Feelin’ Smug

You definitely were ahead of the time in the West, and it works great. I remember, way back when, looking for a new MUD to play and leaving Avalon very quickly due to the pay-to-play model. Next up was Achaea (I remember specifically clicking on the banner, after doing the same for Avalon, thinking this will probably be another pay for game) and being happy the quality I saw and the pay-for-perks model gave me everything I wanted (high quality game, without having to pay up front for it).

Of course, I do have to point out Maple Story was developed by Wizet and published by Nexon, both South Korean companies, so it should only half count as a “huge successes in the West”.

Personally I don’t have a problem with microtransactions to buy ‘fluff’, ie stuff that doesn’t affect your power. I do have a problem with items being for sale that dictate player power, as that just gives incentive to the developer to turn their game into a massive grind to turn over a big microtransaction profit.

So, best case scenario is that SW:TOR is a free to play game with microtransactions to buy ‘fluff’ (special colour for your light sabre, etc).

Worst case scenario is that SW:TOR is subscription based and has microtransactions to let you buy the best items in the game which offer a significant competitive advantage, and are only otherwise attainable by countless hours of grinding, and which are rendered obsolete by the next expansion, causing you to have to shell out again.

I won’t be playing the latter game, and I’m sure only diehard Star Wars fans would bother.

I’m extremely interested to see how it plays out if it is indeed microtransaction-based (EA sent Shacknews a backpeddle later saying that nothing has been announced about their business model).

While I do see the appeal of free-to-play real-money-trade games, I wonder if it can work in the US. After all, everything we’ve ever had that was in anyway microtransaction-based has moved on to subscription as a baseline (phone, tv, internet, etc.).

Americans seem to prefer to spend money upfront, then forget they are spending money (to such a degree that we really like to make the payment recur automatically so we can literally forget about it).

I personally prefer the subscription model myself. I know exactly how much I’m going to spend on the game per month, and I know that I have a perfectly fair chance in the game that way. With RMT, I KNOW I will spend more money than the subscription, because I end up feeling like I have to spend more money to keep up, or to get better than other players.

Anyway, we’ll see. As Melf_Himself noted, I’m not sure players will like the game if what they pay for isn’t just fluff, even though it seems like RMT items must be useful if that’s the business model. Looking forward to watching this whole thing play out.

It must have been great to have watched this idea of yours bloom over the years. Irrespective of which business model is better, to come up with an entirely new model and then excute it for the first time; to be the one that has to come up with best practices because they don’t exist yet - that’s cool and it’s an accomplishment.

All this arguing about which model is best makes big assumptions about the design of the game. Is the business model always the first decision you make or do you do a little game design first and see which business model fits? How you make money obviously does affect the design of the game. The players arguing for subscriptions want certainty on their monthly fees and don’t want to be reminded about their wallets every they purchase a sword. Designers of virtual asset sale based experiences have to be more aware, relative to other models, that if the game creates a feeling of “nickel and diming” the player, it can destroy the immersiveness. Players will also walk away from games where the subscription rates is too high as well. The devil is always in the details and both models can be done badly.

Games based on new business models and alternative means of distribution loosens the major publisher’s stranglehold. Independent developers need to keep being disruptive and to a certain extent I’m a little disappointed to see virtual asset sales go so mainstream. Here’s hoping for the next new cool MMO business models and maybe we can be a little more mature about it this time and not freak out. It doesn’t mean the model we prefer is going away.

I’m just not sold on this model. Unless you are a juggernaut, it doesn’t feel like a sound decision, financially. For me, the user, to look at a game that is free-to-play makes me wonder why it’s free. Why would a company forfeit absolute income? Someone subscribes to a game, they pay. Somebody comes into a free-to-play game, they might not.

Not only that, but the biggest issue that I have with micro-transaction is now I compete with Joe Smuckateli and his wallet. This is completely different than time. I can invest more time if I choose. But I can only invest the money I actually hold. That feels extremely unbalanced. I choose to play for reward and being a great player. Micro-transactions knock them both out. I’m not rewarded on the same level unless I make more money to spend on the game, preventing me from being a good player.

We can take a quick example from EQ2 and the experience potions. Imagine the game was just released (or even, I’m a new player). I don’t have the money to spend on potions, but my friends do. All of a sudden, they’re advancing and I’m not. MMOs are about advancement. If you can’t, friends will have no remorse - they want that next level, stat, item.

Naturally, this depends on implementation. But the concept freaks the hell out of me, and I’ll just stay far away from it.

I don’t play subscription MMOs because I don’t have more than several hours a month for it. Paying $15 for that isn’t a reasonable spend for me relative to the time I could play.

I don’t like any of the sloppy F2P Korean imports that pass as games. I haven’t spent any money on one yet, though I’ve played dozens. In contrast, if this Star Wars game was going to have item sales, I’d probably end up spending money on it right away. The quality would be on par with other big budget MMOs, and I think they would see massive amounts of sales because of that.

People talk a lot about the model not being successful in the US, but the game quality is not there. That’s the reason. It’s not that people don’t want to pay this way (contrary to the loud but relatively tiny group of hardcore players), it’s that the games on offer just outright suck, with very few exceptions. The model isn’t the problem. The games are.

Matt — I think you’re right on. The infrastructure for supporting virtual economies is rapidly evolving, and consumers are quickly warming up to the whole idea at the same time. I read a stat recently from the Casual Games Association that 85% of all casual gamers would prefer to play free, ad-supported games than pay any kind of subscription. Not sure what percentage of hardcore gamers feel the same way, but the point is that this is clearly the future. The success of companies like mine and dozens of others that have been founded in just the last year or two are a testament to the direction the industry is heading in.