The problem with PermaDeath is that no one thinks of the cost of life...

Look at it this way. If you need to 'Buy'  new life every time as the cost of death this shifts the pain point to the start... not the end. Why does this matter? Well in a MMO, the one thing that you can never control is other players. You have no idea what they are going to do, and there actions can inflct the 'cost' of death on you.

The real problem is when one player can inflict a cost on another with little or no risk. If they dont care about their character, they can just kill yours (or cause it to be killed). This makes the cost one sided. However, if they have to pay up front (rather than risk time invested) then everyone has the same investment, and takes the same risk. Sure, you can still grief others, but you risk losing something as well, and they can return the favor. This puts the power in the hands of the community, who can make those that are unwelcome 'pay' for their actions.

The cost of death is a great way to build communities, who then work together to protect each other, and the investment that they have made. It just has to be paid up front, rather than at the end.

Free is not for everyone. You have to provide better service, and work harder for your money. It is often just easier to charge for the product, and not wory about service. Sure, you will have less customers, but it is easier to make money, and there are less service costs.

F2P is not a good business model for many games. If you look at the AAA game launches in 2010/11 you will realize that many customers quit playing, even after paying for 30 days (box sales). A large portion did stick around for 90 days or so, but only because they had already paid for a box sale. If these games had launched as F2P, then players would not have had a reason to stay, and would have left quicker. F2P is not for games that can not retain customers. F2P is only for games that can keep the customers... and then get them to pay (later).

I agree that M59 and UO came first, and that they set the groundwork... but the reality is that EQ is the game that launched the industry. Just like Doom was the game that launched the FPS genre (despite other games coming first), EQ launched the MMORPG genre. It is the game that really changed everything, as it put the pieces together for a graphical 3d enviornment and online world.

I remember those days fondly. There was a lot of excitment in both the game, as well as in the gaming industry. Everyone realized that something had changed, and that we were seeing something new and innovative. You dont get that in todays games. They lack the excitement (but have plenty of hype).

I am going to compare (third party) RMT to its real world equivalent, Drugs. As long as there is a strong demand for a product, someone will be willing to supply it. It doesnt matter if the product is bad for the user, or if the supplier is harming others to make the sale... someone will fill the need.

Luckily, solving the issue in a virtual world is much easier than solving it in the real world. Figure out why people want the item (and cant get it) and provide them a way to get it without having to use (third party) RMT.

In the example given, if EA had just allowed sales of their game worldwide (even if not distributing physical product to that market) then the author could simply have purchased an online version of the game, and avoided the black market. This applies to many products sold with prohibitive DRM, or that are region locked to prevent acess. In this day and age, the economy is global. Blocking out users just reduces your sales, and provides incentives to create a black market.

In the more classic example of RMT, gold sales, the developer needs to determine why the user believes that buying gold is desirable. They can then either provide alternatives, or allow for more legitimate methods that make them money. Examples of this would be the auction house for D3 and EQ2. This also applies to many F2P games with item mall/cash shops.

(Third Party) RMT exists because the game developers have created a situation where it is needed. This is something that they control... and can change. If RMT is indeed the option of choice, then developers should build it into the game itself, and remove the destructive elements that a third party add (economic damage, stolen accounts, fraud, etc).

RMT is here to stay. The solution is not to fight it. The solution is to learn the reasons why it is desirable, and then meet the demand without the negative elements.

The information seems valid, and I have seen two other studies that have very similar results. It should not be a shock to anyone that Browser Based games (including facebook) dominate the gaming numbers. Is it any suprise when we know that WoW has peaked at 12M, but Zynga has passed 100M on some of its games... and that there are a lot more browser games than client games.

If you remove the browser/casual element from these studies, things will look very different, and be more in line with what people (on this site) would expect. The reality is that 'gaming' is not the hardcore client based demographic that it used to be. The term now applies to a much broader demographic, and much larger market.

What isnt specifically mentioned in the report, is that with the saturation in the market, and the slow economic conditions, gaming companies are having a harder time than ever. This is a very risky/difficult time to be a gaming company. If you dont have a big hit, then you risk failure, and hits are harder to come by in this market.

I would hate to see GW2 go F2P. GW has been the most classic old school example of P2P, and has been a shining example of how P2P can work. Muddying the waters with F2P or some Hybrid system may be good for the pocketbook, but it also lowers the reputation of ArenaNet, and the GW franchise.

DCUO is not a surprise to anyone who was paying attention. The game was originally announced as a F2P title before they even named what the game was. The fact that it was changed to P2P in order to cater to the PlayStation exec's never changed the fact that the game was designed to benefit from F2P, and that P2P just lowered the games potential.

Richard.

There has been a shift in funding in the gaming industry. VC is pulling out, and more traditional investment is coming in. The 'growth' approach is no longer bringing in investment money. Traditional investment is looking for solid returns.... not market growth.

This means that much of the market is dead or dying. Only the companies that have a solid business plan, or have a lot of money will surviive. The gaming bubble has burst... but not everyone knows it yet.  There are layoffs in all sectors of gaming, mobile, casual, console, and online. Companies are being bought, or are going under. No one has quite said it yet, but the market is consolidating.

This is good for the market, but means that games will not only need to stand out, but have good business sense to succeed.

Originally posted by Superman0X

I am not certain that most of you understand what is being is challenged here. Let me try to explain.

 

The logic is as follows:

If items that drop in game have real value, then playing to get them is gambling.

 

The inclusion of the RMT market is not the issue, it is the trigger. It is this formal recognition that in game items have value that is causing the KRB to re-asses whether this game is gambling. In the past, games had a strict policy against reselling items (for real money), so it could be argued that there was no real (legal) value.

 

There was a ruling in Korea recently that virtual currency is the same as real currency (and taxable). It is not a big stretch to couple this with recognition of virtual goods as having real value, especially when the game operator legalizes its sale.

 

I would not expect that it will be concluded that this is gambling, but I would expect to see it concluded that these items have value, and are taxable.

Ok. I read up on Blizzards defence. Here is what I am seeing:

Blizzard believes that this is not gambling. It is like working in a mine (my example). Sure, you have to pay some money for equipment, and then you can spend your time looking for items that you can sell.  Players are not gambling by investing their time, in an effort to earn value. That is considered work, even if the payout is not gaurenteed, and if they must then sell the result to others in an effort to make money.

There are also some concerns about how blizzard charges fees for the use of their auction service. This varies based on the country/region as to what is legal (the same applies to ebay). Blizzard may have to have a more complex fee structure to allow for variation between countries.

I am not certain that most of you understand what is being is challenged here. Let me try to explain.

The logic is as follows:

If items that drop in game have real value, then playing to get them is gambling.

The inclusion of the RMT market is not the issue, it is the trigger. It is this formal recognition that in game items have value that is causing the KRB to re-asses whether this game is gambling. In the past, games had a strict policy against reselling items (for real money), so it could be argued that there was no real (legal) value.

There was a ruling in Korea recently that virtual currency is the same as real currency (and taxable). It is not a big stretch to couple this with recognition of virtual goods as having real value, especially when the game operator legalizes its sale.

I would not expect that it will be concluded that this is gambling, but I would expect to see it concluded that these items have value, and are taxable.

Originally posted by Kaerigan

Doesn't buying an advantage by definition fuck up the game balance?

If selling an advantage ruins the game, you haven't done the balancing right…

I think the issue here is that there are two philosophies to RMT and Item Malls.

The first is that is is bad, because anything that externally effects the gameplay is detrimental.

The second is that it is good, because the gameplay naurally has features that add value, and that monitizing these allows for less artificial constructs that hurt the gameplay.

In the example given from one of Bigpoints games. You can grind up to L7/10 gear in game and have a significant advantage over other players, or you can buy a slightly lesser version, and have a slightly lesser advantage. This is an example of selling what is already in game, in a way that enhances gameplay, rather than detracts from it.

If you apply this same philosophy to the SWTOR collectors editions, then pretty much everything that  they have offered would be available in game, at some point. This would mean that customers would not have to worry that they made the wrong choice, knowing that they can get it all in the long run.

Originally posted by slaypotato

Hi,

I just started playing a korean MMORPG called SD Gundam Capsule Fighters Online (http://sd.hk.9you.com/), and I like it a lot. But I think kinda anoying that we need to make a account with fake information in order to play a game in a strange language like chinese. Is there a way to ask the any company to bring the game to our country, since I saw a lot of people speaking english and having the same issues that I had.

Thanks

Find a company that specializes in this process. Provide them with good information about the game, and why you enjoy it. They will investigate it, and if things work out, it may be imported.

The important factors are how big the appeal would be for the region. How much it will cost to publish, and the developer.

They will start giving out keys later today. I would expect to see invites in 8 hours or so.

Originally posted by Lodor

Aeria made a post somewhere stating that Lime odyssey was pushed back till 2012 because they have EE in beta right now and want to push that out live without it competing with another one of their new games (id this game).

Link or it didnt happen....

I am fairly certain that it is scheduled for a 4th quarter release.

I, for one, welcome our new P2P overlords.

Originally posted by tanek

Originally posted by Gruug

So, "free to play" isn't really free? So why do companies use the term? Why is the term "f2p" parrotted by so many seemingly intelligent people here?

Two terms come to mind here. One, "you get what you pay for". Two, "if you want quality you have to pay for it".

 

The term, near as I can tell, was just adopted by Marketing departments because it sounds good in advertisements.  Especially with the MMOs that have converted to "free-to-play" much time is spent in the forums correcting the misconceptions those advertisements promoted.

I really wish someone would come up with a more accurate term, but unless it fits the ads just as well and Marketing is happy, we will be stuck with "free-to-play".

 

Free to Play or F2P was coined in the 90's as a marketting term to indicate a game that could be obtained and played without any payment. It was a differentiation from 'sharware' or 'triaware' that indicated that it was a full product that was available for no fee. The comparable products at the time were Pay to Play (P2P) because they required that you purchase the game before you could use it.

The basic marketting structure of F2P is that the customer can experince the product FIRST, before putting down any money. This was very popular because it was common for customers to put down $40/50/60 for a product, only to find that they did not enjoy it, and had no further interest in the product. It is a marketting answer to buyers reget.

F2P has no relationship to monthly fees. In fact the most popular F2P games (in the western market) were all based on monthly fees. The addition of microtransactions did not become popular until F2P was already well established as a success.

Eve has been a F2P varient with its PLEX system for years. I do not see them abandoning this, and I personally believe that other F2P systems would copy EVE on this, if they could.

PWI got a great deal with Cryptic, and got a quality studio for cheap. Atari is happy with the deal because they got quick cash, and have shed their overhead almost immediatly. This was a win-win.

The reason that Cryptics games have not been sucessful (financially) is due to how they were operated and monetized. PWI knows what they are doing in this area, and will be agressive in making the changes needed to turn this around. Some of the existing customers will not be happy with the changes, but it is something that is needed.

Expect to see more consolidation in the market, as larger companies become more agressive about opporutnities like this.

Let me tell you a story...

Once upon a time, at the dawn of the internet, there were companies that started bundling services, and offering a monthly fee. Companies like CompuCom were crushed by AOL, which offered a monthly fee, and opened up the internet for the masses.

Years later, the internet changed again. Companies like Yahoo started offering the same content and services that AOL offered... but for free. People decryed that this was a cheap imitation, and that this was just for people that we too cheap to pay for real services. Over time, things began to change, with more free services like HotMail, then GMail. AOL, which had once been so big, that it could dictate HOW the internet worked, had been slowly eaten up by the 'free' services. How did these 'free' services survive? They found ways to make money, by offering additional services for a fee, by selling their customers data, by slowly improving to become better than the paid services.

This process (from start to finish) took about 10 years. World of Warcraft was released in 2004, and changed the gaming market. It is not unreasonable to think that a similar process will occur here, and that in the next few years we will see 'free' starting to become predominant in the market.

The market does not change just because someone woke up one morning, and decided to do something different. It changes due to necessity. Gaming is growing, and as it expands, the offernings need to meet the demands of the customer. 'Free' does that in a way that P2P or subscription never did. This is just the way of the world.

It seems that no one is paying attention (or has forgotten). If you look back at the news of the 'aquisition' of Crytpic, you will find that it was not so much a buyout, than a merger... with rules.

If you review the recent history, you will find that Cryptic has been growing, and hiring. Atari has been shrinking and laying off. Atari is offloading Cryptic because this has turned out to be a not so good deal for them.

The new buyers will have to either pay more, make a better deal, or offer Cryptic something extra to make this happen.