f13.net

Smed's keynote (http://www.edge-online.co.uk/archives/2005/10/sonys_freeforal.php)

The gist? No monthly fees, but you've gotta pay for phat lewtz, kinda like Project Entropia, except controlled by a complete fucktard named Smedley.

One main factor when you look at this issue, is whether there is playable game out paying.  Puzzle Pirate's Doubloon Server is free and there is a basic game to play plus with enough effort non-paying players have access to all premium content. In contrast with PE, where the non-paying players have nothing to play and no way to access even the most basic content.

I bet now that dofus is free, we'll see a premium content for them also.

Isn't that the Korean model?  I first saw it with Gunbound, GunzOnline also works this way for the non international versions.

\/\/\/\/\/\/
Actually it isn't all bad because Gunz, Dofus and Gunbound all involve player skill to various degrees.  Gunz being the most pronounced.

It's bad enough that time played is used as the ladder to success in MMOs but buying success.  No thanks, not for me. 

Can't blame Smed for this. While Robert Garriot believes that the subscription model will still dominate America, many MANY other devs and business types on MMOGs agree that the micropayment shit will be The Money Of Zee Future. Whatwith Xbox Marketplace bringing this system to the forefront, it's only a matter of time. Personally? This sort of thing should only exist in skill based games like Gunz. Not games where weapon-stats rule all.

I can predict how this will pan our right now, and in 5 years I will brag that I was right.

1: Someone introduces a game popular in the US where you pay for individual items.
2: Devs then nerf certain items or duping bugs are discovered.
3: Enter major lawsuit.

Right now the law seems to lean towards the notion that when you play a MMORPG you own nothing because you are buying a service. If that changes into buying particular goods that argument is dead in the water. If I buy a VCR from you 6 months later you can't come over to my house and smash it with a hammer. Similarly if I buy a sword of werewolf slaying 6 months later you can't low the stats on it or add item decay. You may not even be able to double the power of werewolves.

It is only a matter of time. Almost inevitable IMO.

Sony is avoiding this trap by only helping buyers and sellers get together and then taking a "transaction fee". Buyer beware if item that is sold changes in the future. I can see selling levels, but selling items is too much of a risk. Better to make money off other people selling them through your game.

I've reversed my position on RMT. I now see it as proper financial darwinism, at the unfortunate expense of a few years of development goals.

You buy that sword, girl.

See, I don't think the money is there if you're just selling the Sword of Uberness. That may work in...MU*s, but not in MMORPGs. The money there is in SOEBay style dealings, the unlocking of special content/features (like a new area, or race or class to play), value-added shit (a guild message board in game or hosted by the company with a lot of datamining accessible by the guild), and gimmicky shit (like pets). If you do that, the problem of balance is still in the developers hands and Margalis' scenario becomes a bit more unlikely.

I agree.  If you are going to sell items...  You're going to run into problems.  Achaea does this, and I think it's only the small population that has kept them out of trouble, tho Matt might be able to say more on the topic.

Alkiera

They are selling only extra levels (catass content, otherwise known as the loser tax) and upgrades to items. Sounds to me like a motherfucking gold mine waiting to happen. And the perfect way to avoid the lawsuit shit? When you have to nerf the upgrades (and you will), you offer credit to the store so you can purchase a different upgrade and respec it.

It's a brilliant idea. Of course, it's also the kind of brilliant, assraping, moneygrubbing shitheel idea that only a pigfucker with the heart of an adding machine could think up.

Also, crotchpheasants.

Ah, Haemish... your eloquence astounds as always.  :-D

And yeah, I totally agree.

Here, man. Just take it.

(http://www.mrgoodbeer.com/bud/blbank.jpg)

SOE's call to arms seems to, of late, be "look to Asia".

Unfortunately, the result could be a game that only sells in Asia.

Micropayments are all well and good, but the American gamer community is a long series of veterans creating sociological conditions for newbs. Either the vets predated the newbs in a game, or brought their veteran ways from another while forming the critical mass of culture.

Whatever it is, and regardless of just how wonderful and rosy the bottom lines are for RMT companies, gamers don't buy games because of micropayments.

They buy them because they're fun.

So when SOE starts talking about the game portion of the game, I'll begin to wonder on its potential. Having watched them drop the equivalent of full development budgets to buy up other games, I'm beginning to wonder (http://www.darniaq.com/phpNews/news.php?action=fullnews&showcomments=1&id=146) where their game creativity went.

Unless our's is no longer the compelling market for them.

Actually, I think SOE's look to Asia may be a little cockeyed, considering they're killing their Japanese SWG servers.

Just sayin'

If micropayments mean we get the good asian MMO's then I'm all for it.  Gun-kata robots 4tw and whatnot.

*whoa finger slippage and whatnot*

This is Smedco... Gun-kata robots? Nah. Cheesy ways to take your cash? Sure.

Thing is, he didn't think it up until he saw his son playing Runescape (http://www.runescape.com/).  So he's really just stealing someone else's idea and running with it on a larger budget.  Go go Microsoft gameplan. 

I fail to see where this is a problem.

And he and McQuaid didn't think up EQ til they started playing DikuMuds instead of D&D with Cheesy Poofs. When has Smed ever had an original thought?

I meant that if an American adoption of the pay for items formula proves successful we might get good games, you know ones not designed by SOE.

When micropayments result in what is commonly perceived as a good game, I'll know it is time to take my ancient ass out of gaming for good.

All items are transitory. The games are built around planned obsolescence. If this intrinsic part of the Diku-inspired iterations requires additional money, then no greater a separation between the Haves and Have Nots will exist. Look at the links to crime. Look at the national campaigns to limit exposure to this obvious ponzi-like scheme in China and Korea.

This is the future of MMOGs? I think not. But it'll be interesting to see what happens to the companies that try along the way.  :evil:

Got this quote from the link. I just want to say I love reading these posts from whiny little bitches crying about what "the rich kids" have over them, the "poor folk" (who can apparently still afford a computer, monthly sub fees, etc etc). Sorry, I just love laughing at the entitlement whore mentality.

Ah, but so is money. :)

The question in my mind: Is this an attempt to progress further down the road of the disposable society? When we buy things we get solid items that we can see as value for what we spent on it. Yet, games are almost entirely digital in nature. One of the primary arguments against digital distribution is the lack of flesh world product. Consumers want a physical object they can show for the money they spent, even if the end result of purchasing the product is chucking the box and disc in a corner and never touching them again.

So, why is there a different mentality for games than there is for, say, cable tv? When you pay for cable tv, all you receive is a signal through a cable that allows you to watch a tv show. Is there a subconscious feeling of having received physical goods because of the receiver and remote they give you that allows the consumer to have that piece of mind?

What about internet connectivity? When we pay for that all we have is access, no physical product. How do people leap over that mental hurdle?


A computer is usually a one time purchase. Monthly sub fees are a tolerable fee to access the content of a game that everyone pays. It is a barrier to entry that prevents people not willing to pay from even playing. Anything beyond those fees is what folks are objecting too. Especially if those fees are used to bar entry to parts of the game or items that may be needed to advance.

I feel like often the whiners are pointing out the worst scenario possible: at some point, advancement in the game may be completely based on paying your way forward. When advancement is based on your bank account, the "poor folk" will definitely cry foul.

Let me point out, that for now every micropayment game was a total shit, especially CS-wise.
Think typical mmorpg, but company treating everyone as they're playing for free. Moreover, those companies seems to be struggling getting on plus.

Well, we will see it with Roma Victor:P

...

Wouldn't the entitlement whores be the ones buying their way through the game, as opposed to playing the game and advancing by right of that play?   

It isn't entitlement, jackass. It's the idea that you already pay to play the game, you should have the same opportunities as anyone else. Paying to shortcut those opportunities is in essence cutting ahead in line just because you have money. It's something outside the game.

But hey, I'd rather SOE got the money than cocksucking nutsack child molesters like IGE.

I would like to point out that Micropayments for anything online makes me ill. It's a way of making stupid people spend more money than they would normally by dazzling them with small numbers.

For god's sake, Scott McCloud supports micropayments.

I like micropayments because it removes one of the barriers to consumer spending. It's great marketing. I'd love being able to pay small amounts $1-$2 to download an episode of a TV show I missed, or a novel or comic book.

America is the land of the free, home of the rich. People with money will always have better opportunities than those that don't.


Having the company who makes and runs the game set up a marketplace for the trade of items for money makes me feel warm and fuzzy compared to having to deal with fly by night operations that may or may not deliver the goods.

It already is shit. At least I am not paying for the crappy service I am not using.

Personally, I don't mind micropayments.  I'll judge system on it's own.  For things like PE and MTGO, its more like macro-payments and a no-go.

Apparently the latest online gaming fad in Asia are "relationship" games where you pay real money to buy items to furnish your virtual apartment with which you then show off to other players (presumably of the opposite sex). Think The Sims Online except everything you buy in game you pay for with real money (which for some people is how they played TSO...). I saw a report on this while I was on vacation in China this past week and a half. According to the report the original game started in Taiwan and it and various copycats are now sweeping through China in a big way.

This is a good idea, but would you love to pay for the first 30 minutes of a show and have to pay for the rest? Or chapters of a book? Or pages of the comic book? I could easily see stupid ideas like that getting implemented.

I think it would depend on the medium and how often the product is produced.

Of course, with the things you mentioned, they would have some sort of DRM associated with them, I would bet. And that is another whole can of worms...

Its not even a remotely feasible prospect I will use real money to pay for in video game/virtual items. Never, not in one million years, not if its the last video game on the entire fucking planet, not a single solitary chance.  Companies are getting greedy these days, just because technology allows for micropayments and DRM and what have you, doesnt mean Im stupid enough to fall for that shit. Subs are bearable, because at least you know your monies are go towards bandwidth, dev costs, storage space and what have you., but pay for a sword/house/furniture? in video game? people are stupid.

Even if you'd end up paying unless, have more flexibily?
I've been playing PP sporadiclly for 4 monthes.  If I had a subscription, it'd have cost $40.  But I have payed only $20 and still have enough left over for another couple months.  What I like is I can come and go as I please, there is no pressure to "get my money's worth" like with a subscribtion.

<insert joke about pee pees and porn site subscriptions here>

I am not sure that this is a fad.  The only difference in this and what has been happening for a long time with The Sims and The Sims 2 is the online component.  Natural progression; when you can show off your junk, it becomes more appealing to a set of people.  Currently you can subscribe to services that deliver Sims assets for something like $3 per month; you can also buy assets a la carte for (relatively) small change.  The reason this isn't more established is because TSO was a horrible piece of shit.

I honestly think DRM is a huge fucking waste of research time and money. The people who will not pay for your product aren't going to pay if you force them to. They just aren't customers, they are leeches. The people who will pay mainly for the convenience of not having to go out and find the shit in the scummiest areas of the Internet will likely always outnumber the people who want it for free.

The only problem with that statement is that sometimes, it isn't enough money for the people who produce or distribute that content. See greed, see the music industry, etc.

I don't get it - but I am not sure I share the opinions of others here.

I am not price sensitive for the most part in paying for a game I believe I will/do enjoy.

Comparable:  Monthly Cable Fee.

That's the price I would be willing to pay monthly for a good game - when you consider that many of us spend at least as much time playing these games as we would television (if you watch it at all).  A good MMORPG = Cable Monthly Access Fee for me.

Purchasable game elements of interest to me:

1.  Races.  Shadowbane had this of sorts with unlockable races - I liked that idea.  Not for all races - but a few esoteric ones that are on the cool side this is something I would "buy".

2.  Adventure Packs.  EQ2 looks like it has experimented with this - paralleling the DnD idea of modules - I like the idea - but have not tried it.

3.  Special servers.  Special servers with rule sets or events that might require more DM support.

Things I will not pay for:  levels and items.  If you're paying for those, the game admits it is broken.

I don't really have a problem with RMT, except when it's not black market. The problem I find is when it goes legit. Company makes a game built purely on the foundation of addictive acquisition, tweaks the experience to be winnable by a relative few, then acts all altruistic by allowing those poor everyone-else players the unique opportunity to buy their way through the advancement? No freaking way.

However, adding new content in which to game, as in, gaming in the same system just in a new place? Yea, micropayments for the win. Also, new races and other new unique component gimmickry, all the way.

Isn't that pretty much just a typical expansion then?

Yes, except EQ2's model is that they release new 'adventure packs' that have much less content than a typical expansion, typically a single large dungeon or series of small/medium instances.  They have an associated set of new spells and items, that are typically most useful inside that dungeon, and not terribly useful outside it.  They deliver it via download, for $5-8.  Semi frequently.  As an example of new spells, I believe the pack that had tons of vampires in it added a few vampire-specific spells and special attacks.  The idea being that not everyone will want every adventure pack, as they are pretty tightly themed.

An expansion, on the other hand, is more to put the box back on the shelf, and add major new content to the game.  It also gives new content to those tied to dialup who just can't download the largish datafiles for the adventure packs.  It needs to appeal to a large percentage of your playerbase, in order to get the large percentage of sales needed to make good money on the sale after all the overhead of the packaging and retailing, etc.

Alkiera

Ya know, it really bums me out EQ2 was so focused on the group adventuring, though I can completely understand why. I liked the game, but I solo too much. I can never bust the 20th level hump (I hate the commandlands!) to get to what they promise as 'new solo adventures', because they always seem to be in zones I've never heard of.

I should reinstall and try to get my 18th "SK" over the hump while my All-Access is active. I cancelled the All-Access, though, it's up to $28/mo now. That's a new game a month!

If you had trouble pychologically with bereft artistic domain of the commonlands - the subsequent zone - the Burning steppes will offer no relief.

You could probably buy enough gold to buy enough collection quest items to insta-level to 20 for $20 bucks or fewer on playerauctions.  Then you can solo level in Harclaves until you puke (or hit level 50, but you'll probably do that first thing long before).   

Nah. Just the memories of how EQ2 shits on solo players is enough to keep me away. I didn't mind the Commonlands, it was more that I was basically stuck there for 20 levels without a break. And of course all the content that looked remotely non-generic was group-only. The way they linked encounters and artificially buffed mobs insures I'll never even bother returning.

Alkiera answered it. There's Boxed expansions and digital downloads. The latter has a lot less overhead, plus an installed base of consumers. The former is more of a wing-and-a-prayer thing, hoping to expand the game through traditional channels of high overhead-dom.

Here, fixed that for you.

--Dave