Should “Free-to-Play” Be Rebranded MTG?
March 13th, 2009
| By Christopher Mack | 3 Comments » |
In a recent post on Gamasutra, David Chang, EVP of Business Development and Marketing for GamesCampus, explains why he thinks “free to play” games need to be rebranded as “MTG” – or Micro Transaction Games. Why? Because calling games free to play “generates a lot of unnecessary cynicism and calls our product quality into question.”
Chang draws a parallel with how the primary function of Google, searching the web, is free to any user. Both can charge for various premium services (for Google it would be something like paid search and for a game, virtual goods). “In both situations, people receive a valuable service – free search or a free game experience,” says Chang.
Despite the logical comparison, Chang believes that one of the biggest cause for the stigma is a matter of branding; stating that the term “MTGs (Micro-Transaction Games)” would be a far better label. Immediately upon rebranding, there would no longer that preconceived notion of “what is wrong with it?” However, in order to be dubbed an MTG certain prerequisites are required:
- No purchase to download/play
- No level/content cap beyond what is needed to play
- Monetized by virtual goods sales (at least partially)
Of course, virtual good sales are not the only workable business model for an “MTG”. In the article, Chang also touches on the models that can also work for this growing genre, but more importantly, what will not work.
His chief example is content caps, stating, “People end up investing time and emotionally connecting with a game only to find out that if they want to continue, they need an admission fee… you will lose most players at the pay-gate.” This certainly churns some food for thought, as there are a number of “free-to-play” titles that are guilty of this, and the damage to the game’s community from said player lose dramatically hurts the game as a whole.
Overall, however, most free titles are moving in the right direction regarding their business models. “Now is the time,” says Chang, referring to the growing virtual goods business model. “We should be looking at re-branding from free to play, to instead being known as micro-transaction service providers.”

Twitter












Strategic Facebook Platform Ecosystem Overview and Guide For Agencies & Brands
French / Français
Spanish / Español
Italian / Italiano
Track Facebook's International Growth in 95 Global Markets with our Monthly Reports and Analysis


March 13th, 2009 at 9:31 am
Doesn’t really make sense. Lots of free-to-play games don’t utilize microtransactions. For instance, Runescape is free-to-play with an optional subscription that unlocks content gates. In other free-to-play games (such as my own) that have microtransactions you can still get anything that’s purchasable by just playing the game.
March 13th, 2009 at 3:14 pm
I like it. Plus it addressed how games like Runescape don’t qualify if they have a level/content cap with a pay gate. Those games can still be referred to as “Free To Play”, but the rest of us can be called “MTG”.
April 29th, 2009 at 8:12 am
[...] model of $4.95 a month. It doesn’t seem like a lot, but they are making a potentially dangerous move in making the game free at first but capping the age/level at 12. Once players get to the gate and have to pay the “admission fee,” many players could [...]