The Free to Play (F2P) Model has already proven to be the superior business model for making profitable games. It’s next challenge is to mitigate the negative Player experiences associated with successful F2P Practices.

Mafia Wars, Farmville, Clash of Clans, Candy Crush, Game of War, Clash Royale, Idle Heroes, Pokemon Go, Fortnite, the list goes on. There have been many F2P Games that have moved the Mobile Gaming industry to where it is today, and have made a Mind-Boggling amount of money in the process.

Looking at these games, its hard to pinpoint what they have in common that made them all successful. Was it theme? Crime, Farming, Fantasy, Candy?, Roman Armies, Monsters, and whatever one might describe Fortnite as. I’ve seen less diversity of Theme in a Halloween Parade. How about Genre? RPG, Simulation, RTS, Collection, Shooter? We are all across the Board here. Fidelity and Polish? Yes, some of these titles are absolutely gorgeous. Others, not so much. So what is it about these games that have caused their incredible success?

The answer is less remarkable than people in our industry would have you believe. The one thing these games have common that define their success is that the game developers behind these games adapted their game and their designs to the economic realities of their players. I know, sexy right? All these Game Companies launched games that achieved at least some success in some of the core KPIs. But that alone, doesn’t make a game successful. It is the data-driven doubling down on what your initial successes are combined with trying to fix your weaknesses that can take a moderately successful game and make it a powerhouse. That is what each of the aforementioned games did.

A lot of people in the industry describe Game Design as a science. And it some ways it is. It relies a lot on data-driven analysis and trial and error. But fundamentally, what prevents Game Design from being a science is that there is no method or blueprint to building a game that will guarantee results. So many companies have tried to blindly copy successful games in their entirety, or successful features within a successful game. The vast majority of these efforts fail. Those that succeed only achieve limited success. So a quick tip to hiring managers: Any candidate who claims that game design is a science should immediately set off your bullshit detector.

So if Game Design is not a science, then is it an art? Perhaps. Some qualities of making good art can be found in successful Game Design: Knowing your audience, providing a compelling experience, having a social component, etc. I’m not prepared to say that Game Design is an art because I don’t think science and art should be binary choices in describing Game Design, and in the end it doesn’t matter. The point is that Game Design feels like an art, because you are constantly having to feel through decisions that can have dramatic impact on the Game’s performance without much real-time feedback (at least during the Game’s development). With so little feedback to guide decision-making, producing a game that is going to be an immediate hit with Players is a daunting (and in most cases, random) task. One cannot bank a company’s financial future blindly developing a game to be successful on Day 1.

So what is the alternative? The alternative is to design a game with enough room to allow you to respond to player feedback so you can both improve the Player experience (i.e. Retention, Engagement) as well as a Game’s Monetization. It is only guided by player feedback that we can be successful Game Developers. And that is precisely why F2P is the dominant business model of our Age. The top F2P games have all took what was initially successful for their games and created features that complimented what was working, achieving greater levels of success. It is hard to think of a different model besides F2P that could allow Game Developers this amount of agility to make the changes necessary to turn their initial successes into Powerhouses. By any indication, F2P will continue to thrive and grow as a successful business model for Gaming.

This success was not without its price–F2P Games have a notorious reputation among games. At best, they are accused of manipulating the Player Experience for the sake of boosting monetization. At worst, they are downright exploitative. While I tend to be more defensive of F2P’s legacy and merits, there is no question that some F2P Practices have been worse than others.

And that is what I’ve strove to do as a Game Designer. I whole-heartedly believe that many F2P Mechanics can be designed in a way to achieve the intended results without compromising the Player Experience more than necessary. I also am driven to understand not simply what works in a game, but why it works. F2P Game Design is the crossroads of Psychology and Economics, and learning what works and what doesn’t has been the pride and joy of my professional career. On any project I take on, I bring with me my 11+ years of experience and knowledge.

My intent for this Blog is to share snippets of what i’ve learned, and how Game Developers and Players alike should think about things as they make and play games. I apologize for the length of this initial post. Sadly my writing is generally too verbose, and my hope for future blog posts is to pass along my ideas in a much more concise manner. We shall see if I achieve that goal.

I hope you enjoy my posts. Check out more posts here and on ggDigest. I welcome and appreciate any thoughts, comments, or feedback. Feel free to email me at jwittsf@gmail.com. Farewell for now!