Tuesday, September 20, 2011

Dear Syl: Microtransactions

This is my latest attempt to convince people that microtransactions (MTs) are (mostly) bad for MMOs. It was encouraged by Syl's comments in my last post.

1)
First, let's talk about immersion, or more specifically, consistency of the game with its underlying simulation. The possibility of using real world money to make an in-game difference bothers me. Period. This is completely subjective. In my opinion, a virtual world should be as closed as possible. To open it up to the vast real world wealth differences is unacceptable. One reason to play these games is escapism and this just doesn't work this way. For me.

This is really something you have to accept, Syl. Because it's not something one can argue about. I mean, sure you can sell a different skin for the client of the game. That would be the kind of microtransaction I could perhaps agree with. But apart from that: I don't like it. Please accept this.

2)
But I also have a more general problem with MTs: They are part of a strong trend in our world towards obfuscated payment schemes and contracts. To understand why this a problem, is not as easy. Take this Wikipedia quote:
In economics, a perfect market is defined by several conditions, collectively called perfect competition. Among these conditions are

- Perfect market information
- No participant with market power to set prices
- No barriers to entry or exit
- Equal access to production technology

The mathematical theory is called general equilibrium theory. On the assumption of Perfect Competition, and some technical assumptions about the shapes of supply and demand curves, it is possible to prove that a market will reach an equilibrium in which supply for every product or service, including labor, equals demand at the current price. This equilibrium will be a Pareto optimum, meaning that nobody can be made better off by exchange without making someone else worse off.

[..]

This attribute of perfect markets has profound political and economic implications, as many participants assume or are taught that the purpose of the market is to enable participants to maximize profits. It is not. The purpose of the market is to efficiently allocate resources and to maximize the welfare of consumers and producers alike. The market therefore regards excess profits, or economic rents, as a signal of inefficiency, that is of market failure, which is to say, not achieving a Pareto optimum.
3)
Payment schemes do not become more obfuscated over time, because it's good for consumers. They become more obfuscated, because this way the suppliers can circumvent one basic assumption of the free-markets theory: Perfect market information.

Many free-market advocates in our world understand this theory very well. They understand the political power the idea of free markets have, not the least due to this mathematical proof. And they understand that the proof, that perfect markets create a Pareto optimum for everybody, can be misused! If you make the free market so incredibly free that you allow the suppliers to obfuscate payment schemes you can gain a lot of economic rent and move away from the Pareto optimum.

The U.S. debate about regulations for the financial markets is one perfect example of this. But so is the complex mobile phone payment packages I recently went through. Or that contract you agree with when installing games.

Nobody reads this stuff. And those who do, do not understand the implications of the §paragraphs. Some of it is necessary for a complex society to work, of course. But a lot exists, because suppliers can get away with it. Because consumers aren't educated enough and not organized enough to make a difference. Oh, and because we have only limited time and calculating the correct decision is not without economic cost. Which is something the perfect market model ignores.
Take the “You don't own your character, you only own the right to access it and we can take that right away whenever we want.”. Do you think that this is the Pareto optimum?

4)
Actually, the Wiki Article forgets to mention rational consumers. They are required for free markets to fulfill their promise. (And for the mathematical proof to work).
But humans aren't rational, of course. And this fact can be exploited. And that's exactly what microtransactions allow the supplier to do really well. I listed many of the ways how this exploitation works in my prior post that you say to disagree with completely. I can't see how one can even disagree with every single point there, Syl.

Psychochild and Tesh simply argued that monthly subs can be misused as well. That's ridiculous. Monthly subs can be misused, yes. But the potential for misuse is very limited. There's no way to make me pay more than the monthly sub per month. And that makes all the difference in the world.

Psychochild likes to argue that he knows perfectly well how much he paid for F2P games, but not for WoW. Now, the only explanation I have for that is that Psychochild wrote down all his expenses for F2P games, but not for sub-based games. Which is already telling.
If he hadn't done that, it would be much easier to find out how much he paid for the monthly subs: He would just have to multiply the months with the monthly sub. While he would have to research his credit card payment history to find out how much he payed for the F2P games. Which of the two is easier to do? (Oh, and don't start to argue that WoW's MTs were used. That supports my point.)

5)
Syl, you wrote just recently:
So, I did it. And again, and again. The first set was shockingly bad and then I bought a wrong one by mistake (it was called Transcendence, what can I say). So I bought one more that I finally liked. And since I have 2 characters I play on different servers, I bought another for my high-level priest, too. This is my story on how I spent 40 Euros on virtual wardrobe until I was out of cash to even buy that bag.
Sorry if that quote is out of context. But did you consider that you bought a virtual wardrobe for an amount of money that you could also had used to play World of Warcraft with all instances, raids, dungeons, all quests, all areas, most items, .. for three months?? I mean, isn't that a bit out of proportion?

6)
Among the things that are 'exploitative' about MTs, is that they are always there. Whenever you play. Humans aren't perfectly rational. We have irrational weaknesses. (And irrational strengths, of course). If you play a game just for two hours a day for one year that makes about 500 hours that year (roughly). Now, if your brain has just a 0.1% chance per hour to spend irrational amounts of money in an compulsive purchase, you have a 39.4% chance to do it at least once during the 500 hours! And that's just one consumer!

Humans aren't perfect, aren't always in control. We are fallible. Just like the communist ideology failed, (among other reasons) because humans aren't selfless beings, the free markets can fail because humans aren't always rational agents inside a perfect market. A societal system needs to respect this and turn our weaknesses into strengths, like the market economy originally tried to do. But the wind is blowing the other way. And microtransactions are one manifestation of the problem.

7)
You are not so smart. Read just this one post by McRaney.
In Seattle in 2001, a 26-year-old woman who had recently ended a relationship held up traffic for a little too long as she considered the implications of leaping to her death. As motorists began to back-up on the bridge and become irate, they started yelling “Jump, bitch, jump!” until she did.
But better read all his posts.

8)
The topic is, unfortunately, vast. I tried to give it some structure, but this post cannot be the final answer that I would certainly like it to be. If this doesn't convince you, there's really not much I can do. There's a chance you will be able to circumvent the traps the psychologists developed for you. But think of those who cannot! If playing a sub-based game like WoW could ruin people's lifes by making them invest more time than they should, what could a microtransactions-based game, that is as compelling as WoW, do to peoples' lifes?
And they wouldn't even speak about it. Shame is part of the plan.

26 comments:

  1. It seems like you have listed reasons why MMO companies would want Mts in their game. Combined with all the current trends, (Was there a recent quote from a Sony exec opining that TOR will be the last AAA subscription MMO) it seems to me an individual gamer without a blog has no significant control over the trend that the future is MT. All they control is how upset it makes them, how many games it causes them not to play, and how much they spend on the games they do play.

    There will always be people who prefer no Mts. A year or two ago my guess it was a significant majority, but with WoT, LOTR, DDO, et al there seem to be significant numbers who will accept it. The % will go down over time if new gamers see Mts as the norm. It is unfortunate that the indie developers, the ones who are best able to serve niches, tend to be forced into MT.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "It seems like you have listed reasons why MMO companies would want Mts in their game. "

    Absoluetly, Hagu. Just like I wrote in my last post: MT have won!

    If I were a executive and had to make a decision on the business model, I'd try to use an as obfuscated model as players would still accept and use every single trick to make them buy my virtual items.

    I see no way that pure sub-based MMORPGs can survive, really. Not in a competitive market that I want for other reasons.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Well, thanks for answering in such detail! I hope you don't mind me answering in equal fashion. ;)


    1)
    "The possibility of using real world money to make an in-game difference bothers me. "

    Oh, I accept that you dislike that, I do too. I can however disagree that F2Ps are somehow more affected by real world money than sub games; in my eyes they are not. the typical "players are more equal because of subs" is another complete fallacy and assumes one type of micro transaction. I'd argue that F2P are actually more 'social' if you really need to go there. as a whole, I find it a phony and unsatisfying debate though which is why I've written on the classist fallacy before. that just as an aside.
    so yeah, your point is fine - but all MMOs are very much affected by real money. you know well how money and time become interchangeable easily. the real MMO currency is time and time is constantly bought with money, directly and indirectly. there's nothing fair about it in a sub game either...you just don't see it as openly as you would in an F2P.

    2/3) economist questions of principle which are interesting for all payment models I would say, I'll spare myself getting into this here. also, I am not sure how comparable a perfect, real world market is to developing MMOs; in any case, way more ground than I wish to cover here.

    4) you can call player (buyer) behaviour in an F2P irrational the moment you have proof and knowledge of the player's intentions, what he personally enjoys and what he is WILLING to pay for enjoyment. before that, I'd be careful to use such terminology.
    Tesh and Psychochild argued too that you pay for a lot more than just a sub in sub-MMOs. which is true - you also pay for modules, server/race/name switches and frequently there are item shops on top of subs. you might not like that, but it's reality. the average, dedicated WoW player pays for more than subs.

    as for knowing/controlling what I pay for, I know it for both WoW and the F2Ps I have played, I have 100% transparency. unfortunately I played WoW longest, so my costs on WoW are also the highest and I have bad comparisons; however, I've had more than one reader telling me that playing F2P saved him money compared to WoW so far, even though he's been a dedicated F2P player for a longer period. playing F2P equals spending more?

    on the "exploitation":
    nothing from euphemistic names, over peer pressure to advertisement and limited offers is strictly speaking an exploitation unless you call marketing strategies and social dynamics exploitative and assume customers incapable to deal with either. I'm sorry Nils, but I expect customers to be mature enough to handle the world and remember they're paying for a product somebody is making money with. if they can't handle money in videogames, they cannot handle money, full stop. this is not an "issue" singular to F2P.
    if anyone buys an item because of peer pressure, social status or advertisement, that is his choice (and frankly matters zero to me). this is not kindergarten and the developer is not our parent. please stop dishing the onus of consumer responsibility to the developer's side. as for the 'kids' who are maybe too immature; if a kid actually owns his own credit card, he has either a) rich parents who don't care, b) rich parents who approve, c) parents who for some reason managed to miss that their teen has a credit card! as a teacher, I don't think I need to emphasize strongly where the responsibility to monitor and educate your children lies and how tired I am of blame-shifting.

    I could easily make the same case for a kid who spends too much cash on sub-based games btw, or too much time for that matter (equally harmful right?)

    ReplyDelete
  4. 5) it would be out of proportion, if 3 months of WoW would automatically beat/equal the fun I've had in AoC so far (overall fun of which the items have only minor part). why do you compare apples and oranges? I wouldn't spend 40euros if they bought me a year of WoW, you know that personal enjoyment has nothing to do with time or other quantities like that.
    besides that: I have no further intentions to buy in AoC, as it was an intended experiment. this means that very soon, I will have played AoC for longer and less money than 6 months of WoW.

    6) A thing that's exploitative about subs is that they're always being payed even if you aren't even there.
    Tobold has only just written on this today and how a great many MMO players forget to cancel subs or keep paying them when the incentive to play is long lost. Raph Koster's recent F2P presentation has also made another case against subs because the 'psychological pressure' behind having to cancel a sub is much much bigger, than just staying away from an F2P. so, which mode is more "evil" here?
    I'd say sub games make a damn nice deal out of exploiting player psychology.

    also, 'impulse' shopping might happen sometimes, but how that exactly relates to overall money a person would/will spend in either game is another question entirely. and that was your topic, right?


    7) no comment

    8) I appreciate your time on this and obviously your intentions are good; but most of your points are not particularly con F2P and pro sub - and that is my main issue.
    they're only con sub if we assume a certain consumer when we just as well can (and imo should) assume another. I'm not saying F2P holds NO danger to ANYone - but I claim the majority can deal with this and we already established long ago that no MMO can suit everybody. subs don't suit everybody.

    other than this, I don't buy into the 'F2P cost more' theory because that's not what I experience or hear. we'll talk again 1 year into GW2, I'm sure. ;)

    As for erm "ruined lives", my favorite subject... whether it's bad bad bad F2P or bad bad bad WoW that has destroyed so many marriages, made kids drop out of school or starve - it's the same anti-game propaganda I'm sure we'll read in future tabloids. just because 0.1% of a million player base like to blame a game for their personal failures, says nothing about the rest. if somebody REALLY spent destructive amounts of cash (which by the by is kinda depending on how rich he is) on a game, then his issue lies elsewhere and if he doesn't do it in an MMO, he will do it on the racing course or in a shopping mall. all I have to say here - blame the illness, not the symptom.

    Cheers!

    ReplyDelete
  5. you know well how money and time become interchangeable easily.

    Now it is you who goes through the world with closed eyes. How many friends do you have who earn less money because they work less hours a week? And how many have more because they work more hours a week? How many of them can freely interchange time and money? Sorry, Syl. This was Tobold's pet argument for a long time. But even he doesn't dare to use it anymore.

    Free time and freely available income have almost no correlation in our society(ies). The blue collar worker works his 50 hours just like the guy in the office. Both have little choice. If anything, the white collar worker has a choice to work less.

    ---
    "2/3) economist questions of principle which are interesting for all payment models I would say"

    Then you didn't understand what I was saying ;(

    ---
    4) you can call player (buyer) behaviour in an F2P irrational the moment you have proof and knowledge of the player's intentions, what he personally enjoys and what he is WILLING to pay for enjoyment. before that, I'd be careful to use such terminology.

    Ok, agreed. I should be more careful with the terminology. But then the post is already quite long. When I say irrational I mean e.g. that a player acts against his long-term interests. Of course, this might be perfectly consistent with his immediate interests while buying. It's just that immediate interests change the second he gets the bill.

    ---
    Tesh and Psychochild argued too that you pay for a lot more than just a sub in sub-MMOs. which is true - you also pay for modules, server/race/name switches and frequently there are item shops on top of subs. you might not like that, but it's reality. the average, dedicated WoW player pays for more than subs.

    Are you trying to argue that because there's a game that uses a sub in addition to MT, MTs aren't actually so bad? Excuse me?
    Compared to not using MT, MTs make WoW a worse game for me. And you know better than to argue that these MTs are necessary to finance WoW, are you? You remember the 1$ Billion annual profit, I hope.

    ---
    however, I've had more than one reader telling me that playing F2P saved him money compared to WoW so far, even though he's been a dedicated F2P player for a longer period. playing F2P equals spending more?

    About 95% of the players never buy anything in f2p games. Of course the majority is better off than in a sub based game. Those who buy just once for 50€ try to squeeze this fact out of their minds. It's been a one-time error, you know? Won't ever happen again. And those who bought too much to feel comfortable about it either lie on the internet or remain silent.

    F2P makes more money than monthly subs. That's why the companies switch, Syl. You remember Lord of the Rings online? DD online?

    ---
    I'm sorry Nils, but I expect customers to be mature enough to handle the world and remember they're paying for a product somebody is making money with.

    That's why I linked McRaney. In my opinion, you are naive, Syl.

    ReplyDelete
  6. ---
    besides that: I have no further intentions to buy in AoC, as it was an intended experiment. this means that very soon, I will have played AoC for longer and less money than 6 months of WoW.

    Must have been a satisfying purchase if you already decided to never do it again ;) sorry :).

    If you, in fact, end up paying less money to AoC when compared to a sub (and are a typical player) then Funcom's decision must have been wrong. To continue the sub must have been more profitable. Do you think that.

    You kow, you need to decide: Either MTs cost the player less on average than subs and the industry is just stupid. Or MTs cost the players more on average and the industry is smart. Just one of those two can be true.

    ---
    A thing that's exploitative about subs is that they're always being payed even if you aren't even there.

    OMG I didn't cancel the recurring sub 10 seconds after I resubbed (like every smart person does) and now I lose hundreds of dollars.

    Granted, Syl: The problem exists: Some players have enough money to not care. Morally, I think it's ok if they give some of that money to the games industry. That needs to be seen in contrast to f2p companies who take the money from those who fail at self control. Usually these are not the richest, but that might be a prejudice I have.

    And even if you do fail at canceling the sub directly after resubbing and then again when you stop playing: The worst that can happen is 12.99€ a month. That's completely harmless to MT excesses.

    ---
    7) no comment

    It's a great blog, you should read it :)

    ---
    they're only con sub if we assume a certain consumer when we just as well can (and imo should) assume another

    Seems we have a different idea of man (Menschenbild). I think you're naive, you think I am .. pessimistic ? ;)

    I think I am a realist. If only 1-5% of players pay in MT based games and if those games make more money than sub-based games, then those who pay need to pay at least 20-100 times as much compared to a sub. Now we can assume that all of them are really rich people who don't care and that would be the 'good explanation'. Or we can assume that not all of these players are so wealthy. I think that's troublesome.


    As for erm "ruined lives", my favorite subject... whether it's bad bad bad F2P or bad bad bad WoW that has destroyed so many marriages, made kids drop out of school or starve - it's the same anti-game propaganda I'm sure we'll read in future tabloids.

    Watch this Extra Credits Episode in which the writer does a rather disturbing confession. I'm the last to argue that games make addictive. But of course there are problems with excessive computer gaming. As long as it is only about time, well, ok.

    But if it starts to be about money, too, it's not better than gambling and needs to be regulated. Hell, even in the U.S. gambling is regulated. I guess that means something.

    ReplyDelete
  7. @Nils
    The free collar worker has choice - which makes a difference? it's not the same situation having to 50hours because you can't survive with less, or working 50hours because you have to, but could actually do with 30...

    but my approach was simpler: buying items can be a way to buy yourself time / shortcuts. having more time available DOES increase potential progress in MMOs. F2P offers one extra option here that a sub simply doesn't.

    4) I'm not saying it made WoW a better example; but I've simply not played a sub-based game so far that didn't come up with extra costs, some of which would've been free in F2P. it goes without saying that blizzard's item shop was not 'needed' financially, but then you could also argue the sub could've been cut down to 5 euros a long time ago if this business wasn't about profits? who argues like that? are you actually saying subs are a bit better because they're a little less capitalist because they make a little less profit? :D
    also, what does either system matter to the individual player if he deems the money he spent appropriate in relation to his enjoyment? you're missing the point here.

    -----

    so, if 95% pay nothing and 5% pay something (and it's okay for both because they play the way they want), what is your problem? do you expect F2P to run on no income but 40 euros every 2 years? why not expect the same of sub-games then?
    and the fact that those 5% consider it an 'error' or wont like to admit it is actually a bit of a sad sign that players feel guilty about spending their own money how they like. maybe thanks to reading too many negative F2P articles where everybody is being generalized? :)

    it shows too, that F2P are simply still a new subject and the greater player base hasn't adapted (nor has any AAA+ F2P designed MMO entered the scene yet). you can expect these numbers to increase in the near future, when F2P becomes normal.

    ReplyDelete
  8. also, what does either system matter to the individual player if he deems the money he spent appropriate in relation to his enjoyment? you're missing the point here.

    If you assume that "the individual player deems the money he spent appropriate in relation to his enjoyment" then we can stop discussing. Under this assumption any business model is just great :)

    I think we need to stop arguing and start reading each other's comments Syl :)

    ReplyDelete
  9. I'm not naive, trust me; I believe fully that what I expect doesn't go for the average consumer out there. what you fail to see is that I DON'T care about that. last time I checked, I was responsible for myself?

    -----

    my enjoyment in AoC is not based solely on the items I buy, Nils. again, you're making that assumption. I do not constantly have to buy something. I am also not playing AoC the way I expect to play GW2; I might be more on the freeloader side in AoC right now, maybe it will change. but every F2P MMO has room for just that.
    besides, you're the one who argues about profitability and smarter devs etc. that's not why I am talking about F2Ps with you - I never said F2P is less profitable. they leave room though for different types of players or situations.

    ----

    The average player lets a sub slide for longer, Nils. it's a huge chunk of money that's being made this way, no matter what you say. add to this, that many players pay subs in 3-6 months packets, in advance.

    as for there being any real 'poor' players....I don't like to sound like a broken record. and I would very much argue against 'more money, better control'. the real world shows us that money is wasted where it can be afforded to waste. the really poor people play no MMOs because they have no money left for a PC or game at the end of the month. everytime a gamer says he has no money for XY it's about priorities a lot more than money.

    ....

    besides this: what speaks against regulating payment costs in F2P via parental control for kids? I have no issue with it, regulating time or money if you have to is fine to me.
    however, if you asked for 'enforcing' regulations on adults, I disagree. if you earn your own money, it's yours to spend and just spending a lot on something because you can and like to, doesn't equal addiction yet (probably not in 999 of 1000 cases). it's not a casino, it's maybe comparable to 'kaufsucht' in the shopping mall. it's very hard to judge for anyone who isnt in your closer environment though and misjudged easily.

    And if I checked each of your links straight away I'd be here until tomorrow, but thanks for the homework, dad. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  10. If you assume that "the individual player deems the money he spent appropriate in relation to his enjoyment" then we can stop discussing. Under this assumption any business model is just great :)
    -----------


    yes in theory, but it's actually F2P that let's me direct and control for what I am paying a lot better than a sub-game, where I always pay for everything.
    so from that PoV F2P has the advantage. a raider might buy a lot of boost items, an RPer buys cosmetics and a guy who's currently unsure buys nothing until he made his mind up.

    not an option with subs.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I'm not naive, trust me; I believe fully that what I expect doesn't go for the average consumer out there. what you fail to see is that I DON'T care about that. last time I checked, I was responsible for myself?

    ok ... now in that case, well, anything that's good enough for you is good enough for the world, I guess. Are you sure you're not some texas tea party member ? ;)

    ---
    not an option with subs.

    Correct, but in a sub-based game you have it all at a much lower price. A much lower price, because to have any of this in a f2p game, you need to be one of the paying customers. And we know that on average paying customers in f2p games pays 20x-100x times as much compared to a sub-based game.

    We could probably continue like this for forever, Syl. Not that it's not fun - I like argueing. But let's try to find some common ground:

    MT are not the devil. Here, I started, now it's your turn ;)

    ReplyDelete
  12. Your texas argument is a little phony, no? if I asked you what MMO you'd rather play, one you enjoy or one you do not enjoy, you will go for the first. you won't cry me a river about the unhappy theme park gamers in your perfect MMO, he he..
    besides that, yes I believe in individual responsibility and consequences, rather than regulating everything for everybody. I believe in 'mündigkeit', existant or not, because the opposite is a dangerous road..
    I also don't think F2P is truly harmful to any majority of players. a game cannot suit everybody and bad rules are created out of exceptions.

    If I was worried more about risks, I would be more negative. but imo it's all way too over-the-top and way too soon. how about we wait for all these numbers to normalize when F2P is actually as mainstream as sub? :)


    And you're taking all the fun out of this now. :P
    - No, Subs are not the devil, Nils! I never said they were. ^^

    ReplyDelete
  13. Quick question: I've seen the "time vs. money argument" made many times. Is there any evidence that time spent and money spent are negatively correlated?

    Based on my cursory google search, microtransactions are more common among medium and heavy gamers [1], and older gamers are more likely to pay for microtransactions [2]. Together those seem to imply that older, relatively hard-core gamers spend the most. And that's what you'd intuitively expect.

    But if relatively hard-core players spend more than casual players, then how is this a time vs. money issue?

    ReplyDelete
  14. All this discussion would be a lot more interesting if it was possible to have access to some hard data.

    Which is quite impossible since F2P companies tend to keep their numbers well hidden. Some would say that this fact is interesting by itself.

    Personally, I'm with Niels: MTs are an approach using all of the "novel" marketing techniques, which exploit consumer weaknesses to pump money out of them (obfuscated schemes, all possible social effects, etc.). An approach I cannot endorse. Expecially because it works.....

    Since we're running on anecdotal evidence: I remember a post on the rappelz forums of someone complaining about the "low" cap of $500/month on the cash shop.....

    (BTW I would personally not believe a word of a F2P player saying he spent "little" unless I can see the bank statement. Hard data > flawed observation of one's behaviour).

    ReplyDelete
  15. Thanks or that argument, Tolthir! Of course you are (most probably, I guess) right! Those who spend the most money are those who also invest the most time. I have no access to statists, but I am very certain of that.

    And there goes the "MTs allow those who don't want to invest so much time, to do so" - kind of argument.

    ReplyDelete
  16. That's a very bad logic. you don't have to be among those who invest most money, to benefit from this concept - this is not a contest.
    a casual player maybe invests less, but his gain is still big for him in terms of making up for time / avoiding a grind.
    on the other hand, ambitious players spend money for other reasons too, certainly not just time but optimization, competitiveness, etc.

    you're again trying to match apples with oranges as if somehow every player had the same goals and perceives personal gains the same way.
    I do really miss perspective.


    @Helistar
    I agree fully that novel is the word. 10 years from now we'll talk again about how people deal with F2P by then. :)

    ReplyDelete
  17. @Syl: we already know the answer: just like today.

    Just like prices of $19.99 keep working fine even decades after having been introduced.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I am frankly not feeling smart enough to jump into this one today, so I'll just say - great debate, and I'm finding it really interesting to follow. We're featuring it on the Melting Pot today ( http://www.mmomeltingpot.com/2011/09/free-to-play-weal-or-woe/ when it goes up).

    Actually, I do have one question. Your main problem with F2P seems to be obfuscation of costs, Nils. What if an MMO launched which was predicated on being completely transparent and easy to understand in its F2P cost structure? Would that change your feelings on that game?

    ReplyDelete
  19. What if an MMO launched which was predicated on being completely transparent and easy to understand in its F2P cost structure? Would that change your feelings on that game?

    It would change the part about obfuscation and financial rip-off. But I, personally, would still feel sad about it, because the (1) part about immersion is the most important one for me. It's just that it's not possible to make many words about it.

    You either think that a guy wearing an armor he bought for $ is ok, or you think that it's bad for immersion reasons. And I have yet to see anyone being convinced in that debate.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Yesterday at the airport the Greece finance minister was on the front page and today on CNBC Soros said he thinks there could be 2-3 Euro defaults. I am not sure which is more depressing: your analysis of the state of the MMO economy or the real world economy and politics.

    But I submit that now is an optimistic time for MMO gamers with the anticipation of GW2, TOR, SW. I am not interested in GW2 but researching TOR. ( Re you "choice" posts, it was interesting to read people against TOR allowing respect since "I have been researching my choice for months and people should know before …" )

    @Tolthir: MMOs want to disadvantage the new player i.e. advantage the veteran. So you can improve your character like EVE Online (grow by length of time subscribing), grinding (kill 20,000 pigs to get to level 85), or spend RL$ to buy advancement (buy an EVE pilot or Tobold RL$ for WoT experience.) So people are spending RL$ to reduce their time at less than end-game. Tomorrow's (thank you RSS) Gevlon post is "skipping the grind" is "being overpowered". Presumably based upon his comment "skip the grind" isn't different from "skip the period when you are inferior"

    BTW, I think you miss two future Dante levels of MMO Hell below the current situation: product placement and advertising.

    How is Blizzard charging $15/month instead of $14/month not also disadvantaging players? Is Blizzard charging more than they "need" to more pernicious than MT?

    An argument for MT in PvE: If someone's self-worth and enjoyment of the game is higher because I have worse equipment, then they will not like RMT MT. OTOH, I would prefer them to not be in a game I play.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Just to be clear, the argument I was talking about was the argument that microtransactions are good for casual players because they let them "keep up" with hard-core players. That doesn't make very much sense if hard-core players spend more then casual players do.

    Avoiding grind is a different issue. That's more "money vs. tedium." I agree with Syl that games should be less grindy, and I agree with Hagu that players shouldn't have to wait until the endgame to start having fun. But including a grind and then letting people buy their way around it doesn't seem like a good answer. Why not just make the game less grindy in the first place?

    ReplyDelete
  22. So, I decided to challenge myself by seeing if I could try conceiving a hypothetical game which would provide both immersion and "micro-transactions." I don't know if anyone will ever make a game with such focus on immersion, but then, I don't know if any game was ever up to proper standards of immersion before either. Which begs the question, what was the last MMO which had a proper level of immersion?

    My proposal is based on a couple assumptions, so if they're wrong, tell me and ignore the rest as everything else falls apart. My first assumption, or perhaps it's just an argument, is that subscriptions are no different from micro-transactions. They're both just business transactions. Bear with me. My second assumption is that if it works for a role-player, then it's sufficiently immersive. With this I'm guessing that if there is an in-game (or preferably in-character, I'm not sure how good I am at distinguishing the two) reason for something, then it's acceptably immersive. I'm not assuming you're a role-player, it's just a standard I think I understand.

    If someone in this game buys a weapon, armor, or similar item, then it is automatically accompanied by a quest. Which belatedly occurs to me that this can still be immersion breaking... Mysterious benefactors aren't that believable. Family inheritance might work once or twice, but no more. Perhaps slightly better would be a gift from the gods or VERY favorable return on a business investment.

    Incidentally, either a temple or a stock broker (with insider trading?) could be a decent representation of the store within the game. Or, an idea which grows on me, it could an in-game black market. All of which might have an appropriate stigma attached.

    Access to areas could occur through an event, or the arrival of a quest giver, which only occurs after the area has been purchased.

    An experience boost could be explained by an epiphany (weak...) or by tutoring! (Much better) Although to be honest, I prefer the idea of a limited power difference, which hopefully both eliminates the need for such a purchase and is more realistic.

    Subscriptions are effectively paying for time, whether monthly, hourly, or by any quantity. Ironically, I find this to be one of the more immersion breaking transactions. Imagine your character is looking for a friend of his named Ike. He goes to Ike's house and knocks. The butler comes and tells your character, "Sorry, Ike isn't here."
    "Oh, he's asleep?" (hibernating?!)
    "No, and since you're a fellow adventurer, I don't suppose he's out slaying monsters."
    "Perhaps he's gone to another dimension? We seem to have lot's of those..." (servers?)
    "No, he hasn't gone to another dimension either. He never packed his bags for that."
    "He is still alive, isn't he?"
    "Well, nobody has found his body, so I don't believe so, sir."

    Your character simply ceasing to exist, and then reappearing seems pretty immersion breaking to me. Ideally this might be fixed by your character doing things while you're away. He never disappears, he just goes on with various tasks like sleeping, working (collecting resources, crafting, selling) or studying (in EVE fashion if I'm not mistaken). This would still leave the question of how a person who has dropped their subscription (character died?) can return to their character plausibly.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Finally we have things for which I can find no excuse. Buying gold or levels is quite nonsensical. Class change is no better. Race change takes some pretty impressive magic. Better to avoid that in my opinion. Alternatively, you could have lore of your characters being reborn. It would force your characters to start over to a certain extent, but if the game is designed appropriately, that might not be an excessively large hurdle. Mostly with low power differences.

    And that's about all the different kinds of transactions I can think of. I'm ignoring class access because that happens before your character comes into existence. That doesn't seem like it would be immersion breaking.

    So would such a game be sufficiently immersive? Is there a better way to do some of this? Are my assumptions completely off? Am I missing some other kind of transaction?

    ReplyDelete
  24. Thanks for your effort, Iseu. I'll answer your comments in a seperate post.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Nils wrote:
    Psychochild likes to argue that he knows perfectly well how much he paid for F2P games, but not for WoW. Now, the only explanation I have for that is that Psychochild wrote down all his expenses for F2P games, but not for sub-based games. Which is already telling.

    No, I didn't write it down. I know because I can remember "$49.99 x 2" easier than "$14.95 x something, plus $12.95 x something else, and uh... $29.99 for one box and $59.99 for another."

    I'm absolutely able to control how much I spend for DDO and still play the game easier than I could for WoW. For me, that's a huge advantage as a player. That's one big reason why I'm still playing DDO and not WoW.

    Tolthir wrote:
    Quick question: I've seen the "time vs. money argument" made many times. Is there any evidence that time spent and money spent are negatively correlated?

    It's focused on mobile freemium games rather than MMOs, but here is some data:

    http://blog.flurry.com/bid/71993/Mobile-Freemium-Games-Gen-Y-Plays-but-Gen-X-Pays

    As the title says, the middle-aged people pay more, but the younger audience plays more.

    ReplyDelete
  26. The Time vs Money argument is really where Nils loses this argument...

    An example...

    My sister loves going out and getting great deals on Black Friday. She sees that she can get a free DVD player at Best Buy, if she needs one she will go down there and wait at Best Buy for it. I look at the price of the DVD player, see it is $30-40 and also see that said free item would actually require at least 2-3 hours of waiting in line (as they tend to only give them out to the first 50 customers or some such number which creates waiting lines before they open) and I decide that I'd rather just pay the money if I want the item. Now here is where my calculation comes in, how much do I earn at my job? Is it more than $15/hour? Yes I do earn more than that, therefor my time is worth more than that. My sister is a housewife, her time is not=P

    Similar example comes from my mom who if she does not get a $.70 cheeseburger she ordered at McDonald's she will turn the car around and get the cheeseburger and take the 20-30 minutes to do it. My time is worth than the $3/hour spent to do that so I generally just shrug my shoulders and move on. Even though yes I am actually getting screwed by McDonald's here, it still isn't worth my time even when you add pride to the equation.

    MMOs ARE a matter of time vs money. You cannot escape that. The problem is that until more recently, that difference has not been noted MMO developers. Instead they cater to those who have time, not money. In almost every way they do. MT have the capability to actually address the discrepancy that MMOs have had for quite some time.

    That is not to say that current F2P models are doing a great job of it, and certainly most are not doing a great job of even building an interface for it. But that doesn't damn the entire method.

    For example you tend to hound about immersion, which in reality immersion is only ruined by clunky interfaces. It could be dealt with better than that, but then F2P is new and most games that have it don't have a system that was built from the ground up for it.

    Not to mention that there are certainly upsides to F2P and MT that cannot be denied. I have no doubt in my mind that neither Champions Online nor DDO would still be around if it weren't for MT and FTP. They just wouldn't. Champions I know for fact has seen MORE people and MORE money because of it, and honestly I don't think I want an MMO environment in which the only games are around are Eve Online and WOW. Partially because WoW is just such a terrible game that i find it difficult enough to deal with that every developer is trying to clone it anyway. But at least we get options if there are options....

    ReplyDelete