Micro-transactions?

Posted: Tue Aug 28, 2007 10:32 pm

Raph,

Just curious to hear what you think about micro transactions? Are they a part of the plan for Areae's game?

Thanks!

Posted: Wed Aug 29, 2007 1:49 am

I hope not

Posted: Wed Aug 29, 2007 5:06 am

If he is thinking it I doubt it we are told it until well into beta. It is hard for any businessman to take a money generation scheme off the table.

Posted: Wed Aug 29, 2007 6:01 pm

With all due respect, I didn't ask you guys for your opinions. I asked Raph for his.

What we all think of microtransactions are formed by our assumptions of their implementation. That implementation is everything. There may be ways that microtransactions would be beneficial. I personally don't know either way. I haven't spent time thinking about it. What I do see is that there seems to be a trend towards them, and I figured I'd ask Raph what he thought.

Let's not be closed minded here.

Posted: Wed Aug 29, 2007 6:19 pm

Last November I made a post with a link from Raph's blog about Microtransactions.

Microtransactions getting a bad name

I'd suggest you take the time to read through the comments as well, since Raph responded there a few times. Raph is probably very busy right now, so I don't know how soon he can reply to this thread. That was also last year, so his opinion might have changed, and an update wouldn't be bad.

Posted: Wed Aug 29, 2007 6:32 pm

KaptKaos wrote:

With all due respect, I didn't ask you guys for your opinions. I asked Raph for his.

What we all think of microtransactions are formed by our assumptions of their implementation. That implementation is everything. There may be ways that microtransactions would be beneficial. I personally don't know either way. I haven't spent time thinking about it. What I do see is that there seems to be a trend towards them, and I figured I'd ask Raph what he thought.

Let's not be closed minded here.

If you only wanted a message from him, a public forum is the wrong place to ask it. Send a PM. I gave my response to help answer a question you are most likely not going to get an answer to for now. It is doubtful we will know until late beta, because as you said, implementation is everything and you just don't know until you see it in action, which would be late beta.

And yes, he already talked about his opinion in his blog.

Posted: Wed Aug 29, 2007 7:14 pm

I don't think that micro transactions will ever catch on in the way that the MMO publishers would like. For one thing, I just don't see the usual teenybopper "target audience" that mmo companies seem to crave being allowed to participate, since their parents will have to provide the credit card.

It's one thing, from a parent's point of view, to pay the $15 flat rate for their kid's WoW account, but something else to open the floodgates to open ended charges...

Where micro transactions might work is in an adult oriented game. Even there, I think there will be some suspicions... Personally I view them negatively, I see them as a MMO publisher wanting to get MORE out of me than $15/month. Even if micro transactions are offered as a value add (ie: you can pay to achieve some thing or else grind it in the game) methinks most developers wouldn't be able to avoid the temptation to make it so that achieving it in game instead of paying for it would be so unattractive as no one would do it.

Posted: Wed Aug 29, 2007 9:28 pm

wildcat84 wrote:

I see them as a MMO publisher wanting to get MORE out of me than $15/month.

Microtransactions are not about receiving more money from the individual, but about making more revenue as a whole because you bring in a larger audience. Having a game be 'free to play' removes the barriers that scare a lot of people away from even trying the game. More people playing your game is only a good thing, and microtransactions are an excellent way to let people be as financially committed to the product as they want to be.

To reiterate - the microtransaction subscription model is to bring in a larger playerbase, not to gouge money from you as a player. People like being able to spend a little money, and people like being able to spend a lot. At this stage in technology, it is all about having choices and customization all wrapped into a package that takes a very small amount of time and effort to be involved in.

(And yes, I know you wanted Raph's opinion - but I just wanted to chime in here.) Embarassed

Posted: Wed Aug 29, 2007 10:21 pm

Cuppycake wrote:

To reiterate - the microtransaction subscription model is to bring in a larger playerbase, not to gouge money from you as a player. People like being able to spend a little money, and people like being able to spend a lot. At this stage in technology, it is all about having choices and customization all wrapped into a package that takes a very small amount of time and effort to be involved in.

This is what makes me nervous. If the game allows for people to spend money to enhance their character over others, then this makes the game unequal. This can only be effective in games where there is either no PvP or even grouping (why group with X player when Y player had better gear that was purchased).

I once played a MUD that would give you (something crucial to advancing your character, but I don't remember what anymore) if you made a donation. You could acquire the same improvement in game, but at a rate that was set to a ridiculously high level. I quickly learned that if I wanted to advance, I needed to pay or spend hundreds of hours working on something that $19.99 to the MUD would do. I only lasted a month or two in that game. I think a game like that would actually scare away more customers than it would attract, because it comes down to who is willing to spend the most to compete.

I'm not against microtransactions, but I think a lot of thought needs to go into how it is implemented, which I'm certain Raph would do.

Personally, I like the subscription based system. It allows me to compete evenly with all the other players, while also allowing me to spend as much - or as little - time as I like in the game.

Posted: Wed Aug 29, 2007 10:28 pm

separate servers, please. i hate games that allow advancement through the in game shop. it belittles the hard work players put into a game.

i'm not worried though because raph said he was making a game for his core fans....us.

Posted: Wed Aug 29, 2007 10:40 pm

Kenshu Ani wrote:

This is what makes me nervous. If the game allows for people to spend money to enhance their character over others, then this makes the game unequal. This can only be effective in games where there is either no PvP or even grouping (why group with X player when Y player had better gear that was purchased).

I once played a MUD that would give you (something crucial to advancing your character, but I don't remember what anymore) if you made a donation. You could acquire the same improvement in game, but at a rate that was set to a ridiculously high level. I quickly learned that if I wanted to advance, I needed to pay or spend hundreds of hours working on something that $19.99 to the MUD would do. I only lasted a month or two in that game. I think a game like that would actually scare away more customers than it would attract, because it comes down to who is willing to spend the most to compete.

I have to agree. I think you'll get plenty of 'tire kickers' with a non-sub based model, but people will be intimidated by the fact that others are buying their way to the top.

I also think the microtransaction model is flawed by the actual player that model attracts. Who are the ones who will pay to get ahead? Generally speaking, IMO those types of people are not the ones you can build a strong community on. Those 'pay to get ahead' players generally lack commitment (NGE kids anyone), and commitment is something that MMOs REQUIRE to function. It's mind blowing when I see these companies with all their focus tests and huge marketing departments completely obliterating their long-term viability due to short term greed. It's not rocket science.

Posted: Wed Aug 29, 2007 10:59 pm

Well, the key to implementing a well done microtransaction model is balancing what people are paying for. I don't think there is ever an intention to make things "unfair" for those who don't spend money. There are better ways to use microtransactions than that, I think.

Microtransactions do not have to equal "pay to get ahead." It is only considered "ahead" if what is being sold is based on achievements. I also think that you're downplaying the relationship between a large playerbase and long-term success. It is important for the long term success of a game and the growth of a community to have a diverse and plentiful crowd of people testing the game and enjoying it upon release. I don't agree that the people who will pay more in microtransactions are necessarily the people who lack commitment - but that is a study that I haven't seen yet. It really is all dependent on how the model is utilized in the game - and I think we're really in an infant stage of seeing what can REALLY be done with alternative subscription models.

I don't necessarily believe that the way it's being done now is the way it should be done. We just have to consider the 'newness' of it all and look towards where it could possibly end up - which is pretty interesting in my opinion.

Posted: Wed Aug 29, 2007 10:59 pm

Kenshu Ani wrote:

If the game allows for people to spend money to enhance their character over others, then this makes the game unequal.

That isn't necessarily true. You're assuming that the enhancement a) can not be achieved by other means or b) has only trivial value.

For example, if SOE would have sold NS Biceps for $20, like they basicly did with AT-RT, would it really have hurt anyone who didn't get one? Or if you had to pay $17.99 a month to have 3 toons per server, would it be any more damaging then Elder Jedi getting 3?

Posted: Wed Aug 29, 2007 11:16 pm

MX13 wrote:

Kenshu Ani wrote:

If the game allows for people to spend money to enhance their character over others, then this makes the game unequal.

That isn't necessarily true. You're assuming that the enhancement a) can not be achieved by other means or b) has only trivial value.

For example, if SOE would have sold NS Biceps for $20, like they basicly did with AT-RT, would it really have hurt anyone who didn't get one? Or if you had to pay $17.99 a month to have 3 toons per server, would it be any more damaging then Elder Jedi getting 3?

Actually I did. I put in the qualifier "enhance their character over others." This was meant to be non-cosmetic enhancements. I have no problems with cosmetic microtransactions (like getting a Varactyl).

However, I can guarantee that if the microtransaction gives you something like the mando armor from the DWB, that could also be acquired without the transaction, there will be no reason to spend multiple hours trying to get the item; just buy it. As I mentioned further down in my post.

Edit: Here is a way to look at it. Microtransactions should be provided to cover "wants" and not "needs." Obviously the "wants" and "needs" would be defined by the game and not real life. After all a virtual game falls completely under the "wants" section.

Posted: Wed Aug 29, 2007 11:41 pm

Kenshu Ani wrote:

MX13 wrote:

Kenshu Ani wrote:

If the game allows for people to spend money to enhance their character over others, then this makes the game unequal.

That isn't necessarily true. You're assuming that the enhancement a) can not be achieved by other means or b) has only trivial value.

For example, if SOE would have sold NS Biceps for $20, like they basicly did with AT-RT, would it really have hurt anyone who didn't get one? Or if you had to pay $17.99 a month to have 3 toons per server, would it be any more damaging then Elder Jedi getting 3?

Actually I did. I put in the qualifier "enhance their character over others." This was meant to be non-cosmetic enhancements. I have no problems with cosmetic microtransactions (like getting a Varactyl).

However, I can guarantee that if the microtransaction gives you something like the mando armor from the DWB, that could also be acquired without the transaction, there will be no reason to spend multiple hours trying to get the item; just buy it. As I mentioned further down in my post.

Edit: Here is a way to look at it. Microtransactions should be provided to cover "wants" and not "needs." Obviously the "wants" and "needs" would be defined by the game and not real life. After all a virtual game falls completely under the "wants" section.

I personally believe things of practical value are also fine to 'buy'. For example, I have no problem with players 'buying' experience in-game. It's a touch subject, but for those that don't have as much time to play it would be a valuable service.

Posted: Wed Aug 29, 2007 11:43 pm

If you're wondering what brought all this MT talk up, go here

Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2007 12:07 am

If MT's allow a player to advance his character based on the amount of money he has available then I see 2 types of players who will not play a game for long. Player A has limited funds while player B has unlimited funds to advance thier characters.

Player A will quickly get frustrated and angry because he see player B advancing at a higher rate and that leads to player A quitting the game.

Player B will end up getting everything the game has to offer and will soon be bored with the game.

I know I am simplifying things but if this is what Microtransactions will offer to players then I see a game using them not lasting very long. Also, remember, you will now have players complaining about the unfairness of the game as well as players complaining about how a lack of content and achievement make the game boring.

Word of mouth is a powerful thing when it comes to MMO's.

This is just one example of how I see MT's causing a problem in a game, I have other examples but hate typing too much. Razz

Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2007 12:26 am

Cuppycake wrote:

wildcat84 wrote:

I see them as a MMO publisher wanting to get MORE out of me than $15/month.

Microtransactions are not about receiving more money from the individual, but about making more revenue as a whole because you bring in a larger audience. Having a game be 'free to play' removes the barriers that scare a lot of people away from even trying the game. More people playing your game is only a good thing, and microtransactions are an excellent way to let people be as financially committed to the product as they want to be.

To reiterate - the microtransaction subscription model is to bring in a larger playerbase, not to gouge money from you as a player. People like being able to spend a little money, and people like being able to spend a lot. At this stage in technology, it is all about having choices and customization all wrapped into a package that takes a very small amount of time and effort to be involved in.

(And yes, I know you wanted Raph's opinion - but I just wanted to chime in here.) Embarassed

What would worry me about such a system would be if it punished powergamers (which I tend to be) by potentially costing us MORE than the usual $15/month or be held back.

I think there would have to be some sort of hard cap on these things.

Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2007 12:48 am

MX13 wrote:

Kenshu Ani wrote:

If the game allows for people to spend money to enhance their character over others, then this makes the game unequal.

That isn't necessarily true. You're assuming that the enhancement a) can not be achieved by other means or b) has only trivial value.

For example, if SOE would have sold NS Biceps for $20, like they basicly did with AT-RT, would it really have hurt anyone who didn't get one? Or if you had to pay $17.99 a month to have 3 toons per server, would it be any more damaging then Elder Jedi getting 3?

Well in my opinion, MT's shouldn't be about individual items (to take a similar approach with what Cuppy was saying about how MTs bringing in larger audiences), nor "advancement" (as we all fear it'll become...ie pay 5 bucks for this new uber gear that you have to have, or pay 5 bucks to level up).

Your idea of paying for extra toons is a good one I think, have everyone be able to play for free with one toon, if you want more you have to start paying for them (of course this can lead to developers tailoring a game requiring you to really have more than 1 toon to be successful). Or, use MTs to provide new content areas, ie a brand new dungeon and leave the core game (thats advancement, most gear [ie new dungeons don't give gear that is a must have and makes everything else crap, but adds and has their place], and gameplay). Something like mini-expansion packs, and keeping the core game updated with free publishes to maintain what's already there.

Im not really favorable with the whole idea of MTs, except really for the abovew (or other good ideas I haven't really heard of). Id rather pay a flat monthly rate for a world I have complete access to, rather than a world where I have limited access and instead of being immersed I'll have to keep a price check with me to see how much everything is in-game.

Posted: Thu Aug 30, 2007 12:59 am

Check out the CN system. It's the perfect type of MT system. The MT doesn't give players things they can't get through playing, it just gives a short cut for those folks with no patience and money to burn.

Player A can spend his RL cash to get ahead.

Player B can play agressively and get ahead. By trading, using politics and war while also selling in game items for RL cash to the player A types.

Player C can play for free at his or her own pace and not feel like they are being held out of the actual game play because they don't pay.