[MUD-Dev] banning the sale of items

[Matthew Mihaly]

On Sat, 15 Apr 2000, Ryan Palacio wrote:

>     Bottom line (for me) comes to this:  I find it completely distasteful
> and would myself _NOT_ play a game that allowed anything similar to "selling
> items".

So it's not a matter of whether it's taking place, but solely of whether
it's being condoned by the game management? You have already said that
it's impossible to stop the sale of items, so would you play Everquest,
given that you can buy success on Everquest? 


  Despite the potential financial reward for the developer, it is my
> belief that the "average" player would also find it distasteful.
> Unpalatable to the extent of also not playing.

We've noticed almost none of this. You just have to be careful of what you
sell. You can't sell everything, and nothing you sell can give an
overwhelming advantage. I'm not sure it's scalable, but so far, I've seen
no arguments demonstrating that it's not. 


  In this belief, the SHORT
> term benefit lies in selling items.  As it would most likely generate a
> large sum of cash in a relatively short time frame.  However, the loss of
> the additional subscribers would hurt the LONG term aspect of the game and
> since money in the commercial MMORPG arena is made off the back end in the
> form of subscriptions (not the sale of the box), I see it being a long term
> loss.  

I distrust this sort of analysis, because you are a hardcore gamer I
suspect, and you are not the ideal market. You might be right, and there's
no way to know for sure unless it's tried on a large scale, but I suspect
that many of the anti-pay-for-item people feel that way not out of any
concern for the primary purpose of a large MMORPG (to make money I'd hope)
but out of personal bias.


Personally I would rather bank on long term aspect and bring as many
> subscribers into the fold as possible (specifically for long term COMPANY
> and TITLE loyalty).  The items are purchased once.  Breakage or loss of a
> purchased item would really piss someone off to the extent of potentially
> not buying ever again. 

I don't see why breakage or loss should be any larger a problem than
losing a player file. They are both just records in a database, and if you
don't provide any way for bought items to be broken or lost, then the
likelihood seems equal to that of losing player files, which, I'm assuming
doesn't happen very much.


 So contrary to the "disposable" / "expendable"
> theory of business that has made toilet tissue, razorblade manufacturers,
> grocery stores, make-up manufacturers, MMORPGs and numerous other large,
> stable companies, you have chosen to forgo long term revenue for short term
> burst in profit.  The attempt to integrate the two diametrically opposed
> business concepts looks like a vial of oil and water.  Shake them together
> enough and you get a seemingly homogenous mixture.  However, wait long
> enough, and the two will naturely seperate, leaving you with two layers that
> want nothing to do with the other.

They clearly are not diametrically opposed, given that Simutronics (which
certainly has a more impressive long-term track record than any graphical
MMORPG) flagship products charge both a flat-rate fee, AND charge for some
in-game things (I don't know if they charge for items, but one of their
employees at GDC claimed that a wedding there once sold for US$25,000.).
Simutronics has proven beyond a doubt that some
paying-for-things-beyond-service _works_. 

 
>     As for the time issue vs money issue, everyone acrues time (as a
> resource) at the same rate.  Time is also a "free" resource: it does not
> have to be worked for or effort exerted to acquire it - one must merely
> exist.  Not everyone acrues RL liquid assets (such as cash) at the same
> rate.  With time being a level playing field and everyone potentially having
> the same amount at any moment, it is not a matter of how much you have - but
> rather how you spend it.  If the game is in-part based on time investment,
> we have started on a level field for all to begin with.  Noone has been
> alienated to RL financial misfortune.  Assuming you were poor, would you
> like to be reminded constantly as you attempted to enjoy yourself that you
> were poor and without many comforts or luxuries?

Along those lines, assuming you want to reach a mass market.....If you had
a life outside of your computer, would you like to be constantly reminded
of the fact that some student who is flunking out of college will almost
automatically do better than you, merely because he's got no other
responsibilities, and nothing better to do than play 14 hours a day?


  Assuming you a child,
> would you like to be reminded that others are excelling beyond your in-game
> capability because you have a child who expends your earnings?

I guess it's a matter of target markets really. I would MUCH rather try to
go after adults with fulltime jobs and families, who certainly can't play
10 hours a day, than a bunch of teenagers and college kids (no offence to
anyone in those groups, but you're poor, and you have way too much time to
spend, costing huge amounts in bandwidth for a large game.) We sell things
for a lot of real money, and you know what? The players mainly thank us
for the opportunity to buy these things without having to spend tons of
time online. Sure, we get a few complainers, and inevitably they are the
ones with no money. 

Clearly there's room for both models, but I highly suspect profits can be
increased overall (long-term) by selling things in-game.


  Any decent
> person would obviously choose their own offspring, but that doesnt deny that
> in some way you might feel disadvantaged or slighted.  This scenario pits
> the game vs family.  Obvious decision, and the subscription is lost.
> Replace "child" and "family" with _ANY_ RL obligation or priority and the
> net result is negative feelings and/or a lost subscription.  I personally do
> not like a game where I have no potential to "win" or at least a chance to
> be competitive.  If I don't have that chance, I don't play.  It's as simple
> as I don't like losing, and if I will always lose, nothing but frustration,
> anger, and disappointment will be gained.  So why play?

Then perhaps the solution is to design a game where things besides sheer
"What level am I?" is important. We have players who have spent thousands
of dollars, and are easily eclipsed by players who have spent $100.
Eclipsed both in level (though level isn't all that important in Achaea)
and, FAR more importantly to the players, social standing. There's
actually a bit of a negative effect to buying a lot of items....if you
have bought a lot, and still suck (not an uncommon case), then you become
a bit of a joke.


 >     I guess the solution for me, as a compromise between the two sides,
> would be a server config that enables in-game purchase of items.  I would
> not play on that type of server, but there would still be options for me in
> a "no-sell" server.  But then the "black market" arises on "no-sell" servers
> and we are back to square one...

Just tossing out an idea, but what if some items were made so that they
can only be used by a particular player? What if you flagged the items
that seem to be sold the most, and just say that the only person who can
use those items is the first person to pick it up, or the person who
completed the quest, or the person to kill the monster, etc.
Non-transferrable from there (or maybe just resets back into your
inventory ever hour or something).

--matt




_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
http://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev