Freemium iPhone and iPad games fund more freemium, not premium
I’ve had a bunch of people alert me to Stuart Campbell’s latest gaming piece, When games aren’t expensive enough. He presents a counterpoint to the negative reaction regarding Real Racing 3’s business model, which has irked many gamers.
That app is the latest in the well-regarded (although, in my opinion, somewhat dull) mobile ‘simulator’ racing series. Instead of being sold at a premium price point, it’s gone freemium. The app throws up relatively arbitrary doorslams, which you can get past by throwing money at the game. Reviews have so far been decidedly mixed, with Eurogamer being the most scathing.
Even broadly positive Real Racing 3 reviews (such as TouchArcade’s) grumble about the freemium structure, and so it’s surprising that Campbell argues of EA’s decision:
[It], contrary to what you might think, is a good thing.
His argument, though, doesn’t make a great deal of sense to me. He rightly notes EA’s financial model is essentially designed around gouging and that Real Racing 3 will make a lot of money. But the conclusion is flawed:
their existence is mana from Heaven for the rest of us, because they provide the long-term means by which the price of games can finally come down, at the sole expense of stupid people. By having braying cheats with too much money contribute most of the funding for big-budget “free-to-play” games, the likes of EA secure the funding which lets them make normal games cheaply.
The mistake is in thinking EA has any intention of continuing with making normal games, when the company’s CFO has explicitly stated all future EA games will feature microtransactions. Even the likes of Tetris aren’t safe. A year ago, I wrote about the new iOS Tetris and how it was wrecked by microtransactions, and the upcoming Tetris Blitz appears to be far more heavily in the freemium space. When these games make money, why will EA ‘risk’ making any ‘normal’ games that are released for a fixed price and that lack gouging? And when iOS device owners regularly baulk at a new game costing a few quid, why will other companies risk not following suit? Why wouldn’t they instead gradually chip away at gaming’s soul and replace the bits that fall off with components from a cynical, hateful business model?
Cambell argues:
[Every] penny they’ll happily hand over is a penny that the rest of us don’t have to pay in order to keep a stream of videogames that cost less than a bar of chocolate coming our way until the end of time. […]
So hurray for Real Racing 3. It’s a shit game that sucks money out of dimwits and to all intents and purposes gives it to you and me, so that we can spend it on vastly more enjoyable ones that cost literally pennies. Why would you be upset about that?
But in reality, we’ll just end up with loads of crappy games and nothing to spend money on, because everyone will be obsessed with gouge-oriented freemium garbage that’s a business model first and barely a game second.
Are you suggesting EA aren’t a commune of idealistic struggling artists bent on delivering great games for the many at the cost of a foolish few? But, but, but?!
And this is why I make it my business to support good games at respectable prices. I’d rather drop £13 on The World Ends With You (or whatever it cost me) and know I have everything the devs have made than have anything free or discounted up front which tries to gouge me later.
There are few things more irksome in a game that’s meant to be immersive than a bloody great blue bubble pop-up with Are You Sure You Want To Spend £0.99 on In-App Purchase [INSERT GOLD]?
“Freemium” (which, the way things are going, is a misnomer anyway) is bollocks.
Yeah, pretty much the only important flaw in that piece is that, having made a pile of cash from freemium, the following choice is presented to EA
a)Use huge bucket of cash from Freemium to fund loss or barely profit making traditional market title.
b)Use huge bucket of cash from Freemium to fund development of three times as many freemiums.
The good Rev seems to think that a business cynical enough to charge $500 for an iPhone game (and get away with it) is going to somehow decide they have too much money. In reality not only is this unlikely it could be technically illegal as EA is publically traded and thus obliged to make decisions on behalf of their shareholders.
I don’t see the difference really between that argument and EA saying “Blimey we’ve got a lot of money from these Freemium iPhone games haven’t we? I know! Let’s use it to make a series of new games for the Amiga!”
Not every game is Real Racing 3. Not every game can command that level of consumer recognition and interest. The vast majority of even EA games aren’t anything like as cash-whorey – including the IAP ones – because they can’t afford to be. So the idea that RR3 will and can ONLY lead to RR4 (or other games equally gruesome) is majorly flawed.
And not every developer is EA. Some developers absolutely do, and will continue to, use money from freemium games to make normal ones.
I’m not suggesting some kind of overnight switch, but the trend is very obvious. If RR3 is a success, do you see EA reverting to a paid model? Of course not. And if RR3 is a success, it’ll influence other companies to follow suit. Bear in mind that not that long ago, people were laughing at the idea of freemium games gaining any traction beyond grind efforts like Farmville, but things change fast.