Camille Recto Peteza

Time as a Key Player in Free-to-Play Mobile Games

During the era of feature phones, games were readily installed for free to increase the value and
attractiveness of the device. Buying these phones made consumers accustomed to having games and other
digital contents free of charge (Lescop & Lescop, 2014). In today’s mobile gaming industry, through the
increase availability of smartphones, users can easily download a game that they are interested in especially
when it is free. Hence, the Free-To-Play (F2P) or also known as “freemium” business model have become
dominant in the industry (Hamari et al., 2017a; Voigt & Hinz, 2016). This type of business model was first
used by the company, Nexon in South Korea with their multiplayer online game QuizQuiz (Kong &
O’Connor, 2009). Now, a lot of companies are using the same business model, thus, offering a significant
number of free mobile games in the market.

Free-to-Play is a pricing strategy used widely not only in the mobile gaming industry but industries
alike. Since games are made free, it captivates more users and an increase in consumers makes the game
even more attractive. Players can easily enter and test the games without the need to pay. With a huge user
base, the probability of converting non-paying users to paying ones becomes higher (Davidovici-Nora,
2014; Voigt & Hinz, 2016). In this business model, monetization of the product and its services are not
certain. Therefore, mobile game companies are focused on creating a strong and unique gaming experience
for their users before they can monetize it (Davidovici-Nora, 2014). Although Free-To-Play is a complex
business model, games of this type continue to thrive in today’s gaming industry and can become highly
profitable for companies.

One way of looking how mobile game companies earn from producing F2P games is through
understanding the underlying reasons that drive players to conduct microtransactions in the game.
Unlocking content, special offers, personalization, speeding timers, continuing play, and avoiding spam are
some of the motivations why users pay (Hamari et al., 2017b). According to the user survey from the 2017
White Paper on Korean Games, people in their 30s use mobile games more compared to other age groups.
Although students also spend significant time in playing mobile games, people in the working class are
perceived to have more money but less time. Therefore, employees can be considered as a good market
target to be able to generate revenue in F2P mobile games by capitalizing on their scarcity of time.

Time is an important resource in our life that it can be perceived as valuable as money (DeVoe &
House, 2012). Through the years, a lot of developments have been made to improve our technology which
has contributed to our present fast-paced life. For example, by browsing the internet, you can easily find a
book you are looking for as a reference instead of going to the library to search for its physical copy that
may cost you significant amount of time to do. Nowadays, it has also become easier and faster to travel
from one place to another because of the various transportation means that were not available before like
airplanes, jets, trains, and many more. Hence, we are becoming more accustomed to paying when shortcuts
are available especially that people’s attention span has become shorter through the years (Ainsworth,
2018).

In creating game designs for mobile games, one of the factors that companies use to drive users to
pay is by emphasizing the importance of time so players can maximize their game experience. If a player
is impatient, game mechanics that plays around time can lead to users’ frustration. Thus, this gives mobile
game producers the opportunity to relieve this stress by allowing users to pay for whichever time influences
in the game (Devoe & House, 2012; Lescop & Lescop, 2014).

There are several ways in which companies can utilize time as a common driver for
microtransactions. In Dziedzic’s study in 2016, he mentioned five key elements that an F2P game should
have. One of which is called the Wait Loop. Once the gamers’ attention has already been established upon
entering the game, the wait loop encourages gamers to conduct payments to shorten the waiting time.
Gameloft company uses this strategy in one of their games called “The Oregon Trail: American Settler”.
This game shares the similar game play that of FarmVille and FrontierVille which are farming simulators.
In this game, players add buildings, raise animals, and plant crops to create their own village frontier. There
is limited energy provided and each action would cost one energy. Therefore, after a few clicks on the
screen, players would need to wait for the energy to regenerate at a rate of one energy per three minutes
(“The Oregon Train: American Settler”, 2014). From the start, players must already deal with real-time
delays in the game. Although there are rewards given after the waiting time, as the game progresses, it takes
longer to wait. In result, players become more impatient and would tend to relieve this by paying (Lescop
& Lescop, 2014).

We can also look into F2P Massively Multiplayer Online (MMO) games which also use time as an
inconvenient gameplay element to entice people to pay. “World of Warcraft” and “MapleStory” are
example of F2P MMO games that involves quests in new and different places in the game map. The virtual
landscape in these games are typically large, thus, traveling from one place to another would take time. But
players are given the option to automatically go to their desired destination by performing microtransactions
in the game (Hamari & Lehdonvirta, 2010).

Time, even outside of the game world, is an integral asset that is part of everyone’s life. With more
time, we can do more of the things we want. Even if we are not aware, time has its effect on how we make
our decisions in and out of a game. Hence, we further examine the role of time in creating a unique gaming
experience for players and generating revenue for companies that produce F2P games by understanding the
concept of time preference.

Time preference or also known as delay discounting in psychology (Doyle, 2013) explains how a
person perceives the acquisition of benefits across time. A person is considered to have a high time
preference if he wants to enjoy the benefits of his decision immediately rather than having it in the distant
future. Meanwhile, having a low time preference focuses on receiving the benefits on a later date (Frederick
et al., 2002). This idea can help explain why people choose to pay now to skip the waiting time – it can be
because their gaming experience cannot be disrupted and they can enjoy the game without delay. As
mentioned before, one way of monetizing F2P games is through capitalizing on the impatience of a player
but there is more to than just placing stress on the users with time. Looking at the concept of time preference,
companies can also influence people to think that it is better to receive advantages in the game at an earlier
date rather than choosing to stand by. Mobile game producers can design games in such a way that players
are conditioned to obtain benefits from their gaming as soon as they can to maximize their enjoyment.

In conclusion, time is a complex ingredient in making Free-to-Play mobile games. It can be tricky
because it can either bring in money or take out players from the game. Companies should invest not only
in making games look good on our mobile screens but also in conducting research on how players react to
different game components such as time. Time as a game component has a big potential to create profit for
companies and stimulate unique entertainment for the players. Therefore, the importance of time should
not be neglected in games but should be used wisely because at the end of the day, lost time is lost money.

REFERENCES:

Ainsworth, R. (2018, February). Attention spans are getting shorter. Or are they? Retrieved from
https://www.sourceglobalresearch.com/blog/2018/02/15/attention-spans-are-getting-shorter-or-are-they
Davidovici-Nora, M. (2014). Paid and Free Digital Business Models Innovations in the Video
Game Industry. Digiworld Economic Journal,94, 83-102. Retrieved November 10, 2018.
Devoe, S. E., & House, J. (2012). Time, money, and happiness: How does putting a price on time
affect our ability to smell the roses? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,48(2), 466-474.
doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2011.11.012
Doyle, J. R. (2013). Survey of Time Preference, Delay Discounting Models. Judgment and
Decision Making,8(2), 116-135. doi:10.2139/ssrn.1685861
 Dziedzic, D. (2016). Use of the Free to Play model in games with a purpose: The RoboCorp game
case study. Bio-Algorithms and Med-Systems,12, 187-197. Retrieved November 10, 2018.
Frederick, S., Loewenstein, G., & O’Donoghue, T. (2002). Time Discounting and Time
Preference:. Journal of Economic Literature,351-401.
Hamari, J., & Lehdonvirta, V. (2010). Game design as marketing: How game mechanics create
demand for virtual goods. International Journal of Business Science and Applied Management,5(1), 15-29.
Hamari, J., Hanner, N., & Koivisto, J. (2017a). Service quality explains why people use freemium
services but not if they go premium: An empirical study in free-to-play games. International Journal of
Information Management,37(1), 1449-1459. doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2016.09.004
Hamari, J., Alha, K., Jarvela, S., Kivikangas, J., Koivisto, J., & Paavilainen, J. (2017b). Why do
players buy in-game content? An empirical study on concrete purchase motivations. Computers in Human
Behavior,68.
Kong, L., & O'Connor, J. (2009). Creative Economies, Creative Cities: Asian-European
Perspectives. Dordrecht: Springer.
Lescop, D., & Lescop, E. (2014). Exploring Mobile Gaming Revenues: The Price Tag of
Impatience, Stress and Release. Digiworld Economic Journal,94, 103-121. Retrieved November 10, 2018.
The Oregon Trail: American Settler. (2014). Retrieved from
http://www.gameloft.com/en/game/the-oregon-trail-american-settler
Voigt, S., & Hinz, O. (2016). Assessing the economic effects of server launches in free-to-play
MMO games. Journal of Business Economics,87(4), 421-464. doi:10.1007/s11573-016-0825-5
White Paper on Korean Games: Summary(pp. 4-38, Rep.). (2017).