This is my attempt at making peace with the people who like micro-transactions (MT) in games.
It was about 20 years ago that I played my first MT game. It was a Star Trek trading cards game. Me and my friends were fans of the IP and started to buy card packs. The game was a lot of fun for us - for a while. It didn't take long and some of my friends started to win very often. Usually due to one or two cards that were quite special.
One day, in an attempt to balance the game, I copied their cards with plain paper. For some reason they didn't like it. I explained again and again that it was still the same game with the same rules. But since they had suffered the (considerable) cost of the card packs, they considered it cheating if I wouldn't suffer the same expense. I offered to repay them. We could share the costs, but they didn't like that either.
Soon after that I got out. It's not that I didn't have the money; that's rarely my problem. It's that I didn't like a business that sold beautiful paper for hundreds of Deutsche Mark. But I had learned that MT work - fabulously.
When I entered the MT debate on MMPRPG blogs I always pointed out that MT work. That's why they are dangerous. If they weren't profitable we wouldn't have to worry. However, a lot of players, and especially developers had argued with the MT-don't-work-crowd for so long that they considered it a victory when it turned out that, surprise, MT work.
Now, let me say that if you are a small games studio and can't make a retail release, and can't ask for a subscription and for some reason don't want to make a free demo, I think careful MT are a way you can go. Actually, for many games with a weak simulation-aspect I couldn't care less whether you use MT. I don't play arcade games, anyway.
What I don't like are MT in a virtual world. That doesn't mean that I don't want you to earn money. On many occasions have I said that $15 a month is incredibly cheap and I'd love to pay much more. For a good virtual world I'd easily pay $100 and more a month.
If I like your game I'd love to donate some money. But it seems like developers have this mindset that players need to be .. made.. to pay money. It's the only explanation I have for the non-existence of donate buttons.
From the advocates of MT I ask just one thing: Accept that the break of consistency in a virtual world harms the experience for some players, like me. We are in the minority. But that doesn't mean that we don't feel the way we say. For us a virtual world gets worse when the fiery sword doesn't come from the demon or the blacksmith, but from the developer's item-shop.
If some of us continue to play after you forced the MT on us, that doesn't mean that we enjoy the MT and just out of spite didn't want you to earn a lot of money. It just means that we like the game enough to continue to play despite the MT.
---
Added Mr. Cousins presentation to the Really Interesting Links on the right.
(Just curious; if you are burned out on explaining your MT stance that is understandable. And regardless of what others think, MMO developers need to understand that there are millions of gamers who really don't like MT. )
ReplyDeleteIs your objections more about the immersion or the unfairness?
E.g., what if instead of $5 buying you a sword of awesomeness, it bought you an increased chance of a good loop drop. So each time you killed the demon you all had a 2% chance of the good weapon drop, but the MT bought your peer an extra 20% chance. So no additional gear or gear acquisition methods are added. You might not even be able to tell if your friend got lucky or slipped the RNG a fiver under the table. And you could get the same gear as the MTer.
It seems like developers could be more sensitive to many players' aversion to the immersion aspects of MT.
Okay, got it. Not that you were speaking to me.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the card game part especially. When MT can buy advantage in a PvP situation it is easy to argue against it, as it is just a matter of money wins.
But when we get into fiery swords and PvE worlds, you have strayed into an emotional argument. Not that such an argument invalidates how you feel, but what one person does in such an environment generally has little or no real in-game impact on another person.
I think it is legitimate to ask why does what other people do bother you so much. And the answer may be, "it just does."
But it isn't a very persuasive argument, and if you constantly bring attention to it by commenting against MT everywhere in rather absolute terms, you are inviting grief in return since your power to persuade is pretty limited.
That said, I do not know really where I stand on the overall subject of MT myself, so I tend to take something of a neutral, or at least a case-by-case, or item-by-item, stance.
And peace is a two-way street. If I railed against MT I would expect to get called on it by some and supported by others.
Wilhelm, I don't get this PvE/PvP split. Look, a virtual world is not a game of chess. It is not just about winning.
ReplyDeleteYour fiery sword you bought from the shop annoys me because the world doesn't make sense. I don't begrudge you. I actually dislike the race for ever more graphical effects.
I've often asked on the Blizzard forums whether they could allow me to switch of weapon effects - I don't like to cause an explosion with every hit. It doesn't really make sense to me.
It's the immersion, Hagu. But if I find out that the rules change if you pay, that doesn't exactly help with immersion ...
ReplyDeleteYou are right, though, about being sensitive. CCP and the PLEX system is wonderfully sensitive, while at the same time allowing you to buy half the universe if you just want to spend the money. There were few complains.
Actually, I think there are generally few complains if you make a game pay-to-win from the start. It's just that introducing MT after having promised to not introduce them, that players go mad. I think that's very understandable: They invested a lot time into a game at that point and quitting isn't all that easy.
It's ironic that the Mr. Cousins turns this against them.
When MT can buy advantage in a PvP situation it is easy to argue against it, as it is just a matter of money wins.
ReplyDeleteBut when we get into fiery swords and PvE worlds, you have strayed into an emotional argument.
How is the one an emotional argument and the other not? Some people love to connect victory to real live financial success. Others hate it. Both are emotional arguments. Some people love to show their real life wealth in-game. Others hate it.
These are just feelings. All of them.
Honestly, I had problems with immersion even in the pre-MT EVE — I had problems suspending disbelief and accepting someone as say, a scoundrel or a priest or a pirate knowing that everyone and anyone in EVE is backed by multiple accounts and more.
ReplyDeleteFor whatever reason, a lot of people in the EVE RP-community don't have nearly as much trouble as I do rationalizing away EVE's legacy forms of pay-to-win (multi-accounts, PLEX, character purchases, etc.) Even I could muddle through with some semblance of a "backstory" and rationalization for my own 2nd account because I liked enough other things about EVE to offset those parts of the game's payment structure I didn't really accept.
But it really does seem that the new MT (and the promise of more to come) really is a bridge to far for some of EVE's RP'ers — there's been a number of "RP celebrities" pushing the unsub button just like there's been a number of mainstream EVE celebrities pushing the unsub button in response to this week's disaster. It might not all be logical, but there are plenty of EVE players who are fine with PLEX and "mandatory" multi-accounts but think the monocle (or the threat of gold ammo) is too much.
What I don't like are MT in a virtual world.
ReplyDeleteGreat post. My view on MT has always been pretty much exactly the same as yours. I play MMOs to be immersed into a coherent fictional world, and for me microtransactions break the coherence of the fiction.
However, I agree that there may be ways that the anti-immersive effects can be reduced. For example:
(1) The item shop should be invisible to people who don't use it. That means no in-game ads, no obtrusive UI elements, no NPC references to the item shop, etc.
(2) Items should be consistent with the lore. If a sparkle pony isn't justified by the fiction, you shouldn't sell it even if people are willing to pay for it. A monocle shouldn't sell for more than a battleship unless there is a credible reason for it to.
(3) Generally, items sold in the item shop should be obtainable through in-game means as well. If they aren't, there should be a lore-consistent reason.
But from what I've seen, it takes great self-control by the devs to keep an immersive atmosphere once an item shop goes in.
I agree for the most part; I strongly dislike PvP games that are pay-to-win though if you go into it knowing that then I guess it's your own fault.
ReplyDeleteAs for PvE...well I would break it into a hierarchy of "lame" with the top being being able to directly buy game-influencing items like say weapons or armor (or anything that makes the game easier and claims status). This followed by purely cosmetic items like sparkleponies and pets (these can break the immersion with how outlandish they are, but I can kind of tune them out). The least offensive would be the grind reduction or quality of life sort of items (experience/rep bonuses, bag space, that kinda thing), they don't bother me AS much (unless the devs have designed the game so that as you go on you start to "need" them or else the game becomes WAY too grindy or impossible...which having this sort of item tends to do).
Though I dislike World of Tanks for having the premium ammo (read: pay-to-win) I do like that the MT tanks are all different from the 'earned' ones, so that you don't have someone else driving around in the tank you worked for because he just fronted the RL cash. At least that method allows people to pay to access higher tiers of play but does not make the people that worked for it feel like they have been slighted.
I've never really been interested in "convincing" you, rather having a discussion. As much as you migtht think I'm an unwavering supporter of "free to play" or microtransaction business models, it's not an article of faith for me. Honestly, I really didn't like most microtransaction games until I played DDO. I really am interested in seeing what someone who is rather active and articulate thinks about the business models. I'm often more interested in presenting another point of view.
ReplyDeleteYour CCG example is interesting. My own experience (with Magic: the Gathering) was different: my friends had no problem with us playing with cards we didn't own. We'd loan out cards (in sleeves with our initials on them) or we'd let someone slip a piece of paper into a sleeve with a land card. One guy who had a fairly nice color printer (expensive at the time) even printed up some card fronts and glued them to land cards to play.
What ultimately killed the game for my group of friends was that I got too good. Even the guy with the expensive printer who bought all sorts of cards couldn't keep up with me. I was online through the university and read Usenet news groups about card strategy. I was the first to limit myself to a 60 card deck and focus on speed. It just wasn't very much fun for others to play with me, no matter how much money they spent on cards.
I've already understood that you have your opinions of games that use the "free to play" business model. As I've said last thread, I believe that the business model provides opportunities for new types of games we haven't seen in the past several years. Now that I've actively played a game with the business model and understand it as a player, I find it to be what is needed if we want any chance of moving forward with MMOs. I've certainly seen what happens when we get stuck in a rut over the past few years, and it's certainly not pretty from my point of view.
Anyway, thanks for sharing, Nils. As I said, it's not about convincing, but about discussion and presenting viewpoints. Hopefully you still have a good opinion of me. ;)
One more thought. I don't want to insult your friends you used to play with, but they sound like the same type of people who complained about "welfare epics" in WoW. I don't think it's the business model that made them act that way. As I said, my group of friends were fine playing with mock cards, and most of them later just rolled their eyes when I talked to them about people complaining about "welfare epics", even though they were (mid-tier) raiders.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, we should probably agree to disagree on this topic.
bertie77, I think EVE's main problem is that they lied. Repeatedly and ruthlessly. As always I reject the idea that MT are ok, because a game isn't perfectly 'immersive' in the first place.
ReplyDelete---
Tolthir, the self-control of developers is also one of my fears. MT can be designed to exploit cognitive biases and it is too easy to make just one bit more money and claim that the players still have 'full control' over spending.
---
Clockw0rk, funny how you say the opposite of Tolthir, in that you want the MT items not to be available without MTs.
---
Psychochild, you are welcome to convince me. But I think this discussion is more about understanding. There's no way to convince somebody that blue is more beautiful than orange. But you can share your feelings about it.
I have understood a lot during out f2p debateds. Thanks.
If f2p MMORPGs can come up with new ideas, I am all for it. Somehow I doubt that of all things f2p MMORPGs will put the focus back on immersion, credibility and logical consistency, though. But if they can do that; damn I might even play one. .. If the MT have been announced from the start!
Sure, I still have a good opinion of you. Unless people hurl insults at me I don't take things personal. Even then I try to not do it, actually. I don't really understand why you think that not trying to convince somebody would be important. As I said a few sentences back, convincing is hard with this topic.
But generally I want to be convinced. I want you to make an effort. I'd be offended if you didn't ;)
Oh - welfare epics. I complained a lot about them. But it was soo hard to make people understand that I didn't begrudge those who had them. I just wanted 'epics' to be epics. To do the content at my own pace and epics something to strife for.
ReplyDeleteI could instantly write a post about it .. I probably have in the past. But it's too late now ;). WoW has already moved past welfare epics. They now officially declared epics to not be items, but a game mechanic. There goes the immersion :)
I don't see how a TCG is pay to win. Sure, it's a huge investment every few month but if you're serious about the game you're supposed to own all cards. And if you do it's an level playing field.
ReplyDeleteIf you play tennis and bought a very good and expensive racket, would that be considered pay to win?
TCGs are not pay to win. They just have a huge, but well hidden, price tag.
> One day, in an attempt to balance the game,
> I copied their cards with plain paper. For
> some reason they didn't like it.
Of course they didn't. Part of why a TCG game is fun is because you have these shine, very well drawn cards. It's a huge part of the game. And just copying cards would completely destroy my "immersion".
A couple final thoughts:
ReplyDeleteClockw0rk, funny how you say the opposite of Tolthir, in that you want the MT items not to be available without MTs.
I think this might be a difference between achievers and immersionists. Achievers see items as symbols of accomplishments, and they lose that value if the items that can be achieved can also be bought. From an immersion perspective though, it doesn't make sense to have items that can only be bought from an out-of-game shop.
Somehow I doubt that of all things f2p MMORPGs will put the focus back on immersion, credibility and logical consistency, though. But if they can do that; damn I might even play one. .. If the MT have been announced from the start!
That's my view as well. Ultimately the proof of the pudding is in the eating, so the best way to convince people that MTs are a good model is to make great games. I'll be converted once I see that MTs can support the immersive games I like!
Kring, it probably depends on the TCG. However, there weren't starter packs and a lot of other psychological tricks if the companies exspected all players to have all cards at all time.
ReplyDeleteI guess the companies fear that players could decide to have fun with less than every card.
Note also how you completely disagree with Psychochild, who had no problems copying cards.
That's fine. It's just that I wouldn't enjoy a game of M:TG with copied cards because seeing and holding the well done physical cards adds a lot of the atmosphere to the game, for me. It's the same reason why I've never played M:TG online and never will.
ReplyDeleteAnd of course there are people who don't mind copying cards. As much as there are people whose immersion doesn't suffer from an item shop. Or people who are happy with a raiding end game and don't mind a lacking "world".
> However, there weren't starter packs and
> a lot of other psychological tricks if the
> companies exspected all players to have
> all cards at all time.
That's to get them hooked. I doubt a lot of people would start playing M:TG if it had a monthly subscription fee of 1000 Euro. :)
Besides that, let's assume you aren't expected to have all cards and buying cards is paying to win. Wouldn't then just buying a few random boosters reduce the "PvP" game to luck because whoever was lucky enough to have the most powerful cards in the booster would have a huge advantage?
The game can only be fair if everyone has the same cards and the only way to have the same card pool is to have them all.
Your notion that you actually buy swords in MT games is kinda one dimensional
ReplyDeleteThere are many ways to do MT without selling actual power and items. Currency is abstracted so I dont see it very immersion breaking unless you purposely stick " on sale" buttons all around the place
Nils wrote:
ReplyDeleteBut generally I want to be convinced. I want you to make an effort. I'd be offended if you didn't ;)
Fine! ;)
A question: what about buying content from a store like DDO or Wizard 101? Does that break immersion for you too much?
Selling content is generally a good solution. The problem is to implement it in a way that there aren't too many invisible walls.
ReplyDeleteWhat's quite ok is selling one big portal to a new world, like WoW did with TBC. Sure, it breaks immersion a bit that not everyone can walk through it, but that's really just a small problem.
Of course, if you want to keep the number of content-transactions small, you need to increase the price. Which is ok with me. But macro prices are generally less profitable than mikro prices, because players have it easier to not lose track of all their payments.
Think I mis-spoke a little in my last post as for the most part I completely agree with Tolthir on his first two points. I personally am divided on the third.
ReplyDeleteIt kind of depends on the game for me whether I think the MT items should also be earned in game or should be MT only.
In World of Tanks it didn't bother me much that people could buy higher tier tanks. Because those specific tanks (the Lowe, etc) could ONLY be purchased in the MT it basically was like waving a "I'm a wallet warrior!" flag and the tanks I worked to did not feel devalued.
However in WoW I would probably find it kind of immersion breaking if people were able to just front cash for raid or heroic raid weapons (which you "kind of" can do since there are BoE weapons that can be auctioned off and one can always buy gold externally).
So it seems to me that it partially breaks down along the PvE or PvP game lines.
I think if I were to try and hybrid the two it would be a system of "You can buy this awesome stat-ed sword in the MT store, but it looks boring, OR you can work hard and get this cool status symbol sword that has the same stats." This being a "first pass" idea.
> What's quite ok is selling one big portal
ReplyDelete> to a new world, like WoW did with TBC.
The portal was ok, what they did with the ghostlands was about as bad as it can get...