The styles of free to play monetization

Yes, free to play monetization comes in various styles, even trends, they might be even fashionable so to say.

As I have the luxury to experience different companies "styles" of monetization I noticed something unusual.

Companies tend to stick to their style and also think it is the only one which works for them. So they create games and always adapt their monetization style to them - which usually worked unless the games genre or mechanics are not fitting that style. As a consequence those games usually do worse than the original.

So that said company tries a different style it saw at games of another company - and fails. It doesn't work very well as that other company worked years to optimize their "style" and that one might not fit your game at all.

So you're stuck. Either you continue making games which fit your monetization style or you learn how to create perfectly fitting monetization styles to your game. But that means you understand the fundamentals behind it - that you created a formula or schematics which can be made fit to various game styles.

Note that this is true for the inventors of the "European style" of monetization in free to play. Some of them stuck to their style and didn't grow, some of them opened up and are growing beyond their original hit games.

The reason for this "one style" style is of course that their performing games are analyzed and they know exactly what works and what doesn't.So they copy/paste those mechanics to other games and they work as well - but not as good as the original. The title isn't suited perfectly to that mechanic after all. So you create more and more "copies" of the original which deteriorate in quality or revenue over time.

Time to adapt your monetization style. Key learning: monetization works really well if it is fitted perfectly to your game design.

Just like in fashion - they only fit it to bodies (nsfw).

1 comment:

Lars Kr├╝ger said...

Hi Teut,

as usual, i can keep track and also agree to some 50-75% of your trains of thought.
Here is one i failed to get your meaning, but would like to get the clue.

First of all, your "one style"-assumption blamed/ implied on your so-beloved colleagues working all over the country is some rude but funny attack.
But hey, didnt bother me as iam no BI nor Metric nor KPI Ninja in your games business. However, its a kcik in the ass for them, though!

So, you are the Ninja, no doubt,therefore its deeply under your niveous think they are so dumb just copy&paste IPs metrics approach on total other product and then wondering why servers shut down. Show them so (little) respect ;-)

As you know better than me, being successful e.g making profits from your product piece of software is not only based and BI & metric figures, nor on game design only and even not only on Q&A .... well maybe Q&A did crap .. whatever....

Do you say, its easy thing, matching up Game Design at Metrics at KPIs etc. pp. ?
You do know its not that simpel ....

So, i would like to learn a lesson:
How did you adjusted at starting on AO IP in order matching game design and monetization, backed by what other tracking approaches and tools, underlying what kind of other metrics they provided in KPIs ?
Everything unique right from the scratch?

Or did you iterate, while copy&paste your DSO-proven style just to fit at ANNO IP?
None of both, i would bet on, no revolution but kind of evolutional process.

However, i really love to get a clue to understand that ...