I just read this article about ngmoco’s freemium model and I sincerely disagree with their stance. They clearly point out the advantages of playing for free but what they are overlooking is what we want and why we think they’re tricking us. I will attempt to explain why we think we’re being tricked. When we buy a game, we know we can play it from beginning to end. However, if we’re given a game for free we know that somewhere down the road the company will want money for their time and effort, which they rightly deserve. This freemium model doesn’t tell us what we’re paying for the game, I don’t want to buy items within the game like food of guns. I want to pay a flat fee. What’s the ceiling on a freemium game? Could I pay $100 for a freemium game if I continue to buy add-ons? That’s why we think it’s a trick. We want to know what it costs to play the game from beginning to end, not daily.

I would like to offer a possible solution to the freemium model that many of us don’t like. Rebrand the freemium model into something that includes the first level with 10 stages. Not a timed demo or limited first level, but give me the first full level with all the perks for free. And if I love the game I will pay $0.99 for Level 2 (10 stages), and I will pay $0.99 for level 3 (10 stages). No one wants to buy health or guns or mushrooms. We want a full experience; not to be given the opportunity to spend $50 on these games. The freemium model kept me from spending $10 on TouchPets (which is what I expected it to cost) when it came out because the freemium model cripples the game. Sure you can get to the end, but expect it to take longer. That’s not fun.

One thing my freemium model allows you to do is build the first two levels of more games; give away the first level; one month later release level 2 for $0.99. If you have 30 games on the market you know which ones to continue to develop for because those are the ones that are selling levels. So instead of developing 5 or 10 games with all their levels and charging for items, develop more games with a higher diversity and make more game play available as that game pays for itself.

My daughter was very excited about TouchPets, until it came out and she was required to buy dog food. Before I could even tell her that she’s not to make in-app purchases she said she didn’t want to play the game because it made her wait. Now ngmoco could argue that I could have bought her some food, but where does it end? In the article they even mention the Black Market. Really, you’re going to convince me that your model works because another game has a Black Market? We don’t like an open-ended payment scale for these games. We want a flat fee for unlimited play, even if we’re only buying it one level at a time. But each level will be unlimited to me.

I hear plenty of whiners complain about the price of $2 games and those people must be ignored. I’ve paid $10 for many iPhone games and more than $30 for a couple utilities. If people wait a week for a game price to drop it’s because they’ve been trained that’s what will happen. And as much as this country is a democracy we don’t want to be told we’re paying to support the people who weren’t willing to pay for the game.

I suppose they already know this and are just trying the pay-for-food-and-health model to see if it makes them more money than the other models. However, it has made many of us leery of their games because we don’t know what they cost. And don’t tell me that they’re free.