I hope the GoF freemium spinoff fails miserably, so that they will opt to go premium on this one without second thoughts.
Well, the paid model already failed pretty miserably for them. Fishlabs recently laid off about 25 people because they didn't sell enough of GoF 1 & 2, if the F2P fails also, there might not be a GoF 3 to look forward to. http://toucharcade.com/2013/10/25/fishlabs-lays-off-25-consider-checking-out-the-galaxy-on-fire-series-to-support-a-great-developer/
That's really sad to hear. I have had many, many happy hours playing GOF2 and am greatful for all thier hard work. I'm sorry to hear the premium model did not work out for them. I tried the beta for the strategy but was immediately turned off by the timers. I hope they can turn things around.
What I really hope is that they remove the ads to the people who purchase IAP's. It was frustrating to see that after buying all the one-time IAP's in GoF2 AND GoF2 HD (around $15, I think it was), I get pop-ups with ads. I understand the premium models failed pretty miserably, but there were some of us who paid for the games and all the expansions, and I don't think we deserve pop-ups.
Create a great freemium game that is usable to generate large amounts of money than using said money to hold up your business create the premium games that you want to thereby generating a large amount of income from your free game and hopefully a large sum from your premium game(s) as well.
Their problems started after they turned their premium games into freemium games. It was actually the conversion to freemium that brought Fishlabs down. According to their own CEO: http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/203337/To_get_investors_interested_you_need_to_generate_1M_a_day_says_Fishlabs.php
Actually, that is not the case and while he did make that quoted statement, he clearly states that the reason for their problems, while multi faceted, mainly centred around the fact they could not raise required investment funds due to the low revenue numbers of their paid/premium games. The source article of the quoted interview contains a lot more detailed information on the situation and it clearly shows that they couldn't survive with premium games anyway and that a switch to freemium was, and is, a compulsory move if they wish to survive at all. http://www.pocketgamer.biz/r/PG.Biz/Fishlabs+news/news.asp?c=54786
There is no information stating that the inability to raise money from GOF 1 and 2 came before the switch to freemium (neither game has been premium in some time). The CEO says its harder to be successful with premium than freemium, which leads me to the logical conclusion that, when the company was doing well, they were seeing success from their premium games and now at they have transitioned to freemium, have had massive layoffs, and are going for bankruptcy, freemium has not been successful for them. I don't deny that GOF wouldn't have had long lasting continuous income as a premium game, that's nearly impossible for premium games, but I can't see where you're getting that stuff from. He says it's easier to be have success with premium games. They had success with premium games. They went freemium, and they are going under (though he seems hopefull they will pull through). Maybe the switch to freemium was a last ditch effort, but he doesn't seem to say that anywhere. He just talks about how you need a huge investment to make a successful freemium game and nobody will invest unless you already have a successful freemium game.
Sorry, but your logic fails there on one key point. If in fact, as you consider logical, the company was doing well under the premium structure, why did they feel a need to switch to freemium? If that were the case, they logically wouldn't have made the switch. The fact they underestimated the necessary investment in order to achieve that freemium structure and success rate (which does require a very large marketing push and a lot of dollars behind it) doesn't change the fact that they saw that premium was not going to be sustainable anymore or in the future, hence the switch to freemium. Anyway, that's my last point on the subject. To me its very clear what happened. To those that dislike freemium it will seem to be something else. They saw they needed to adapt and are still hoping for a top 25 grossing (freemium) game. I wish them lots of luck with it and hope they succeed.
Plenty of companies jump on the bandwagon simply because they see a handful of games making a fortune, then they fail, and go back to premium. They were a successful company making premium games. They turned their games freemium a long time after they had put out their last release, so it would only be natural that they would not be continuing to generate massive revenue by that point. Nowhere does he specifically state or even imply any of what you are saying. Your supposition does not mean a flaw in my logic.
I'm not going to continue going around in circles with you where you nitpick points and then make flagrantly inaccurate statements (premium to freemium back to premium, seriously? Who? Completely contrary to market trends. And no I'm not looking for a list of games that can't be found in any top 1000 grossing list anywhere to be in a reply.) And he may not have said it, but tell me then, why exactly did they make they change to freemium? For the fun of it? Or to generate revenue from a stream that no longer generated revenue? (Don't answer, its rhetorical) You're even contradicting yourself at this stage with one point saying freemium caused their financial problems and then saying because it was a long time since their last release that they wouldn't be making any massive revenue from them. I mean pick a point or a stand and stick with it rather than just making contradictory statements that betray an obvious anti F2P stance. If they were generating enough revenue to sustain future development, well then they wouldn't have needed investment in the first place. And no its not a supposition. I have enough first hand market knowledge and experience to see the writing when its on the wall. My logic stands. If the games were generating enough sustainable revenue as premium, well then they would have stayed premium. The fact they switched to freemium was not a bandwagon jump. It was, as you yourself said, down to the fact that they were not continuing to generate "massive" (significant/noteworthy/sustainable would be more the words I would use) revenue. Now, lets not continue to go around in circles and instead take note of my last sentence in my last reply and wish them best of luck and success with their next game Meeting adjourned.
Your logic is flawed. Just because you make solid revenue with premium does not justify an assumption that a developer would not switch over to a trend strategy (freemium) if the gold in that pot looks bigger. Duh. Any business set out to make money doesn't stop there; they continue looking to make MORE money. Unless you have some tangible evidence showing that moving to F2P, and increasing revenue was not the goal (which offers the possibility their move unsuspectingly put a pothole in their income), you can't just call this out as being a farce conclusion. You say you're a marketing expert? Then I'm sure you're familiar with the object of 'minimizing input, maximizing output', and that sometimes the risk of changing strategy to make more money simply backfires under a few loose screws, an incorrect business projection or simply bad timing when pushing that kind of change in the current mobile gaming marketplace. Just because a developer gave you a game your REALLY like does not mean they're not at fault for making a change that might have dug them in a hole. Once you strongly start down a certain marketing strategy, then drastically make a plan change, there is a sensative risk you take. The changes made might have put a bad apple in the cult followers' mouths. You don't think the wallet would sting from that? To say freemium never could sting a company, that would be near sighted.
Not continuing this circular (and frequently misinterpreted) discussion. But Paul, I never claimed to be an "expert" (knowledge of does not necessarily an expert make) and I never at any time claimed or referenced in any way that freemium doesn't have a sting (the sting being very clear in this case). Time to wait for some news on GOF 3.