Selling Virtual Items in Free-to-Play Games: Transparent Selling vs. Opaque Selling

IF 16.4 1区 化学 Q1 CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Accounts of Chemical Research Pub Date : 2021-07-12 DOI:10.1287/serv.2021.0271
Yifan Jiao, Christopher S. Tang, Jingqi Wang
{"title":"Selling Virtual Items in Free-to-Play Games: Transparent Selling vs. Opaque Selling","authors":"Yifan Jiao, Christopher S. Tang, Jingqi Wang","doi":"10.1287/serv.2021.0271","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The market for online games is huge, but research on the economics of online game operations remains nascent. In this paper, we focus on “free-to-play” online games in which a game provider offers players an option to purchase game-specific virtual goods (items) for improving their winning chances before the game begins. Because selling virtual items is the main revenue stream in free-to-play games, it is important for game providers to find ways to entice players to purchase virtual items. We observe that some game providers disclose the opponent’s skill level before the game begins by using a “transparent selling” mechanism to sell virtual items, whereas others conceal this information from the players. This observation motivates us to examine whether and when game providers should adopt transparent selling. By analyzing a game-theoretical model that involves one game provider and two competitive players, we obtain the following results. First, when the price of the virtual goods is endogenously determined by the game provider, we find that transparent selling is not effective: it is optimal for the provider to adopt “opaque selling” by concealing the opponent’s skill level information from players. However, opaque selling hurts the player’s welfare. Second, when the selling price is exogenously given, transparent selling dominates opaque selling when the given price is high. Our results identify the conditions under which transparent selling dominates opaque selling.","PeriodicalId":1,"journal":{"name":"Accounts of Chemical Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":16.4000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accounts of Chemical Research","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1287/serv.2021.0271","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"化学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

The market for online games is huge, but research on the economics of online game operations remains nascent. In this paper, we focus on “free-to-play” online games in which a game provider offers players an option to purchase game-specific virtual goods (items) for improving their winning chances before the game begins. Because selling virtual items is the main revenue stream in free-to-play games, it is important for game providers to find ways to entice players to purchase virtual items. We observe that some game providers disclose the opponent’s skill level before the game begins by using a “transparent selling” mechanism to sell virtual items, whereas others conceal this information from the players. This observation motivates us to examine whether and when game providers should adopt transparent selling. By analyzing a game-theoretical model that involves one game provider and two competitive players, we obtain the following results. First, when the price of the virtual goods is endogenously determined by the game provider, we find that transparent selling is not effective: it is optimal for the provider to adopt “opaque selling” by concealing the opponent’s skill level information from players. However, opaque selling hurts the player’s welfare. Second, when the selling price is exogenously given, transparent selling dominates opaque selling when the given price is high. Our results identify the conditions under which transparent selling dominates opaque selling.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
免费游戏中的虚拟道具销售:透明销售vs.不透明销售
网络游戏市场巨大,但对网络游戏运营经济学的研究仍处于萌芽阶段。在本文中,我们关注的是“免费”在线游戏,在这种游戏中,游戏提供商为玩家提供购买游戏特定虚拟商品(道具)的选项,以提高他们在游戏开始前获胜的几率。因为出售虚拟道具是免费游戏的主要收入来源,所以游戏供应商必须找到吸引玩家购买虚拟道具的方法。我们观察到,一些游戏供应商在游戏开始前通过“透明销售”机制出售虚拟道具,披露了对手的技能水平,而另一些游戏供应商则向玩家隐瞒了这一信息。这一观察结果促使我们审视游戏供应商是否以及何时应该采用透明销售。通过分析一个博弈提供者和两个竞争参与者的博弈论模型,我们得到了以下结果:首先,当虚拟商品的价格由游戏提供商内生性决定时,我们发现透明销售是无效的,通过向玩家隐瞒对手的技术水平信息,提供商采用“不透明销售”是最优的。然而,不透明的销售损害了玩家的利益。第二,当销售价格为外生给定时,当给定价格较高时,透明卖出优于不透明卖出。我们的结果确定了透明销售主导不透明销售的条件。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Accounts of Chemical Research
Accounts of Chemical Research 化学-化学综合
CiteScore
31.40
自引率
1.10%
发文量
312
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Accounts of Chemical Research presents short, concise and critical articles offering easy-to-read overviews of basic research and applications in all areas of chemistry and biochemistry. These short reviews focus on research from the author’s own laboratory and are designed to teach the reader about a research project. In addition, Accounts of Chemical Research publishes commentaries that give an informed opinion on a current research problem. Special Issues online are devoted to a single topic of unusual activity and significance. Accounts of Chemical Research replaces the traditional article abstract with an article "Conspectus." These entries synopsize the research affording the reader a closer look at the content and significance of an article. Through this provision of a more detailed description of the article contents, the Conspectus enhances the article's discoverability by search engines and the exposure for the research.
期刊最新文献
Management of Cholesteatoma: Hearing Rehabilitation. Congenital Cholesteatoma. Evaluation of Cholesteatoma. Management of Cholesteatoma: Extension Beyond Middle Ear/Mastoid. Recidivism and Recurrence.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1