[MUD-Dev] banning the sale of items

[Ryan Palacio]

Matthew Mihaly wrote:

>  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?

It is not condoned and efforts are being made to stop it.  If EQ was a
pay-to-advance game...  I would not play it.

>   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.

    _EVERY_ person I have asked, be it in-house, just in passing with gamers
who do not play EQ, in a small sampling of EQ players, has had a negative
opinion towards it.  Yes I tend to powergame.  However, my Bartle's quotient
states that I am type EAS (80/60/40).  In my mind, this makes me more likely
to take time to figure out the in-game context and environment than
powergame for "achievement".  This also means that my time investment into
the game for character growth is long and not necessarily straight forward.
Cryptic quests, mazes, teleport rooms, etc etc are all part of what I enjoy
figuring out.  By providing a means of directly exchanging RL cash for items
comparable to the rewards received for exploring, you would be placing a
price tag on my time thereby innately devaluing my experience.   My reward
is now not so unique in itself.  My new toy is not so colorful and flavorful
as it would have been without the existance of a purchasable counterpart.
Now instead of enjoying the game and time spent exploring, as a partial
achiever, I have to weigh time spent vs reward gained.  In some cases, it
may be better for me to forgo the time working on the quest and just buy the
item.  Now, you have content the developers spent time on that will not be
used.  Do you leave it?  You have to, because any change in the quest to
make it more palatable to explorers would devalue the monetary amount.  Even
assuming you had the resources to keep up with both the explorers and the
item buyers, you would be bladerunning at full sprint while trying to
balance not only risk vs reward but also money vs reward.

    The only group that benefits from the sale of items are those that are
_PRIMARILY_ achievers and/or killers.  Explorers are penalized, as are
socializers that also like to explore/adventure.

>   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.

Note above informal polling.   Of which _ALL_ had negative feelings and
stated such.

> 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.

This point was made to display the expendable vs one-time purchase theory.
Obviously I would not want to have to buy an item twice due to some in-game
item breakage/deterioration.  Leaning towards that, each item is a one-time
purchase period.  A permanent entry into the world.

>  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_.

Simutronics, specifically Gemstone, had "regular service" and "premium
service".  This was much more akin to "renting" an expansion than
purchasing.  People paid extra money for "premium service" which allowed
them access to special areas and therefore special items and such.  The
purchase of in-game events I have no previous knowledge of, but I have also
never heard of items being directly sold to players by Simutronics.  The
latter of which is the crux of the issue.

> >     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?

Again the issue of time vs money.  In my mind, time should be the ONLY
determining factor.  As previously stated, everyone starts with the same
amount and accrues it at the same rate.  Unlike cash, which has HUGE
variations in both accrual rate and total.  Obviously this is based solely
on my personal opinion - but, I believe it is one that is widely shared.  I
have no problem with Bob, who earns a wage equal to mine and performs the
same task, receiving more money on his paycheck because he worked more hours
than I did.  I do have a problem if Bob and I do the exact same job but he
gets more per hour than I do.
I believe that better expresses the thought process I had in mind.

>   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.

>From the business perspective, I completely agree.  But the 18-25 year old
"kids" (myself included) represent an enormously large population percentage
in the gaming world and need alot less prodding to purchase or subscribe
than "adults" with more taxing financial obligations.  Similarly, most
"kids" don't have children or spouses that feel neglected when they play and
are therefore more likely to continue paying and playing.  To a young adult,
$10 is a movie and soda. MMORPG for 1 month - or 2 hours of movie?  To the
25+ crowd, $10 is a week's worth of food at the grocery store assuming
coupon clipping.  Week's worth of food or MMORPG for 1 month?

>   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.

Yes, twinks - the people that have all the toys and zero skill/knowledge.
They are always the butt of a joke.

But as far as the social standing issue, its alot easier to have social
standing in a community of 200-300 (typical MUD high) vs 70,000+
(prime-time).  Personally, I agree with the point overall, there needs to be
more than "what level am I?" or "what are my skills?", but I have yet to
think of it when looking at a scale of 200,000+ (and potentially over a
million - gotta think BIG =) ) users world-wide.  Lots of money will be made
by the person(s) that do it tho - that point I believe is uncontested.

~Ryan Palacio




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