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

被引:8
|
作者
Jiao, Yifan [1 ]
Tang, Christopher S. [2 ]
Wang, Jingqi [1 ,3 ,4 ]
机构
[1] Univ Hong Kong, Fac Business & Econ, Pokfulam, Hong Kong, Peoples R China
[2] Univ Calif Los Angeles, Anderson Sch Management, Los Angeles, CA 90095 USA
[3] Chinese Univ Hong Kong, Sch Management & Econ, Shenzhen, Peoples R China
[4] Chinese Univ Hong Kong, Shenzhen Finance Inst, Shenzhen, Peoples R China
关键词
player-versus-player game; opaque selling; in-game purchase; INFORMATION DISCLOSURE; MARKET-SEGMENTATION; DIGITAL GAMES; PRODUCT; AUCTIONS; GOODS;
D O I
10.1287/serv.2021.0271
中图分类号
F [经济];
学科分类号
02 ;
摘要
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.
引用
收藏
页码:53 / 76
页数:24
相关论文
共 37 条
  • [1] Strategy - Selling product vs. selling customers
    Yu, L
    [J]. MIT SLOAN MANAGEMENT REVIEW, 2003, 44 (04) : 11 - 11
  • [2] The marketplace dilemma: Selling to the marketplace vs. selling on the marketplace
    Yenipazarli, Arda
    [J]. NAVAL RESEARCH LOGISTICS, 2021, 68 (06) : 761 - 778
  • [3] The Economics of Buyer Uncertainty: Advance Selling vs. Probabilistic Selling
    Fay, Scott
    Xie, Jinhong
    [J]. MARKETING SCIENCE, 2010, 29 (06) : 1040 - 1057
  • [4] Dynamic selling strategy for a firm under asymmetric information: Direct selling vs. agent selling
    Dong, Ciwei
    Yang, Yunpeng
    Zhao, Ming
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRODUCTION ECONOMICS, 2018, 204 : 204 - 213
  • [5] Opaque selling vs traditional selling: optimal decisions for service providers in a competitive market
    Chen, Ting
    Yang, Feng
    Shan, Feifei
    Xu, Fengmei
    [J]. ASIA PACIFIC JOURNAL OF MARKETING AND LOGISTICS, 2023, 35 (04) : 980 - 996
  • [6] Selling blood vs. donating blood
    Holland, P. V.
    [J]. VOX SANGUINIS, 2008, 94 (03) : 171 - 171
  • [7] Probabilistic selling vs. markdown selling: Price discrimination and management of demand uncertainty in retailing
    Rice, Dan Hamilton
    Fay, Scott A.
    Xie, Jinhong
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN MARKETING, 2014, 31 (02) : 147 - 155
  • [8] The Impact of Consumer Fairness Seeking on Distribution Channel Selection: Direct Selling vs. Agent Selling
    Yi, Zelong
    Wang, Yulan
    Liu, Yun
    Chen, Ying-Ju
    [J]. PRODUCTION AND OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT, 2018, 27 (06) : 1148 - 1167
  • [9] Posted Pricing vs. Bargaining in Sequential Selling Process
    Feng, Qi
    Shanthikumar, J. George
    [J]. OPERATIONS RESEARCH, 2018, 66 (01) : 92 - 103
  • [10] Nested Network Effects in Online Free Games with Accessory Selling
    Wu, Chi-Cheng
    Chen, Ying-Ju
    Cho, Yung-Jan
    [J]. JOURNAL OF INTERACTIVE MARKETING, 2013, 27 (03) : 158 - 171