[MUD-Dev] DESIGN: Player pyramid
Mike Rozak
Mike at mxac.com.au
Fri Feb 4 03:55:40 CET 2005
A few days ago I thought of an interesting player model, which
organizes players into a pyramid-like shape:
- Players at the base of the pyramid prefer playing single-player
games, and think of a MMORPG as a single-player CRPG with other
players running around. Consequently, the other players are
usually seen as inconveniences, not to mention all the Internet
problems and monthly fees.
- Above them are players looking for a multiplayer CRPG experience
with their friends; They'd be satisified with a 10-player version
of WoW running on a private server, for example.
- The next layer includes players that like interacting with other
players, but in a controlled, sports-like manner. WoW and CoH
fulfill this niche. These VWs have been termed "game-like" virtual
worlds in discussions I've seen.
- At the top of the pyramid are players that like "world-like"
virtual worlds such as Ultima Online and Star Wars Galaxies. These
players want to do more than just kill monsters (the game), and
want to interact with other players in the world using various
player-vs-player and player-with-player activities, such as owning
and running a business or putting on virtual plays.
The model exhibits a conflict amongst the players: Players at the
base of the pyramid DON'T really need/want any players above
them. (Which is why game-like VWs seem to be more popular than
world-like VWs.) Players at the top of the pyramid NEED players
below them, or the world won't have a large enough population, or
the right makeup, to support the world-like nature. After all, if
every player wants to be an intergalactic trader, there won't be
anyone around to buy the goods. A world needs consumers (game-like
players) to keep intergalatic traders happy.
The conflict (players at the base not wanting players above them)
and the need (players at the top needing players beneath them)
implies a business model that a few virtual worlds seem to already
be practicing, where the world-like players pay fees, subsidizing
the game-like players, who play for free.
For more information, see
http://www.mxac.com.au/drt/PlayerPyramid.htm.
Mike Rozak
http://www.mxac.com.au
Web page text attached here. (But it's easier to read as HTML.)
<EdNote: Text re-fetched and formatted for readability through the
wonders of `w3m`>
--<cut>--
The player pyramid
29 January 2005
by Mike Rozak
Since learning about Richard Bartle's player models (Hearts, Clubs,
Diamonds, Spades: Players Who Suit MUDs), I've tried to find or
invent alternative player models, not because I think categorising
players as socialisers, killers, explorers and achievers is wrong,
but because having only one accepted player model imposes
blinders/limits on designers. It's like having a toolbox with only
one tool.
In the past year, I have come up with many categorisation schemes,
but this one, "The player pyramid" is particularly interesting
because it not only describes why players visit virtual worlds and
how the player types interact with one another, but it also implies
a business model. (I don't necessarily like the implications of the
business model though.)
I came up with the player pyramid when I combined disparate thoughts
that I had posted in two previous articles. The first article
discussed player motivations (from The dream machine and The
attraction of impossibility), while the second was about different
population levels in virtual worlds (from Virtual world spectrum).
For those of you who don't wish to read the previous articles,
here's a summary:
- The attraction of impossibility - Players are drawn to virtual
worlds (and other entertainments) because the worlds fulfil a
fantasy or goal that the player has, something that is missing
from real life or other entertainments. For example: Players that
are closet astronauts like science fiction games. If a player
feels the need to dominate other people, but can't in real life,
they might join a virtual world so they can dominate people
there. Or, if they wish to run a business but don't have the
bravery or capital to start one in real life, they may begin a
virtual business.
- Virtual world spectrum - Virtual worlds can be categorised based
upon how many players are logged into a shard at any given time.
Linear fiction is a virtual world with 0 players. A single player
game has 1 player. A multiplayer game on a private server is a
virtual world with around 10 players. A game-like virtual world
has 100-1000 players in a shard. A world-like virtual world has
1000-10,000 players in a shard.
Combining the two
If you peruse the list of goals and fantasies listed in The dream
machine and The attraction of impossibility you'll notice that the
different goals and fantasies which players wish to fulfil require
virtual worlds of different population levels:
- Linear fiction (0-player virtual worlds) - Most people's goals
and fantasies can be met by watching or reading linear fiction.
Watching Star Trek gives viewers the illusion they're in space,
and fulfils the wishes of many Trekkies that wish to explore the
galaxy. Romance novels add romantic interests to otherwise dull
lives. Etc.
- Single player games (1-player virtual worlds) - Many people
prefer playing single-player games to linear fiction or
multiplayer games. Single-player games allow a player to become a
hero, fight monsters, fly a plane, be mayor of a city (populated
by AIs), or lead an army (of AI soldiers) to war against AI
opponents. (Some goals/fantasies can only be fulfilled in
single-player games and not multiplayer games, such as running a
country or being Sherlock Holmes... although exceptions exist.)
- Multiplayer games (10-player virtual worlds) - Some goals and
fantasies require other players, usually friends, to be present.
CRPGs are often more fun when played with a group of friends.
Defeating a real person in battle/sport is more challenging and
meaningful than defeating an AI; Auto-racing and jet-fighter games
are more fun against real people. Etc.
- Game-like virtual worlds - MMORPGs like World of Warcraft and
GuildWars are "game-like" virtual worlds. They have fairly
constrained goals (of killing monsters to get experience to kill
tougher monsters), will only keep most players' interests for
100-200 hours, and only allow fairly limited interaction between
players. Players spend most of their time interacting with friends
(like a multiplayer CRPG), and only occasionally interact with
non-friends to trade items or enter controlled PvP combat.
Game-like virtual worlds let players compete against other players
in a controlled way, similar to sports. They also allow players to
meet one another, although since players spend such a short in the
world, close friendships or strong rivalries are unlikely to form.
- World-like virtual worlds - MMORPGs like Star Wars Galaxies and
Ultima Online are more world-like. Players can pick and choose
their goals (from killing monsters, to running and inn, to trading
goods, to being a virtual actor), will stay for a long time (500+
hours), and are continually interacting with other players.
Players still spend much of their time interacting with their
friends, but when they interact with other players, their
interactions are much deeper than those possible in game-like
virtual worlds. Because players spend so much time in the world,
these worlds produce close friendships as well as hated
enemies. They also allow players so much freedom that players can
become bounty hunters, inn-keepers, outlaws, or run a
city... goals/fantasies that they couldn't partake in by playing
game-like virtual worlds. Many of the examples I use for the
goals/fantasies of world-like gamers imply that people who like to
play world-like games are all on power trips. This is not the
case. Most goals/fantasies of world-like gamers have no negative
effects on other players, and may even be enjoyed by them. For
example: Players who wish to become virtual actors, virtual
reporters, or who wish to role play are (usually) not on power
trips, and are sometimes even appreciated by the other players.
The pyramid
Categorising players by the population of the virtual world that
they need to fulfil their goals and fantasies produces a
pyramid. Most people are happy with linear fiction, forming the base
of the pyramid. On top are those people whose needs are met by
single-player games. Above those are the multiplayer gamers,
game-like virtual world players, and world-like virtual world
players. Each group's population is progressively smaller:
World-like VW players
Game-like VW players
Multi-player gamers
Single-player gamers
Linear fiction readers/watchers
(One reviewer pointed out that the shape isn't necessarily a
pyramid, citing the popularity of MMORPGs in Korea.)
The player pyramid reveals some interesting relationships between
the player types:
- Individual players don't fit perfectly into a category. Some
players like to play single-player games, but occasionally foray
into multi-player games when they wish to socialise with their
friends. Others may like game-like virtual worlds, but
occasionally want to run their own business in a world-like
virtual world.
- Players of a category need players of the category below them to
support their goals/fantasies. The higher up a player is on the
pyramid, the more people must be around for the player to have
fun. If a designer were to keep only the top part of the pyramid
(those players that have goals/fantasies that require world-like
virtual worlds) and discard the rest, the number of players in the
decapitated world-like virtual world would be too small to support
the players' goals and fantasies; it would wither away and die.
For example: If a player wishes to be an inn-keeper (world-like
VW), the world must have enough player clientele to visit his inn.
If all his clientele also want to be inn-keepers, he won't have
any clientele... which poses a bit of a problem. To avoid worlds
populated with inn-keepers, the player must play in a world where
most players don't want to be inn-keepers. The best way to ensure
this is to play in a world where most players want to play
game-like VWs, multiplayer VWs, and single player VWs. Once in
awhile, they stop at the local inn and help fulfil the
innkeeper-player's goal/fantasy.
For example: If a player wishes to be a mayor of a city
(world-like VW), the city must be home to a couple of inns and
shops, which means players who wish to be inn-keepers and
shop-keepers. In turn, there must be even more players to visit
the inns and shops. Again, if everyone wants to be a mayor, the
experience won't work.
For example: If a player wishes to be an outlaw (game-like or
world-like VW), the world must have a lot of helpless "prey"
wandering around. If everyone in the VW is an outlaw then there's
no chance of goal/fantasy fulfilment. Furthermore, if a world has
too many outlaw players, victim players (everyone else) will get
tired of being robbed and will leave the game.
I can't find a reasonable example for why a single-player gamer
would care if linear-fiction readers/viewers exist. I can cite a
questionable example though: Many single-player games are based in
worlds derived from linear fiction (Star Wars, Middle Earth, Harry
Potter, etc.). All the money that linear-fiction viewers/readers
pour into the fanchise allow for a deeper and more interesting
single-player game.
- Players of lower tiers usually see players and their activities
from upper tiers as superfluous or annoying.
For example: Players that just want a linear narrative feel that
the interaction detracts from their experience, so they don't play
computer games. Some players like both story and interaction,
however, and they tend to gravitate towards adventure games or
CRPGs with lots of backstory.
For example: If a player's goals/fantasies can be fulfilled by a
single-player game, then a multiplayer game or MMORPG is
inconvenient. Online games cost more money (monthly fees), are
often down due to Internet problems, are subject to Internet
latency, and have other players running around the world that
impinge on the player's experience.
For example: If a player just wishes to play with his friends
(multiplayer game) then he'd be perfectly happy with a 10-player
version of a CRPG, or a 10-player version of World of Warcraft. He
could host the game on a private server whenever his friends got
together to play. (I believe Neverwinter Nights and Diablo II
allow for this.) Having non-friends wandering around the world
doesn't really add to the player's experience, and their
kill-stealing often detracts from it.
For example: If a player wishes to play in a game-like virtual
world, then having to deal with player inn-keepers is quaint, but
doesn't particularly add to the game. Nor does having to deal with
someone that is "king" of the surrounding countryside and who
demands taxes or other nonsense.
- Players occasionally enjoy having players above them on the
pyramid.
For example: Players being virtual actors or virtual reporters
make the experience more fun for (almost) all players.
Players at the top of the pyramid require that there be players
underneath them, or their goals/fantasies won't be fulfilled. For
the most part, players on the base of the pyramid would rather not
have any players above them because players higher on the pyramid
detract from their experience. This is a major source of conflict.
This relationship is similar to Richard Bartle's observations that
killers need to have socialisers and achievers to prey upon, but
socialisers and achievers don't like the killers. Likewise,
socialisers need achievers, although achievers could care less about
socialisers. In the player pyramid, killers would be at the top,
with socialisers below, and achievers and explorers at the bottom.
The bargain
The obvious solution to the pyramid's conflict is to create virtual
worlds that caters to players on the base of the pyramid, and let
the world-like players be damned. After all, the top of the pyramid
is a small market that does nothing for those below them except make
life difficult.
This solution is already practiced:
- Most people don't play games at all, and just limit themselves
to linear fiction.
- Most gamers play single-player games and don't go near
multiplayer games or MMORPGs.
- A smaller group of gamers play multiplayer games like Quake
Arena or multiplayer CRPGs. They avoid MMORPGs because of the cost
and the "inferior experience".
- Most new MMORPG players are signing up to game-like virtual
worlds, such as World of Warcraft and City of Heroes. World-like
games, such as Ultima Online and Star Wars Galaxies, are suffering
although the reasons for their decline aren't necessarily
attributable to the rise of WoW and CoH. (Ultima Online has been
declining for a number of years. Star Wars Galaxies appears to
have peaked.)
- Players that like world-like games lament their decline and
reminisce about how in the good 'ole days, when Ultima Online was
the only game, things were better. Of course, in 1998, world-like
players were at the top of a solid pyramid, instead of being on
top of an eroding pyramid losing its base to the World of
Warcraft.
At first glance, all seems lost for players who wish to play in
world-like worlds.
However, world-like players do have something that players lower
down the pyramid want... real-world money.
It's a matter of supply and demand. If a world-like gamer wishes to
have their goals and fantasies fulfilled, they must have a larger
population of players below them who do not want to be inn-keepers,
kings, or outlaws. In a way, these other players are part of the
world-like gamer's entertainment. Even if players at the base of the
pyramid don't think of their experience as being entertainment for
someone else, they often resent the inconveniences imposed on them
so that world-like players can have fun. Given a choice, players
whose goals and fantasies are fulfilled at the base of the pyramid
chose single-player games, multiplayer games, or game-like virtual
worlds, not world-like virtual worlds. Money works wonders though...
One way world-like gamers can get a supply of inn patrons, vassals,
or victims is to pay them to play. Of course, no world-like player
is going to pay other players $10/hour to play a role. However, they
will (and do) subsidise them:
- Virtual worlds like Second Life pay the bills by selling virtual
real estate for real money. They don't charge a monthly fee for
property-less players. Most of the world's population is
subsidised by the few players who purchase property. People
purchase property either because (a) they hope to make in-game
profits that can be turned into real-life money, or (b) they want
to own an island (or building, etc.) that they can invite the
masses to enjoy, or at least salivate at from a distance. Property
owners are at the top of the player pyramid, while non-paying
players fit into the game-like VW or multiplayer-game layers,
because they are interested in socialisation and basic
entertainment. In Second Life, some people pay real money for
virtual land because most players do not own land.
- Pay-for-items virtual worlds such as Achaea have a similar
approach. A player can spend countless hours grinding their way to
a high level character and power, allowing them to partake in
Achaea's world-like activities involving guilds, city politics,
and religions. Or, they can purchase their way to the top. Those
players who are merely interested in the monster-bashing game
(game-like VW) end up playing for free.
- Players that purchase characters and goods on E-Bay get instant
power, which they can then use to lord over other players. While
most players pay $25 for the Ultima Online box, and then
$10/month, a few players pay $1000 to skip the grind and start
with a high level, allowing them to fulfil whatever
goals/fantasies of theirs require them to be more powerful than
the other players. They wouldn't pay $1000 to have a maxed-out
character in a single-player CRPG like Morrowind.
Some other subsidised marketing models are possible:
- Most people play for free, but only get functionality that
allows them to fulfil goals/fantasies that can be met with
single-player or multi-player virtual worlds. If someone wishes to
be a guild leader, own property, run an inn, or control a kingdom,
they need to pay a monthly fee. Runescape seems to be heading in
this direction.
- If a player wishes to own property, they must pay a real-life
rent for "upkeep and maintenance" of the property.
- Players can purchase "titles and lands", such as baronies, from
the game company for real life money, as opposed to going through
E-bay. This is very similar to pay-for-items.
Example of design and business model
The player pyramid implies some design constraints and business
models for creating a world-like VW. Here is one example of how the
design could be incorporated into a virtual world: (I have chosen it
because it's distinctly different than Achaea's or Second Life's
approaches.)
- The game-like features of the virtual world are free. This
includes features used by players who are interested in playing
alone or with their friends: (50% of the players)
+ Standard CRPG features - Combat, levelling, content. (New
content must also be free.)
+ Basic socialisation features - Forming a party, emotes,
text chat.
- The world is designed to encourage game-like players to interact
with world-like players, but not so much that the game players get
frustrated and leave. Game-like players may be able to do business
solely with NPCs, but they'll discover that NPCs charge more gold
for the service than real life players. (If NPCs are cheaper,
game-like players won't interact with world-like players, breaking
the business model.)
- The basic world-like player package costs $N/month. It includes
features that allow a player some extra perks that world-like
players will want: (30% of the the players)
+ The ability to join a guild.
+ Voice chat to anyone. Play-for-free players might use 3rd
party voice chat, but the can only talk to other party
members.
+ Customable avatar, potentially including custom textures
for an avatar's face and clothing.
+ The ability to set up a non-persistent business.
Non-persistent businesses stop operating when the player logs
off.
+ The ability to purchase a house.
+ The ability to initiate player-vs-player combat. Non-paying
players can engage in PvP combat once it's started.
+ Trade skills like mining, herbalist, leatherworking, armour
making, etc.
- A "gold" package might cost $2N/month, and include features
tailored towards the top 10% of the players:
+ The ability to run a guild or be a guild officer.
+ The ability to purchase a persistent business with in-game
currency, like an inn, shipping company, church, etc.
Persistent businesses run even when the player is logged off,
and provide more in-depth interaction.
+ Virtual-world bank accounts.
+ If the player's character receives in-game E-mail then it's
forwarded via real E-mail, allowing the player to always be
in touch.
+ Players can hire a few NPCs to do grunt-work.
+ Custom emotes that the player designs. (Particularly useful
for players that want to be virtual actors.)
- A "platinum" package costing $4N/month is targeted at the player
leaders (3% of the players)... Think SimCity or SimXXX but with
real players instead of AIs:
+ The PC can purchase a guild hall, castle, or other large
structure, with in-game money.
+ The PC can own a large business, such as a port, trade
route, etc.
+ The PC can be elected mayor of a town, run a religion, or
purchase a fiefdom, using in-game currency.
+ The player can build houses, roads, or otherwise shape the
landscape, provided they have enough in-game currency.
+ Real E-mail address that can send in-game E-mail to players
and NPCs.
+ Players can be notified of events in real-time with a SMS
message to their mobile phones. This is particularly useful
when running a persistent business.
+ Players can hire a lot of NPCs for grunt work involving
trade, guards, etc. Players' NPCs (as well as sanctioned PCs)
exhibit the player's coat of arms.
+ The player can hire an army of NPCs (not to mention PCs) to
attack other player's castles. (A mobile phone SMS warning
comes in very handy at such times.)
Of course, very few (if any) of the specifics of the implementation
are new ideas.
Ramifications of "the bargain"
If a virtual world design-team decides to have world-like players
subsidise the players below them, then there are ramifications:
- Players at the top of the pyramid are primarily interested in
player-vs-player interaction, and will request development efforts
that produce more interesting player-vs-player interactions. Those
at the base of the pyramid are more interested in "the game" and
will request more content, like quests.
- Players at the base of the pyramid are only weakly tied into the
game. They will probably only spend 100-200 hours playing through
the content, and then leave to play another game. Players at the
top have strong ties to the game and will stay longer, although
more difficult to acquire.
- Players at the base of the pyramid may not play in way that
makes the players at the top of the pyramid happy. Television pays
for itself by showing commercials, but people do whatever they can
to avoid seeing those commercials, such as toilet breaks, kitchen
breaks, VCRs, flipping channels, and TiVo. The same will go for
free players; they won't want to experience some of the world-like
content that the upper portion of the pyramid imposes on them and
will find ways to avoid it.
- The high turnover of the base players creates a problem that
Richard Bartle calls the "Newbie flow"... A constant stream of new
players must be brought in to the lower portions of the pyramid to
replace the constant stream that leaves for other games. This is
no easy task: To keep the top of the pyramid happy, the base must
be very large. This means that the developers must initially spend
a lot of resources producing 100-200 hours of content that will
attract a base. After a couple of years, when every potential
player has consumed the content, the game-like content must be
replaced with new content, and the cycle restarts.
- Declining fees for those at the base - A newly-released virtual
world may be able to charge all players a monthly fee because
demand will be high for the "latest and greatest". As the world
ages, it can continue to charge players at the top of the pyramid,
but would eventually have to let lower-tiered players in for free,
or risk losing its base.
- Players at the top of the pyramid will exert great influence
over the design team because a small percentage of the player base
will provide most of the game's income. Big-ticket players will
threaten to leave if their demands aren't met. If they do leave
en-masse (taking their money with them) the virtual world will
find it difficult to find and recruit new big-ticket players.
- The happier players at the top of the pyramid are, the more
unhappy those on the base will be. A virtual world may find a few
players willing to pay $1000 (per month?) to be a king. They could
charge more if the king had greater powers over his subjects, but
this would inevitably lead to a less-enjoyable experience for the
king's subjects, who would leave. Once they left, the king would
also leave his empty kingdom and go to another game where his
$1000 would provide new subjects to alienate. Meanwhile, other
paying players would leave the dying world, creating a feedback
cycle that could potentially bankrupt the virtual world.
- E-Baying will be a huge problem.
- If virtual worlds are free to play, many single-player gamers
will stop playing single-player games. For some, the
inconveniences of virtual worlds will be worth the low
cost. People accept 12-16 minutes of commercials per hour of
television so they don't have to pay $2.00 - $3.00 to watch the
show. (TV ads cost approximately $0.10 per pair of eyeballs, times
24-32 ads per hour.) Spending 12-16 minutes per hour of
virtual-world play fulfilling someone else's goal/fantasy may be a
reasonable tradeoff, especially if it adds to the experience.
- A business model with 50% of its players not paying isn't as bad
as it sounds. At least 50% of the players of a single-player game
are playing on a pirated copy already. (Although a virtual world
is much more expensive to produce than a single-player game.) A
non-paying player would still incur costs though: Bandwidth, CPU
usage, and the 100-200 hours of content needed to attract them. A
developer might be able to allocate less CPU and bandwidth to
non-paying players, and certainly wouldn't provide much product
support, but content is still expensive.
- I suspect virtual worlds with a pyramid structure will have a
long and stable life, while those without a top will be more
hit-based, like Hollywood movies and single-player computer
games. This seems to be the case with text MUDs, where (as Richard
Bartle points out) worlds with a balance of killers, socialisers,
killers, and explorers last longer.
- Contemporary virtual worlds give power to the players who have
been around the longest and that have the most free time to play,
basically teenagers, underemployed adults, and extreme
enthusiasts. A pyramid-designed world would give more power to
those players with more money in the real world, and condemn the
teenagers and underemployed adults to the base of the pyramid. Is
this a good thing??? (Not that handing all the in-game power to
teenagers, underemployed adults, and extreme enthusiasts is all
that great.)
Ultimately, a two-tiered society is created, of landholders
(paying customers) and migrants (play-for-free).
Alternative business models
The player pyramid's business model isn't the only one available to
virtual worlds. A couple other well-known models exist:
- Pay for play - This is the current business model for most
MMORPGs, but how long will this last? Of all the linear fiction
that people read/watch, what percentage of it do they pay for
directly? Most linear fiction read/watched is on television or
radio, which is ad supported. Books (a niche market) are generally
pay-for-play though.
If a world is pay-for-play, players on the base of the pyramid
will demand that the top-players be removed since they're no
longer subsidising the base-players' experience. Similarly, novels
don't have full-page ads every few pages, although Stephen King
novels include product placement.
- Ad supported - Ads could be placed around the virtual world,
such as billboards or cans of virtual Coca Cola. How many worlds
can integrate ads without destroying the ambience? (Of course,
television ads also destroy the ambience of the television shows,
and people don't complain too much.)
Just as with pay-for-play worlds, if the top of the pyramid is no
longer subsidising the players below, it will be decapitated or
greatly reduced.
Conclusion
In a virtual world that subscribes to the player pyramid:
1. Players on the top of the player pyramid (looking for a
world-like VW experience) require a large base to fulfil their
goals/fantasies. Those at the base (looking for a game-like VW
experience) would rather not have any players above them.
2. Players looking for a world-like VW experience (on top the
pyramid) will pay for the game.
3. Players at the base (those who prefer multiplayer and
single-player games) will be able to play for free (or very
cheaply), at the expense of having the inconveniences of a
world-like VW imposed on them.
4. A large number of players at the base of the pyramid is
necessary to attract and keep players at the top.
5. The main purpose of content (quests, dungeons, etc.) is to
attract a steady stream of players into the base of the pyramid,
those who like multiplayer and single player games. These players
will only stay around for 100-200 hours, or until the content is
consumed. Thus, the content must be renewed every few years to
re-attract them.
6. The player-vs-player elements of the virtual world provide
interesting ways for world-like players to interact with one
another and players lower on the pyramid.
Copyright 2005 by Mike Rozak. All rights reserved.
Mike at mXac.com.au
mXac Home
--<cut>--
_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
https://kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev
More information about the mud-dev-archive
mailing list