Facebook Reveals Subscription Model

Facebook Reveals Subscription Model


Microtransactions are no longer the only way for games to make money on Facebook.

Facebook just announced another potential source of revenue for game developers. Rather than relying solely on the free-to-play business model, developers can now charge a monthly, recurring subscription for access to their games. Previously, subscription models were only available to developers who worked directly with the social network. Facebook will be taking its traditional 30% share of the revenue generated by the subscriptions. This will be the first time the subscription model will be available to all developers.

The subscriptions, which are currently being tested in Kixeye's Backyard Monsters as well as a few titles from Zynga, will be charged in the user's local currency, and Facebook intends to add support for local currencies for in-app purchases within the next couple of months.

While free-to-play games still dominate the social gaming market, and are growing in popularity outside of it, many, more active gamers prefer the traditional subscription model. It's still the go-to revenue model for MMOs, a genre that, despite the inherently social nature of the platform, hasn't really flourished on Facebook.

Subscriptions won't just change how people pay for their games, but what kind of games appear on the network. A common criticism of games that rely on microtransactions is that their design focuses on roping players into making a purchase rather than providing a satisfying experience. Subscription models work the other way around, encouraging the player to keep paying, lest they lose their progress.

Source: Facebook Via IndieSocialGames


Not quite sure how to feel about this.

So while mmos are moving from subscription towards free to play, facebook games are moving from free-to-play to subscription. Intriguing.

Link bait headline aside, if people want to go for this, well done. however, I think they've confused "Farmville" with world of warcraft. Can't wait to see how long this takes to be reversed. FB games do not have the quality (aside from MouseHunt) to be subbed games.

Sounds to me like an act of desperation when Facebook went downhill after going public. I doubt many are going to be a big fan of this, but I could care less about that criminal site.

look at all the people going to google plus.... Pick up your game Zuckerburg!

Evil Smurf:
look at all the people going to google plus.... Pick up your game Zuckerburg!

All 3 of them, yeah. G+ is a spectacular failure.

Evil Smurf:
look at all the people going to google plus.... Pick up your game Zuckerburg!

THis will not effect you unless people actually play the certain Facebook games. Facebook is not forcing anyone to do this, they are just saying that they are now allowing it.

Heh. I used to play Backyard Monsters. I wouldn't pay a dime for it.

Link bait headline aside, .

You know, that never even occurred to me. I'll change it.

Edit: Turns out I can't.

Hey look, Facebook is trying to make itself seem profitable despite having failed off of wall-street. It isn't still on wall street, is it? Either way, I don't see Facebook making any money off of this but I don't see how Facebook is capable of making money in the first place.

Even a subscription model is better than free-to-play (excluding smartly done FTP's like TF2).

Taking this out from the context of social network gaming, there's still no match to the good old
1. buy the game
2. you have it
3. you can play it
-model. And it's not like it wouldn't work with Facebook either.

Not quite sure how to feel about this.

If you do not play Facebook games I suggest "indifferent". It worked well enough for me.

I would normally say that there's no way people will pay to play a damned Facebook game, but I suppose that depends on what they offer in exchange for subscriptions as well as how widespread and severe the addicted personalities on the site are.

I'm morbidly curious to see how this works out for FB.

I dont use facebook, but i think that giving game makers a choice is a good thing.

All 3 of them, yeah. G+ is a spectacular failure.

Yeah, you can tell by how badly Google stock took a nose dive because of it ... Oh wait!

I've never played FB games, if people want to spend their money on their farm then go right ahead!

I think this might be a good thing, as it will get rid of the needless clutter on Facebook.

But they should do both options: freemium play for some people, small fees for others.


Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
Register for a free account here