General Discussion

The third question that Managing Editor Jon Wood asked of the GDC Panel discussing "The Future of MMOs" revolved around MMORPG business models and whether or not Free to Play and microtransaction games were going to take over the more traditional subscription fees.

As those of you who have been kindly following the series know, I recently moderated a panel at the Game Developer’s Conference. The panel was titled, “The Future of MMOs” and consisted of some of the biggest names in the MMO industry: Jack Emmert from Cryptic Studios, Matt Miller from NCsoft, Ray Muzyka from Bioware, Min Kim from Nexon and Rob Pardo from Blizzard.

So far, we’ve talked about 3rd party IPs and we’ve talked about the console question. That brings us to the half way point of questions that I was able to ask of the group. My third question revolved around the business model. While there are a significant number of people out there who totally discount item shop, or free to play based games, there is no arguing that this business model is expanding. As a result, my question to the developers was simple: With the North American MMOs of the future be paid for using an item mall and micropayments, or will they continue to use the subscription model.

Read it all here.

One thought that I am surprised did not come out during the free vs. subscription debate was one that I found during a tenure as a 'sysop' on Microsoft's MSN Gaming Zone. Subscriptions (and thus fully registered game accounts with real-world details) appear to take a bit of the 'anonymity' out of the Internet gaming experience. I believe this enables game hosting management to more effectively police their player base. It appears to also encourage better behaviour in the players. When there is something at stake (that is: an account that the person has years of subscription fees invested in), I feel this provides a bigger incentive to "play by the rules" and observe the community standards.

I know there was a huge difference in the conduct of players in our subscription-based game, the WWII Combat Flight Sim, Fighter Ace, for which players paid a $9.95 subscription fee, as opposed to the dreaded "free rooms", as the some of us referred to the 'non-subscription' free to play games. A free account + bad behaviour (spamming, profanity, trolling for arguments) = disciplinary action usually starting with a small 'time out' boot or gag, and escalating to a full account ban results in mostly zero consequence to the user. A new account can be easily created, and a new IP address, or even a new ISP can be easily obtained.  But a subscription account + bad behaviour results in the ability to immediately personally contact the offending user, and much more easily enforce a ban by simply banning the account details themselves, which are a fixed asset - unlike the basic identifying properties of any 'free' account: a 'throwaway' nickname and an IP address, which can easily be forged or changed.

I played Fighter Ace for many years, including time spent as a volunteer sysop. I now play City of Heroes (in between semesters of nursing school). My main account has been active over 33 months. I personally think subscriptions are much easier models of game purchase.

I also dabble occasionally in Yohoho! Puzzle Pirates, which has both models available. They have a subscription model, on servers where you pay a monthly fee, and a microsystem model, on servers where you buy 'doubloons' for a real-world fee, which are then used within the game's 'economy' to buy certain aspects of the game. Guess which server I play on? Yep. The subscription one. It is much simpler to pay one fee than it is to have to deal with the hassles of running off to buy in-game currency every time I need something new. This is, of course, my own personal preference, and is based solely on the fact that I prefer the simplicity of having a subscription to a game where I can simply log in, play, have fun, and not have to worry about having to stop my gameplay to log into a website and make a purchase.

Just my .01 female opinion...

I think one big thing is going to come and bite the F2P/Microtransaction crowd on the rear faster than the subscription model.

As Min Kim himself pointed out, he spent more on downloading music singly than he would have if he had bought CD's. This, to me, is a sign of a person who can't plan ahead, control their spending, and keep themselves afloat for long periods of time. And Microtransaction games aim their sights right at these people. And they'll fleece them for a while.

But if you look at the credit card debt crisis, especially among younger people, today, you'll see all those people who are the target of these games suddenly lose their credit cards, lose their credit rating, and go into bankruptcy far sooner and far more often than ever before. And the microtransaction people will probably be the last creditors paid off, because 'virtual goods' don't exactly win the hearts and minds of judges vs say, the store that sold the guy his TV...

Interesting topic and writeup. Thanks for posting it.

What was missed here is the casual gamer/more serious gamer dichotomy. For most casual gamers, a subscription setup is, frankly, a waste of money. Moreover, for players (like me) who want to play online with their kids but do not want to pay for multiple accounts, subscriptions are, once again, a bad deal.

The only way a subscription-based game is going to work is if it's really, REALLY good and, frankly, most such MMOs aren't. I also expect that a number of the much-hyped up-and-coming MMOs are going to fail for that reason: they might be good, but not good enough to justify $15/month (or whatever). I found it funny that some of these developers used a monthly gas bill/cable bill/phone bill model. A better model would be a grocery store. Some of us don't want to rent the entire store when all we really want and use are a few items.

The micropayment approach probably has more appeal for casual gamers, gamers who want multiple accounts, and/or gamers who want to pay only for what they really are going to use. The confidence many of these developers have in subscriptions is mystifying -- but good news for upcoming subscription-free games such as Guild Wars 2 and others.

I think subscription-based MMOs are going to be increasingly hard-pressed in the next few years ... and may end up being the dinosaurs of the MMO industry.

Good points. I can understand someone not wanting to have to subscribe everyone in their family just to play together. (Of course, I had, at one time, four CoH accounts... often playing two, and sometimes playing three simultaneously. Two monitor screens and a laptop and VERY fast fingers... The really funny part is having conversations with yourself between two characters, and having others think there are actually two people there.  )

Rather than use the analogy of a grocery store, I think a more apt one is the one presented by Three Rings Design, the creators of Yohoho! Puzzle Pirates. They compare their choices of microsystem of payment (doubloons)  to "ala carte" and their subscription model to "all you can eat".

I think perhaps having both types of models available is the optimal way to attract the maximum amount of customers. You have customers like myself who remain dedicated to a game and the friends they have made there (which is truly what keeps people in MMOs) and customers like yourself who want the casual gaming experience without making the financial commitment to a recurring monthly fee.
 
I think the company that outlasts them all will be one that recognizes all facets of this equation, and finds a way to please the most types of customers simultaneously.

Addictive nature of mmo's + microtransaction = holy grail for the business suits who I believe are directly responsible for the latest round of mmo mediocrity.

They want to target kids with impulse control problems.  But who will end up paying the kids big bill, but the parents.  And aren't contracts with minors voidable?  And doesn't this kind of business model encourage credit card fraud and other problems.  For instance, it is no longer about who has the best skill or who has invested the most time.  The game suddenly becomes who has the most money or who is willing to max out their credit cards.

If we go to microtransaction based system, I am pretty sure the government will step in because they will definitely want a piece of that pie, which sets a very dangerous precedent.  And if it starts causing financial hardship, well then it will be ranked right up there with gambling and the medical community will have no qualms about actually qualifying it as a legitimate addiction.  This would also spur government intervention, most likely in the form of a sin tax and/or regulation.

Honestly, I can not think of one upside.  I think this system is basically for companies that want to scam people. 

Since i dont see either model die tmr819  i dont think you have to worrie.
But you gave me a good idea. Thay could have multiple account access accounts. Or famly accounts so to say for a slightly higher costs say 20$ a month but  gave  you multiple access. Sure it could be misused But it would still only be one master account with full access to all accoutnts witin the account. ( To controll overplaying children och stopping them from playing when thay have homework to do. )

As long as micropayments only are for non gameplay items i dont mind. But when thay start meddeling with the gameplay it gets seriusly ill fast. Why should the player with the most money always win in pvp or so? It ruins the gameplay. 

On major reason i dont like F2P is becouse i dont see the benefits of it in anyway.

Say its only for non gameplay stuff like name, clothing and such.

Then it ruins the gameplay. I might go out and search for gandalf only to find out hours of searching later that he now is a she and is named therese.  And again only the ritchest players would afford the fancy clothing and assesories.

If it effects gameplay say like armors , weapons, veichles and such then again richets players will have an advantage over the other players. And even more so when imbalanced classes and carriers.

Also as someone else mentiond the people dont have anything to lose. And behave a lot worse.

And F2P games are more unsure enviroments then revenue games since you cant really predict income and have to have a lesser man force .Meaning less good updates and less content to begin with. Since there are not revenues on the sale.

Anyway i hope the furture of mmo discussions goes more towards the gameplay / static worlds that is.

I am one of thouse who dislike static worlds epecially since you can do so much with presistant worlds that mmos use. As well as most mmorpg today are not RPG any more. More Action Adventure games. Give me a good rule base were you begin as nobody and strive to become somebody rather then just have have some good armor or play though the newst expantion to become first to "endgame"

starting to fall beside topic.

just my 2 kronor

Signed

Zeusbas Swedish Game Programmer

F2P Micro-transactions may look appealing on the surface for casual gamers but they are based on making money by exploiting 3 common faults of people - addiction, impatience and impulsiveness.

Just something to think about also with Micro-transactions, look at MOST F2P sites without creating an account/login find the real money costs of the transactions/items, every wonder why?