next »

[anselm_eickhoff]

Hi everyone,

As a personal side-project I'm currently developing an HTML5 realtime multiplayer sudoku.
It is very close to my heart and the player experience in a holistic sense is very important to me.
Still it'd be nice to somehow make money off of it or at least pay the servers.

This means I won't:

• put ads in it
• sell it to a publisher/sponsor
• add in game purchases that give you an unfair advantage, or make the game good/playable exclusively

I have come up with a few alternatives, but I have no idea if they would work:

• Monthly subscription
  --- very low conversion rates
  ++ guaranteed money per conversion
  + most unobstrusive and ethically sound option
• Merchandise
  - requires strong identification with game
  + stuff you can hold in your hands
• Additional game/match modes for premium members
  - more work
  - might not be interesting enough
  + builds a community of paying players
• Aesthetic-only in game purchases
  - more work
  - might not be interesting enough
  + paying players can proudly display them
• "Free to play on Sundays"
  -- very low conversion on other days
  + benefits of subscription model on other days
  

Let me know what you think of these and if you have other ideas!

(btw: I think the best model for singleplayer games is still plain old selling them)

[Gregg Williams]

I really have no idea what multiplayer sudoku involves, but if you had enough of a community, perhaps tournaments with an entry fee could be a possibility as an additional revenue stream.

[anselm_eickhoff]

Yes, that would definetly be a possibility and some of my friends also suggested it.
But, as you said, it needs an existing community to work.
Also it would appeal mostly to the hardcore portion of the audience, since only they have a chance in winning something.
Is there something to complement that with, for the more casual players?

(I didn't mention the details of how my game will work, because I wanted to keep the discussion general and thus relevant to others)

[TobiasW]

I like the subscription model of the facebook variant of You Don't Know Jack:

- First round each day is free.
- After that, each round costs 200 currency.
- You get somewhere around 800 currency once you start (that's easy for them because very few will make an additional Facebook account just for that).
- You get currency after you played a game depending on how well you did.
- You get currency when friends you invited play.

At least that's how I perceive it after playing three days, details might differ.

[Gregg Williams]

I like the subscription model of the facebook variant of You Don't Know Jack:

- First game each day is free.
- After that, each games costs 200 currency.
- You get somewhere around 800 currency once you start (that's easy for them because very few will make an additional Facebook account just for that).
- You get currency after you played a game depending on how well you did.
- You get currency when friends you invited play.

At least that's how I perceive it after playing three days, details might differ.

Thats actually quite interesting, especially when awarding currency could be tied to victories in MP, and also to puzzle difficulty level and so forth. It does kinda hurt new comers though, maybe some sort of SP practice mode that doesn't require currency.

[TobiasW]

Well, beginners will have starting money. A practice mode can't hurt though.

[anselm_eickhoff]

Very interesting model indeed.
I wonder if one could simplify it to work without the indirection of a virtual currency and just say "1 game free per day". But you can win additional games by playing well or by inviting friends.

[Gregg Williams]

Very interesting model indeed.
I wonder if one could simplify it to work without the indirection of a virtual currency and just say "1 game free per day". But you can win additional games by playing well or by inviting friends.

Well that kinda removed the whole monetization part.

[TobiasW]

Well, with virtual money, you could also buy a "1 day pass", for example. And it's easier to give out half the money you need to play a game: "100 money" looks better than "0.5 games".

[anselm_eickhoff]

Very interesting model indeed.
I wonder if one could simplify it to work without the indirection of a virtual currency and just say "1 game free per day". But you can win additional games by playing well or by inviting friends.

Well that kinda removed the whole monetization part.

No I mean of course you can also pay for it, but instead of making people buy the currency and then the games, it's like "Buy 30 additional games for $2". I don't see a reason to introduce the currency other than to confuse the players (which would be evil again).

Also @TobiasW: you could do that with normal money as well, like "1 day unlimited $1", "1 month unlimited $10"

[TobiasW]

Sure, but it's just less possibilities for the player. With virtual money, they could also buy it from the virtual money they earn by playing well and inviting friends.

[anselm_eickhoff]

Well I would reward those things directly with additional games.
Because if you could get day/month passes by playing a lot, wouldn't that lead to a positive feedback loop and thus negate the need of buying more games?

[TobiasW]

Haha, you're right. Seems like I didn't think this one through!

[anselm_eickhoff]

Took me a moment, too

But I think we're onto something here. What I really like about the model is that I won't have to change gameplay for paying players, they only get to play more of the same. This is really important in the beginning, where I don't have time for additional content or new game modes.

If it works and a community builds, then I can try other monetization options like merchandize or tournaments.

[Chromanoid]

I like the idea of winning 1/8 game round or so. You could display the available rounds a little bit like hearts in Zelda. One could use the rounds as currency too, in this way one could buy decorations without paying real money. Decor, that everybody participating in the multiplayer session can see, would be a nice motivation for buying the stuff. Betting with entry fees (you bet with game rounds not with money) might add some incentive for buying rounds too.

[Nathan Cash]

I like the idea of winning 1/8 game round or so. You could display the available rounds a little bit like hearts in Zelda. One could use the rounds as currency too, in this way one could buy decorations without paying real money. Decor, that everybody participating in the multiplayer session can see, would be a nice motivation for buying the stuff.

That would be Abusive Video Game Manipulation (more or less) I dislike models like the ones suggested. If I were you I would charge a one time fee of $1-$5. I think you would make the most money that way.

[anselm_eickhoff]

I agree that such models can easily become manipulative, but I think we found one where it's not that bad.
I don't understand what you mean with one time fee though?
Do you pay it to be able to play at all?
If so isn't that extremely bad for conversions?
And, will it pay my recurring server costs until eternity? 

[doihaveto]

I like the subscription model of the facebook variant of You Don't Know Jack:

- First round each day is free.
- After that, each round costs 200 currency.
- You get somewhere around 800 currency once you start (that's easy for them because very few will make an additional Facebook account just for that).
- You get currency after you played a game depending on how well you did.
- You get currency when friends you invited play.

At least that's how I perceive it after playing three days, details might differ.

This is also similar to Triple Town on mobile:
- You get a very large number of moves for free as a new player (1000+), enough to play several rounds of the game for free
- Each time you finish a round, you get more free moves depending on your score
- If you run out of moves, they refill over time (1/minute?), which is just slowly enough to make you want to buy the game
- Buying the game for $2.99 gives you unlimited moves plus several new board layouts
- You can spend more money on additional functional consumables if you want, but the game is fine without them

I especially like that it's not just shareware model (free demo has an end-point, pay for unlimited), and the free version doesn't have a hard stop - it just rate-limits how much you can play. So if you can't or don't want to pay, you can still keep playing and winning - just not whenever you want to.

[Nathan Cash]

I agree that such models can easily become manipulative, but I think we found one where it's not that bad.
I don't understand what you mean with one time fee though?
Do you pay it to be able to play at all?
If so isn't that extremely bad for conversions?
And, will it pay my recurring server costs until eternity? 

I meant just have the people buy the game or even once a year. I just think you would make more money that way. As long as your model doesn't become like Farmville I don't see a problem with it.

[Muz]

I strongly dislike the 'insert coin to play' model. I'd delete any game which looks like it's trying to charge me once I get hooked; it makes me feel cheated. I probably would've paid the $3 for Triple Town, but once I saw the model, I expected it to act like some Zynga game and rip me off later after paying.

Premium features works, especially if you build a community (if you're not building a community, why make it multiplayer at all?).

But idk, every form of monetization has people who hate it. Pay to win gaming is a multi-billion dollar market. While a lot of people absolutely hate it, it's brought joy to millions of people.

WoW's been a hit despite the aged subscription model. Guild Wars has thrived on charging for purchases and expansions.