[MUD-Dev] Are eBay sales more than just a fad?

[Matthew Mihaly]

On Sat, 16 Sep 2000, John Buehler wrote:

> > Matthew Mihaly
> > Sent: Friday, September 15, 2000 5:20 PM
> 
> > So, my answer is, a community which is, in my opinion and the opinion of
> > everyone else at A2k, extremely potent and extremely cool. Listen John, I
> > understand your objections, but they are misplaced. You're attacking
> > something which I've made work without any understanding of how and why it
> > works, or even any first-hand experience of it.
> 
> How large is the Achaea player base?  Do you think that the approach will
> scale up significantly?  I realize that may be a question that cannot be
> answered because you're not sure what really makes it work, but I'm open to
> any comments you have.

It's much smaller than Everquest, for instance. It's about 2500. I think
the approach scales up without TOO serious problems by utilizing
subdivided communities. For instance, the players at A2k that bonded the
most were all from the same city in Achaea. They often don't even deal
with people from other cities very much, but are quite close within their
own in-game community. I can't prove that it scales up obviously, but I
strongly suspect it does if the game provides the proper encouragement to
segregate oneself in a sub-community or sub-sub community.

 
> > Yes, that'd suck alright. I don't see that the analogy is a good one
> > though.
> 
> I was constructing it based on my experiences with EverQuest.  The problem of
> camping was exacerbated by the opportunity to farm items for profit, and was
> already an unfortunate phenomenon in EverQuest prior to eBay sales appearing.

Sounds to me then like it's a design problem that is merely exacerbated by
selling items. I'd place the blame on the design that causes camping to be
desireable rather than the fact that people sell the items.


> > Also keep in mind that muds are, by and large at this point in time,
> > commercial enterprises (I'm speaking in terms of what number of players,
> > and commercial muds attract way more than free muds do), and that the goal
> > of a commercial enterprise is to make money. It does that by keeping the
> > community healthy, and I have to say that given my experience, the two are
> > most certainly not antagonistic goals. I know I make more money because my
> > players feel so strongly bonded to Achaea and to each other. I also know
> > that this situation is hardly unique to Achaea.
> 
> I'm not averse to game publishers making money.  Yet it has been established
> time and time again that there are ways of making money that are not 'fair' or
> are illegal.  This is the case because ethics and morals eventually come to
> the fore as significant issues.  Microsoft can compete vigorously, but not to
> the point of doing things that are inherently unhealthy for the overall
> well-being of its industry.  Firestone can create products and sell them in
> this country, but they will be taken out of the economy if they are found to
> be unsafe.

Selling items is perfectly fair to me. Fair is a very subjective word. And
Microsoft is definitely able to legally (morally I have never thought
Microsoft was in the wrong, but I realize many are going to disagree with
me there) do things that aren't healthy for the overall well-being of the
industry. There are not, in fact, any laws in any American state that I'm
aware of that prohibit that. What they are not allowed to do legally is
engage in monopolistic practices, and the reasoning behind that law has
very little to do with protecting the industry and much more to do with
protecting the consumer. (Bad reasoning in my opinion, but again, I
realize many on this list will disagree, and I don't think it's the
appropriate place to argue about it.)

Likewise, I cannot see any American court ever punishing a company for
selling items on the grounds that it is harmful to the games industry.
(particularly as I fail to see how it is bad for it).

 
> At a more subtle level, I'm concerned that selling game items is conducive to
> the 'wrong kind of community' forming.  So far in Achaea you have been
> successful in cultivating a solid community.  I wonder about the demographics
> of those in your community.  Is the Achaea experience significantly different
> from those of similarly-structured games?  Are there any
> significantly-structured games out there?

>From what I can tell, our community is composed of typical mud players.
Males age 16-22 are the largest demographic.

 
> > I hate to sound like such a dick, but you're just wrong. I don't really
> > think you have any idea what you're talking about. You're just making up
> > fictional scenarios in your head. We have _lots_ of people who play Achaea
> > without ever spending a cent, or with spending very very little.
> 
> I'm not trying to suggest that players without available cash will be unable
> to play such a game.  I'm suggesting that, given a large enough player base
> (e.g. 100,000), enough players will be disgruntled over their inability to
> keep up with the rich folks that there will be significant bad press and ill
> will developing.  This is why I'm interested in the demographics and size of
> your player base.

The funny thing is that I really never get complaints from players. I
mean, I can't even remember the last time we got a complaint about our
business model. What I do get, and I kid you not, are 'thank you'
e-mails from new players thanking me for not forcing them to pay to
play. The fact is, the players realize it's 100% voluntary, and they are
free to use most of the game (including the most important part: the
socialization) without ever paying a dime. 

 
> As an analogy, the beta test communities for the graphical games (EverQuest
> and Asheron's Call anyway) were apparently quite good on community.  They
> consisted of the enthusiasts for the game, and the community held together
> well.  Those involved with the beta tests mourned what became of the games
> after they were opened to the general public.  I'm interested in knowing why
> the beta communities were 'better' than the release communities.  Is it simply
> a matter of numbers?  A matter of time spent in the game environment?

All the current big graphical muds do an absolutely crap job of
encouraging sub-communities within the game. I would not look at them as
examples of design that encourages strong communities. They were, I'd
imagine, more likely worried about just pulling it off successfully than
innovating in design (which none of them really did). Can't blame the
designers for it, as UO/EQ/AC were really version 1.0 of the graphical
mud. Judging by the websites and the word-on-the-street about the upcoming
big graphical muds, they will start using more up-to-date designs, though
I haven't heard much that is actually innovative about them so far.

I would venture to guess, as far as the beta test thing goes, that what
you get in a beta test are the fringe extremists who are REALLY psyched
about a game and REALLY want to make it work. They have, perhaps, a sense
of responsibility at being given the opportunity to participate in the
beta test. On the other hand, when you go to a store and slap down a bunch
of money for a boxed game, you don't really feel like it's a privilege or
that you have any responsibility.

--matt




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