Tuesday, June 28, 2011

Domino about Item-Shops

Domino at Tradeskill Perspectives thinks that people are strange.

People are strange. In particular, people's reactions to in-game stores are strange. In-game microtransactions seem to bring out very mixed and contradictory feelings in people, and at the same time seems to blind them to the fact they're contradicting themselves.

Now, I agree that a lot of players say non-sense when they argue against item shops. They claim the kind of stuff Domino mentions. Or they claim that item shops are ok, but every item they want is too expensive.

So, what do players really want? A lot of different things. What I can tell you is why I don't like item shops. But first one sentence about "It's only vanity":
Vanity is one of the most important aspects of MMORPGs. It is not less important!

Games, as well as virtual worlds, are supposed to be closed systems. You are free to disagree at this point. If you do, we feel differently; and there's not much we can do about it.

Imagine you join a new sports team. A few days later you have the first match. Suddenly you realize that 20% of the players on the field have these really cool sunglasses. You ask the trainer and he tells you can pay a vanity price and then he'll give them to you, too. What's you're reaction?

Or imagine you're new to chess. At your first tournament your opponent has this magnificently crafted and superbly looking figurines. You, however, get some made of paper. What's your reaction?

In virtual worlds there's also the immersion problem. This is what many Eve players have. In Eve all items are crafted by players. Well, at least until now. Now there are items that are not crafted by players. They enter the universe from the outside. That feels wrong. It certainly doesn't add to the experience.

Add the corrupting effect of item-shops.

Problem is, item-shops don't make the game better. They are a business model and usually make the game itself worse. I can understand that an indie game uses them, because they don't have much choice. But if a AAA game has item shops that says that the developer is greedy and doesn't really care about the quality of the game. It's not like AAA-MMORPGs have a profit problem. Even the supposedly failed ones make a hell of a profit, let alone the successful ones!

One last thing: The developer's job is to understand players. The job is not to prove that they contradict each other. The job is not to prove that the players are wrong. If you don't understand the players, you're bad at your job; not the other way round.

14 comments:

  1. Vanity is vanity. Some people follow fashion shows and dress respectively, some people wear same old jeans for years. But vanity has no objective impact on player versus player interaction. "He won cause he looked so cool"? That would be silly. "He won cause he has OP cashshop sword" that's how things usually are in pay2win games. As long as cashshops don't step into game mechanics affecting territory of items, they are fine

    tl;dr Cashshops should only have vanity items

    ReplyDelete
  2. Since when is winning the only important aspect of MMORPGs, Q'el ?

    ReplyDelete
  3. For me and other competitive gamers - that's only reason to play MMOs. Win or die trying. It's better to show off yourself with what you do, than with what you wear. But of course we can agree to disagree. Some people really play MMOs for Barbie-doll sim. Dressing, makeup and such.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Yes, we do agree on that.

    But you see the irony in this, Q'el, do you? Somebody who played MMORPGs for barbie doll sims would probably claim that pay-to-win is alright, but please no vanity items.

    If players favor item shops that sell only what they don't want to buy, developers can't make a profit.

    That's why you shoot into your own foot, really. You tell them to add item shops and next they add some +exp items and then some extra powerful potions etc., because they can't make money with you if they don't.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Yes, I understand what you mean. Still there are ways to make cashshops that don't ruin balance. In addition to vanity items there could be some comfort bonuses which makes game easier but doesn't win the game for you. Extra storage space, lesser cooldown on home city/location teleport. It all depends on the mindset of developers, if they want somewhat balanced PvP game, they better not add items/boosts that affect PvP.

    I'm okay if they milk PvE-ers for cash. Which means PvE side of the game should be engaging and interesting too. I guess we all agree that devs should sweat for their buck and produce quality content.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I guess we all agree that devs should sweat for their buck and produce quality content.

    I totally don't. I honestly wish they could make brilliant games by sitting on the beach. All I want are quality games. And item shops reduce the quality.
    That also applies to vanity item shops. If they were so totally optional nobody would buy vanity items.

    Vanity is important in MMORPGs. If it were not important, item shops wouldn't make a profit.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I don't know if I agree with you or not since your post left me a bit unclear on your position.

    You mention that vanity is an important facet of mmos, and I agree. But aside from current item shop implementations, the vanity question doesn't seem directly relevant to whether the item shop concept is good or bad.

    You said: "Games, as well as virtual worlds, are supposed to be closed systems."

    I agree that anything that breaks the perception of the closed system is bad. But no online game (that I know of -- I'm not as well-read as the actual bloggers our here) is a closed system in the way you seem to be suggesting. For instance, most games have expansions that, if you haven't spent real money on, you are unable to experience in the game world. In principal, doesn't that have the same sort of effect as an item-shop? At the end of the day, the more real cash you spend, the more of the game you are able to enjoy.

    You briefly mention immersion and reference player-crafted vs. non-player-crafted items. The example seems weak to me since in-game NPC vendor items are non-player-crafted and do not break immersion in any way. However, I don't play EVE and can happily assume that your point here simply applies to a paradigm with which I am unfamiliar. I *do* agree that immersion is very important regardless, but I don't accept that an item-shop inherently has to break that.

    Finally, you refer to your post on the corrupting influence of item shops (which I did go back and read). And here, what I've concluded is that your problem is not item-shops, but the fact that people are free to spend *unlimited* amounts of real money to enhance their in-game experience without limit.

    *If* that is your main issue with them, then I agree completely. Providing a mechanism external to the game which allows players within the game to have potentially unlimited advantages (advantages can be anything -- power, vanity, whatever) is terrible. And its that no-spending-cap feature that leads to the other evil called marketing.

    I do think that if a company implemented an "item-shop" in the following way, it would address all of my concerns with them.

    1.) Item-shops are accessed within the virtual world using item-shop currency which fits with the lore of the world and is explained by that lore in some way.

    2.) Players receive a fixed amount of item-shop currency each (day, week, whatever) which is dependent on an external subscription mechanism. However, there is a maximum subscription level and therefore an effective global spending cap for item-shop items.

    3.) Item-shop currency is not obtainable in any way other than the external subscription mechanism. I don't like this part, but its what makes it an item-shop imo.

    In short, I think you can have item-shops which do not break immersion and which do not corrupt the game in the way you fear.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Does subscription improve game quality? In decade and half of pay per month model did we see improvement or decline in quality of MMORPGs?

    ReplyDelete
  9. John, first, sorry for the automated, non-disableable spam filter on blogspot.

    You say
    I agree that anything that breaks the perception of the closed system is bad. But no online game (that I know of -- I'm not as well-read as the actual bloggers our here) is a closed system in the way you seem to be suggesting.

    I feel that this is like arguing to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Sure, games aren't completely closed systems. No game ever is or was. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to keep them as closed as possible.

    EVE used to have a very heavy focus on immersion. All items, starships, etc. were player-crafted, for example. This is not true anymore since the itemshop.

    Your suggestion is certainly better than most item shops, but you still have the problem that the guy in front of you is running around with a fiery sword, not because he found that sword somewhere, or because he crafted it or traded for it. But because he bought it from the developers for $.
    Even if the fiery sword doesn't give any advantage in-game wise (which would break immersion on its own, actually), this is bad in my opinion.

    Moreover, there is no need to have item shops. Most MMORPGs, including the supposed failed ones make lots of money. Blizzard just bought back shares for 2.2 Billion, because they didn't know where to put all that money. That's the official reason in the latest financial report to the investors.

    To put those 2.2 Billion in erlation: Rift cost $50 million to produce.

    ---
    Q'el, no subs don't seem to improve MMORPG quality. But item shops actually decrease it even more; at least for me. The problem is not the business model, however. MMORPGs make lots of money. The problem is lack of competition. This will hopefully change within the next 10 years.

    ReplyDelete
  10. As far as the item shop itself goes, I think you're right. In EQ1 and to some extent early EQ2 the vanity items *were* the in-game items that took serious effort to acquire. It does seem wrong to buy a glowing sword rather that looks better than the epic that took me years to acquire. It does devalue the in-game item, even though the immediate effect is cosmetic.

    I recall in EQ1 how proud I was to acquire my cleric Skyshrine BP. The deep blue color clearly identified what it was. Then about a month later SOE introduced armor dyes :).

    Even so, I have not been strongly against item stores, and have argued that they're not game-breaking, right up to the rulings last year breaking down the firewall between item stores and in-game items. Station cash became a means to insert real-world currency into the in-game economy. Buying plat for real-world currency is the one core evil that games have avoided since I started playing MMOs, and most EQ2 players I know would never have considered using the Exchange server. But now SOE has legitimized gearing up with US$, with predictable results.

    So yeah, item shops do impact an important in-game vanity component, but without a firewall for in-game items the currency does far more than that.

    ReplyDelete
  11. "Or imagine you're new to chess. At your first tournament your opponent has this magnificently crafted and superbly looking figurines. You, however, get some made of paper. What's your reaction?"

    ...that I'm a new player and I gotta improve myself and earn whatever figurines I want to play with. Whether those are ones I win through playing or save up to buy. This doesn't bother me at all, it's how life works. If I take up a new sport, I start out with pretty crappy gear normally and slowly invest in the better stuff as I decide that I'm serious about it. I don't agree with the point I think you're trying to make with this comparison.

    As for the rest ... if you think all AAA MMO companies are swimming in money and profits, all I can say is that I want to live in the world you live in, and I rather think every such company out there except Blizzard would agree, hah. I've lost count of all the colleagues I know who've been laid off from "failed" AAA games that you believe are making a "hell of a profit". I suggest you do a little more thinking into the numbers.

    I also have to comment on your last paragraph. You seem to be saying devs must just KNOW ALL and understand EVERYTHING OMNISCIENTLY or they fail. Oh, wouldn't that be nice! I wish! :) No, devs have to observe player behaviour and puzzle it out just like the rest of the world, there's no magic crystal ball that makes devs understand players perfectly, and no school in the world that teaches it. Devs learn to understand players by doing exactly what the rest of us do ... observing behaviour, and pondering about it (particularly if it seems confusing) until we start to understand it. But you can't understand anything until you first observe what it actually is, and if it's contradictory, then that's a valid observation too. Blogs are a good environment for pondering such things out loud, where others can add input also. :) If only we did all know everything about players! No game would ever fail and we really would be rolling in the imaginary money you think we are. The number of companies who are NOT doing so is pretty clear proof that fully understanding what players want is still something that eludes the industry in general. :)

    ReplyDelete
  12. ...that I'm a new player and I gotta improve myself and earn whatever figurines I want to play with. Whether those are ones I win through playing or save up to buy. This doesn't bother me at all, it's how life works.

    But that's not how computer games worked until now.

    Look, I respect that you disagree with me. Since you are a professional I'd like to ask you something:
    Do you think there's hope for someone like me and not every single game will switch to pay-to-win over the next few years?

    ReplyDelete
  13. I think the people arguing against item shops have a number of reasonable objections; I currently come down on the other side (in theory, actual implementations can be quite bad) but have no problem seeing how others differ.

    However, I simply do not understand the objection to "item shops" in EVE. (Other than specific issues as to whether it impacts say the need/price of trit.) I.e., EVE already has more pay-for-success than any item shop or f2p game would ever consider. Almost any item is purchasable with ISK so can be purchased with RL$. In addition, you can also purchase a pilot that someone spent four RL years training. I was shocked the hardcore playerbase accepted that. CCP was doing something unique that they got people to buy into that. I think that the fact that some hardcore got to play for free mollified them considerably.

    My perspective is that an item shop would add zero additional $-for-success to EVE.

    Yet clearly thousands do not see it that way.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "Do you think there's hope for someone like me and not every single game will switch to pay-to-win over the next few years?"

    Ah, if I could predict the future, not only would I already know exactly what players want, I'd be a lot richer than I am now! :D

    ReplyDelete