SOE adds item shop to EQ, EQ2

[Numtini]

Asian cash shop games are usually free to play otherwise aren't they?

[Grimwell]

I don't think there is any sugarcoating to what amounts industry-harming money grab. No, nobody blames you personally for this, but you represent company that did this and that where blame is.

We may have to agree to disagree as to what this is.

[Arthur_Parker]

I'm not outraged about this but I hope lots of other people are, hopefully outraged enough to hit cancel.

[Numtini]

I don't particularly care and can see buying some of the xp potions. But I turned on vent to hear people in my guild melting down with lots of expletives flying. Whatever we say here, it's not a popular move.

[sam, an eggplant]

Well, I'm not outraged because I'm not a SOE customer.

Like someone said earlier, subscription MMOs are a premium service. That subscription pays for such things as customer service and a live team to fix issues as they arise as well as freedom from intrusive advertising and a level playing field. When those things are compromised to monetize a product at gameplay's expense, I hope people do get upset. As consumers we need to remember that these huge corporations don't care one iota about the quality of the entertainment or utility they provide except where it directly and unmistakeably impacts their bottom line. Vote with your wallet.

[Venkman]

Subscription fees are a basic service. The basics needed for you to have the most basic experience. I'm sure SOE internally convinced themselves by equating to the Cable TV model.

Cable: Basic Fee. SOE: single game fee
Cable: Plus Fee. SOE: station pass
Cable: On Demand/PPV. SOE: microtrans

If this succeeds this pretty much means that all future games will be designed to encourage** purchasing. Good design will be about how to design bottlenecks into the games so people shell out more cash. Hell levels, impossible drops, rare spawn camps - they will all come back with vengeance. This is HUGE setback for the industry.

Ok, couple of points here:

• You're applying emotion to evolution. If (and it's a big "if") this works, it's evolution of the business. Nature doesn't care that we don't need our appendix anymore.
• The games are already designed with bottlenecks. We had this discussion years ago when determining why RMTing existed. It's because the games draw in players who are predisposed to achievement but unwilling or unable to see that their lifestyle does not support their own achievement in the same way it does their peer or personal idol. So they look for equal fulfilment and ways to cheat the system, hence the secondary market which SOE has for years wanted to make the primary one. If you changed the paradigm of the game, you'd remove this compulsion which would remove the secondary market. And yet, in that time we've only seen this model grow.
  
• "Setback for the industry" is a red herring. It's merely a setback for the current playerbase. Kinda like armaggedon scenarios. Is it the end of all life or just the end of human life. Similarly here: has the traditional subscription model plateaued such that a new model is needed to get back to growth?
  
  

This is what this is about. It's the same discussion we're having in the world PvP and sandbox thread. SOE (and most others existing and coming) cannot compete with WoW. So instead of doing so face on they're compelled to try different things to redefine the metric of success so they can be the dominant player in that model.

I won't call mtx "blue ocean" thinking because it's been done to death already. But the premise is the same. They don't add more resources to making a better game, instead applying resources to trying to develop new business opportunities that make WoW's clear competitive advantage less relevant.

I don't think it will work though. SOE's audience is not growing by leaps and bounds and doesn't really have a shot of doing so unless they take on SWTOR or continue shifting their focus to the non veteran MMO market.

[Trippy]

Let me first say that I know almost nothing about the current state of EQ and EQ II. That being said...

I'm surprised SOE is offering XP potions right off the bat. To me that's a tacit admission that their game design sucks. I.e. that's like saying, "Hi guys pay us *more* money and we'll let you get the fun stuff sooner." If you are going to admit that you might as well offer "pre-leveled" characters for sale as well.

[Lum]

Item shops are VERY common with Asian MMOs. It's a more efficient way to get people in and playing. People don't want to commit to a monthly subscription but don't mind anteing up for stuff once they're in the game. The trick is to not bleed people to death over it, and give value equivalent to the money given. The key figure here is ARPU (average revenue per user) - as long as your ARPU per user is high enough, you can keep the game running at a profit.

I think EQ/EQ2's item shop as implemented would be great.... if it were F2P. Which might be the next step, who knows (well, SOE does I guess :D ). 

As seen by TOR's announcement, I think you'll see a lot more MMOs moving to a F2P model. It's a way to reach beyond the hard core of gamers who don't mind shelling $15 a month into perpetuity. Right now the market has been dominated by Asian games (most of which have been justifiably dissed in the west due to shoddy localization and questionable design) but that's likely to change.

However if a game like Giant Online comes out in the West that just tries to milk as much from every user as utterly possible -- I suspect most people simply won't play. People tend not to be stupid when it comes to their pocketbook as a general rule, and F2P games especially have to justify everything they sell. Note that most of SOE's item shop are "fluff" items aimed at regular players.

[sam, an eggplant]

Totally agree. It would be absolutely fine if the game were free to play. Hell, it might even be fine if it was implemented in a new game with a subscription fee, because consumers would have the chance to make an informed decision before committing. Adding an item shop to an existing title with an established player base and not making it opt-in (or even allowing opt-out!) is simply not OK. I hope their players feel the same way and act appropriately.

[SnakeCharmer]

This is not the actual case.

I think the backlash that SOE is or will get from this comes down to the fact that SOE is not exactly known for being truthful when it's comes to its customers. 

It may not be the case today, but that may change by tomorrow.  And I'm not saying SOE shouldn't change their opinion or methodology or business approach, but I AM saying that you guys shouldn't put out blanket statements like that so that you can be burned by it in the future.  But hey, it's Smed ship to run into the ground.

[Hawkbit]

I have a feeling that my 10 years playing MMOs are about to come to a close.  I really do love the genre, but buying 1s and 0s just makes me feel smarmy.  At least with a subscription fee I could blame it on needing to keep the servers up and running... but I'm not buying into the item shop craze.  There's this mental difference I have between the two.  Paying per month makes it feel like a necessary bill like cable or water.  But if I were to think "I need to spend $10 in American Dollars for some armor", then that disconnects me from the game.  I can't exactly say why, it just does.  Instead of spending the $10 ingame, I'll spend it anywhere else, like buying a gyro, or a CD, or anything more tangible than a sword comprised of 1s and 0s. 

Hell, I'd be happy to pay $25 a month to play on a level playing field with no item shops. 

[sam, an eggplant]

I don't care about the money at all. I just don't want to feel like a schmuck.

[Iniquity]

However if a game like Giant Online comes out in the West that just tries to milk as much from every user as utterly possible

Details?

[Lantyssa]

• You're applying emotion to evolution. If (and it's a big "if") this works, it's evolution of the business. Nature doesn't care that we don't need our appendix anymore.

The problem comes in when one starts mucking about with things we think are irrelevant, but actually have a strong impact on the system.  Like appendices which we have learned help the intestines repopulate beneficial bacteria.

[Triforcer]

This will be a disaster for the industry.  MMOs, whether PvE or PvP, are built on one premise:  letting people feel that they are better than other people in the game (in other words, e-cock).  In that sense, people expect MMOs to operate like a sport- everyone is on the same starting terms.

We wouldn't accept it if in baseball, any MLB team could pay $500,000 to start a game up 2-0.  That's where the industry is headed here, and people simply won't play games if they feel MATERIAL advantages (I don't think a little fluff like the card game stuff in WoW, an option to buy a slightly different shade of dye that isn't available otherwise, etc. is necessarily the end of the world) are available to those with the most cash.


EDIT:  Also, making people dip into their wallet at smaller time intervals is BAD.  At least with a monthly sub, its basically fire and forget until you cancel.  Do you really want popups every two days saying "QUEST FOR SPECIAL RARE BROWN LIGHTSABER CRYSTAL: $3.50?"

I don't claim to be an expert in consumer/marketing psychology, but (personally) it bothers me less to pay $15 a month than to pay $2 every two or three days.   If someone can point me to a study showing the opposite is true for most people, I am all ears.

DOUBLE DOOMCASTING EDIT:  The SWTOR announcement, in particular, seems to leave the door open for charging hourly.  FUCK. YOU. if that is true.

[Lantyssa]

I don't claim to be an expert in consumer/marketing psychology, but (personally) it bothers me less to pay $15 a month than to pay $2 every two or three days.   If someone can point me to a study showing the opposite is true for most people, I am all ears.

It will depend on whether people feel they can advance at a reasonable pace for what they pay, and whether or not they feel as if they're at a competative disadvantage.  While it won't bother me if the base game is fun, I do agree it has the potential to disuade many customers.

[Trippy]

These sorts of games have never been "fair".

[Engels]

How many of you old school EQ1 players wanted to level up a new alt to fit X role in your guild/raid group, but were dreading the 3 weeks it'd take you to grind your ass up to raid capable status,

Sure, because there are no other possible solutions to that dilemma other than selling XP potions for real money. Mechanisms like sidekicking/mentoring and refer-a-friend or simply lowering the XP requirements to level wouldn't address that very real issue.

Lets not be pedantic assholes, OK? This move was clearly driven by revenue.

How am I being a pedantic asshole here? I cited an example without insulting anyone.

To counter your point, after leveling up my 5th toon to 60, I got rather tired of it. Sidekicking/mentoring would not have helped one bit, since I'd still have to grind through the content I've ground through for the last 4 years. Lowering the xp requirements would accomplish the same goal, true, but I do not feel this 'ick' that you must be feeling about paying money for it.

Is it because 'rich' players now will have an edge? You won't pay so you fear you'd be cast as a 'poor schmuck'?

If you think catassing your way to level 80 through the 'sweat of your brow' in one of these games gives you a badge of honor, you might want to reevaluate what things make you feel like a schmuck.

[UnSub]

I don't claim to be an expert in consumer/marketing psychology, but (personally) it bothers me less to pay $15 a month than to pay $2 every two or three days.   If someone can point me to a study showing the opposite is true for most people, I am all ears.

It doesn't have to be for "most people", it just has to be for "enough people".

The basic economic idea of microtrans is that players can pay what they feel like. A sub model is fixed at the same price for both your hardest of hardcore players and the lightest of casual players. Under a microtrans model, however, you might get players who pay $40 a month to play - that's a nice return, and one that balances out a number of players who might play for free or only plonk down a dollar or two a month.

Anecdotally I've heard of players burning themselves out on sub models because they feel they have to get their money worth out of $15 a month, or the fact they have to buy box copies, whereas microtrans might not pay anywhere near $15 a month and play when they feel like it, or see more frequent content additions because a microtrans game needs to keep players paying more frequently.

It's a value for money argument - under microtrans, the game is paid what the players think it is worth. Under a sub model, all players are locked in at the same price (barring having additional microtrans, like EQ1, EQ2 and CoH/V have). Both payment models have their advantages; I personally favour a low sub fee ($5 a month) and some cosmetic microtrans hybrid, but no-one has gone down that route that I'm aware of.

[Margalis]

Maybe next week they can sell a potion of framerate +5.

[schild]

Maybe next week they can sell a potion of framerate +5.

Only if you all start selling a potion of "alleviate soul sucking grind."

Quid pro quo, Clarice.

[Triforcer]

I don't claim to be an expert in consumer/marketing psychology, but (personally) it bothers me less to pay $15 a month than to pay $2 every two or three days.   If someone can point me to a study showing the opposite is true for most people, I am all ears.

It doesn't have to be for "most people", it just has to be for "enough people".

The basic economic idea of microtrans is that players can pay what they feel like. A sub model is fixed at the same price for both your hardest of hardcore players and the lightest of casual players. Under a microtrans model, however, you might get players who pay $40 a month to play - that's a nice return, and one that balances out a number of players who might play for free or only plonk down a dollar or two a month.

Anecdotally I've heard of players burning themselves out on sub models because they feel they have to get their money worth out of $15 a month, or the fact they have to buy box copies, whereas microtrans might not pay anywhere near $15 a month and play when they feel like it, or see more frequent content additions because a microtrans game needs to keep players paying more frequently.

It's a value for money argument - under microtrans, the game is paid what the players think it is worth. Under a sub model, all players are locked in at the same price (barring having additional microtrans, like EQ1, EQ2 and CoH/V have). Both payment models have their advantages; I personally favour a low sub fee ($5 a month) and some cosmetic microtrans hybrid, but no-one has gone down that route that I'm aware of.

Good points, all.  But as to SWTOR in particular, I would be very surprised if they didn't charge normally to purchase the game.  Some seem to be assuming this means release will be a free download.  Free to play!=free to buy.

[PalmTrees]

CoH sells a few extra things even though it's a subscription game. I've never bought them since I feel it's a bit of slimy double dipping to have micro-trans and a sub, but I recall the devs saying they did decent sales. If I was still playing EQ 2 I'd feel the same way.

[WindupAtheist]

UO added all this shit years ago (decorative items, characters pre-built to 80% skill, etc.) and nobody inside or out of the game really gave a fuck. EQ1 and it's failure of a sequel doing the same thing is hardly news. Much ado about nothing.

[Wasted]

EQII has for years had optional 'adventure packs' which were basically selling packets of experience (exclusive quests and mobs to kill) as well as exclusive loot tables.  People got indignant over those and the 'SOE is evil' was acknowledged.  When they started the exchange servers many purists left and the "SOE is evil' was acknowledged.  They have been selling some items (the items you could get from collectors editions and stuff) for a long time already as it is.  They have had xp potions in the game as veteran rewards for ages as well.  They have web services you can pay for, they had exclusive servers in EQ you could pay extra to play on(I forget what the benefits where).  It was never a case of should SOE have an item shop but when.

I'm surprised there are still people that get all indignant still, is there really any confusion over what type of company SOE are?  I can't see many cancellations happening, with their 'bad reputation' and all they weeded out most people that would have been offended by this years ago.  They cater to a different more focused demographic than wow, one that doesn't mind as much that certain services get labeled as extra and charged for on top of the subscription fee.

[eldaec]

Meh, in a PvE mmog you don't need that shit to compete, and regardless there will always be people more powerful than you, and people less powerful than you.

I can't summon up the energy to care.

If EVE was selling t3 ships, WAR was selling capped out characters, or even atitd was selling flax, I'd cry some more along with everyone else. In the EQ model... meh.

[Samprimary]

UO added all this shit years ago (decorative items, characters pre-built to 80% skill, etc.) and nobody inside or out of the game really gave a fuck. EQ1 and it's failure of a sequel doing the same thing is hardly news. Much ado about nothing.

No, it's much ado about something.

On the simplest level, it's institutionalizing a pay-for scheme that allows you to shortcut around the 'basic' difficulty scheme. If players start thinking that their devotion to the game can be undercut by simply buying an advantage, it does some handy illusion breaking.

Even players who play WoW and not anything by Sony, they really don't want this system to get a foothold.

[Rake]

I personally won't pay another cent to SoE because of their way of doing business. Many others that I know feel the same way.

If Blizzard were to adopt a "let's shit on our customers and bleed them dry" attitude, then they would be the next company going from market leader to floundering has been, struggling with innovative ways to try and improve their dying market share.

[simonh]

When Archlord launched a couple of years ago, there was a (very brief) period where the game had both subscription and microtransaction. There really were no full free to play games in the west, while some really wanted it to go full free to play, the risk was seen as too large. It was decided the game would launch with a blend of both models. Players were expected to subscribe (at a lower than average subscription rate), and then purchase items on top. Available items were all consumable or cosmetic. However, the entire community went into complete meltdown as soon as this business model was announced. The subscription requirement was dropped very quickly and the game went full free to play. Its doing very nicely now.

There are a couple of key differences. Archlord was launching with this model. Customers were told about it before they had any investment in the game, their characters or the community. Its much easier to keep a user than it is to get one in the first place, people who have been playing the game for more than a year will take just about anything you throw at them (well, except the NGE). People who play either of the EQ games are already hugely invested.

Archlord is also a very competitive game. The strapline was "Raise and Army, Rule the World". Full open PvP and one person on each server can become the Archlord and kick the crap out of everyone else for a month. When microtransactions are introduced into a highly competitive game there is an immediate fear (often rightly so) that all balance will vanish and the person who spends the most money will win. Both EQ games are really very PvE focused, they only have indirect competition (guilds competing to kill new raid mob first) and spending large amounts on microtrans offers no significant advantage. People generally don't care about things that don't effect them directly.

I don't see SOE losing any significant number of players over this. If they lose 10% or even 20% then this is going to be easily covered by the additional revenue from the microtransactions. Its much better to have 100,000 people paying $30 per month than 200,000 people paying $15 per month.


On a sidepoint, the items are way overpriced, which is going to hurt their revenue potential. My understanding is that the items stack. So taking the tier I, II, and III experience potions at the same time will give 85% XP. If you want that for 4 hours then it will cost you $24. The cosmetic items seem more reasonably priced.

[Triforcer]

 Its much better to have 100,000 people paying $30 per month than 200,000 people paying $15 per month.

...

[Venkman]

On the simplest level, it's institutionalizing a pay-for scheme that allows you to shortcut around the 'basic' difficulty scheme. If players start thinking that their devotion to the game can be undercut by simply buying an advantage, it does some handy illusion breaking.

Irrelevant. As said numerous times, this has been going for years even in the West. It's just mostly tied to games currently enjoying fifth through thirtieth place in the genre so nobody's really cared. That SHOULD be the case here too (hello?! SOE. EQ2.), but eh, just the normal cycle of the establishment not preferring the change that the industry thinks is needed, since competing as equals against the current leader is not possible.

Look to the tween and teen virtual worlds. They're all over the place and with an audience that doesn't mind. This isn't about beating American heads with Korean business models. It's about looking at the next wave of gamers coming and seening what could work for them. Ya know, kinda like us, 10-15 years ago.

[Numtini]

Its much better to have 100,000 people paying $30 per month than 200,000 people paying $15 per month.

Not necessarily. That is 100,000 fewer people recruiting their friends, writing fan websites with up to date accurate information, and available in game to offer a wide diversity of grouping and playstyle options at different times of day. Being popular is a reason to play a game in and of itself because of everything that it adds to the game.

I just reupped EQ2 after leaving in July. I didn't want to leave, but I simply couldn't find a guild that met my time requirements (serious attitude, light & early EST time commitment) in EQ2. I knew of several in WoW. SOE lost me as a customer because they weren't as popular.

[Surlyboi]

For what it's worth, I shelled out 10 bucks for the seafury buccaneer armor set and it looks kinda badass. Granted, they took SWG's Mandalorian leg armor textures and updated them for EQ2, but hey. Half of the shit I buy on the brokers is stuff to bling me out anyway 'cause the standard crafted armor (which is better than most of the shit you can loot, btw) looks kinda assy.

[Murgos]

 Its much better to have 100,000 people paying $30 per month than 200,000 people paying $15 per month.

...

It costs money to support people.  More players == more cost.

[Lantyssa]

These sorts of games have never been "fair".

No, but perceptions drive player behavior.  See Numtini's worry about SOE doing this before Blizzard.  She didn't have to elaborate for me to quickly understand why she feared the move, because of the common perception of SOE's business practices.