Un-timed Incentive Challenges

[LiquidAsh]

The content-based vs. time-based incentive debate has been argued since long before the indiegamer.com boards. Timed incentives have always rubbed me the wrong way. I find them frusterating both as a customer who is concerned about maximizing my limited evaluation time, and as a developer who would like my demo (ie salesman) to stay and remain active on evey potential buyers computer for as long as possible.

Here's a quote that seems to reflect the closest thing I have found to a concensus regarding the utility of content vs timed incentives:

If the game has high replayability, even with the other limits, then a time limit can help. - Greg Squire
<original post> <another thread with similar convictions>

I've been working on a few projects in this "highly replayable" category recently, and have come up with some interesting ways of adding purchase incentives to them. I'm starting to think that good content-based incentives can work everywhere (except possibly for environments where a standard method of providing incentives across many types of games is needed). Here are some examples that are commonly sited as difficult to provide non-time-based purchase incentives for.

Tetris: Some small percent of the blocks that make up each four block shape could be marked (with a big red X, R, or $, or something). These blocks would not disapear as normal when a line fills, but would instead just drops straight down. As these blocks accumulate they will ensure and probably speed up the games enevitable end. There could be a legend off to the side mentioning that registration gets rid of those blocks.

Bejewelled: Similar idea to the tetris one above, where a certain jewel or icon can not be removed from the board as usual. This time instead of a legend that explains how to get rid of the block, the block could actually be a link to an order page.

Minesweeper: Games like this that base their replayablity on the results of a random number generator, can be demoed with a finite number of pregenerated sequences of random numbers. In minesweeper this equates to a finite number of initial mine arrangements.

In addition to comments on these examples, I'd like to use this thread to accumulate specific games and game types that people consider challenging to add non-time based incentives to.. and of course also incentive ideas. I'll start by soliciting ideas for adding incetives to:

Checkers: ?

Notice the way I'm dancing around not using the word "limit". This is because I find that word limiting when it comes to dreaming up new incentive bases for games. Nag screens are a common example of a more addative incentive. Unfortunately these usually come in two relatively undesirable flavors: 1) so subtle that people don't notice, or click right past them, and 2) so obnoxious, that people stop playing to get away from them. It seeme like there should be better game-specific ways to integrate these so-called "nag" incentives into a game. This idea of more addative-based incentives was also mentioned <here> . Clearly this needs to be done with care and respect for a games core mechanic or gameplay hook, pace, rythms, etc. Hopefully some lively debate in this thread and beyond will help us all understand this subject better.

[Hamumu]

I don't like time limits either, from both sides in just the way you said. They also strike me sort of like putting ads up - something marketing guys always say (very paraphrased, and I've heard it from many): "if your return is greater than the number of people who complain, it's a win". I don't believe that - I want to make as many people happy as possible, whether or not they're gonna buy. A positive impression is valuable to have loose in the world, and regardless, I would feel like a heel doing something I knew would upset people.

It's like nag screens that make the player wait before they can click - that's simply disrespectful to the customer. They know whether they want to buy or not. Can you imagine an ad on TV that wouldn't let you change the channel until it was over, or even turn it off (just as a locked nag screen keeps you from going back to using your computer for other things, which by exiting the game was clearly your intent)? You know, just to be SURE you understood the benefits? It insults me to sit through those nags, it's like the game is saying I'm not smart enough to make my own purchasing decision, and it makes me not want the game (moreso the longer it sticks me).

Which is why I don't like your evil tetris blocks either. I think that would just be annoying, and give the player a false image of what the game is like. Even if they knew those blocks would be absent in the full version, they still are playing something that doesn't play the same as the full version. Heck, they might even like the added challenge of the $ blocks. I know I often lament the endless nature of games like Tetris, and wish they'd do something to end more quickly, other than getting unplayably fast, which isn't fun. But most likely they won't like it, and they won't like playing your demo, since it has them. Which doesn't mean they'll buy your game, it means they'll uninstall the demo. You need the players to have fun while playing the demo! Purchasing games is pure emotion, and if they don't have fun playing the demo, they'd be pretty masochistic to shell out money for the full game.

I don't really know a good answer for replayable, small content, games. Replayable big content can still get away with withholding levels - Tony Hawk demos were often released with 1 level, and people wanted to buy more. A game like tetris, I think... I would just come up with more to draw them and leave it out of the demo. Multiple modes, silly alternative block graphics... definitely if it was like tetris, I'd include a Puzzle Mode with fixed levels to solve, and only include a subset. That's always a good teaser. Actually, for the pure tetris form, I think just cutting off demo games at level 5 or whatever, and saying "hey, if you had the full version, you'd still be racking up points!" would be appropriate.

I know it's just my personal view, but the one method (time limit) seems unfriendly to me, while the other (play limit) seems like it's giving me a taste of the game so I can decide if I want more. Time limit actually does the same thing, but for me as a consumer, it puts too much pressure on me to decide. It's like a high pressure car salesman who tells you this deal will be gone if you don't snatch it up, versus one who gives you a test drive and tells you to go him and think about it, sending some nice literature with you.

Myself, I'm leaning more and more to the "give them a good big fun free game, and tell them that for some money, they can get even more!" angle. The 'episode' concept really. Or maybe even like those free MMO games where you can pay money to get wings on your character or something. Really hook people in, and the ones who pay you are the ones who just can't help it. Talk about quality customers!

[Black Hydra]

I hate time limits aswell. But used correctly they can be a good device to bring in sales.

Before trying some games I always saw time demo's as a very poor tool. After the player stopped playing the game then he would forget about it and wouldn't buy it.

However, after playing some really excellent games like Wik and the Fable of Souls. I can now see the benefits of this system. The most crucial benefit is it provides a single moment after the demo is finished where the urge to buy is incredibly strong. However this quickly drops off as they can't play anymore.

Where as content-limited demo's provide a gradual but constant flow of nag to buy the game. There isn't that one critical moment after play when they realize they should get the game, however, if they keep playing they will get so familiarized with the game that they will remember it much longer and the urge to buy will remain there.

I think the best games really mix both. Content limits are a given for any game with levels and such. One important note is to try to showcase a vast variety of the game. Far too often I can see people trying to limit what is in the demo in order to improve sales. However, if you showcase a lot of the game then it makes the game look varied and having more depth. Then if you limit the levels down to a very small amount this prevents the players from getting bored with your game. Adding on time nag's would be a very good idea. Perhaps something that when you reach over a certain limit the game will pause every five minutes and play a nag screen. Yeah, its really obnoxious, but then it is more effective as it is interrupting their play. As time continues the frequency of these pop-in's will too.

[Travis Dorschel]

I think a compromise between content and time limit would be a good idea. For instance, give the player 60 minutes or whatever to play with lots of the game content giving them a taste for all they can do, and after the time expires, limit the game content to only a partial amount, like a level or two. This gives the player a peek at what they can get but doesn't cut them off completely when time expires. Give them 10 minutes on 5 levels and then open one beginning level for them to play unlimitted. I think this will definitely draw people in by showing them more of your content and what they will get when they purchase. I think this will be my approach when I develop my first title (after I make enough from screensavers to go independent...)

-Travis

P.S. I guess this is what BlackHydra just said...

[stan]

I think your ideas for Tetris and Bejeweled wouldn't work because they'd change the gameplay. As Hamumu said, it might even make the demo more interesting than the full version ;).

However, I like the idea of a fixed random generator seed for a game like Minesweeper... It would be like limiting the number of levels in a (non random) puzzle game.

I wonder if this could be applied to a game like checkers, or my own Smart Lines (which is a connect 4 in 3D)... But I'm afraid that the effects of the random number generator are not obvious enough for the player to be concerned about that. Maybe making the computer opponent always start with the same move in the demo could be effective.

Limiting the number of difficulty levels doesn't seem to be a very good idea because then some player will find the demo too easy or too hard, and then probably won't buy because they didn't have fun. Or maybe some will think that they will have fun with the other difficulty levels available in the full version... But my own experience suggests that removing the normal/hard difficulty levels from the demo doesn't work very well. (I haven't tried any incentives variations yet though, so I might be wrong.)

[ManuelFLara]

I agree in saying that's a tought question :)

IMO games like tetris and bejeweled are better with a time limited demo, while content-based games are just the opposite.

And the worst option by far is just nagging without limiting anything. I don't know if the trial version of FlashFXP limites some features but I 've been using it for _years_ and I don't plan to register it, I'm ok with waiting 30 seconds each time I start it (once a day at most) :)

On the other hand, the first indie game I bought was Space Tripper, which can be played from start to finish several times (it's fun) but I'd say it's content based. So, I played the demo, that features the first chapter/world/whatever. It's short, but then you know how the game plays and the quality you can expect. It took me several tries to beat the damn boss so after that, getting a 'Here the demo ends' screens just annoyed me and quit the game. But sometime later I replayed the whole chapter and decided I wanted to beat the entire game, so I just bought it.

If FlashFXP locked itself after the 30 day trial period or just limited transfers to 1KB/sec or something, I'd buy it (after expiring all FTP clients on the market's trial period, that is :) ).

For the nature of my upcoming game I'm using a time limited demo, but for the next one I'll use a content-based one. They're both puzzle games but in a different way.

[Winterwolf]

It really depends on the type of game, but overall, I would prefer time-limiting as an option.

There are basically three schemes that one can use for any general piece of software:

1)Time-limiting: Let the user download the full-featured version of the game or software, but only only x number of hours, or x number of days or x number of runs.

2)Content-limiting: Let the user download a demo version of the program that does NOT have all the features but is unlimited with regard to the amount of usage.

3)Time-limiting + Content-lmiting: Let the user download a partial-feautured product with a time limit constraint e.g. only y features for only x days.

IMHO, i would choose option 3, even if others may differ and rebuke it as being too stringent.

The main point to remember when choosing a demo scheme is:

You want to maximize the addiction of the user to the software, but you want to minimize the functionality of the software

If one can acheive this, believe you me, that person can drastically improve his/her conversion rate.

Just My $2!