance.

Good Free-to-Play Games (Part II)

In Part I of this article, indie game developer Howard Go expresses his philosophy on making good free-to-play games. In Part II, he discusses addiction and how games can be designed without exploiting consumers.

Here’s a side note on Candy Crush Saga. I hate King for what they did with the trademark thing. And I hate that Candy Crush Saga remains in the top ten grossing after well over a year. But I do respect how they did their game. They have the best "energy system" in place. If you successfully finish a level, you don’t lose the energy/life you spent to play it. You can play again. Candy Crush Saga is a very polished game on almost every level and is one of the most fair games as far as freemium games go (even if I hate how the game has hooked my mother into asking me to send her tickets and hearts even after I told her I deleted it after the trademark crap they did). There are ways to not spend money (or even to not ask friends to enter a new world…A little trivia here: did you know you can move to every new "world" if you get 3 stars in every level in the previous world?). Only those who truly enjoy the game continue playing it with money being spent. And that’s their call. That they spend so much is their choice. And, please, don’t call them whales. Call them what a hotel or restaurant or another business would call a big spender: a VIP. If someone loves wine so much that they think spending a thousand dollars or more on a bottle brings them pleasure, then we may shake our heads in disbelief because of our own worldview, but let’s admit that they have a choice there. A good winemaker may or may not have taken them for a ride, but I think each of us may have a thing that we spend more than normal for because it is, well, our thing.

Which brings me to a need to discuss addiction: I’ve been addicted to many games. I believe I have an addictive personality. I smoked heavily for many years in my life before I could break the habit, I drank a lot of alcohol before (now I drink a lot on special occasions), and I’ve spent shameful hours and money on games. I play a lot of games to research on what works and what doesn’t so you can imagine how tempting it is for me to just spend days playing games. But you know what game ruined my life the most? Not a freemium or paymium game. It was Final Fantasy VII. No game made me play so much that my professional and social life suffered. And it was because it was an incredibly well made game. And the chocobo breeding was ingeniously addictive. If you got into the breeding like I did, you know that after completing the game, the breeding became the game. In an almost shameful way, I have to admit that’s what happened to me. And I still love Final Fantasy VII. How I kept spending more and more hours playing it instead of the hours I originally set aside for it (which, I believe is one difference between a console game and a mobile game, one is basically scheduled/timed gameplay while the other is play when there is time) is my fault. I won’t tell its creators to stop creating awesome and addictive games. That would basically mean a request to please don’t make any game with engaging characters or story lines or gameplay.

A game should try to get people involved and, well, hooked on the gameplay, the story, and/or the characters. The question is, is it done in such a way that only spenders can reasonably and successfully move forward. And, I believe, a good number of freemium and paymium games did right for their players. While the others cause frustration instead of fun for all non-spenders or, even worse, for all small-time spenders. That’s where the bad rep essentially comes from. One game in recent memory that I soon deleted because I felt I couldn’t grind successfully was Robocop. And I do some amount of real currency spending before I grind, to make things easier. I spent 20 dollars each on Zombiewood and Dead Trigger 2 and never felt a pang of regret. These are games that essentially should follow the same grinding principles as Robocop. But Robocop just felt off for me. It was like I had to spend more and more real money and grinding would not yield results. It felt, here’s that word: greedy. This is, of course, a subjective matter. Value is in the eye of the beholder, after all.

I end this with a claim: though indie game developers can succeed with paid games and many of the people my business partner and I admire in the indie game field are people who stick to paid games, we both believe doing free-to-play right has a better chance at long term success than doing a great paid game. And, at the end of the day, we want to make games, games that people will enjoy. And this means two things: we do it right for the people who download our games and we do it right for us so it can be what we do professionally day in and day out.

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.

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.

About Microtransactions

In this article, aspiring game designer Gabby Taylor discusses the evils of microtransactions and how it has changed attitudes and practices in the game industry.

Microtransactions have completely fucked the game industry. But first, a couple explanations: for those who may not be aware, microtransactions (also known as "in-game purchases") are most rampant in casual games like Angry Birds Go or Candy Crush Saga, but they exist in more hardcore titles too like Grand Theft Auto Online or Gran Turismo 6. Initially a bridge to cross the gender gap and get more women interested in gaming, casual games tend to be on mobile platforms like smart phones and tablets, though it's not uncommon for them to be in the browser, like Facebook games. Casual gamers tend to only play for a few minutes at a time, and because of this time constraint, developers have dulled down the difficulty, or in some cases, taken it out entirely. This means that casual gamers lack the patience and tenacity hardcore gamers have developed over the years.

Games containing microtransactions are also usually free to download and start playing, and make the purchase system as easy if not more so than the game itself, which fits in perfectly with the parameters of their demographic. And studios are preying on that. Hard. Years ago, microtransactions were usually just for vanity items (different colored armor, etc), but with casual games, you can buy lives, levels... in some you can even buy "beating the game". Yes, that's just what it sounds like. And the cost is usually triple digits, in actual, real world money. And people pay!

"Surely you're just raging and this doesn't actually affect gameplay," you think. "Is just an added feature, if anything at all." Ha! Oh how I wish.... The advent of microtransactions has completely altered everything about the game industry. Yes, money exchanged hands from the beginning, and yes, studios and publishers were businesses. What I'm talking about here, though, is nothing short of Pandora's box. See, people saw the first harmless little microtransactions bring in money and thought it was a decent idea. It was earning a little extra money, money that could go straight into development and help create better games. But, as is human nature, greed kicked in. Soon, developers began to lose their sense of shame and added more and more of these microtransactions to their games. Then, it stopped being just an extra feature. Games began to launch that were nothing more than money-makers; games whose core was microtransactions, and the gameplay was merely a skin. Studios began to employ psychologists to wring out every little penny, and even made some targeted specifically for children to use their parents' credit cards. This in itself had kind of broken the unwritten rules of game development (you know, where players and the experience come first), but oh, it gets worse. Now it's common to find studios who are just re-skinning games and pricing them as if they're new, and indies have mostly abandoned the creation of new in favor of using free assets found online to create the same abominations you see out of King or Zynga... It is everywhere.

You could almost think of it as a real-life Dark Souls, really: the world is in this money-grubbing chaos, and the industry is about to collapse. In order to save the world as we know it, we must defeat microtransactions in both the lands of hardcore and casual gaming. Once we've cleansed these areas, we must fight our Gwyn: greed.

We are in for one hell of a fight.

[This article originally appeared on Gabby Taylor's blog, Journey to Game Design.]

Gabby Taylor is an aspiring game designer and head of GreyBox Studio. When not making design documents, she contemplates going outside, and sometimes even takes a few steps when feeling particularly frisky.

Monetizing a Freemium Game

In this article, indie developer Dave Calabrese discusses how Cerulean Games will seek to monetize a freemium mobile game via three different revenue streams.

Our reasons to make Tumblecaps Retro freemium were strongly based around what we discovered our potential customers wanted. We discussed how we are adding lots of new content for players to enjoy, and touched lightly on some of our bigger plans. Now, we want to take a moment to talk in detail about how we intend to make a profit from the game. After all, this is a business, and without an income the games can’t be made.

There is no question that when working with the mobile space, you generally tend to have a different type of gamer - or at least a traditional gamer looking for a “quick, on the go fix". We can’t easily sell a game to mobile gamers the same way we would a console or PC / Mac title - not unless we were a huge AAA developer. In many ways, indie mobile developers have spent a lot of time digging through the box of monetization - sell in-app currency, allow players to upgrade their content and experience, time based limitations, etc. Overall, these have proven to be a rather successful set of methods. However, it seems like it is just one of the methods. This is selling content to the consumer - and it is what we will call Monetization Method One.

Placing banner ads in a product has been around forever. Think back to the glory days of when the Internet was nothing more than Prodigy and you might remember seeing banner ads on pages while you surfed what their service had to offer. And overall, players are fine with banner ads. They look at and sometimes click on ones they are interested in, and can easily ignore the ads which don’t intrigue them.  And you will want to tweak those ads to their tastes. These ads earn the developer a decent profit, and in some cases developers have earned significantly more from free applications using banner ads than a paid version of the same application without the ads. Banner ads are Monetization Method Two.

This is when we start peeking outside of the box and feeling around its edges. The safe, comfortable zone of traditional monetization does not exist here. I’m talking about the theory of “making money because of your player, instead of from your player". The concept is simple - the player performs an action within the game which costs them nothing, nets them a reward, and as a developer you make a profit from it. This concept has been around in various flavors for a while now - including technically the banner ad, however our integration options are becoming much better. We have been fortunate enough to speak with multiple companies who have ventured outside of the box to introduce these more creative forms of monetization - which we will call Monetization Method Three. After careful consideration, we have decided to use the Paedae service.

According to PaeDae’s SVP of Business Development, PaeDae focuses on two things:

1. Delivering industry leading monetization rates, and 
2. Maintaining the integrity of the original game design / user experience.

He says: 

We achieve these previously conflicting objectives by presenting players with relevant, targeted rewards at a moment of success and through our white label solution. PaeDae partners with major brands to deliver prizes that match the context of the game. You have a pet game, we have pet related prizes. And we make sure the prize is relevant by targeting the individual. These brands are giving away gift cards, free headphones and even a chance to enter a million dollar sweepstakes. That’s right, a chance to win $1 million.

Next, our white label solution allows game developers to customize the prize presentation to make it feel native to the app. Developers can add textures from the game, add icons or other creatives, so that it feels like a part of the intended experience. We also recently released BARTR, a free user acquisition platform, to help independent developers get past that increasingly more difficult process of game discovery. All in the spirit of helping the indie community.

PaeDae has been working closely with us to help make Tumblecaps Retro a success. As with any knowledgable vendor, we find their experience to be invaluable to our success.

To recap, through these three methods, we believe that a game can be made a financial success.

• Method One: IAP. Allow players to upgrade their experience - however be sure to keep content in there as well, as traditional players would rather purchase content than spend on quick upgrades.
• Method Two: Banner ads. Be smart, don’t overdo them, and be creative in your integration.
• Method Three: Make money because of the player, not from the player. Let their actions trigger payouts to your company, and give them a reward for doing the action.

What monetization methods have your tried? What kinds of success (or failure) have you had? Tell your stories in the comments!

[This article was adapted from Cerulean Games' blog on Tumblr. ]

Dave Calabrese is an award winning author, designer, developer, manager, and producer with over ten years’ experience in the independent games industry. He specializes in development and production of cross-platform titles for iOS, Android, PC, and Mac using the Unity 3D game engine.

September 2011: Free-to-Play

There has always been free-to-play games, but the question remains: How do we earn money? Unless you are a non-profit or a philanthropist, that money issue will always come up.

With casual games and shareware, the try-before-you-buy system of downloading the trial or demo version has been a proven method. There has also been tiered membership, divvying up perks to be added to each tier, from basic free up to the deluxe premium package. And of course, we are familiar with the ad-supported Web sites and games. No doubt some companies have tried to combine one or two of these business models.

Lately, though, microtransactional games are all the rage. They are not new, since Asian companies were happy to charge for every little thing in a free-to-play environment, but people were unsure if this would work in the Western economies. Facebook showed that people were more than willing to shell out cash for little birthday icons.

But as these types of games flourish on the iPhone and social networks, there are now more articles about aghast parents dealing with bills for $1400 or more, all spent on virtual dog biscuits or Smurfberries.

Some things to think about:

• Are there any special considerations when designing a free-to-play game?  Does it matter if it's ad-supported or microtransactional?
• Do microtransactional games prey upon gamers' (or children's) addictions?
• What is the best way to deal with ads in an ad-supported game?  Should they surround the game or be inside the game?
• Do you still maintain a subscription model while allowing for free-to-play and pay-as-you-go?
• How do you make free-to-play players feel just as valued as paying customers?
• Are there any community headaches that pertain particularly to free-to-play games?