Surprised it took this long (NCcoin)

[Venkman]

Given their major market and how their competitors already do this, I've always wondered when NC would come up with their own meta-game currency.

Well, I wonder no more.

Called NCcoin, this system will let customers purchase in-game items and upgrades using real-world money, with $1 equating to 100 NCcoins. The first game to incorporate the NCcoin will be Exteel and NCsoft is planning on incorporating NCcoin into many of their existing and upcoming games internationally

Not much otherwise to say about it. Logical and a long time coming is about it for me.

[Nebu]

All game companies would be wise to implement this.  It removes farmers and spam from farmers and provides a number of paying customers that want access to more in-game currency.  Not having in house RMT seems like lost revenue. 

I'm sure there are legal reasons why more games haven't gone this route.  Perhaps one of the lawyer types can answer that. 

[schild]

Why did they call it NCcoin?

Who came up with that?

NCoin ALREADY HAS IT BUILT IN.

Damnit. My OCDness is going to make me angry every time I see it.

I saw the PR email and had to read it 5 times, and by the 5th time I was crying a little blood.

[Mrbloodworth]

I have already bought some for Exteel, to date, i have spent 1$. They have had the system for many months now, Exteel is the only game i thank that uses them right now. There are items for the game that cost in game credits, and others that take NCcoins, with NCcoin (only) items being just a tier down from the best, that are credits only to buy.

[Tarami]

I think a share your obsessive-compulsive disorder somewhat, Schild. That's a freaking horrible naming decision.

They could even call it "n¢"/"n-cents" considering they are 100 to one US dollar. Marketing. 

[Nebu]

The question that I'm interested in answering: Is it profitable to allow players to buy the best gear in game for RL cash if you consider the effects of this mechanism on retention?  

I have to imagine that Blizzard would make a ton of cash in the short term if they allowed people to buy top tier gear with cash.  How would this effect the long-term bottom line?  It's an interesting question.  Of course, it doesn't consider the complications that are brought about by legal concerns in allowing RMT.  

[Mrbloodworth]

The question that I'm interested in answering: Is it profitable to allow players to buy the best gear in game for RL cash if you consider the effects of this mechanism on retention? 

I have to imagine that Blizzard would make a ton of cash in the short term if they allowed people to buy top tier gear with cash.  How would this effect the long-term bottom line?  It's an interesting question.  Of course, it doesn't consider the complications that are brought about by legal concerns in allowing RMT. 

You don't buy the best gear in game with NCcoin, at least, not in exteel. Like i said, it will only get you one tier down from best. The best is bought with in game credits that you earn. Also, don't compare parts and equipment in exteel with gear in game like Wow, the "Power" difference is not so gaping. In fact, its really about choosing parts that fit your playstyle, or how your mech reacts/feels rather than power. A lot of the high tier guns may have higher damage, but they overheat way faster, making it a personal choice to use them, not a must.

Micro-payments would not work in a game like Wow, where retention is 100% about the carrot (Gear). Retention in exteel is game play, and competition, and a little bit of the shiny. Every item in exteel has pros and cons, they are not simply "Better".

[Nebu]

You don't buy the best gear in game with NCcoin, at least, not in exteel.

I'm aware.  I just thought it an interesting hypothetical.  Would there be enough of a cash influx to offset potential losses to long-term retention?  I think there exists a population of gamers that would enjoy playing at the highest levels without having to go through all of the hoops to get there.  This may be an untapped financial resource. 

[Mrbloodworth]

You don't buy the best gear in game with NCcoin, at least, not in exteel.

I'm aware.  I just thought it an interesting hypothetical.  Would there be enough of a cash influx to offset potential losses to long-term retention?  I think there exists a population of gamers that would enjoy playing at the highest levels without having to go through all of the hoops to get there.  This may be an untapped financial resource. 

Well, technically, Wow has this already. It doesn't affect anything, because its segregated, and focused.

[tazelbain]

I love the Puzzle Pirate method.  Everything is bought with a combo of in-game cash(ie time) and token (ie real money) and let the player decide which they value more via in-game market.

[Krakrok]

NCCoin is infinitely better than NCoin. But then I say, "G U I" not "gooy".

[Lt.Dan]

They shoulda gone gangsta naming yo.   En City Coin.

[Xanthippe]

I would love to be able to spend real money for fluff in games.  Pets, appearance, dance moves, emotes - that would affect nobody's "real game" experience yet could contribute to my own enjoyment of the game. 

[Venkman]

All game companies would be wise to implement this.  It removes farmers and spam from farmers and provides a number of paying customers that want access to more in-game currency.  Not having in house RMT seems like lost revenue. 

I'm sure there are legal reasons why more games haven't gone this route.  Perhaps one of the lawyer types can answer that. 

It's more a question of audience. WoW attracted a bunch of new players, but was built with veteran semi-communal ideals: what you put in you get out aside from the flat fee everyone pays.

Newer MMOs a) not being built by established MMO companies; and, b) not servicing the Corp Por group mostly don't bother with flat fees, instead collecting money from microtrans. These companies also aren't spending AAA budgets and some of these games barely qualify for that label.

To date I can't think of any big budget AAA title that's gone from flat fee to microtrans, so it's hard to know what the losses and gains are. Microtrans games brag about registered users (Audition is above 130mil now, Habbo I think broke 100mil, Maplestory at 90mil, etc). Flat-fee games brag about paying subscribers (we all know those and guess at the rest). It's easier to calculate what the flat-fee games collect (though even there many get it wrong, mostly due to lack of full info). So most assume flat-fee games make a LOT more than microtrans.

At the same time though, it needs to be pointed out that microtrans games cost a LOT less to build and run. And while they might not collect fees from all players, they have an easier time selling advertising space on sheer eyeballs alone, and they get deep investments from whoever they can collect from. That could be due to proven conversion from eyeball to purchase, or just the belief that covering 300mil potential people over just three games is too good a chance not to take. Some claim that the amount of money they make on advertising far exceeds what they make on microtrans or paid-download/purchase (in those studies that cross between casual and persistent worlds). But then, there's the bubble question: is all the money being made because advertisers haven't wizened up yet?

I suspect the flat-fee games will eventually go away though. We're sorta already seeing it. How many viable "big/real" titles are coming? Compare this to the number of kiddie/IP browser-based worlds a completely separate group out there is talking about (the type that attended the Virtual Worlds Summit, and the self-styled "casual" events... not those talking about casual online games either). The latter group is like where this genre was five years ago. Nowadays though, the general belief is that WoW won and everyone else is fighting over scraps, so better to invent a blue ocean strategy or something.

I used to lean heavily one way. Then the other. Now I'm really not invested in either, so sorta ambivalent.

[UnSub]

I'm a big believer that a hybrid model - both sub fees and microtrans - will be better for the MMO industry. Sub fees will be tiny - say $5 a month - while microtrans will also be cheap - max $2 for any item in the game.

You need a sub fee to keep the riff raff out (he says, as he adjusts his monocle). All items available for microtrans also need to be available in-game via drops as well, so the player can choose between investing time or money to get what they want. It should be built with an eye to keeping external RMTers out - your authorised microtrans channel should also offer powerlevel services (or: instant level up) to minimise any foothold an external RMTer could get.

Two things that need to be sacrificed under such a model are the idea that a MMO can have a self-regulating in-game economy or an auction house where players can sell in-game items for RL cash. If people can buy what they want using either in-game or RL cash, the in-game economy is likely to be deflated due to sales going through the RL microtrans channel.

[Venkman]

The flat fee may prove to keep too many people out there, as for this to work in the West people would rightly wonder about the justification for double-dipping.

I think microtrans will be the future in the West. Us old farts just need to get out of the way

[Lantyssa]

I'm not sure all microtransaction games are the future, but if they are a $5 sub plus microtrans would be a great transitory model for a quality game.  People would think it a bargain compared to the current $15+ games while getting used to the idea of paying for goodies from a legitimate source.

[Nerf]

I like the cosmetic idea, I'd shell out $2-5 for a hat or parrot on my eve avatard, or a special paintjob on all of my ships that let everyone know just how awesome I am.

[caladein]

I like the cosmetic idea, I'd shell out $2-5 for a hat or parrot on my eve avatard, or a special paintjob on all of my ships that let everyone know just how awesome I am.

[Ratman_tf]

So are they going to get around to really cool microtrans? Like letting me rename another guys' character "Gaylord" for 20 bucks?

[Llava]

I.... doubt it.

[sinij]

1. Design game with unbelievable grind
2. Sell shortcuts for more money
3. Proft


Does anyone finds this a bit odd business model? You ether offer 'unbelievable grind' as a product, or you incorporate 'shortcuts' into product and charge more subscription?

[sinij]

I'm not sure all microtransaction games are the future, but if they are a $5 sub plus microtrans would be a great transitory model for a quality game.  People would think it a bargain compared to the current $15+ games while getting used to the idea of paying for goodies from a legitimate source.

I just don't see how can you design good game where your entire goal becomes inventing new ways to frustrate the user so they micropay to skip unpleasant parts.

[lac]

The trick would be to lovingly sucker the players into it, make it a bit too obvious and its ruined.

[Ratman_tf]

My thoughts.

Microtrans are fine for games where teens cyber in purple sparkly hats. They want to blow their lawn mowing money on stupid shit. That's fine.

Any MMOG where you can bypass content by spending 50 bucks for a level 70 loaded with purp epix (Not counting the current tournament system, which is a special case, and temporary at that) is not gonna see a dime from me. It's bad enough that content is gated by time investment, but when it's gated by money investment (Kara key requires 10,000 WoWBucks!) I'm taking my wallet and going home.

[CharlieMopps]

I can't wait for the lawsuits.
"I paid 10,000 Ncoin for this sword."
"You nerfed it's stats the next day."
"I want my $100 back."

[Venkman]

1. Design game with unbelievable grind
2. Sell shortcuts for more money
3. Proft

Does anyone finds this a bit odd business model? You ether offer 'unbelievable grind' as a product, or you incorporate 'shortcuts' into product and charge more subscription?

hehe been saying that for years, particularly given how long this has been the case across the Pacific. Seriously, just because we don't call those games DIKUs doesn't make them not DIKUs.

This industry designed itself into xtrans years ago. And then they got all "shocked" when players starting paying? Bullshit. Heck, Garriot himself seemed to like the like of people eBaying UO stuff, and this was while other people were getting pissy that players had the gall to find a way to alt-tab to check EQatlas, or the hubris to run AIM in the background! Oh noes!

Pandora's box opened long ago and the only people not profiting are those sinking money into fighting it (though of course Blizzard can more than afford it). It's a nice image, if you can afford to keep it.

[Lantyssa]

I just don't see how can you design good game where your entire goal becomes inventing new ways to frustrate the user so they micropay to skip unpleasant parts.

My personal philosophy wouldn't be about selling short cuts or designing the game to have unpleasant bits needing to be skipped.  The base game should be solid and offer an enjoyable game as is.

The extras are for fluff, like Xan suggested.  New emotes, new clothing styles, more decorative options, etc.  If there is item customization like EQ2's appearance slots (more games need this!), sell cool items to wear in them.

[Mrbloodworth]

I can't wait for the lawsuits.
"I paid 10,000 Ncoin for this sword."
"You nerfed it's stats the next day."
"I want my $100 back."

EULA.

[Ratman_tf]

I can't wait for the lawsuits.
"I paid 10,000 Ncoin for this sword."
"You nerfed it's stats the next day."
"I want my $100 back."

EULA.

The thing that says we can't buy gold or items or use 3rd party software? 

[Mrbloodworth]

I can't wait for the lawsuits.
"I paid 10,000 Ncoin for this sword."
"You nerfed it's stats the next day."
"I want my $100 back."

EULA.

The thing that says we can't buy gold or items or use 3rd party software? 

The thing thats says you have no rights.

[Ratman_tf]

I can't wait for the lawsuits.
"I paid 10,000 Ncoin for this sword."
"You nerfed it's stats the next day."
"I want my $100 back."

EULA.

The thing that says we can't buy gold or items or use 3rd party software? 

The thing thats says you have no rights.

Oh. Okay. I just click "OK" without reading them anyway. 

[DarkSign]

It's in operation even before that, actually. Opening the package for many videogames is enough to bind you. Of course extra layers of protection are never a bad thing.

[tmp]

Why did they call it NCcoin?

Who came up with that?

NCoin ALREADY HAS IT BUILT IN.

Yeah, but theirs is the Real NcCoyn.

OK that was admittedly horrible, sorry.

[UnSub]

1. Design game with unbelievable grind
2. Sell shortcuts for more money
3. Proft

Well, this is the current MMO model in a nutshell. Adding in a step two either 1) shortens player retention because they can buy what they want, get bored and quit sooner than if they had to 'earn' it, or 2) lengthens player retention because they don't get turned off by the first X levels / mobs they have to grind through to get to the 'fun' bit.

The other thing is that fun means different things to different people. If some money means the dedicated PvPer can skip all the crappy PvE bits to get to the right place, or the dollmaker doesn't have to fight 1000 felt monsters to get a purple felt hat, then it provides the player with some choice.

It's bad enough that content is gated by time investment, but when it's gated by money investment (Kara key requires 10,000 WoWBucks!) I'm taking my wallet and going home.

I'm suggesting a time OR money gated model for most in-game things (you'll actually have to play the game, even having bought everything). If someone wants to buy a max level, fully kitted out character, that's great, but they won't have the experience to use that character correctly.

As it stands, pretty much all MMO content is time gated, so the time rich benefit the most. I'd personally like to have the option of buying things from the MMO directly so that my full-time working self can feel like they are keeping up.

I know it's not a popular idea in some circles, but it don't see MMOs having to rely on either subs or RMT; the two can be harmoniously combined and will probably do well in a market where MMO sub fees appear to be going up (well, WAR's reputed > $15 a month fee, but that could lead the charge - it's fairly obvious that MMO sub fees aren't coming down, regardless of how long a MMO has existed, unless it goes to 'free').