SoE New flagship project

[Stephen Zepp]

[mole disclaimer] : Both of the games I mention below are funded and published by my company, on our www.instantaction.com web site. [/mole disclaimer]

To clarify something: the games I mentioned previously--Ace of Aces, and Lore, are both computer games available right now on our site that use a baseline free mode of play, and game affecting "add ons" that can be purchased through our store to give you an advantage in game.

With the case of Ace of Aces, you start with only 2 planes of each side (Ally or Axis), and can purchase planes with better performance either indvidually, or as a bundle.

In Lore, baseline players are limited to only being able to use pre-configured mavs during the game, while players that purchase access to the Mav Lab can configure custom Mavs by hand selecting the weapons, armor, power packs, and other game affecting features of the Mavs themselves.

Our market is world wide, but current demographic is primarily western. Our scale isn't of course as large as most MMO's, but we have found that a statistically significant portion of our users have no problem whatsoever with either side of the equation--playing as individuals that do not purchase the "more powerful" capabilities of either game, as well as those that do.

To be honest, this was a surprise to me as well--I'm an old school gamer, and "buying advantage" goes against the grain for me as well--but the user base numbers don't lie: more than 50% (significantly more, but I can't reveal exact numbers) of our total user base for each of those games dropped the dime without a qualm.

[IainC]

When im talking about RMT im not including bundles of content for a set price such as new zones or class availability. Im talking about micro-transactions for currency or pieces of gear. Micro-transactions in the terms of content packs is something completely different and none of the criticisms i have apply to it. And its not that RMT offends X type of customers. I just believe it would alienate a large portion of the western userbase. Especially when WoW the industry standard does not use it.

* So they make a content pack that people buy for X dollars and it's okay.

* They make a smaller content pack that people buy for Y dollars and it's still presumably okay.

* Now they separate out their content packs into single items that people buy for Z dollars and it's cheating for people to use?

SnakeCharmer basically said this, but the only difference between an expansion, an adventure pack, and an individual item is the scale.  Ironically, given your complaints, most MTX games have items that do little to nothing for the power of your character, whereas expansions and mini-packs dramatically increase it.  You should be railing against expansions hurting those individuals who don't buy them.

That's not really a valid argument to be honest. For a start, items aren't usually restricted in expansions - sure you may not be able to go to the Plane Of Madeupia if you didn't buy the expansion but the stuff from there can trickle out via trade to the playerbase as a whole.

Secondly there's a difference between being able to play the game to achieve shiny_item_#368 and flexing the plastic to have it delivered to your mailbox.

I work for a game that is dependent on microtransactions as a revenue model, I've also worked for games where RMT was antithetical to the basic design and I still believe that RMT in subscription games is a bad thing. It has a measurable and negative effect on the game as a whole, nobody can say 'it doesn't affect me' unless they are hopelessly casual or blind to reality.

[schild]

It has a measurable and negative effect on the game as a whole, nobody can say 'it doesn't affect me' unless they are hopelessly casual or blind to reality.

By all means, tell me more. What's the measurable, negative effect? That selfish, broke people are selfish AND broke? And you know how many of them there are because they get their jollies off by complaining about how selfish and broke they are? So they in turn complain out of the game to you and in the game to the other users who have those items thus making the non-selfish and broke feel bad about not being selfish and broke who just want to play the game the way they want to play it? Like I said in a previous post, if it's sole revenue is RMT, the people who aren't buying anything are not your demographic. And if you have to please them to sleep at night, figure out something you can sell to them to shut the hell up.

Perhaps maybe, sell the ability to chat and post on the forums for 30 days at a time.

[Bzalthek]

Honestly the MTX aspect irks me, but it's more of a kneejerk reflex.  It's been conditioned into me.  After thinking about it, the only reason I'd be upset with it would be if there was no bundle-as-expansion option.  If they have an expansion worth of content (an arbitrary amount, I admit) and the micro-transactions added up to be considerably more than what we would normally pay for an expansion... I'd feel somewhat cheated.

Imagine Wotlk: New class, new profession, ability to level to 80, 9 zones (not including dalaran and crystalsong), 13-ish dungeon runs (separating wings), Naxx, and now Ulduar.  That could easily be nickled and dimed to well over the 50 bucks I paid for it.

As a full time student, I'm not rolling in cash and I play MMOs because its cost effective entertainment.  That, and it beats alcohol poisoning.

[IainC]

I don't understand your point Schild. Of course if your sole revenue is via RMT then you need to be putting shit in that people can buy. The quote you pulled out is regarding RMT in subscription games that aren't built around RMT as a revenue model.

In fact I'd go so far as to say that you're wrong when you say that "the people who aren't buying anything are not your demographic". Even in a fully RMT driven game, you very much have to take into account the people who aren't spending money because sometimes they are the people who are paying for stuff just not right at that moment. You need to pace the amount that you tap their wallets. If they need to be paying all the time then most sane folk will probably leave, only if they can still have fun and 'win' (for whatever value of win your game has) without paying will they be more malleable to the idea of giving you money from time to time.

[gryeyes]

SnakeCharmer basically said this, but the only difference between an expansion, an adventure pack, and an individual item is the scale.  Ironically, given your complaints, most MTX games have items that do little to nothing for the power of your character, whereas expansions and mini-packs dramatically increase it.  You should be railing against expansions hurting those individuals who don't buy them.

While it is most certainly a matter of degrees its not a valid comparison. But i feel similar to constant and content lacking "expansions" as well. Expansions are granting access to new shinys and classes. Its not giving me an item or gold straight up. I still have to "achieve" these things by playing the game. If you intend to use MTX as a major source of revenue you have to design the game to compel the purchasing of that content. And i can not see how this wouldn't negatively impact everyone playing.

And honestly if i have to purchase additional advantage for the game to even be palatable i wouldn't be playing it in the first place.

[schild]

you very much have to take into account the people who aren't spending money because sometimes they are the people who are paying for stuff just not right at that moment.

When did I say anything about people that buy stuff sometimes but not all the time? If x group of people bought something at y time and not z time, find out what made them buy it once and not the other. I'm specifically talking about people that buy nothing. Nothing. For example, I really wouldn't call myself the target demographic for aeria game titles. No matter how you slice it. Some of them have gameplay that I enjoy but it's not the sort of game I'd spend money on. Whereas Magic I would, and I'm apt to spend tons of money should they make a decent client. Do you see how I'm a targetable demographic in one and not the other?

If they need to be paying all the time

This is your problem. I'm not talking about a sliding scale. I'm talking about people willing to buy things via RMT and people that aren't. Not people that are going to buy certain kinds of content and not others. That would be a poorly constructed straw man of an argument.

It seems like your entire point is hinged on getting people to buy stuff more often than they don't, which is great in theory, but then we're talking about people who will buy stuff in RMT versus people who won't. Which is exactly what I was getting at, some people just won't buy it for most/some types of games. The people that will buy it from time to time fall into the first category, not the second.

I'm not sure what wasn't clear though and I quote myself:

Like I said in a previous post, if it's sole revenue is RMT, the people who aren't buying anything are not your demographic. And if you have to please them to sleep at night, figure out something you can sell to them to shut the hell up.

People who aren't buying anything.
Who aren't buying anything.
Aren't buying anything.

I'm not saying "people that sometimes buy stuff and sometimes don't."

Sorry to repeat that over and over but I'm just not seeing where you got this other group of people from. This "casual purchaser" group. Those are simply people that are willing to buy stuff via RMT. Not some mythical third group.

[IainC]

I'm not talking about people that aren't going to pay for your content but who would be paying for something else, that would be crazy like saying that WoW should put some content in for people who enjoy working on their car. So clearly I'm assuming that you're a potential customer of mine otherwise you wouldn't be attracted to the game in the first place.

For a F2P game with microtransactions as a revenue model, the numbers I've seen show that at most 10% of your players are going to give you money. The other 90% are still adding value however because they are filling up your game and providing 'content' or opponents or even just activity. Clearly you should be trying to part some of that 90% from their cash but you have to be realistic and figure that the majority of them will never pay you a cent. You don't want them to leave though because then your game is emptier, people who want to pay you money will have less opportunity and less inclination to do so. So yeah, you do need to take the guys who don't pay into account.

[Ratman_tf]

Oh, a slight tangent here. I almost bought some paid points for my froob account to get some of the social hoverbikes. Funcom spent a week sitting on my payment, and I finally got tired of waiting and cancelled the transaction. That week gave me time to go "WTF am I doing?" 

[Stephen Zepp]

I'm not talking about people that aren't going to pay for your content but who would be paying for something else, that would be crazy like saying that WoW should put some content in for people who enjoy working on their car. So clearly I'm assuming that you're a potential customer of mine otherwise you wouldn't be attracted to the game in the first place.

For a F2P game with microtransactions as a revenue model, the numbers I've seen show that at most 10% of your players are going to give you money. The other 90% are still adding value however because they are filling up your game and providing 'content' or opponents or even just activity. Clearly you should be trying to part some of that 90% from their cash but you have to be realistic and figure that the majority of them will never pay you a cent. You don't want them to leave though because then your game is emptier, people who want to pay you money will have less opportunity and less inclination to do so. So yeah, you do need to take the guys who don't pay into account.

Of course there are hundreds, if not thousands of variables that go into conversion rates, but as I indicated in my post above, we found the trend to be completely opposite: a large majority of the user base for our two games using this model were in the "pay at least something extra above the free play version".

The point about keeping the two communities (totally free, paid some money) together however is incredibly important: our first attempt at this type of model was having players pay to purchase extra levels that weren't available to the non-paying community--big mistake (for our test games anyway), and we ultimately made all of those levels free.

[Sheepherder]

The point about keeping the two communities (totally free, paid some money) together however is incredibly important: our first attempt at this type of model was having players pay to purchase extra levels that weren't available to the non-paying community--big mistake (for our test games anyway), and we ultimately made all of those levels free.

F2P/MTX might actually make a decent large-scale pvp game if your purchasable content isn't excessive, seeing as how it would provide a steady stream of sheeple who are free to come and go as they please.

[Lakov_Sanite]

First off there is a market for EVERYTHING. A company could literally give you a paint by number canvas and charge you for each separate color and someone out there would pay.  The whole debate of whether RMT works or not is flawed, of course it works because there are hundreds of examples out there. What we should be discussing is how popular they can actually be and in what context.

I'm of the opinion that free games or one-time fee games with RMT work well but those with subscriptions tend to do worse that regular subscription style games.  Buy any xbox/ps3 game and you'll be offered little goodies online for a small fee, some people will go for that. Make a game like EQ2 and not only charge for the game but subscriptions and then on top of that add RMT and the number will drop significantly. 

There will still be a market for RMT in subscription games but what I want to know is if RMT for actual in-game bonuses will shy other players away who are already paying a monthly fee. Say every month the company added a ring that was best in slot or something else that gave an advantage that min/maxers want and they charge $5. With that extra charge you're effectively upping the entry fee to 'the end game' and yes many will pay for that but many many more will just say 'fuck it' and it has nothing to do with how poor they are. 

I myself have enough money to support my gaming habit but EQ2 for instance really turned me off when I bought the game, paid my monthly fee and then heard of their plans for quarterly expansions and then little bonus packs for extra money. Sure I had enough money to pay for those but my initial thought was "well fuck, if they are just going to nickel and dime me in addition to my subscription ill just go play wow"

Games like puzzle pirates though, that are up front about the cash to play? Those I can appreciate because A.they're already free and B.it's not a game I feel obligated to be any good at, unlike most mmo's.

I think blizzard draws the line well when it comes to how RMT should be done in big games. As long as it doesnt affect actual gameplay, then you throw everything and the kitchen sink at your audience. Transfers, name changes, TCG's, minis, books and any other thing you can think of.  The truth is there no need to sell in game advantages or content because there are so many different avenues you can exhaust until you get there.

[DLRiley]

Expecting people to pay a monthly sub and minor goodies is a bit much especially when directly related to gameplay. Fact is the market for f2p games supported solely on RMT already exist, is already huge, and is the only thing truly making a profit in the mmo business besides WoW. No only real problem is if your game is successful enough like WoW you don't need RMT and its counter productive. For everyone else they really don't have a choice, EQ2 needs to nickle and dime the remaining player base or it closes, WAR and AoC could probably do the same. I do believe that if ncsoft was willing to bite the bullet, TR could have been supported solely on RMT.

[IainC]

Fact is the market for f2p games supported solely on RMT already exist, is already huge, and is the only thing truly making a profit in the mmo business besides WoW.

I stopped reading there. Try doing some research.

[Lakov_Sanite]

EQ2 needs to nickle and dime the remaining player base or it closes

They've been trying to nickel and dime since they opened. In fact I'm pretty sure they have a chart in their offices that says.

1. Create Game/Expac
2. Nickel
3. Dime
4. Repeat

EQ2 did poorly because of their practices, not in spite of them. Though if I'm being fair there are a LOT of factors going into eq2 but I feel constantly asking players for more and more cash was one of the biggest ones.

[DLRiley]

Fact is the market for f2p games supported solely on RMT already exist, is already huge, and is the only thing truly making a profit in the mmo business besides WoW.

I stopped reading there. Try doing some research.

LoTR, COH/V, Lineage 1 and 2, and FF 11, and EVE. I wouldn't count star wars galaxies I'm sure there just paying the bills. EQ2 has the problem of sucking ass first, charging its playerbase to suck it's ass second. Though I wonder if EQ2 would be still operational if it didn't nickel and dime whoever thought that piece of crap was fun from the start.

[Numtini]

I find SOE's moneygrubbing to be offputting in the extreme and I suspect it has cost them money rather than brought it in, but EQ2 is doing quite well as far as I can tell.

[DLRiley]

I find SOE's moneygrubbing to be offputting in the extreme and I suspect it has cost them money rather than brought it in, but EQ2 is doing quite well as far as I can tell.

EQ2 had to remove the suck from their game for several years before managed to reach their current level of subscriptions.

[Sky]

The Live team of EQ2 is responsible for its ongoing success, Hartsman took a meh punitive game and made it into a great mmo.

As far as EQ2 nickle and diming, I've paid for nothing but a monthly subscription and I'm doing just fine. I fail to see the problem. The adventure packs were free for Station Pass (hey, I played SWG and PS once), and I believe they're included in newer retail boxes. Fuck, blizz nickles more by making you buy each expansion, SOE includes all previous packs in the retail box.

I think people just like to make a big stink about something that's trivial (xp potions) to non-existent (if you don't play on exchange servers).

[Numtini]

As far as EQ2 nickle and diming, I've paid for nothing but a monthly subscription and I'm doing just fine. I fail to see the problem.

I'll admit, when I subscribing having to weave my way through the repeating attempts to get me to pay $2.95 to get web based services that LOTRO, WoW, DAOC, War, etc all offer for free honks me off.

[Venkman]

I find SOE's moneygrubbing to be offputting in the extreme and I suspect it has cost them money rather than brought it in, but EQ2 is doing quite well as far as I can tell.

EQ2 had to remove the suck from their game for several years before managed to reach their current level of subscriptions.

We don't know what their current level of subscriptions is, but yes: they had to remove the suck. That only took them 14 months from launch though (when they removed sub-classes and add Inscription). Since then the title has been very solid. Never a real competitor to WoW, but a great alternative to it for someone looking for diku with housing and a tad more immersion with the game world.

Nickle-and-diming, yes. Anyone whose been in the genre awhile has seen all the tricks, and a lot of them were started by SOE (charge for name changes, charge for server transfers, charge extra for server transfers with name changes). Then they launched guild tools and other things and finally the RMT-enabled servers for players.

We really can't fault them for this. It's not like the resources and talent for designing a fulfilling game play are the same as business development and sales. Yes, game design will impact the motivations of players (ie, this entire genre is built for RMTing). But you're not pulling an engineer off of the linked-mob mechanic to make them work on e-commerce checkout functions. And I'm sure their headcount budget for the game development side is separate from their infrastructure/ tech/ billing/ account management side. So, whether the game is fun or not is based solely on the talent working on the game.

Also, and more importantly, these are all opt-in areas that don't affect game balance. You're not buying items, you're not getting special buffs you can use against others, none of that.

The pace at which one person advances does not impact anyone else except emotionally.  

[Lakov_Sanite]

Customer satisfaction, brand loyalty and consumer confidence are very real things. I'm not saying there is anything ethically or morally wrong with SOE being cheap pricks but what I'm saying is the more you go that route, the less inclined people will be to pay you a regular fee.

[Kirth]

SOE's paid armory type service isn't as bad as your making it out to be, I don't pay for it and I'm not offended they are not giving it away for free. The basic character profile is available for viewing for free and 3 bucks nets you:
Advanced Leaderboards - if your into that sort of thing
Advanced Guild Tools - including a web based chat interface that talks to the game
Screenshot and Image Storage - 10mb, not much but still
Dynamic Item Database - I guess like a wowhead for eq2
Advanced Character Profiles - you do get most of these for free in other games.

Its not like they are forcing your to pay for this or that. but to be clear when a game has something like "Hey you now have enough XP for the next level, would you like to advance? your credit card will be billed" I'm out.

[Mrbloodworth]

SOE's paid armory type service isn't as bad as your making it out to be, I don't pay for it and I'm not offended they are not giving it away for free. The basic character profile is available for viewing for free and 3 bucks nets you:
Advanced Leaderboards - if your into that sort of thing
Advanced Guild Tools - including a web based chat interface that talks to the game
Screenshot and Image Storage - 10mb, not much but still
Dynamic Item Database - I guess like a wowhead for eq2
Advanced Character Profiles - you do get most of these for free in other games.

Its not like they are forcing your to pay for this or that. but to be clear when a game has something like "Hey you now have enough XP for the next level, would you like to advance? your credit card will be billed" I'm out.

I paid for some of those. Especially the web based guild chat.

[UnSub]

Fact is the market for f2p games supported solely on RMT already exist, is already huge, and is the only thing truly making a profit in the mmo business besides WoW.

I stopped reading there. Try doing some research.

LoTR, COH/V, Lineage 1 and 2, and FF 11, and EVE.

Your issue is that you are equating "truly making a profit" with "making more money than was ever expected of a video game ever". It blows my mind that WoW brings in over US $1 billion to Blizzard every year, of which something like 40% is pure profit (someone else can link the finer details, but I'm pretty sure that was the operating profit for 2007). AFAIK, Meridian 59 and ATITD make enough profit to keep the servers running, while some of the F2P such as MapleStory make big money from their playerbase.

Here's a [ur=http://www.fatfoogoo.com/2009/02/free-to-play-maple-story-ranks-among-top-moneymaking-mmo%E2%80%99s-of-2008/l]list of the most revenue-generating MMOs for 2008[/url]. It's all based on estimates, but MapleStory and Club Penguin get more income than LOTR, AoC and WAR (and this was during AoC's and WAR's launch year, when they make a lot of money off box sales).

Finally: is MTX the new cool way of saying microtransaction? I'm a bit slow on the uptake today, but didn't see a direct explanation when everyone changed terminology.

[gryeyes]

Someone explaining the distinction from a few pages back.

Also, someone mentioned there's two types of RMT. There's actually RMT and then there's MTX.

RMT is generally buying something after-market (as in, no money back to the developer) that does make you better. This is not technically cheating because someone did play the game to get that thing. But as we've seen in the last few years, smart developers design around that by locking good-item trades behind BOP.

MTX is about enhancements that do NOT convey advantage over other players in the game directly, are managed by the publisher or direct partner, and is the only type of real world purchase that developers have been willing to try.

[UnSub]

Thanks gryeyes - I did see that, but never an explicit reference to what MTX is, other than a way to say RMT without the associated stigma.

[Ratman_tf]

MTX= MicroTransaction
RTM=Korean gold farmers 

[Venkman]

Thanks gryeyes - I did see that, but never an explicit reference to what MTX is, other than a way to say RMT without the associated stigma.

Yea, sorry about that. I get tired of typing "microtransactionationism" all the time, so use what I've seen used as an abbreviated version elsewhere If you strip away the stigma, the only real difference is that MTX is used when the publisher is making the money while RMT is used when they are not.

Customer satisfaction, brand loyalty and consumer confidence are very real things. I'm not saying there is anything ethically or morally wrong with SOE being cheap pricks but what I'm saying is the more you go that route, the less inclined people will be to pay you a regular fee.

Absolutely. Certain groups of gamers just don't go for certain types of financial models. You'd never see a WoW killer come along based on microtransactions for the same market. At this point, the only way subs get replaced is when us, the deepest investors, are replaced by a bigger demographic.

I just don't think that event is far off. It's not because tweens and teens prefer mtx. It's more that they don't really as quickly go for the diku.

[UnSub]

Thanks gryeyes - I did see that, but never an explicit reference to what MTX is, other than a way to say RMT without the associated stigma.

Yea, sorry about that. I get tired of typing "microtransactionationism" all the time, so use what I've seen used as an abbreviated version elsewhere If you strip away the stigma, the only real difference is that MTX is used when the publisher is making the money while RMT is used when they are not.

Exactly. I've used the distinction of internal vs. external RMT before - the problem is if an external entity is doing it because it often completely borks up the intended system. Well, worse than when it is exposed to the player base, anyway.

[Numtini]

It should also be pointed out that MTX games are infested with RMT as well. RMT is about cheating, no matter what the payment model, people always want to cheat.

[Bzalthek]

If there is a rule, there will always be someone trying to sell you a way around that rule.  Even in the case there are no ways around a rule, there will be someone claiming to have a way around that rule.

It's like Field of Dreams for retards.

[CharlieMopps]

Both Ace of Aces (WWI dogfighting game)  and Lore (mech simulator game) have pretty much proven to us at least that their are ways to do incremental transactions that affect game play without completely destroying your player base--and our first attempts at the concept (Galcon and Rokkitball "3 plays per day trial") proved that there are many ways to screw it up, too.

In Both Lore and AoA, you can play the full game with a limited subset of planes/mechs for free, and if you choose purchase additional planes (AoA), or use of the Mav Lab to totally customize your Mav. There was a tiny bit of complaint in the forums initially, but we've not heard a single complaint in months, and people are buying up the planes/Mav Lab like hotcakes.

That's because the people that hate that sort of thing dumped your game. Remember when Atari crashed in the 80's? Remember why? Do you guys ever learn?

[Stephen Zepp]

Both Ace of Aces (WWI dogfighting game)  and Lore (mech simulator game) have pretty much proven to us at least that their are ways to do incremental transactions that affect game play without completely destroying your player base--and our first attempts at the concept (Galcon and Rokkitball "3 plays per day trial") proved that there are many ways to screw it up, too.

In Both Lore and AoA, you can play the full game with a limited subset of planes/mechs for free, and if you choose purchase additional planes (AoA), or use of the Mav Lab to totally customize your Mav. There was a tiny bit of complaint in the forums initially, but we've not heard a single complaint in months, and people are buying up the planes/Mav Lab like hotcakes.

That's because the people that hate that sort of thing dumped your game. Remember when Atari crashed in the 80's? Remember why? Do you guys ever learn?

Both games are seeing amazing growth, and continue to have both high conversion and in fact, requests for more things to buy.

Has nothing to do with Atari at all--and honestly not sure what conclusion you're trying to make there ;)

[CharlieMopps]

They squeezed their consumers for cash... got it, then kept squeezing. Eventually everyone stopped buying.