I just had an epiphany.
For awhile, I played Facebook games somewhat regularly. Most notably the "-ville" games of Zynga's. Not Farmville--heavens no! But I did enjoy Frontierville for awhile and, more recently, Cityville and Castleville. I won't spend time bashing Zynga (because that seems to be what pretentious gamer nerds like to do) because, in some ways, I like their design. It's the same reason I enjoyed Harvest Moon...the appeal of building and maintaining something rather than always destroying is a strong draw to these sorts of games, and the fact that you could only play it so often before having to turn it off and let your crops grow, your animals rest after constant milking (or constantly slaughtering chickens that never seem to die), or your buildings refresh their "tax collection," while mildly disappointing if I just wanted to play the game for a couple hours on end, wasn't entirely game-breaking for me. It forced moderation, and forcing me to slow down only increased my anticipation.
At times.
I won't bother discussing the drawbacks of this model in any great detail. I do think there is a happy medium to the timed gameplay of the Zynga games, but it's not necessarily a bad model. However, I will discuss one thing in this blog that had been bothering me for awhile, and that's the necessity of real-money transactions in these casual games. Zynga is not, by any stretch of the imagination, the only offender here, but they are probably one of the worst. One of the biggest differences between, just to pick one parallel example, Farmville (perhaps Zynga's most popular game) and Harvest Moon is the fact that, with Harvest Moon, you have to pay (some might consider a hefty price) to buy the game while Farmville is "free." But of course we all know how free Farmville is, and that is to say "not at all." It's about as free as League of Legends. I maintain that in the life of your average Farmviller, they will end up spending exponentially more for, arguably, a less rewarding experience than Harvest Moon...but even that's not my point. No, my point is that to get the most out of Farmville (and indeed any Zynga -ville game that I've played), you are forced to spend money. At some point, you will not be able to enjoy the game anymore, and certainly not to its fullest extent, without spending money (also not without whoring the game out to your friends to get them to be your neighbors, but that's a discussion for another time).
Of course the argument can be made that this is the point, that Zynga has to make spending money on their game appealing, even necessary, or no one will play. But let's compare these Zynga games to some other casual F2P games I've been playing lately: Small Street and Monster Park.
Now, I picked up Small Street recently on my Kindle Fire, and I can't even explain why I find this game so appealing. It's a nice game to have sitting open next to me while I'm doing something else. Every so often I ferry another visitor to my bustling street, restock the shops, or even build a new business or residence if I've got enough money. Its appeal, like the appeal of the Zynga games, isn't that you can engross yourself for hours at a time, but rather, as something you go back to periodically to see how things have grown and set it to grow some more while you go off and do real life things for awhile. Monster Park is similar, but with different mechanics. I can set a couple monsters to breed, buy a few baby monsters to grow so I can put them out, grow some crystals (monster food), and then leave for awhile and come back when it's all done.
Now, I have spent money on both of these games I'm ashamed to admit. Not a lot, mind you, but I had a bit of a bigger paycheck this week than expected and figured I could drop a couple bucks on the game without busting my bank. This, of course, is the mentality of these casual games, that you will spend maybe $5 every couple of weeks and the developers will make a profit. So the question remains, how have I completely resisted the urge to spend money on any of the Zynga games I've played for weeks, even years, but spent money on these two games that I only just started playing? Simple, I didn't need to spend money on Small Street or Monster Park to enjoy the games.
lolwut?
This seems counter intuitive but, like I said, I just had an epiphany. As I was sitting here trying to think of why I spent money on these games but have absolutely no desire to spend money on any Zynga game (and indeed don't even play them anymore), it struck me: with a Zynga game, it would never realistically end. Sure, I could spend a little money on Castleville. Speed up production on my crops, buy a neat little decoration for my courtyard, expand my buildable area, whatever...but that one purchase would only realistically extend my enjoyment of the game for another couple weeks before I would need to spend money on it again, because all the best parts of the game are hidden behind the wall of dollars you have to spend to get to them. Without spending money, you're left with a weak and shallow experience. Now, with Small Street and Monster Park (the former particularly), EVERYTHING is open right from the start without the need of the special "money" you can buy with your real money. Of course you get something for your money, but most of the time it's things you could buy yourself if you just waited a couple days or, in the case of Small Street, there are special aesthetic things you could buy, costumes for your street citizens that make them better at a certain job or are just amusing to look at. But they're not required, they just add a little life to your street. In the case of Monster Park, everything that is essential is available for the in-game currency, but some important structures, like the breeding room or the nurseries where you grow baby monsters into adults, require the special currency (really need to come up with a better term for the currency you spend real money on...) to build more than a certain amount. It greatly speeds up the production in your park (or street) but you don't need it.
But more importantly, once you buy it, you have it forever. When I spent money on Monster Park and Small Street, I knew, going into it, that I would never need to spend money on these games again even if I wanted to keep enjoying the games...because it was never ultimately necessary to do so in the first place. The idea in Castleville that, yeah, I could spend money now, but I would have to do it again in a couple weeks anyways if I wanted to keep enjoying the game, greatly reduced the lifespan of the game in my mind.
So we have an interesting dichotomy here. In order to encourage people to spend money on the game, you have to make the for-money purchases in the game unnecessary but still somehow appealing and rewarding. It's an interesting balancing act, but I maintain it's one that these two games have mastered...and Zynga either has not or chooses not to. After all, if they're actually making money off of these games, they have no reason to. It ensures a constant cashflow from each player.
Take a look at League of Legends as well. That game, literally, is self-contained within its free-to-play label. You absolutely do not need to spend money on the game. You can unlock more characters to play simply by playing the game and earning "influence points." "Riot Points," the currency you have to spend money on, will also unlock characters, but the only thing that requires riot points are champion skins...which are completely unnecessary (but very fun to have). In fact, the runes that you buy to increase your stats (which are required to be competitive) cannot be purchased with Riot Points. At all. So, in the end, you absolutely do not need to spend money on League of Legends...and that seems to make people want to spend money on it even more because they can always tell themselves, "I'll spend $10 on it and I won't ever need to spend another dime."
Then they tell themselves that the next time two days later. And the next time a week after that. Then the next day, then a couple days down the line...
It's so free!
Tuesday, June 12, 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)