Gold Farming 900 Million a year Industry

[waylander]

Source Article

"Yes it is cheating in a way," he says.

"If you've got the time to make the money in game then all well and good. If you haven't then you're at a disadvantage aren't you?"

Too bad they didn't also include powerleveling services, high end quests/ raiding, and non drop item item acquisition services into that total.  Some services also include hard to get crafting materials, etc.

It all goes back to the fact that the average PC gamer is 25-30 years old, has a job, loves gaming, and doesn't have time for all the timesinks.  When they are online, they want to play instead of sitting on their asses waiting for other people or doing mindless repetitive tasks.

[Nebu]

They work 6 days a week, 8-10h a day and get paid $100 a month. 

I'm speechless.

[Lum]

If a significant subset of your playerbase is paying real money to avoid playing parts of your game that you theoretically intended to be enjoyable, that is a design flaw.

[Lum]

They work 6 days a week, 8-10h a day and get paid $100 a month. 

I'm speechless.

That's actually fairly high pay for rural China.

[Sky]

If a significant subset of your playerbase is paying real money to avoid playing parts of your game that you theoretically intended to be enjoyable, that is a design flaw.

Yes. Mmogflation at the very least.

[Nebu]

That's actually fairly high pay for rural China.

That I'm well aware of. I've been to rural China and it's still sad.  

[waylander]

They work 6 days a week, 8-10h a day and get paid $100 a month. 

I'm speechless.

That's actually fairly high pay for rural China.

Lum is right. Those guys can live on less than a dollar a day. 

[Venkman]

If a significant subset of your playerbase is paying real money to avoid playing parts of your game that you theoretically intended to be enjoyable, that is a design flaw.

In the West.

In the East, it's the business model (in many cases).

As you know :)

[waylander]

If a significant subset of your playerbase is paying real money to avoid playing parts of your game that you theoretically intended to be enjoyable, that is a design flaw.

I'm not so sure its the parts rather than how long it takes to complete them vs the time that more and more gamers actually have to play.  That's why we broke down some of those parts in our article over at LotD, but you are more than familiar with those issues.

I'm paying 70 bucks right now for a few levels of PL'ing to get me to the end game in a game I'm playing right now.  Grouping issues (getting and keeping them) take too dam long, and cuts my game time in half.  When you are returning to an old game, there's alot more pressure to get to the end game, get the gear, etc and few people to even group with in non end game zones.  Paying 100 bucks to be ready in 2-5 days is dirt cheap compared to gnashing your teeth with idiot groups, and taking 3 months to get to the end game playing 1-2 hours a day.

[damijin]

Thank god RMT is back on the slate for discussion. Who doesn't have an opinion?

A couple notes:

1) How is the industry ever going to get virtual property ownership laws established in western countries, let alone developing superpowers that use it as one of their main exports in the next couple years. It's not. Gotta start thinking about it from the design perspective, devs.

2) It's not a bad job. They're playing games in a social environment with their peers. It's the ideal job for a lot of young people. And it's good money for a lot of migrant workers. But, on the other hand there was an article in the German media not too long ago saying that bosses would take away an ID card/passport of some type from their workers so that they couldn't leave the PCworkshop. I don't know about any Chinese laws involving needing a passport to go out in public, but that sounded like an isolated situation to me.

3) Taxes. Lol, whats dem? How long until governments get involved.

[Roac]

If a significant subset of your playerbase is paying real money to avoid playing parts of your game that you theoretically intended to be enjoyable, that is a design flaw.

Mostly yes, but I also think you'll have a hard time designing any MMOG that doesn't include a significant subset who pay to skip parts of it unless you scrap advancement of any sort.  For any feature in a game thar requires X before Y, there will be a subset of people who have disposable money playing the game who want Y and don't like X regardless of how supercool X is.

"Skip, to the end"

[waylander]

If I were a development company I would simply develop a premium level of service where people could buy points, and then have different items, levels, etc available to be bought for points.  Otherwise, they are leaving money on the table and giving it to the chinese farmers who will undercut any American operation.

Its proven that people will pay money to save time for certain things, so the dev studio or publisher should simply respond.  After a game is 6 months old its flooded with farmers, PLer's, etc anyway, and that would be a good time to roll out with premium based services that can compete.

[Sky]

Paying 100 bucks to be ready in 2-5 days is dirt cheap compared to gnashing your teeth with idiot groups, and taking 3 months to get to the end game playing 1-2 hours a day.

Well, you put it that way and it sounds like so much fun.

[Lum]

The "leaving money on the table" argument really, really rubs me the wrong way. I mean, nursery schools "leave money on the table" by not subletting the children under their care to kiddy porn manufacturers. At some point there are issues at play beyond pure financial potential.

It is incontestable that, in the Western MMO market, people want:
  -a-  A level, fair playing field
  -b-  A feeling of accomplishment for the time invested
  -c-  Regular rewards for advancement
  -d-  The ability to have an enjoyable experience tailored to their needs (time, ability, etc)
  -e-  Support for basic social networking

If a game can meet all of these aspects, it will be a success. For every game that has not done well in the market, I can point to one of those bullet points and explain where it failed.

Now then, how does RMT enter into this? Well, people rank what they value on that list differently. Many play purely for the social networking and couldn't give two figs about advancement or fairness. Others want the rewards for advancement, but don't care whether or not they were earned "fairly" (the classic "buying powerlevelling" dilemma).

So, an RMT-resistent game ideally would allow people to jump into any of those goals, while still supporting all of them to a degree. It's a fairly difficult problem, which is why you haven't really seen much progress to date. I actually believe that World of Warcraft is a very RMT-resistant game until the very end, at which point they betray some of their core principles (high level raiding requirements vs reward, PVP grinding requirements vs reward; both are seriously, seriously out of whack in an attempt to provide a "challenging end game" experience) and studying ways to bring that ease of use and lack of need for RMT whlie still persisting the worldly aspects of an MMO would be helpful.

 

[waylander]

The "leaving money on the table" argument really, really rubs me the wrong way.
 

So you're saying that dev studios or publishers don't want any of the 900 million to 1.5 billion dollar pie that people make off of their games?  All the people who are pressed for time or simply refuse to grind doing stupid repetitive tasks to get to the next zone, are making a powerful financial statement.

If I was a manager in the MMORPG industry, I would view this as a revenue loss.  There is a a lot of money being made on the backs of games, and its not causing people to hit the cancel button. What is causing people to hit the cancel button are those core bad game mechanics that are causing the need for these services, or creating a customer loss for people who aren't willing to pay for it.

[Lum]

You say this as if publishers aren't trying this out already. Guild Wars offers "PVP Unlock Packs" now, which basically means you can bypass the entire PvE game for your PvP character if you want. SOE opened Station Exchange for EQ2, which is company sanctioned and supported RMT. UO has offered "Advanced Characters" for quite some time.

The trick is to keep a level, fair playing field even with these new revenue models. Many players *hate* the feeling that they have to *insert coin here* to be competitive - in the Western market, I'd hazard a guess those players far outnumber those who are comfortable with the idea. There is still vehement hostility to "ebayers" and "gold farmers" in the higher level communities of most games.

But again, the amount of money "on the table" is not the only factor in the equation. And the naked truth is that while the maintainers of a game have to balance the impact of new revenue models on the rest of the game, outside forces who just want to mine someone else's work don't care. Thus they will always operate at an "advantage", because they couldn't care less if the game's community is alienated by their actions.

[d4rkj3di]

If I were a development company I would simply develop a premium level of service where people could buy points, and then have different items, levels, etc available to be bought for points.  Otherwise, they are leaving money on the table and giving it to the chinese farmers who will undercut any American operation.

Its proven that people will pay money to save time for certain things, so the dev studio or publisher should simply respond.  After a game is 6 months old its flooded with farmers, PLer's, etc anyway, and that would be a good time to roll out with premium based services that can compete.

I think this was Archlord's original business model. Then the catass crew went ballistic about it, claiming it nullified all of their hard work and time spent blah blah. Codemasters then folded, and went to monthly fee only. People don't know what they want, only what they don't want.

[Nebu]

I guess the obvious noob question would be: Why aren't game companies selling gold/plat/whatever at prices that are competitive with the overseas farmers?  I imagine you could offer servers where this service is available/unavailable to segregate player styles.

Seems to me that no matter how "fun" the game is, that some small number of people will always prefer to shortcut it. 

[Morat20]

So you're saying that dev studios or publishers don't want any of the 900 million to 1.5 billion dollar pie that people make off of their games?  All the people who are pressed for time or simply refuse to grind doing stupid repetitive tasks to get to the next zone, are making a powerful financial statement.

If I was a manager in the MMORPG industry, I would view this as a revenue loss.  There is a a lot of money being made on the backs of games, and its not causing people to hit the cancel button. What is causing people to hit the cancel button are those core bad game mechanics that are causing the need for these services, or creating a customer loss for people who aren't willing to pay for it.

I'm sure they do want the money. However, it's very likely -- damn near certain, in my opinion -- that they cannot have both the game AND the RMT money. Not in North America, for sure.

It has to do with Western attitudes towards money and purchasing achievement. We're steeped in the mythology of the self-made man -- of the concept of equality of oppurtunity. There's plenty of resentment for "the bosses' son" getting the promotion he didn't deserve, or the Hilton's of the world getting into the good schools not from effort or skills, but from buying a new building for the campus.....

In a game, it's worse. Games are supposed to be where the rich and the poor are equal -- it's all skill, baby. Now, that's bullshit in one sense -- people happily buy gold and it's really about time investments -- but that's not important. It's the illusion that's necessary. Third-party RMT that's cracked down upon, even ineffectually? That's cheating. No skill. Just money. It's waved away. Ignored. Heck, you even feel superior to those fucks.

But if it's part of the game? Paying for the uber-items or levels or whatnot? Now that's just playing the game, and the rich have an advantage. And the average North American player is going to get a little more pissy each time he feels he has to buy -- with real, hard cash -- the shiny new item.

Companies will keep trying to get the game pie and the RMT pie -- and at least here in America, they'll fail. Too many players don't want it legal -- it spoils the game for them. Higher subs and a smaller slice of the pie, or lower subs and more of the pie (although you'll still be competing with the CGFs since you'll have to leave open the grind path one way or another)?

[Lum]

I guess the obvious noob question would be: Why aren't game companies selling gold/plat/whatever at prices that are competitive with the overseas farmers?  I imagine you could offer servers where this service is available/unavailable to segregate player styles.

Seems to me that no matter how "fun" the game is, that people will always prefer to shortcut it. 

Why don't governments just print more money? They own the printing presses.

[Nija]

$900 million? Let's stop pooling our resources to bitch about shitty games. Let's pool our resources to hire a fleet of Russian hackers to find duping exploits.

[Nebu]

Why don't governments just print more money? They own the printing presses.

I'd like to think that governments aren't "for profit" industries.  If you're shooting for an economics answer, I'd argue that inflation is going to happen anyway.  Offering gold for profit only increases the rate slightly while generating more revenue for game development.

Inflation in games affects people's "feelings".  It doesn't have the same impact on people's lives that printing more money would in the real world.  Can we compare apples to apples?

Edit: Wouldn't a simple market analysis answer the question?  Ex: How many subscriptions are gained/lost (long-term revenue stream) vs revenue gained by selling gold/plat in game.  The availability of gold in WoW hasn't seemed to negatively impact their subscriber numbers much.  I don't know the percentage... but they must have crunched them.

[shiznitz]

$900 million? Let's stop pooling our resources to bitch about shitty games. Let's pool our resources to hire a fleet of Russian hackers to fund duping exploits.

I would not be surprised if organized crime was already involved in some way.

[waylander]

In a game, it's worse. Games are supposed to be where the rich and the poor are equal -- it's all skill, baby. Now, that's bullshit in one sense -- people happily buy gold and it's really about time investments -- but that's not important. It's the illusion that's necessary. Third-party RMT that's cracked down upon, even ineffectually? That's cheating. No skill. Just money. It's waved away. Ignored. Heck, you even feel superior to those fucks.

But if it's part of the game? Paying for the uber-items or levels or whatnot? Now that's just playing the game, and the rich have an advantage. And the average North American player is going to get a little more pissy each time he feels he has to buy -- with real, hard cash -- the shiny new item.

Companies will keep trying to get the game pie and the RMT pie -- and at least here in America, they'll fail. Too many players don't want it legal -- it spoils the game for them. Higher subs and a smaller slice of the pie, or lower subs and more of the pie (although you'll still be competing with the CGFs since you'll have to leave open the grind path one way or another)?

Yeah I see your point here and its a good one. On the up and up if its transparent that a company is selling items, gold, and levels it could be bad unless its for a specific sub-set of servers.  Maybe having a specialty set of servers where that is available would work, but not implement it across the whole game.

The other alternative is to keep turning a blind eye to the third party sellers, or work out a deal where you are their supplier but ensure that the business deal is confidential. That would probably leak out, so maybe the specialty sub-set servers where premium services are available is the best compromise alternative.

[waylander]

Guildwars is offering PVP unlock packs because they have lost a huge chunk of their PVP community. Alex Weeks's famous "Vocal Minority" statement alienated PVP from the get go, and they have paid the price for writing off their entire PVP community. Arenanet markets the hell out of the PVP events to keep their game buzz going between expansion packs, but the sad reality is that the PVP community there has dwindled so much that its the same guilds fighting over the prize almost every single ladder tournament.

PVP unlocks was their way of saying "hey, we realize we screwed up but realize what a cash cow this could be for PVPr's who won't buy our expansions for PVP content".

[Lum]

Yeah I see your point here and its a good one. On the up and up if its transparent that a company is selling items, gold, and levels it could be bad unless its for a specific sub-set of servers.  Maybe having a specialty set of servers where that is available would work, but not implement it across the whole game.

That is what SOE currently does. It's fairly successful, from the folks I've talked to there.

http://stationexchange.station.sony.com/

work out a deal where you are their supplier but ensure that the business deal is confidential

That is not an alternative. The words you're looking for are "corporate malfeasance." If a company I worked for tried to work out such a deal, I would quit rather than implement it. I am not alone in that view. I've also heard no one in the industry seriously suggest it.

[d4rkj3di]

Why don't governments just print more money? They own the printing presses.

Why don't governments take counterfeiters to court and prosecute them? Is it because if the government lost the case it would legitimize the illicit activity?

I think that making it no longer lucrative to farm and sell gold in a game would do more to deter RMT than trying to ban accounts who engage in said activities. Maybe currency in MMOs should be bind on pickup?

[tazelbain]

*Obligatory reference to the virtues of Puzzle Pirates’ RMT*

[waylander]

work out a deal where you are their supplier but ensure that the business deal is confidential

From Lum
That is not an alternative. The words you're looking for are "corporate malfeasance." If a company I worked for tried to work out such a deal, I would quit rather than implement it. I am not alone in that view.

Yeah I wouldn't recommend that route either, but just listed it as a possible route. If word got out that a company did that, it would be horrendous for PR.  Still, I could see some niche game trying that if they got desperate.

[Lum]

*Obligatory reference to the virtues of Puzzle Pirates’ RMT*

Yep. It's well done (as is most things Three Rings). Seperate servers, free-play with non-gameplay-necessary benefits paid for by currency bought from Three Rings. I recommend anyone interested in RMT issues take a look.

http://www.puzzlepirates.com/Pricing.xhtml

[sinij]

If a significant subset of your playerbase is paying real money to avoid playing parts of your game that you theoretically intended to be enjoyable, that is a design flaw.

Ain't that the truth.

[HaemishM]

I guess the obvious noob question would be: Why aren't game companies selling gold/plat/whatever at prices that are competitive with the overseas farmers?  I imagine you could offer servers where this service is available/unavailable to segregate player styles.

Seems to me that no matter how "fun" the game is, that some small number of people will always prefer to shortcut it. 

Because that would shorten subscription life, but more importantly, it would codify rules for virtual property. And that would potentially make them liable if those virtual assets get hosed, fraud occurs, etc.

[sinij]

There is another can of worms on the horizon - IRS thinking about taxing mmorpg-related sales.

[waylander]

There is another can of worms on the horizon - IRS thinking about taxing mmorpg-related sales.

So now I can just pay $106 dollars to get to the end game and catch up with my no job, no life, no family friends in 5 days instead of 4 months on my own dealing with idiot PUG groups.  Won't make much difference to me.

I do like to quest for items, but I hate leveling if I'm forced to deal with PUG's because I can't keep up with my friends.

[Signe]

Yes!  And look at all the extra time you'll have to spend with... umm... yourself.