Can a great game overshadow microtransactions?

The mere mention of “microtransaction” used to make me completely ignore a game, write it off, and immediately form a negative opinion.  Has anything changed?  Only slightly.  I still believe that 99% of games that use a MT business model are crap and that they should be written off and ignored.    Not all of them are crap though.  Finding even one that is a gem makes me question the idea just slightly.

Ideal: If a MT system is going to work then it must sell me items that I want to buy and not items that I feel like I have to buy.

Can such a system exist?  It just might be a paradox.  These cash shops work by giving people free to play games with a cash shop full of things they want to buy but also that they have to buy.  Worse is that the items they have to buy are consumable or temporary and will be gone quick enough that the players return to buy more because they feel compelled to continue purchasing.  Eventually the games become more expensive than a subscription model to the point of being Play to Pay.

Finding a game that uses a business model but is also worth playing because it’s a good game raises all sorts of problems.  First, why the business model instead of a subscription model?  Clearly they must feel that they can make more money with the business model.  Red flags should be going off everywhere now.  You’ll never make more than a subscription model if you can’t get people using your cash shop.  By design, cash shops require players to use them in order for them to work.

Whether it’s epic gear or mandatory consumables, the player will always be driven to the cash shop by the game in some way.  If we’re battling them purely on principle, and we stick to our guns, every business model I have ever encountered loses right here.  However, if I set the principles aside for a second (not diminishing them mind you) and look at the practical application, perhaps some form of balance might be found.

Making up a scenario (that will sound familiar) for the sake of argument, let’s assume that the most obtrusive MT a game sells is a potion.  If you buy the potion and I don’t then you’ll have a slight advantage because you will have 40% more HP.  Most people would then say this is being “forced” into using the cash shop to remain competitive.   If the cost is something like $0.05 for the item, and it’s expected that you may buy a few per day, we’re looking at two things. 1) an obtrusive cash shop but 2) Not a lot of money.  Setting aside our principles which would be screaming to be unleashed at this point, we can walk away paying less than a subscription fee.  Throw in a few more extras for yourself and you can even still pay under a subscription fee’s cost.  If players set a budget for themselves at a firm $14.99/month, is the business model workable for games that don’t blatantly cross the line?

I’m wishing that I could take a stance on this issue and say one way or another that this is workable or not.  The greater part of me is clawing at my insides to get out and scream “HERETICS! YOU SHALL ALL BURN!” at even the thought of buying anything from a cash shop.  But there’s one little part inside saying “this can work if the game is worth it…”

I guess the stance I’m taking at this point is that there are some games that defy logic.  There are business model games that should clearly be subscription model games — everything about them screams AAA subscription model with Mill+ subs, but a business model is used and one tiny little fly in the ointment is added to make people want to use the cash shop.  Do we throw out such games or do we give them some thought?  I’m truly torn.

Conceding that microtransaction models force players to use the cash shop by nature and that an ideal cash shop can never exist, is it possible that a high caliber game can come along and justify use of that cash shop as long as it remains at least somewhat reasonable?

Where once there was no room for discussion now lies a tiny crack for some rational consideration …. maybe.

  • No way you read the post commenting less than 30 seconds after it went up. 😛 I agree though. Cash shops make all games worse. But given that there can be good games with cash shops, can a good game ever overshadow, even slightly, a cash shop?

  • I was really enjoying Battlefield Heroes until the Devs (no doubt influenced by EA) completely and radically repriced everything so that the Cash items became not just desirable but almost mandatory as you climbed the levels.
    Many players thought it created a 2-tier game: those willing to pay and those unwilling or unable. Now a good balance could have been achieved by actually stratifying the servers along those same lines: Battle Fund enabled and Non-BF Servers (BF being the ingame currency bought with real money).
    Alas after struggling along for weeks I saw this was never going to happen so I pretty much quit on principle: I can afford it but one thing that attracted me to the game was that it was free. I also worked out it would cost me more to maintain the desired perks/gear etc than an MMO Sub.

    But I consider that one to achieve some fair/balance: split the servers so people can’t “Pay to Win”.

    PS: Have you noticed that in game currencies are always really bizarre amounts which are neatly calculated to be just short of what you’d need for the first few upgrades? You always end up with a pile of unused currency and can either waste it or buy another bundle: even if you pay, they gouge you for a % of the value.

  • To clarify on the above Battlefield Heroes re-price: you could buy items for a different free in-game currency earned by simply playing – those costs increased about 10 fold / item durations decreased.
    Some items and perks like XP gains were always Cash only.

  • Well, aren’t most MMOs doing microtransactions, even with a subscription? They charge for cosmetic changes, server changes, name change, even faction changes?

    I would love it if allods were subscription based, or even if they would just add a subscription OPTION (like get 100% time perfume on all characters and a monthly allowment of crystals to spend in the cash shop).

    However one thing we must think about is that subscription usually come with a built-in development cost. You need to pay for the software itself (which is free in MT games), you need to pay for most of the greatest updates (expansions) on the software (also free in MT games). So it is not a simple question of 14.99 a month with you add up the box-prices.

    The other thing that makes this payment model attractive is that you can control your payment in time. If you are a hardcore, 5 hours a day gamer, then you might end up paying more. However if you take gaming breaks or don’t play as much every day, you will definitelly spend less. The subscription-based game sets a ceiling to monthly spending, but also sets a basis, and being monthly recurring that offers little ability to take a week off without costs.

  • You make a few unfounded accusations here, Keen.

    First, a microtransaction model need not make a game worse. There are numerous ways they can be entirely benificial. Actual cost to the player is a function of the developers expected player cost and actual playtime. A player who only plays occasionally, then, gets a great deal.

    Of course, it all depends on how the ‘cash shop’ is set up. I fully agree that making cash purchases required for character progress is bad mojo (no one likes pay-to-win).

    Subscription vs business model? Terrible naming. Don’t kid yourself, developers/publishers aren’t doing you any favours going subscription based – they will do whatever they feel they can get away with to get as much money out of you as they can. It’s ALL about business, pure and simple.

    Subscription setups are a terrible value when you play multiple games, or have limited playtime too. What if I want to raid in wow on Tuesdays with a guild, tool around in Darkfall when I want noncrappy pvp, and try out new MMO’s? Currently, that’ll typically run me in the neighboorhood of $50/month. With FTP+microtransactions, I would be able to keep it in the neighboorhood of just one MMO sub given thaty actual playtime in each game is limited.

    Spimply decrying microtransactions as ba rather than finding a better way to work them limits your options enormously, and locks out a huge potential playerbase.

    God knows, in my years of MMO playing, I’d have happily contributed money to a number of MMO’s but could never multiple subscriptions intoy budget so I just stuck with Warcraft for the bulk of the time(it’s where most of my friends were.)

    So, the question is not ‘can a microtransaction game succeed in spite of it’s payment model’ but rather ‘how can the payment model be best implemented to not screw players on a limited budget while still generating the desired income per player.’

    Subscription models, on the

  • So, did the peek at the ALLODS shop make you think you may have to compromise to do astral ships?

  • I think you should look at Runes of Magic as a successful model of implementing a cash shop in the game. In the early levels there is no real need to use the cash shop. The main things you would want to buy are bag space, bank space, and mounts. Slightly slower mounts can be rented for very small amounts of in-game gold, and you never really feel forced to rent bag space. The prices are extremely reasonable as well. An extra bag can be rented for merely pennies. On top of this “freebies” are given to your character when you reach certain levels. This is very clever because it exposes players to the conveniences of cash shop items.

    After a few weeks of playing this game I felt like I should “reward” the developers by getting my credit card out and purchasing a permanent mount. Plus it would be more convenient for me. I didn’t feel like I was forced to do this at all.

    In the end-game of RoM you do need items from the cash shop. A player could spend hundreds of dollars for items that will allow them to upgrade their gear. However, everything you need can be obtained either with in-game gold or daily quest tokens.

    My favorite feature of RoM is that you can buy and sell diamonds (the cash shop currency) on the auction house This means I can farm items, sell them for in-game gold, and then sell that gold for diamonds which can be used in the cash shop. The result is that if I want to farm items in the game instead of paying real money I can. RoM gets revenue from other players who are willing to buy in-game currency on the AH for real diamonds.

    I really feel like I could play RoM for free if I wanted to, and have all of the items I ever need. But several times I have ponied up some cash just to make things go faster or to “donate” to the developers.

    I have several friends who still recoil at the idea of paying a subscription for a game. I feel like if they actually played an MMO they would understand. I feel the same way about cash shops. Many gamers, including me at one point, didn’t think it would ever work.

    I know developers can find the right balance for a game because I have seen it in action. I just hope that Allods is as successful as RoM when it comes to integrating the cash shop into the game.

  • The future of gaming is sub+micro-transactions sadly.

    I think the core here is can a PvP-centric game not sell Free Win tokens. I don’t think so.

  • Microtransactions work pretty well if either players get something of lasting value for their money, or the “cash advancement” path is purely parrallel to the free one. An example for the first would be magic online, where you have to pay for digital cards but get to keep these cards (or sell them) and where you can actually go infinite if you play well enough. This prospect alone can keep people p(l)aying.

    An example of the second type would be league of legends. If you spend real money you can diversify your hero collection faster, but you will be just as competitive if you stick with a single hero for as long as you wish.

  • I think I subscription based games always end up implementing that well known grind – to keep you subscribed.

    I am hoping that micro-transaction based game will eventually evolve to the point where you pay for a few good evening, like the going to the movies, but you actually get quality entertainment.

  • Well it has a great potential to make things worse if implemented poorly, but so long as the items are convenience or cosmetic based, I will be glad to spend up to $15/month on a F2P game as I at least have the option to pay less than a typical sub if I chose…

  • @sleepysam: In Allods it’s a case of having to buy perfume for the HP buff. Doesn’t play into the astral ship thing too much.

  • My introduction into the world of MMORPGs was through F2P games and lasted almost 2 years before trying a sub game, but didn’t stop.

    To trivialize the situation(which I think it’s in desparate need of). micro-transaction is a business model that has seen many gamers having a hard time adapting too. That is the only true, and accurate statement theirs been in 2 years, from anyone.

    Ask anyone, why they think it’s bad, and you the the “I like pie” response 100% of the time. You get very opinionated responses based off player feelings that covers such an enormous scope of subjectivity, you may as well be saying “I like pie”.

    I take a hard stance on this because I am confident I have seen it, and heard it all. I’ve played the F2P games non-stop and still do. I never stopped. I’ve seen Cash Shops improve, and I’ve seen them stay the same.

    But the real issue that the majority of players don’t want to accept and/or look at or acknowledge is that charging micro-transactions is a business model fundamentally no different than charging a monthly fee.

    I welcome debate, but examples need to be proven with hard evidence to me. Just to try to even it out, I myself have formulated good(what I think are good) arguments against the model, and I haven’t heard anything close to them.

    It sounds like a rant, and maybe it is, but there is no negative aspects of RMT beyond sub fees, just negative feelings, and that’s a big difference.

    People say things along the lines of “You can imbalance the game by selling things free players can’t get”. Where? show me. Who is doing this?

    I’m not mad about the argument. I’m upset that what I refer to as a trivial fanboy rant/war has seeped into the minds of gamers as a legitimate concern, and while balance is always an issue in any game, the whole idea that RMT is the “bad man in the alley” is absurd.

    As gamers we should be continuing to look at new ideas and game play and seeing it’s potential for new fun games and gameplay, and continuing to make it grow, not shooting each other in the foot, and then no one wins.

  • Three ways to break it down.

    First, what games are F2P? Up until recently, really really poor games. So there is a stigma attached from the beginning.

    Second, depending on amount of time played per month, they usually end up costing a player more money.
    There is a lot of psychology behind giving away “Free” items or asking for small payments in order to reap larger profits down the road.

    Lastly, in a PvP game, selling unique items, potions, or enhancements can easily imbalance it.

    On a side note, the recent sub+micro opens a whole new can of worms. Selling me a game, charging me a subscription, then charging me for what most would consider default content…MEH.

  • Its much the same as a amusement park, the way I look at it. When people go an amusement park they’ll (admittedly maybe somewhat begrudgingly) hand over the 40 or 50 dollar day pass fee as long as once they get in the rides are “free.” Yes, make admission free or a small fee like 5 dollars, and suddenly people are reluctant to pay 1 dollar to go on a ride. Even if they could go on every ride they wanted all day and barely make it to the 40-50 day pass fee if they reached it at all.

    When you force people to evaluate the price of each individual thing they are doing, they’ll probably say each little thing isn’t worth the cost. However, if you just charge people a bunch at once and say “do whatever the hell you want” they seem much more receptive to the idea, regardless of which one comes out as being actually cheaper. Maybe its the idea of just paying once and then not having to worry about money the rest of the time, maybe its that it seems worth it to pay 15 bucks a month to play a game, but when the game is “free” (even though it obviously isn’t free for the company to make/run), suddenly people think “Well if the entire game is free, why do I need to pay 10 dollars for a mount?”

    I’ve played both pay to play and free to play games, and as far as I am concerned the difference in terms of the actual impact of your day in and day out experience of playing the game is minimal to none. Its almost all preconceived ideas about the model that shape your experience, and if you can force yourself to go in neutral to the model, you usually find out that it isn’t such a big deal after all.

    Lastly, I think there is the idea that “well someone can just pay 1000 dollars and have everything and I can’t cause I don’t have that money to spend.” First of all, the reality of it is that barely anyone does this. Secondly, so what if they do? You’ll quickly realize that is isn’t much different than the people who can afford to play 14 hours a day when you can only play 2-3.

    Don’t worry about the pricing structure of the game, evaluate it on its own merits, and pay for what you want (whether it be a monthly subscription that you think is worth it, a bonus xp potion, a mount, gear, etc).

  • DDO is a GREAT game with a cash-shop. It was a great game when it was P2P, and has actually gotten much better with age. I think the store in DDO enhances the game tremendously, and I have never felt pressured, persuaded, or forced to buy anything. I have bought a few items, only because it is a free game, and I had a few bucks to throw at it (I’ve spent roughly $20 total on DDO since it went free to play). Turbine has done it right.

    I don’t think a game with a monthly sub above $9.99/mo should ever have a microtransaction shop. All content should be open to everyone for the sub alone.

  • @Terroni, Please understand, I am arguing your point only( I always like to give disclaimers:) )

    “really really poor games”<– I like pie.

    "Second, depending on amount of time played per month, they usually end up costing a player more money."<– I like pie.

    "There is a lot of psychology behind giving away “Free” items or asking for small payments in order to reap larger profits down the road." rigged I like pie argument.(the rigging is that you artificially weighted the negativity feeling by adding the connotation that they are trying to reap larger profits as) as opposed to who?

    I don't think sub game companies want to make any less money than RMT companies.

    Lastly, in a PvP game, selling unique items, potions, or enhancements can easily imbalance it.

  • I like what WoW has done with pets. I don’t need them, but honestly I want them.

    I like your idea though Keen, it isn’t really a F2P MMO if MT are required to play the game.

  • In an interview for http://www.massively.com it was stated that Allods would not be selling power in the cash shop. If they end up selling power in their cash shop that will show how trustworthy the people running this project are, and how much of my time they truly deserve.

    In terms of current F2P games I only know of one that has truly stood out for all the right reasons. The game is League of Legends.

    http://www.leagueoflegends.com

    This is what a F2P game should be in my humble opinion. They don’t sell power in any way shape and form. If you choose to “purchase” the game, all you’ve done is unlock characters that you’d otherwise spend time playing in game to unlock.

    The cash shop sells experience and influence points (in game currency) boosts. It also sells skins that change the appearance of the characters in game.

    God I hope Allods doesn’t sell power. Otherwise it will not live up to the hype and the PROMISES.

  • Cash shops can be balanced – as long as the average player doesn’t feel the need to have to spend more than $15 per month, the cash shop system may work. However, I seriously doubt that any game will achieve that balance – in such a system – the availability and price of every little item you offer may make or break the MT system. If you go too far (too greedy) then the system will fail.

    If the stuff you sell doesn’t matter enough – then your profits will be too low. If they matter too much, then the player feels like they have to buy it and spend too much and eventually abandon the game.

    From a business standpoint, I don’t see the benefit of limiting how my customers spend their money for my product. Why not offer both a MT system and a subscription business model, where the subscription model includes $15 worth of purchases. Of course, this needs to be balanced too but it seems more forgiving. MT will get customers to try your game who otherwise may have not tried it, the subscription model will ensure you get the usual MMORPG crowd (of which a large part hates MT models). If people want to spend money for my product and I don’t let them because I have to have this special way they spend their money – that is stupid, plain and simple.

  • It’s probably possible to make a cash shop right, but I have yet to see it happen. The problem always is that the guys willing to spend about 15$/month will be hopelessly outmatched by those that spend 100+$/month. So in essence you end up paying a full subscriptions worth on on the cash shop and still are far too weak to compete. And this definitely ruins games.

    gPotato has not managed a great cash shop so far, so it would be extremely naive to expect them to do it with Allods. Our only hope is that the developer maintains some control over the cash shop. But then again, haven’t they been selling gold in the russian version? Yep, Allods is screwed.

  • I have absolutely no idea why anyone gets so worked up over this.

    Commercial MMOs aren’t sports. They aren’t not-for-profit or charity events. They aren’t government-funded social-engineering projects. They aren’t pure research. They aren’t any of the things that might require the kind of moral tone and ethical approach that they get from this debate over payment methods.

    Commercial MMOs are a product sold for profit with an after-sales service attached. The company that makes them has to come up with a means of making that profitable.

    Whether the company chooses to absorb ALL the service costs and rely on making its profits entirely from the product sale (Guild Wars), or from the intitial product sale plus a service charge (WoW), or from Microtransactions only (RoM) or from a combination of any and all of the above (W101) seems to me to be entirely immaterial.

    If a game is fun to play, play it. If it’s worth paying for, pay for it. If neither, don’t.

    Personally, I quite like paying a monthly fee to play because it has an odd added value: it makes me feel like I’m a member of a club. As for microtransactions, I rarely use even 10% of all the in-game /claim type freebies AAA titles throw at me, and as yet I have never seen a single item in a cash shop in any game I play that I would even bother to /claim for free, let alone buy, so again it’s a complete non-issue.

    If a game has a mechanism whereby in order to play at all you have to buy from the item shop, then that is de facto the charge for playing that game. In which case, it’s just a matte rof deciding whether the game is worth that payment to play. I really can’t see a moral difference here, just a practical one.

    Is there a moral difference between eating from the a la carte menu or taking the set menu?

  • @Bhagpuss, I entirely agree that there is no moral issue here. However that does not change the fact that cash shops ruin games and we are worried that it will happen again with Allods online. It’s not about ethics. It’s about getting a good game versus a bad game.

    Not everything that people get worked up over has to do with morality.

  • I really do like pie. My statements are true and not opinion.

    The question Bhagpuss is if the profit model ruins the game model. Everyone having the same playing field versus purchasing an advantage. P2P games generally sell cosmetic nonfunctional items and services like server transfers. None of which provide an imbalance.

  • It’s not a moral issue. It’s a gameplay issue.

    I keep thinking of Jeff Strain’s oft-stated opinions (when he was with ArenaNet) that Gameplay is inherently dictated by a game’s business model.

    So the question is, does the F2P model make good games? I’d say generally no, not in my opinion, but I do think it’s possible.

    Hell, people have argued the same opinions over the subscription model, which tends to result in gameplay that keeps you grinding month-to-month.

    One example that comes to mind for me is Kingdom of Loathing, which to me at least doesn’t feel like it has compromised its game with the cash sales they use to fund it. Not much at least, or maybe it’s just because it fits in well with the game’s tongue-in-cheek nature.

  • @Rog: Dude! Thanks for the tip I am going to try out KoL. How can I resist a game with stick figure toons and classes like “Pastamancer – With his mastery of the arcane secrets of Noodlecraft, the Pastamancer is a force to be reckoned with. He relies on his Mysticality to get ahead in the world.”

    http://www3.kingdomofloathing.com

  • I think this mentatlity is exactly why I’ve decided to try out a different F2P game each month this year. I realized at some point last year that I shared Keen’s opinion on the absolute evil of the F2P model and yet I had little to no actual experience in the market to justify that hate.

    I really don’t think the F2P model is fundamentatly bad. There are likely poorly implemented cash shops, I haven’t seen them personally but I don’t think that’s a stretch to assume. But there are other games that incorporate cash shops well.

    So far this year I’ve played RoM and just started in on Battle Forge. RoM’s cash shop did not seem overly priced or overly necessary. If I come back to the game, I could see myself paying into the shop for some items, but it would be at my leisure, not at an arbitrary monthly interval.

    Personally, my biggest complaint with Sub model games is that whether or not I log in ever day, I’m charged just as much as the girl that plays that often. It also had held me back from trying games that I might otherwise enjoy, such as Aion or Fallen Earth. I did play FE briefly with a trial key and enjoyed it, but not enough to commit to $50 “box” sale + $15/month. I could see myself playing it as a Pay as I Go model though.

  • in my opinion, it’s a matter of a level playing field. I’ll concede that is not inherently something that everyone wants, but it is something that I want. I prefer an environment where out of game barriers, ie the cost, provide equal access to in game opportunities.

    When I see another person in the game, I prefer to know that any difference between us is an in-game matter – an issue of the choices in the game they have made and the time and energy they’ve invested to achieve their goals.

    A related, secondary reason I prefer a subscription model is honestly the simplicity and hands-off nature of it. With a subscription, I pay it once a month and everything I want to do happens in game terms. Introduce a cash shop and I have to start calculating how much money my time is worth and weigh my in-game decisions in terms of cost. When I’m playing the game the last thing I want to think about is real money. Talk about ruining the experience of living in a fantasy.

    But yeah, that’s what I like. Call it pie if you want, but when you’ve tried everything on the dessert cart, wanting pie does not amount to ignorance or fear of change.

  • Microtransactions being good or bad is not really what this is about.

    No one can argue that a microtransaction model (business model, as they call it) only works if people use the shop. So if we agree that it is inherent to all microtransaction models that people must use thee shop, then we agree that being forced/compelled to buy something in a microtransaction model is unavoidable.

    This is where I reach the main question at hand. Let’s assume you’re against microtransactions (if you’re for them, this really isn’t a discussion for you).

    Can a good game overshadow microtransactions? If the game has a cash shop then people will be forced to use it. Well, if the game is good enough then is that okay? This is what I’m trying to get at, and what I have not decided yet.

  • The way I look at it is pretty simple. If it ends up costing me around $15 a month in micro transactions to play the game then they hit the spot. If it costs more it’s crap, less is awesome. I only spend when I play and only what I need. No free ride, though it’s possible if I want to take the slow route.

  • > First, why the business model instead of a subscription
    > model? Clearly they must feel that they can make more
    > money with the business model.

    This is a common misconception. There are many business reasons for going with the MT business model over subscription that are not simply “we can make more money this way.”

    1) Lower barrier to entry. It is easier to get people to try your game if it is free and does not require $50 + 15/month up front to play. This is particularly important for games from small companies.

    2) Easier to retain customers. In a subscription model, if someone isn’t playing your game a lot, they are motivated to cancel. Once they cancel, they cannot play at all. In a MT model, they can still play a little bit, never fully cancel, and can thus be “sucked back in” to a more hardcore level of play at any time.

    3) Word of mouth is more effective. It is easier for fans of a game to convince their friends to try it if the game is free.

  • I think it is possible that such a game could exist. Logically you could better adjust how much money you wish to use and probably end up paying less for the same quality. So it would have to be a game that you don’t play all the time mostly just hang out and talk to your freinds. Maybe for like an hour a day you do hardcore pvp or hardcore pve and it costs you 0.5$/day on average.

    Immersion is broken completely by that kind of model. If I have to think about my wallet while im playing I wont be immersed with the game.

    I think if WoW had that kind of model I would play it more than I do now. Immersion doesnt matter cause I have already done almost everything once or twice but the social part is still apealing.

    A new game that you want to experience is hurt more by having a cash shop than a game that has been around for years. Once you have “completed” a mmorpg a cash shop could be acceptable if you ask me.

    Imagine you are new to a game and you meet a cool higher lvl character who is doing something that you just did not think anyone could do. If I then learned he was able to do it because he spent $$ on something and all I have to do is cough up with the cash then the experience would be ruined. I would most likely not think he was cool anymore and it would not make me want to be higher lvl like him.

    My conclusion is that mmorpgs should be subscribtion based and that your question is a very good one.

  • Haven’t commented here before, but I’ve been reading your blog as my main way of learning about Allods. My experience in actual in game play is limited to the under level 20 areas, and as such I’m not too familiar with how much of an edge and how much cost we’re talking with these potions.
    I think a cash shop is entirely viable, and not in the least a bad system if done properly. Double/triple exp coupons, cosmetic changes, things that don’t necessarily impact your characters stats are completely fine and awesome. Sure triple exp might give you an edge leveling up, but it doesn’t give you an edge 1v1 against a player of your same level who spent 3x as much time to get to your level.
    Another thing I’d applaud them for selling is in game gold, which I guess is already close to this system anyway if you’re able to sell cash shop items on the auction house. Gold spammers have always been a scourge in games I’ve played, and if Aion would’ve done something about it before the population died and everyone I had met left the game I might still be playing.

    I like Maplestory’s cash shop, used to play that game with my girlfriend and I’ve spent a little bit of money on it just for kicks. As far as I know you can’t boost your stats or anything through it, just look cool/gain more exp/do colorful world messages or buy mystery box style items that weren’t any more powerful than things you could get otherwise in game.

  • I’ll never touch a game with a cash shop. Just old-fashioned i guess, but every item i get in game imo needs to be earned/obtained through playing the game, through achievements in the fantasy world the devs have set up. Same for everyone else in the world that i play in. If i have some bad-ass blade of butt-hair plucking that took me 2 months of questing to obtain, while Rodney Rangerfield next to me has some better bad-ass blade of butt-hair plucking II that he paid $20 for in the cash shop…not gonna work.

    I’ve just always hated any game that had items you could either buy or that you would get extra with the collectible box etc. – completely destroys my immersion in that game when there are people walking around with special little pixels that they bought with a credit card instead of earned in the game.

    Note: this is just my opinion. I understand a lot of people aren’t bothered by it and that’s wonderful.

  • I believe the F2P with CS/MT models will begin to dominate the market. I think MMO players are tired of being promised the moon and getting green cheese. A subscription is a regular monthly charge, regardless of game quality or stability. MT’s and the cash shop with F2P is pay as you go. So you are only as invested as you choose to be. If the game isn’t worth playing unless you are investing in the shop, you will ultimately save money by doing the line item math.

  • this is an interesting debate.

    I don’t know about other people but for me, feeling forced to spend money in-game to stay competitive breaks the immersion i want from a game. If i know that there the main factor limiting my gameplay options is money that will completely break the immersion i seek in video-games.

    However there’s this little f2p called Allods that blew me away and is one of the best MMOs coming out to the market in years that messed with my ideas. I can now truly see myself playing a f2p game if the cash shop is decently integrated in the game and doesn’t messes with the game balance.
    If a f2p allows me to be competitive with 15$ a month then i am happy.

    However, i think that a lot of companies should start a debate about wether there aren’t other options to get money.

    Why aren’t there more games following the example of DDO? Why isn’t there a game that lets you choose between paying a monthly fee or using the cash shop? Or for that matter why won’t some f2p games create a subscription optional plan?
    Why must every p2p require a monthly susbcription? I could see a pay-per-hour game working as well, or pay-per-day. A smaller time period subscription option than a month would allow for more flexibility to the players.

  • I don’t think DDO’s cash shop is easily ported over to other games. It being instance-quest based makes it quite easy to charge per content. However my point on the specific case of Allods being that, to get all content for free in DDO one would have to grind several characters for favor to get turbine points (though certainly possible) – perhaps a bigger grind than one would need then in Allods to get Perfume for constant in game use.

    I would LOVE it if they made a subscription plan for Allods that would include: a) full effects of perfume for all characters all the time) b) a monthly allowment of crystals for use in the cash shop.

    Now I think western p2p games go on the monthly subscription cycle because it is actually more profitable for them. Long gone are the days were hardcore gaming was more common than casual gaming, and casuals would spend less on a pay per time basis rather than a subscription plan. Eastern games have this option quite frequently, specially since many times players play from a Lan House or Internet Cafe. I guess this is the basic market that Allods was designed for – and not for the western AAA p2p market which it turned out to be competitive in (by their merits AND by the profound lack of imagination in competitors).

  • I play other F2P games. My issue is not with paying for a games as F2P or not I’d like to support the people that are providing me with a game/service. My issue is with what exactly a cash shop sells. If I can buy success with the cash shop then the game isn’t worth playing. Buying success cheapens the experience as a whole.

  • I as well would like to see cash shop items that you aren’t forced to buy but instead you want to buy. Even more so, they shouldn’t effect the gameplay in any way.

    Some things I’d like to see that I’d pay for.

    1) Dyes to color gear (i.e. guild outfit has certain colors).
    2) Custom designed guild emblems (i.e. goes on your shield, war banner, cloaks, etc)
    3) Guild Housing

    In effect, a lot of vanity / social things that add much more depth to the game, yet don’t effect the gameplay dynamics at all. If they had a lot of items of this nature, think you’d probably see a lot more roleplaying as well.

  • Mind you that when i refer to DDOmodel i am refering to the flexibility that game gives you on how to spend your money, if you wish to play for free you can. But you can also pay a sub if you like.

    I just can’t see a reason why the developers of f2p and p2p follow that example more.

    As for what items to sell in cash-shops: if it’s to apparent that the devs are forcing people to spend money in it then i will be less inclined to spend money in it.

    Sell me stuff there like cosmetic items, stuff for housing, or even the option to cutdown downtime in obtaining something, mounts only accessible by cash shops and stuff like that.

  • I am sorry to say this, but I honestly don’t believe that items that do not impact gameplay will sell enough to provide a cash flow. Specially since most of those items are a one-buy per character thing, unless they started RENTING stuff (bag space, bank space, mounts, etc…) and you would see a lot of crying about that too. You need items that are on constant demand by all characters all levels (so XP pots are out too), and an item that doesnt affect gameplay will hardly qualify.

  • Perhaps a blend of choices, $10/month for availability of a slew of services (basically a sub in disguise) or pick and choose individual transactions?

  • @Keen I agree with you that a MT game must have people buy things to make a profit and therefore exist. It does not follow though that people will be “forced” or “compelled” to buy things from the cash shop. Other games have handled this successfully.

    This does not mean that Allods will still be fun with the cash shop in effect, just like WoW would not be fun if you had to pay $100 a month for a subscription.

    However, you have never played a MT game, and are making assumptions about how it will work. So why don’t you try it out before coming to a conclusion.

  • I think that you are also jumping the gun here.

    “…why the business model instead of a subscription model? Clearly they must feel that they can make more money with the business model”:

    1) monthly $ = # players x ave. individual monthly revenue

    I assume they are trying to establish a large player base quickly, opting for smaller individual player revenues in exchange having more players. Free is a great incentive to play a critically acclaimed game. I worry that this economic model might skew the community to a less mature player base, but you can always turn off global chat…

    2) Long term profitability means maintenance of accounts.

    This factor should not be overlooked. I would still have WoW loaded on my computer if I could jump back into a BG a few times a month waiting for new content without wasting $15/month. It is easier to hold onto your player base it they never technically leave, but just go dormant for a while. I bet many people who left games would come back for a no strings attached booty call, and a certain percentage would fall back into the old relationship. In this aspect, I do believe that they are well aware that the cash shop has a negative stigma attached to it, and they are going to try to limit its punitive effects on the community for fear of player attrition. One probably can indirectly deduce development of financial hard times if the cash shop later shifts to a more need than greed model.

    I propose that the model has a great potential for profitability as it effectively has an open door policy for new immigrants, and no financial reason for a player to wipe it off of their hard drive.

    Let’s hope that they will not break the back of the golden goose while trying to aggressively massage out too many eggs from their players.

  • I think the business model for Allods Online will really not matter – in the end this game is just a way for the Russian Mob to launder their extortion and drug money…not more…not less 😉

  • @Argorius.

    I think the Russian Mob should start developing more MMOs (and some paytoplay MMOs as well) since they seem to be extremely talented at it. More than 90% of the Western MMO developers.

  • The problem is that even if the game is the best MMO released to date, if it incorporates a cash shop and we accept it anyway, we are condoning it. This gets more dangerous the better the game because if a cash shop MMO comes out and dethrones World of Warcraft, you can bet that every MMO that comes out after that will be cash shop based. Even if it does not dethrone WoW though we still have to worry that other developers will see the success and say “Well, I guess we COULD make The Old Republic a cash shop game, it worked for ______”.

  • Is Allods really a F2P game or a micro transaction game? I think there is a difference and people need to realize this.

    If the game is truly Free to Play then you should never be REQUIRED to buy anything. It should all be frivilous items for sale.

    If they come out and say that there is no monthly fee but we have designed the game in a way that we expect the average gamer to buy around $10-15 worth of items a month I would be okay with that too. I also think that is a sound and fair business model if balanced correctly.

    It’s more about honesty than anything. I don’t like the idea of hiding behind the F2P business model then forcing micro transactions on people to advance. I believe this is the model Free Realms did.

  • F2P never can never be really free. The base game can be free and its if you choose to, pay for things. Folks have a choice. The “Competive” part is still a choice. I think it might be an issue where its, “I don’t want to pay to play at the level I want to”. Its a choice, and its still probably a great bang for the buck.

    Wow is Sub + Macro transaction + Micro Transactions. Their goal is/was a new expansion 18-24months so its a 40 dollar pop along with any account modification and then your normal subscription.

  • They “promised” players would not be required to buy anything and that they would not sell success. It looks like they didn’t keep that promise completely, although you can still get 30 minutes of success once per character per day.

    It’s a fine line they’re walking right now.

  • @Keen, I don’t think that can be answered without knowing the specifics of the cash shop. There is such a huge variety between different games and their cash shops that they can’t really be clumped together for a philosophical discussion.

    Now if we assume a great game goes the path of uncapped benefit from the cash shop, as in there is almost no limit how much you can spend a month and still benefit greatly from every dollar. Then the answer is no, no amount of quality in the game will overcome that.

    Just imagine WoW with such a store for a moment. PvP would be impossible unless you spent hundreds of dollars a month. Raids would be either balanced around the uncontrolled use of the cash shop, making them impossible for everyone else. Or they would be balanced for everyone, making them trivial for the cash people. And since the guys with the dough pay the bills… well, you can guess who gets the fun and challenging content.

    If the cash shop benefits get capped around about $15/month and the rest is just fluff, then all is fine. And it doesn’t even take a great game to get away with that as it is a fairly good system. However, has any F2P title actually done this? Surely none of the gPotato, ijji etc. games has anything like that. Maybe DDO to some extent?

  • Ward, I think Second Life is a great example of a game, more or less a game, that has good MT system. Choice is also a slippery slope. I can choose to not play a game, I can choose to log in and stare at a wall for hours, I can choose to raid or I can choose to quest.

    However when a company limits my choices based on how much I’m willing to spend on MT then I start to get annoyed. I think MT games have a place in the market, however I will avoid them like Keen has though simply because I dislike how the business model typically ends up.

  • @ermansup: Now that I can agree with entirely. You made the connection that I wanted people to make. It comes down to the game and the cash shop and having both evaluated on a case by case basis.

    I think we both would agree that a good game can overcome microtransactions as their model. Finding the criteria though is rare.

    1) Good game
    2) Cash shop that doesn’t ruin the game but also generates revenue.

    Since I’ve never played a game that pulls this off (yet, we’ll see how Allods does), I have zero faith in the business model. In the end they always ruin a good game or prevent a good game from being developed because of the model.

  • keen – what do you think the leaked pics of the blizzard devs having a few beers over what looked like a b.net SC2 log in screen.

  • Keen that was definitely not the point you started out with. You were saying that cash shops are inherently bad for the game, but a good game might be able to “overcome” this.

    I’m glad you’re backed off an now agree it is all about how the cash shop is designed.

  • JT that isn’t surprising. SC2 has been in friends and family beta for some time along with some pro’s playing it. Based on Blizzards target due date for SC2 and the length of Beta they desired SC2 public beta was always due to start in spring of 2010.

  • Was reading about the FoD and stopped in to see what the Keenster had to say on it. As usual, one of the most level-headed articles I have read on the matter.

    Cash shops items are no different than the rest of the items in a game. They need to be balanced with the rest of gameplay and the requirements to obtain them need to be weighed and considered. Any item that is mandatory should be readily accessible – whether that means through vendors, harvesting, farming mobs or even the cash shop. If there is a barrier to entry then there is an imbalance which is going to upset those blocked by the barrier to one degree or another. Placing an item necessary for PvP competition or necessary in order to counter game-stopping debuffs behind a wall seems silly. There is little or no difference between making these a Level 40 raid-only item, a rare drop, a PVP reward or a cash shop item – each slams an unnecessary barrier in the face of a percentage of the playerbase. NOW… if they were available as a L40 raid drop AND a rare drop AND a PVP reward AND in the shop then I think more people would find it a lot more palatable.

  • @Publius: Don’t get me wrong. Cash shops ARE inherently bad for a game. However, I think that if we examine each case individually we may find a cash shop that has been tailored well enough that if it is attached to a good game it can be okay.

  • Personally, I like the way EQ2 does it.

    The cash shop is primarily stocked with cosmetic items, some of which are even available in-game by other means. No one can possibly argue that you “need” to buy a Cherry Bedroom Set for you in-game house or cosmetic Blackened Vanguard Armor to put in your cosmetic clothing slots.

    The other major category of items in the cash shop are account services for which most developers would charge: things like server transfers, race change potions, etc. None of these items affect any other player’s game experience.

    If a player chooses to spend money on cosmetic items and account services, great. That money helps keep the game running and helps finance more such cosmetic items and more such account services.

    I am on the fence regarding items like Increased XP Potions and such. In a PvE game, I frankly don’t see much harm. If players want to rush to the endgame so they can sit around complaining that there’s nothing to do, they’ll find a way. If that way involves giving the developer more cash, that’s fine by me. Conversely, I am completely opposed to cash shops offering any sort of items that give an in-game advantage in a PvP environment for obvious reasons. PvP is supposed to involve at least some element of skill.

  • @VatecD: Cash shops attached to subscription models work in that they can offer the cosmetics only. It’s just additional $$ on top of the subscription. What if that cash shop suddenly became their only source of revenue? Suddenly the necessity for people to use the cash shop increases and cosmetic items alone are not enough to drive the right number of people and purchases to the cash shop.

  • I guess you can say that subscriptions are inherently bad for the game as well if I follow your logic. Subscriptions ACTUALLY coerce players into paying to play. Any game would be better if it was truly free.

  • I am falling more on the side with Publius and VatecD on this, at least in that your stance on theoretical profitability is too harsh for me to support:

    1) “Cash shops ARE inherently bad for a game.”

    I am falling more on the side with Publius and VatecD on this, at least in that your stance on theoretical profitability is too harsh for me to support:

    1) “Cash shops ARE inherently bad for a game.”

    I thought the exact thing Publius stated, if done well I F2P offers a player options to pay less than a set sub, and is less coercive to play. The difference lies in the short attention span of players, and since perception is an individual’s reality, the F2P devs need to be especially cognizant of how that will affect their maintenance of accounts; subs sting twice, once while buying the box and again when actually entering your card for a recurring fee, but after that it is easy to forget a little $15 fee on your statement.

    2) “…cosmetic items alone are not enough to drive the right number of people and purchases to the cash shop.”

    Can we actually state that the sale of items that don’t significantly imbalance game play will be insufficient to support the financial success of a well designed F2P game? Allods seems to be poised to gather significant market share internationally, and perhaps it will be profitable if enough players join. Of course I could be conspiratorial and suggest that this is an attempt to initially grab market share, and things might shift over to offering sub options once the game becomes established…

    Your glaring assumption is that Allods will not be even-handed about the use of the cash shop, which I have no theoretical reason to assume the worst (we can also play a metagame to see how long Allods keeps featuring your blog on their news site http://allods.gpotato.com/news/ with this negative anticipatory spin; I have heard how harsh the moderators can be on their forums).

    Now how this model will impact the in game crafting economy is another thing…

  • @gankatron: I’m looking at what has actually been done.

    “If done well”.

    Have they EVER done it well? No. Every game supported solely by a cash shop has had a cash shop that ends up being a detriment to the game or at least its potential. Runes of Magic, for example, requires you to use their cash shop to be competitive. Cash shops selling powerups, potions, and all sorts of things equate to purchasing success for your character. These “games” becomes mere shells of the real games they’re trying to emulate.

    “Can we actually state that the sale of items that don’t significantly imbalance game play will be insufficient to support the financial success of a well designed F2P game?”

    Can you point me to a cash shop driven game that hasn’t used them? Seems that every single one has. I’m making an assumption, but it is an assumption based on empirical evidence.

    I’m not speaking about Allods, mind you. I’m speaking about games using a microtransaction/business model in general. I have always been negative about this model, well before playing Allods and well before they chose to feature me. How the cash shop will play out we can not guess yet since the cash shop has been down for some time while they prepare it. We can go on their promises alone: “We have to be extremely mindful to introduce items that do not allow players to buy success, but instead assist them throughout the game.”Source

    If they break their word, then they validate the criticism of the wary onlookers like myself.

  • That I can agree with, but perhaps the model is still evolving to accomodate a more descerning Western audience? The failure of previous F2P models might be less of an issue of theoretical profitability than practical greed.

    While it is true that a failure might validate the Allods skeptics, it cannot be used as direct evidence that a well designed F2P cannot work.

    Novel ideas often fail on initial implementation…
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMhdksPFhCM

  • One must not ignore the trend in the entire internet business out of subscription models (websites, news portals) and into income through advertising (which is not very viable to gaming because of imersion breaks) and microtransactions. I think it was a matter of time until mainstream gaming went in that direction as well, and the sucess of the new version of DDO (which seems to be outdoing LOTRO in terms of revenue for turbine now, the way I read the last reports) and the potential sucess of Allods will be milestones if the industry will go on this direction or not.

    In fact I can see some “failed” games going the DDO way in the near future.

  • @Keen

    Hence why I prefer subscription-based games with cosmetic/convenience-only cash shops.

    The DDO model not unreasonable, but personally I’m uncomfortable with a game where I have to buy the content in microtransactions; sure, you can earn Turbine Points by other means, but not at a “reasonable” rate. Unfortunately, it’s a growing trend, even for single-player games (started with all the DLC for Oblivion and is now skyrocketing with Dragon Age and Mass Effect).

    As for the other F2P business models, I know better than to get sucked into that swirling vortex of doom: it’s far too easy to overspend when you’re doing it fifty cents at a time ;^)

  • I have to say that the DDO method is not too bad as far as MT goes, however, I ended up instead just subbing for a month to get ALL of the content unlocked and most restrictions removed. It basically just felt like a cleverly disguised demo vs full version.

    That said, by restricting the content and a lot of the “perks” that a normal subscription game would have, they successfully brought in a -lot- of new players to their game, which is the first and necessary step for reviving it as a viable money maker. The second step they took was making their MT model balanced enough that they would entice a number of people to test the waters, as well as encourage the hardcore people to go above and beyond (ie: purchasing 15 character slots, all the content via MT, etc)

    To answer the original question: I don’t think it’s quite a matter of whether or not a developer can strike the proper balance of not making the cash shop mandatory and also making it appealing to spend on… it’s that people have varying levels of irrationality when it comes to spending, and the model needs to appease all of them for different reasons.

    You have people who will never spend any money on games, for reasons of principle, budget concerns, or even age/lack of a credit card. Many people compare the monthly cost of a sub game to a single meal, or to the two hours of not-guaranteed entertainment at the movie theatre; thus clearly justifying the cost if they have fun for a minimum of a few hours a month. Then there are others that see their game of choice as their hobby, and don’t mind spending even hundreds on it.

    I am sure there are several people out there like me, who hesitate to spend $5 on a cash shop game, but have spent several hundred dollars on monthly subscriptions to a MMO they spent a year or two in. It’s illogical, but so is gaming–it’s entertainment, and as such is worth as much or as a little as you think. However, having a method that eases you into the transactions or makes small payments very easy is clearly the way the entire industry is moving. Take the iTunes store (for both music and apps), as well as distribution models like Steam.

    What I haven’t heard of is a model that combines the “utility” of the MT model as it relates to gameplay convenience, as well as reliable monthly income via subscriptions.

    What about a mix of three variants on models? A game with a MT store that allows both F2P and monthly subs?

    ALL players would earn MT store points. Just at differing rates:

    1) F2P could earn points using an exchange rate of in-game gold to store currency, or to avoid cheating: linked to non-repeatable (or infrequently repeatable) in-game achievements like in DDO.

    2) Subscribers would gain a few small perks over F2P, but they’d also earn a monthly “reward” of some store points, similar to what directly paying for the points would be. They’d also earn the same points that the F2P players could, so they’d have a bit more to spend.

    This lets both groups have a taste of the convenience and cosmetic perks, as well as lets them decide to “save up” for indulgences without worrying too much about getting sucked into overspending. People could view subbing as essentially a way of simple budgeting, and perhaps also a good compromise for parents that decide to foot the bill for their kid’s account.

    3) People would also be able to–of course–buy what they want in the in-game store. This would range from the people who are always F2P but decide to one day “reward” the devs with a single purchase like #9 (Publius) had mentioned, to those who voluntarily want to spend more because they have the means as well as the inclination.

    This tries to have the best of each world, in terms of being accessible to different gamer types (with regard to their spending habits), not alienating a certain player base because everyone has access to the same things (at different rates/quantity), and it entices/convinces people to support the creators–all assuming the game is worth it.

    I know, that doesn’t really answer the original question, but I think evaluating whether or not the store is balanced comes down to a very subjective opinion. Even in a non-PVP game, people still get worked up that someone else is “getting ahead just because they have money”, even if that results in zero bearing on their own character or potential enjoyment of the game. Blending the distinctions between each player type might help avoid a sense of eliteness or segregated hierarchy.