Relative Value- Sacrilege!

[Venkman]

So this may go over like a lead balloon, but I am interested to hear what you all think.

My daughter lost her favorite puppy at the Mall today. Nacent paternal skull-crushing battle-winning problem-solver instinct took over. Nevermind this is one of the largest Malls in the northeast. Nevermind its got three floors, a zillion stores, and it's the second biggest shopping day of the year, falling right after the biggest. Daddy was going to tear the place apart for no other reason than to prevent his daughter's other eye from dropping a tear. That the plush dog meant nothing to me personally makes no difference.

But I realized just how much kids provide wonderful insight into the concept of Relative Value. Exploring this is an interesting hobby unto itself, particularly as it applies to MMOGs. And it lead to an interesting epiphany about RMTing and micropayments. I'm not sure if I'm right or if what I think is what companies do, but it's interesting to have arrived at this point nonetheless.

Finding that dog wasn't about getting a toy for my kid. It was about returning to her an anchor she had formed over the last weeks. This animal was a playmate, a comfort factor, a sleepy-time friend. She read stories to it as she does all her animals. She's got her roleplaying imagination down pat. Losing this dog was important to her in ways other things are important to me. That's what strikes me about relative value.

MMOG players talk about their accomplishments all the time. This often isn't bragging either. It's just folks defining what one game meant to them that another did not. DAoC Houses mean nothing to me, I quit before they were added to the game and haven't ever thought about going back. Meanwhile, I loved my UO and SWG houses, places I spent countless hours getting just right, whether I ever got visitors or not. Same goes for weapons, armor, quests.

None of what I do in WoW matters to someone in EQ. Even if the process of conquest is similar, the Tier 2 armor pieces I acquire in WoW have no bearing on what people buy with Adventure Points in EQ.

For the most part.

All items have a singular value: Time. How much something is worth can be measured by the time and effort it takes to get it. Another form of measurement is currency, but that's being featured less prominently in some games. While some are pulling data together that allow others to compare currencies across the genre, the real world value of an ingame currency does not provide any insights into its value. Sure, IGE shows that 1,000 WoW Gold on a PvE server is roughly equivalent to 200,000 Platinum PIeces on an Everquest server. But this alone doesn't say anything. EQ predates WoW by many years, has long since been mastered, and even IGE states that all WoW Gold orders are pre-orders, with a promise of delivery in 2-3 days. Meanwhile, they've had years to amass a fortune in EQ Platinum.

One really needs to get into the game worlds themselves to truly measure money and time. WoW again provides some interesting information. 1,000 gold is not easy to come by. Yet, even for those that may have a few thousand, there's simply not much to buy. All of the best stuff is non-tradeable, and for the most part, players must be present at the time a mob drops it in order to get it. I could go buy 3,000 gold tomorrow, but I've already achieved the maximum equipment attainable on the Auction Houses.

So WoW is far more about Time and Effort than it is cash.

The problem here is the steep incline in requirements of both as one advances. But its an intrinsic part of games of this ilk. If there was a flat advancement ramp such that every piece of equipment, every skill, and every level required precisely the same Time and Effort as any prior piece, skill, or level, then there'd be no real compulsion to advance for most. This is because at any time time the game is exactly the same as its ever been. Why advance when what's ahead is the same as where you are and have been?

Relative value is both something measured between games and something measured within them as well. One player's X number of levels per night is another player's Epic drop on a Raid. Neither of them matter directly to the other player, yet both provide motivation. The former is motivated by the dream of what they may get someday and the latter potentially has an up-and-coming friend climbing the ranks to eventually partner with them, and maybe providing insights into another class.

This is going to be a challenging part of the future of MMORPGs in my opinion.

You can't take items with you. There's some methods to convert currencies between games, but currency figures less prominently in some than others, making that conversion less useful to powering up. So basically, that means starting from scratch in every new game.

This can only work for so long. It was fine for awhile because the genre was pretty niche and the player fairly dedicated. But as the genre grows and broadens, the sheer mass of titles will always be calling to players in any game. The noise is unavoidable. When MMOGs fully hit he mainstream, they will not have the ability to be dominated by a single game with a bunch of also-ran niche titles. The world craves this sort of multiplay experience. It gets us back to a mode of interaction technology hasn't yet been able to deliver. This isn't about fantasy or sci-fi or sports either. It's about all of them and what everyone wants.

As such, companies are going to need to continually innovate new fun ways to play, hasten the rewards, and all the while figure out how to make cash on it.

Relative Value can help here. I'm no Seer, but developers will need to become them. They can't just shut themselves into their own game expecting to focus solely on existing players. They need to fully understand why their title is grabbing some folks and not others, and do so on a monthly basis.

That "monthly basis" is critical, because monthly fees are probably going the way of the dinosaur. They worked for a long time because people were dedicated to the longterm investments they needed to make. Newer games don't have the luxury to believe players will play them for years though. Sure some will, but will it be enough to keep the lights on? I personally don't think so.

This is, of course, why I think RMTing/micropayments are both so prevalent in the Far East and on the rise in the Western markets. This isn't about charging players for poorly-conceived derivative obsession/addictive experiences. It's about hopefully hastening their rewards so they have a more engaging time in the expected less amount of total time they'll likely invest overall.

Companies need players to pay X amount of monthly fees. I have no idea what each company needs, but they have a monthly bill that must be paid, assuming the initial development is done. That monthly bill includes both maintenance, the funds to sell the game itself, the funds to build new game enhancements, and the funds to sell those (selling includes marketing, selling, and distribution). No game exists on a month-to-month basis. The dollars are too large. Companies project what they need to make over longer periods of time, so expect players to play for more than one month. How many will play? How many will pay? This doesn't even get into the overhead of players actually playing the game either (concurrency).

So they have to make educated guesses and adjust as things go. Most companies have seen a decline in X, the total amount of monthly fees they can expect from a player. Many industry reps have said as much. The average amount of time one plays an MMOG is now hovering between three and six months.

How long did veterans play UO or EQ or AC?

Unfortunately, the games just keep getting more expensive too. Whereas 100k players could keep things going just fine because they could be expected to play and pay for a year, nowadays that same 100k players is likely to be around for an average of four billing cycles. The monthly bill could be quadruple what it was in 2000 though, and the company can expect 60% less overall income from the same playerbase. Marketing to new players costs money, yet those new players are required. And it's tougher now, particularly for veteran aging titles, because the genre itself is not sitting still.

When I look at it like this, not only does it justify the corporate acceptance of RMTing, it further drives the inevitability of it, and actually, to be honest, makes it someone palpable. Oh, I won't likely ever use a service, because I'll steer clear of games I can't fully play myself without a crutch like extra cash. But for the up-and-coming gamer, the players who gladly paid monthly overages for abusing text messaging, the folks who pay more for $0.99 songs than they ever did for the same amount of songs on CDs, the folks who buy ringtones and derivative schlocky cellphone games, the foks who join Shockwave's Gameblast service to play the same games they could for free, they are more amenable to micropayments than veterans.

Because the relative value of an experience is worth more momentary dollars than it is to vets.

[pxib]

How long did veterans play UO or EQ or AC?

A few had come from Compuserve, GEnie, and their ilk,  but most veterans who stuck with those early titles did so out of inexperience. Computer games which cost money to play were new to them, and the "investment" of cash made them nervous to leave their first game or to risk additional outlays to try a second. Waste time on a game, sure -- but waste money? Every month? Yikes. The more they had paid,  the more they felt obliged to keep paying (and playing)... especially once they had achieved some degree of obvious success: rare armor, high levels, stashes of loot. I knew three people who continued paying for UO for more than six months after they had functionally stopped playing. Each of them would log on only once a week or so for the few minutes required to keep their house from collapsing... then log off again. One of them was doing that for three separate accounts in order to save three separate houses.

Once broken by their first departure, veterans get wise. They have some idea what they're looking for in a game, and they go out looking for it. If flavor of the month doesn't satisfy pretty quick, they spit it out and move on before they're too "invested". They want one perfect game to play forever. Something where they never gets bored, are always advancing, and always have something to show for their money (and, as you note, time). Impossible dreams end badly.

I think one of the things that has made WoW so wildly successful is that it packed piles of productive play and fun potential into the early game. By the time veterans get suspicious and newbies get frustrated, the hooks are in.

So when you say:

Because the relative value of an experience is worth more momentary dollars than it is to vets.

I have to disagree. Vets may be used to grinding, but they are equally likely to be tired of it. If they think their dream is on the other side, they'll happily grind their way along because they assume they'll be playing forever. If they don't know what's on the other side, they'll happily pay to get a peek... if only because it may be cost effective in a game they'd end up leaving disappointed anyway. The dream is still impossible, but at least they know that after two months and fifty dollars, instead of six months and $75.00.

Extra cash, inevitable and corporate-attractive as it may be, won't keep people playing any longer because it can't actually improve the games themselves. It'll just make people pay more for less time. More product, less service.

[HaemishM]

Time is only a measure of value when the player stops having fun. As a matter of fact, with current monthly subscriptions, the player only begins to look for value in the game when he has stopped having fun.

RMTing/Micropayments are going to be more prevalent, and as usual, the MMOG devs will approach it from the absolutely wrong angle. Instead of paying small amounts in order to get in-game items or chotchskies, they should be charging micropayments for content, i.e. for new scenarios/zones/adventures in different genres using the same game engines.

But we're a long way from someone with money and programmers figuring that out.

[Jain Zar]

I hate the mere thought of micropayments myself.

For me, I want real stuff for my money.  Virtual products have to give me a VASTLY higher entertainment to dollar ratio for me to even think about
buying them.

Which is why I have ignored the Neverwinter Nights online content.  (The fact its offline stuff that is DRMed for a whopping sub 10 hour scenario makes it even worse.)

Outside of Magic Online, which has a HUGE value to it, (What you buy is pretty much usable till the service dies.)
most of the virtual purchasing I have done is for things I can KEEP, and that are a better deal than real products.
(Tabletop RPG PDFs and iTunes pretty much.  You can burn em to CDs and they cost less and are easier to procure than the hardcopy versions of em.)

MMORPGs trying to get me to spend more than a grudging 15 dollar a month subscription fee are pretty sure to fail.
Hell, the subscription fee itself keeps me from playing a long time.  If I am not active I quit to save the cash.

[Viin]

While I know some people have an aversion to virtual items for real cash, I think (if presented the correct way) it won't bother very many people.. and many would jump at the chance (see ebay/sonybay).

As an example, think of all the people who buy ring tones. Really, they are just virtual things that you can only use on the phone you bought it with! Want a new phone? Buy them again! They only cost 99 cents, so who cares? The phone works fine without them, but the consumer gets more enjoyment out of the device simply by being able to customize it (regardless that it costs extra to do so).

Time is a huge factor for a large number of MMO players. A lot of us have jobs, families, and other hobbies. Being able to turn our #1 easiest resource (money) into something we enjoy is something we do every day. Heck, I buy magazines, books, go to movies, order lunch everyday, go to expensive dinners every couple of weeks, and generally spend a large portion of my income on 'entertainment' items. I have no problem spending money on things that I enjoy - virtual or otherwise.

There are games already doing micropayments/not-so-micro-payments for objects/items/whatevers and it seems to go over very well. However, the game was *created* with this in mind, which works great. Adding something like this in after-the-fact is a huge no-no.

[tazelbain]

Outside of Magic Online, which has a HUGE value to it, (What you buy is pretty much usable till the service dies.)
most of the virtual purchasing I have done is for things I can KEEP, and that are a better deal than real products.

But if you cost it out, aren't you paying much more for MtGO then any MMOG?  So for me, MtGO isn't worth its huge price.  Sure, you could stop buying cards and play for free, but how realistic is that?  But it could be that any particular scheme doesn't have a premium price. I whole-heartedly agree that things like SOEbay and Project Entropy are example of greedy corporations trying to milk the customers for all they are worth, but not all of them have to be. 

Hell, the subscription fee itself keeps me from playing a long time.  If I am not active I quit to save the cash.

Micropayment systems are perfect solution to that problem.  It takes whether you are active or not out of the equation.  There is no rule that micropayments have be more expensive in the long run.

If you hate micropayments, how can you play MtGO?

[Lt.Dan]

I'm not so sure monthly fees are going the way of the dinosaur.  As a player it's easy to justify other payment schemes.  However, as a developer/owner you'd want to make sure you're not degrading revenue without a reasonable chance of actually generating higher revenue than the monthly charge base-case.

An example is the old "if EQ were half price I'd sign up and play".  Sure, but for SOE to even break-even they'd have to double their subscriber base in perpetuity and I can't imagine that's going to happen even at $7.50 a month. 

Developers/investors view micropayments in a similar way - how can this payment scheme earn me more than $15 per month per player or encourage longer average subscriptions or lure enough players to offset lower per sub revenue? At this stage I think it would be pretty hard to write a business plan that fully replaces the monthly fee with some alternative.

There will be some pricing-model segmentation though.  Games are moving to micropayments, MMOs have experimented with other revenues (ads, exchanges).  However, I don't see a lot of options for games that plan on following the monthly sub model.  Realistically, I'd expect MMOs to be raising prices.  In fact, I wouldn't be surprised to see Blizzard/Vivendi bump up the monthly sub by a buck sometime in the future.  Higher costs don't you know.

[Velorath]

So did you find the plush puppy or not?

[HaemishM]

I think that MMOG's as they are currently built are resistant to anything but subscription-based pricing because of their insistence on persistence. If you move MMOG's to a more episodic format (like TV), you can charge per episode/adventure, without the need for a subscription. But if you are talking about characters always being available, and content having to be doable 24/7, you are stuck with a sub model, for now.

[Pococurante]

A few had come from Compuserve, GEnie, and their ilk,  (...) Each of them would log on only once a week or so for the few minutes required to keep their house from collapsing... then log off again. One of them was doing that for three separate accounts in order to save three separate houses.

Once broken by their first departure, veterans get wise.

This describes my "journey".  In UO I kept my subs going because I wanted to "invest" in the game.  I wanted them to be successful.  I wanted Ultima brought back to the positiveness of the single-player games rather than continue the freefall to Ghettoz Online.  I wanted to see virtual world sandboxes become the dominant form of entertainment.

I don't do that anymore.  Get it right coming out the gate or don't waste my time.  Every investor who hurries release before the product is ready is simply locking in the failure of their product (which to be circumspect those investors know full well - their slice of the pie comes off the box sales and from marketing derivatives, not the sub residuals, so they don't give a rat's ass).

[Sky]

Sorry to derail, but I guess it's my strength, eh?

I wanted Ultima brought back to the positiveness of the single-player games rather than continue the freefall to Ghettoz Online.

This is one of the leading reasons I hate mmo. Every fucking game is ghetto.

I was doing some newbie quests with my wee spy in SWG last night before the old girl got off work. The npc questgivers were near some kind of social hub, apparently, because every time I got near it was str8 ghetto, yo. u r so gay type ghetto. The people there made me want to stab out my eyes, I studiously turned my back on their speech bubbles and ignored the chat box, I was rather proud of myself.

But really, the LCD is so goddamned low it's scraping bottom. I can't even remember the dialogue it was so bad, one scene was some guy calling an entertainer a hoe and another guy wanting to duel to defend her honor (he was actually ok, trying to rp it) and the two cockgoblins lollering and u r gaying ghetto speak like they was some young fitty jedi.