Free Shuttle Flights to Nexus, Coming Soon

Twitter is all abuzz this morning. And that's always good for a game and studio. Cautious optimism is my reaction to this exciting news. I liked WildStar, in small bits. But Scooter and I left the game just before the Great Server Merger last fall because we couldn't justify the cost, what with Scooter's computer at the time giving her issues.

This announcement has been a long time coming. Carbine admitted to tossing around various ideas for an alternative payment model as far back as the mega-merger, and I speculated on the possibilities at that time. I wonder when we'll have details about the nature of the WildStar's F2P scheme (because they vary widely). [EDIT: Thanks to Alisdair, I got the details.] Will it be relatively innocuous (e.g., Rift) or more in your face (e.g., LOTRO) or horrendously egregious (e.g., SWTOR, to which I am currently subscribed for a reason)?

The link to the official announcement is basically a link page to the trailer and to a post about loyalty awards for those have been subscribed since launch or will subscribe for a bit before the transition. Oh! it also has a place to sign up for beta. Beta, for F2P? I guess that's necessary.

Honestly, if I were not already committed to SWTOR right now through August, I might jump back in, just to get the loyalty rewards, if nothing else. However, as it is, I don't see myself going back before September, regardless of when F2P goes live.

~~~

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. If you are reading this post through RSS or Atom feed—especially more than a couple hours after publication—I encourage you to visit the actual page, as I often make refinements after the fact. The mobile version also loses some of the original character of the piece due to simplified formatting.

For the Right Reasons

We can measure facts, but a cause is not a fact—it’s a fiction that helps us make sense of facts.
~Jonah Lehrer, Wired.com

So, I guess Turbine is laying off some workers. To those whose jobs are on the chopping block: you have my deepest sympathies. I hope you land on your feet in a great new place. Meanwhile, there are those jumping at the chance to gloat at your misfortune, ready to draw conclusions not only about the health of Turbine, but the MMO genre as a whole.

Instead of linking to that old PR release about how great LotRO and DDO are doing thanks to F2P, please use this updated link.

F2P ALL THE WAY!
~Syncaine, Turbine finally updates us on the continued success of their F2P conversions

Yeah, because no proprietor of a subscription-only game ever laid off any employee. Syncaine makes a fallacious correlation between a business model he personally dislikes and the health of a company that operates it. (And yes, it's fallacious, because we don't know the circumstances or reasons behind the layoffs.) Syncaine espouses all sorts of valid reasons to dislike F2P. This instance, sadly, is just his schadenfreude showing through.

No game succeeds or fails purely due to its business model. The success factors of both WoW (which has hemorrhaged more players than pretty much all other MMOs ever had) and EVE have little to do with their business model (btw, doesn’t PLEX make EVE a hybrid?) and everything to do with game design. Turbine’s “rightsizing” is business, not game design. We need to look at the design decisions behind LOTRO and other games, as well as external market pressures, to understand why they succeed or fail. Syncaine insists on oversimplifying it to a question of how the companies extract money from players’ wallets.

I'm not saying business model doesn’t influence design. But a crappy, unpopular game will be crappy and unpopular regardless of the business model. And a good game will be good regardless of how the player is asked to pay for it.

Pretty much every game that is not WoW (including EVE) has proven that WoW is a glaring exception to the rule that MMOs are basically a niche in western markets. Every game has its fanbois and haters, regardless of its relative success. And every fanboi thinks his favorite is the result of superior game design.

But Syncaine has declared himself arbiter of both quality and success. He has "yet to see a great F2P MMO," but he's also the one determining "great." He knows "what a great sub MMO looks like," but again that is his personal opinion. This reminds me a little of the SCOTUS definition of obscenity.

I assume Syncaine is playing EVE. He certainly holds it up as an example of great game design. I don't dispute its success, but I would never play EVE, given the tales of what I consider dickish, unethical, and downright criminal behavior of the players. All explicitly allowed by the premise of the game. That's not a great game, in my opinion; and it's by far a distant second in success to the behemoth that is WoW, a game that Syncaine deplores, if I am not mistaken. And when we take into account that the average EVE player allegedly has upwards of 2.5 accounts, Syncaine's 500,000 accounts translate into maybe 220,000 really enthusiastic players. So about the same number of subscribers as LOTRO from what I could gather; though they pay far more per player.

I love TSW, but I don't subscribe. I throw money at it every once in a while for either "fluff" costuming, or the DLC-style content updates. And I am happy with that. Does it struggle? Yes, but it is in a niche genre. However, I haven't encountered a better progression system (imho) or better content (imho) in any other game. Syncaine, naturally, probably thinks it sucks. But I defy you to find any way that TSW drives players into the cash shop from within the game. The shop certainly is available through an in-game interface, but I don't really think that's what we're talking about when we say a game is "purposely designed to make me use their cash shops," as Xyloxan put it. Maybe LOTRO does, I don't know.

I am past the point in my life that I want to be tied to any particular MMO because I am subscribed to it. You can argue about my level of commitment, I suppose. But there are more important things in my life I have committed myself to than a game. Therefore, F2P is perfect for me, right now. If I don't like a particular F2P system—*cough*SWTOR*cough*—I don't play. I don't play LOTRO either. But the reasons have nothing to do with the business model.

~~~

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. If you are reading this post through RSS or Atom feed—especially more than a couple hours after publication—I encourage you to visit the actual page, as I often make refinements after the fact. The mobile version also loses some of the original character of the piece due to simplified formatting.

What Is Pay to Win?

Tobold wrote the other day about the Pay to Win Scale. And while he handily skewers the use of P2W as an excuse, I kind of wonder where the idea comes from in the context of PvE centric MMOs. I conducted a survey about cash shops a while back that included the option of high-level items, and most respondents wouldn't just not buy the stuff, they wouldn't play games that included such items.

In a PvP scenario, this attitude might make slightly more sense, but it runs up against the time vs. money vs. skill conundrum. As Tobold pointed out, players of sufficient skill often have little need for P2W items. And people with P2W items often don't have the skills they need to actually prevail.

In a PvE scenario, particularly in the case of persistent-world MMOs, what is the win condition? Complete Best-in-Slot gear? That will be reset with the next patch, if not the next expansion. Bragging rights? Only a select few even care what you're wearing. All the gear in the world won't help you learn not to stand in the poo.

At the time I conducted that poll, I agreed with the sentiment against such things. But now, I've decided I don't really care. A game that's won is a game that's over. Since MMOs are never really "over" (even if they get shut down), then they can't really be won. Therefore, why should I care if someone wants to spend their money on some awesome sword of awesomeness. How does it affect the way I play my game?

Without a true win condition, how can you have Pay-to-Win? It is more often than not pay-to-catch-up. Take shortcuts like an instant high-level character so people can play with their friends or skip content that caused them to leave the game before. Does it hurt you if someone else didn't "pay their dues"? Does it somehow cheapen the time you've spent getting there? Psst, I have a secret: You're not a world-class MMO player. If you are, I am shocked that you're reading this blog, and I'm guessing you don't really care if someone bought themselves an über character. Because, frankly, they'll never be as good a player as you.

~~~

If you are reading this post through RSS or Atom feed—especially more than a couple hours after publication—I encourage you to visit the actual page, as I often make refinements after the fact. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

No Rest Till New Halas

Not quite two weeks ago, Scooter declared that she was a bit bored with the MMOs we are "currently" playing and set out to find a new experience. We did a little research on different F2P games out there, since we plan to check out some of the new games coming out in the spring, and this is really just to tide us over until then. Unless, of course, something really draws us in. After looking at a few games, like Allods and Aion, we settled on EverQuest II.

I suppose you could call this a bit of a "Nostalgia lane" piece, though other than a plastic figurine of a High-Elf that a friend bought at a garage sale and gave to me, I have no previous connection to EQ. We haven't played very much to be honest, but I'm already considered "experienced" by Raptr. I think that's more an indicator of how old the game is than that few still play. We picked the RP server, Antonia Bayle, partly because I've had good experiences with RP servers ever since Rift, and partly because it is frankly the most heavily populated server. In the few places we have been so far, there seem to be quite a few players out and about—doing quests, I assume.

It's A Lot Like . . .

I'll probably get a ton of crap for this, but as a player who cut his teeth on World of Warcraft, this is a lot like WoW. It would be far more accurate to say that WoW is like EQII—though they were in development about the same time period and were released less than a month apart. OK, OK, if WoW is Zeus, then Everquest II is like, Poseiden, and EverQuest is Cronus, the father of both. Or put another way, if Everquest is the English of Shakespeare, then EQ2 is modern British, and WoW is American. "They're related," is what I'm saying. But more like cousins than brothers.

Jimbuire & Merewyn

Having said that, I think in many ways, EQ2 is what WoW might have ended up like if Blizzard hadn't listened/catered to millions of people in simplifying the game. Of course, that's as someone who had only played a relatively paltry 17 hours or so, and have yet to reach level 20. Even with the option to create a level 85 character (at no apparent expense), the questing and accumulation of XP seems appropriate to the area we started in; unlike WoW, where immediately following Cataclysm, we quickly out leveled the areas we were trying to quest in.

Taking the Plunge

With all the expansions the game has gone through, there are quite a few options on race and class. Because some races and classes are aligned good or evil, not all classes (professions?) are available to all races. However, there is an equivalent class of the "correct" alignment, so the options are still pretty side open. Despite choices like Ogre and Ratonga, Scooter and I played it relatively safe with Wood Elves. I picked the Fury class, an elemental cleric (for healing), and Scooter went with Swashbuckler, a melee Scout.

For some reason, the option of starting near Kelethin (the home of the Wood Elves) was not presented to Scooter (who finished her character creation process first) and we ended up in the icebound north, near New Halas. This was fine, since we had no experience with the game, but we're already getting tired of the relentless white of the tundra landscape. My favorite zones in games are woodland (like Elwynn Forest or Grizzly Hills in WoW, or Silverwood in Rift). Snowy woodlands are cool, too; but not endless snowpack.

Jimbuire

The conversations that start quests are an interesting variant. I like that you can be sarcastic or even a bit mean to the quest giver, and your words hold true, unlike certain games' voiced dialogue. I do wonder if the dialogue will have an effect in the long run. The basic movements and combat are comfortably familiar, though it's odd for me to stand still to cast spells after getting used to the more—mobile—combat of TSW and GW2. I like that gray mobs (that give no XP for kills) become non-aggressive, making travel easier, even on foot. That said, there is a lot of running back and forth from the quest hubs to the questing areas, and if you miss a step in one quest chain, you'll end up going back through areas you've already been to for another. Character progression (abilities / specialization) is comparable to other MMOs, but the Alternate Advancement (AA) system seems like it was cobbled together over several expansions rather than designed to mesh smoothly.

The SOEmote system that applies the player's facial expression to the avatar is amusing, but it doesn't capture my eyes very well due to the screen glare on my spectacles. Also, I tend to go a bit stone-faced when playing games, so it would take some concentration to use the system effectively. Scooter and I just turned it off.

How Long Will We Sojourn Here?

We haven't even gotten into the housing potential, which I know is a big part of EQ2's appeal to a lot of folks. I did get lost in the housing system the other night, popping out in Qeynos and taking almost an hour to figure out how to get back to the zone Scooter was in.

While EverQuest II has been a pleasant experience overall so far, little niggling things make me wonder how long I will stick around. Right now we are Bronze Level (F2P). Upgrading to Silver (B2P) doesn't seem to unlock the sorts of things I wish it would, like the slider that adjusts how much XP goes to AA or being able to send mail. [EDIT: I know about the shared bank space.] Given the great experiences I can have in GW2 and TSW (or even Rift) without committing to a monthly subscription, paying rent for Quality-of-Life and User Interface options is not something I am willing to do. And the frequent reminders that I could upgrade (for a nominal fee), while not irritating to me as it is to some, certainly is not endearing the game to me.

I Find Myself Vindicated, In a Manner of Speaking

In light of previous discussion on this blog (which is also relevant to my statements in the past couple days, I'll just leave this here:

Cracked: 6 Groundbreaking Ways Video Games Are Screwing Players

Photo by Jeff Kubina. Licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license.

On the other hand . . .

I won 232 Planarite!

Barriers to Entry: More Revenue Model Discussions

EDIT: I sure wish I knew why this post is so hot. Let me know in the comments section what led you here.

In case you had not realized by now, Dear Reader, I am fascinated by the so-called Dismal Science, Economics. Though much of economic theory revolves around money, I had one college professor eloquently refer to it as the Study of Choice in the face of Scarcity. This is what fascinates me about it, why do we make the choices we do? It doesn't have to be choice involving money. For instance, do I spend all morning researching and writing a blog post, or exploring the town and country I am sojourning in, or playing a video game?

Market Forces
One thing that interested me about Guild Wars 2 was that, since everyone could gather any crafting material from the environment, the Trading Post became a buyer's market rather than the seller's market found in so many other MMO player exchanges. Without (artificial in the case of MMO resources) scarcity, goods have little value on an open market. That is why maize is cheap and caviar is expensive. People hoping to make lots of in-game gold by playing that market screamed bloody murder about how it was broken. To which ANet's own in-house economist responded, essentially, works as designed. Speaking about the cross-server system, John Smith said:

The global trading post provides a large number of huge benefits at virtually no cost, outside of the complicated technology required to support it. Making the TP individual to each server opens up market failures across the board, including easy arbitrage and extremely easy market manipulation. The global TP is easier to find items, harder to manipulate, and reaches equilibrium prices significantly faster and more efficiently than any other in game marketplace ever created.

Manipulating markets in the real world is frowned upon. But when a MMO developer takes steps to counter it in the game, those would otherwise exploit the market cry that it's ruining their game.

Others have complained that the prices for end-game fancy item skins are too high in the AH, a result of low drop rates. However, fancy in-game items are rare for a reason, they should represent the effort you put in to get them. I could just as easily complain that the price of a Roll Royce or jar of caviar is too high. But there is an easy solution to that. Spend your money on something else. Or save up for the purchase. (This is also partly why I am not in favor of the top end stuff being awarded essentially via slot machine.)

Coulda Shoulda Woulda
Which brings me back to the title of my post, revenue models. My good friend Belghast has written an excellent post in defense of the subscription model:

Most of the games we now think of today as heralds of the free to play “revolutions” started their lifespan as a full functioning subscription based game with a $60 box cost and a $15 a month subscription fee. This is the case for the Turbine games (Lord of the Rings Online and Dungeons and Dragons Online), the Cryptic games (Star Trek Online, Champions Online), the Sony Online Entertainment games (Everquest, Everquest 2, Vanguard, etc) and the new darling of the free to play market… Rift. Each and every one of them experienced a decently long period of selling boxes and racking up monthly service fees before ultimately converting over to some sort of a freemium model.

I would counter that by pointing out that many of those games struggled greatly, some spectacularly, before making the transition, and are now presumably profitable. None of them switched to hybrids or F2P out of the goodness of their hearts. Those games that remain profitable while requiring subscriptions have continued to do so. After all, the old adage is if it ain't broke, don't fix it. The converse of that would have to be: if it is broke, fix it and fix it now, or trash it. We have have seen a few instances of the latter, have we not? And much to the dismay of those still loyal to the now defunct games.

Again from Belghast:

While I was disappointed when Wildstar announced its model, because ultimately it meant the cost of entry was just too high for someone like me… that only casually had interest in the game in the first place… I fully understood the decision to have a subscription. Box costs and subscription costs help pay off the excessive costs of game development.

Many bloggers like to prognosticate and talk about the "should" of game design and, in this case, revenue models. I like to think I am all about the "is" of said topics. Right now, I come down on the side of subscription-optional models, for personal economic reasons. Not that I can't afford a subscription. I was subbed to SWTOR and TSW concurrently for over a month last year. Just yesterday, I was thinking about re-upping in TSW and Rift, both of which I currently play without a sub. Between those two games, I have paid for items and DLC just in the last month. But I question whether I want to pay for a bunch of content I probably won't see; or simply buy "stuff" I know I want.

Barriers to Entry
Another concept of Economics is Utility, which another professor referred to as happiness (not just usefulness). This professor made an an easy equation: "Utils"=Dollars. (But, "I get no happiness from dead presidents.") That is, balancing utility and cost. If I judge that the cost of something outweighs its utility, then I will not work to obtain it. Cost is not just about the dollars spent, but the opportunity cost of doing something else like playing an equally engaging MMO that doesn't require a monthly subscription.

There is another personal cost of the subscription model. As I've mentioned before, if I am paying a subscription, I want to maximize the value of that subscription. That means other games developers that may want my attention have to overcome the barrier of my existing subscription. The main reason I never even tried the original Guild Wars was that I was subbed to WoW. For the same reason—only this time it was SWTOR—I never even started the Dragon Age games, even though I bought them (on sale).

In fact, when I first started playing STO (with a subscription), it was the promise of being able to play in one of my all time favorite universes, combined with a disenchantment with Blizzard and WoW, that enticed me to subscribe. I subbed to both for a long time, and I remained subbed to WoW for a few months after I eventually decided I wasn't playing STO enough to sub anymore (while also subbing to Rift), but that was for social reasons. I only have so much leisure time (a scarcity) and a game has to compete for my attention not only with other games but other entirely different activities. Add to that an actual monetary cost and it will likely reduce the utility of the game below the threshold of participation on my part.

I have no illusions, however, that my situation is the same as the majority of players. Maybe Wildstar or TESO will be the next WoW that never seems to have to worry about player numbers. Or rather, to have the worries that other games can only dream of. Honestly though, I doubt it.

Syp just quoted Damion Schubert's "Zen of Design" post regarding the subscription-only model:

Here’s what charging a flat monthly fee actually means:

1. Fewer players will try your game. [emphasis mine]
2. The majority of those players will pay more money than they otherwise would have.
3. Perversely, you'll still end up making significantly less revenue.
4. Also, the subscription model will put pressure on players to leave the game as soon as they feel like they are 'done' with the game.

There were plenty of agreements and addenda in Syp's comment section. But also apologists for the subscription model, plus not a few snide remarks about SWTOR's cash shop model, which Schubert oversees as current Lead Designer.

Ever the contrarian, I gotta say Schubert has a point. I may not like the direction SWTOR has taken, and BioWare is not likely to get another penny from me. But it's hard to argue with SWTOR's post F2P success. I see a lot of people saying that, if a game is good, the revenue model doesn't matter. I think that is increasingly naïve in the current MMO landscape. There are many people who won't play a sub-only game, no matter how great it is. Others will be reluctant to try it, even if they are not averse to the idea of subscribing in principle. We can talk game design all we want, but business is business. And there are plenty of good reasons to use the cash shop or hybrid approach, mostly to lower the barrier of entry to the game. If the game is that good, then having a non-subscription variant won't hurt it.

Should Wildstar and TESO (and FFXIV) be free to play? I would like them to be; but mostly because, like Belghast's comment above, the anticipated Utility to me of these games is lower than the current projected cost of participation. Do I think a F2P model would be in their best interests? It might or might not be. Like Mogsy, I'll bet that they are going to try to recoup their development costs, and decide whether to transition to some hybrid at a later time, when sub-only is no longer profitable.

So Sayeth the Tobold

The subscription business model is still dead, and those two announcements don't change anything.
~Tobold Stoutfoot.

Tobold and I don't always agree. But when we do, he's right. He's more harsh about it than I like to be, but then he generates far more traffic, as well.

Honestly, the only thing any of us finds interesting about the F2P/Subscription debate is which side benefits each of us personally. And we smell "victory" with every official pronouncement. But I have seen several people, like Mogsy, put forth the idea that these announcements reflect at the very least a hope on the part of the devs/publishers to get a bit of revenue before the inevitable conversion to F2P. Or, as the more cynical among us will say, a "Money Grab."

Are We Talking About This Again? Sub-Only Rears Its "Ugly" Head

So The Elder Scrolls Online has "thrown in" with Wildstar and the Sub-Only Crowd. (Sorry, Wildstar. As TAGN said, you can't claim to be F2P with the same model as EVE). I've seen some pretty reasonable posts; I've seen some inexplicably self-satisfied ones. Even Syp is getting smug with Smedley.

Just a couple months ago we were hashing over whether F2P was going the way of dodo (TL;DR: It's not). Now Syncaine is gloating over his "impeccable" sense of prophecy. Then again, I have a feeling "smug" may be Syncaine's default emotion. Given the recent history of "AAA" MMOs not called WOW or EVE, I think Mogsy might have a more accurate bead on what's going here. Time will tell.

L2P, F2P!

TAGN and others are pointing to perhaps poorly designed F2P models as the epitome of the business model and the reason they want to keep sub-only. I say they have only seen it done badly. Trust me, I have too. But I have also seen it done well. Games where I don't feel I have to go buy something to fully enjoy the content of the game. Games where they reward players for subscribing, but don't punish players for not subscribing. Guess what? I'm actually playing those games. I do pay for stuff when I am so inclined, when I think it's worth it. And I don't feel like I'm paying for content I'll never see, because I lack the time to do so.

Arguments about the quality of the community in free-to-play MMOs don't hold water for me, either; since I've seen the groups of people that pass for "communities" in subscription-based games. Frankly, they're about the same regardless of business model. I've only ever found true communities in smaller subsets of the gaming population, like Mercy Gaming, Beyond the Veil, and House Stalwart.

No Problem with Subscriptions

Just this morning, Belghast was saying he'd happily throw his money at a subscription based TESO. Here's his chance. Unlike Bel, I have no history with The Elder Scrolls franchise, so I am less inclined to buy the box or subscribe to TESO. Like Bel though, I don't have an issue with subscription model itself. I just don't see any games (current or upcoming) that are worth it to me. Not when there are quality F2P options.

Come to think of it, I tried WoW originally only due to the free 10-day recruit-a-friend trial they had running back in 2006. If I'd had to buy the box and commit to a subscription sight unseen, I never would have even started playing. The only game I have preordered without playing at least a beta weekend was SWTOR, and that ended up a disappointment for me.

Are there things that annoy me about F2P? Sure—*cough* lockboxes *cough*—but there is plenty to annoy me about subscriptions, too, including the nagging feeling in the back of my mind that I have to "maximize the value" by playing as much as I can for that monthly fee. Honestly, it's the same reason I hardly ever go to a buffet restaurant.

Through Every Rift of Discovery . . .

. . . some seeming anomaly drops out of the darkness, and falls . . .
~Edwin Hubbel Chapin

Last night, my lovely bride and I returned at last to Rift, over which we bonded, and during our original run-through became engaged and got married. Rift, for many such reasons, will always havea special place in my heart.

That's my rose-tinted theory of Rift. In practice, though, we both lost interest soon after reaching max level in the autumn of 2011. I dabbled a bit in it after that, since I'd a paid 6-month sub right before, but we never really played seriously again.

As you probably know, Rift went free to play a couple weeks ago and was inundated with lookie-loos. Scooterz and I held off. Between RL busy-ness and other games, we didn't have time for queues. Then last night she decided it was time to jump back in and see what had changed. Much like Syp, we decided to start new Defiant characters to get our "Rift-legs" back. I went with a Cleric and she, a Rogue, falling into our old Callings (archetypes) and roles.

A significant difference from when we first started playing was that, rather choosing a first Soul (sub-class) after reading about them early in the tutorial section, you pick a trinity role—called a Purpose—as part of the character creation process. This purpose fixes your initial three souls right off the bat. Then, as you level up, that Purpose provides guidance for picking abilities and talents. If you want to deviate from that suggested build, you can. But you get a warning that it will invalidate your Purpose. It has a bit of "training wheels" about it, but I suppose there were enough complaints from bewildered new players during the past couple years that at some point they decided they needed training wheels. I just went with the suggestions rather than go off on my own. After all, if I wanted to do my own thing, I could just play my formerly max-level Cleric.

Even though the intro cinematic is still the same, reflecting that nothing from that past has changed, the tutorial itself has been greatly streamlined. They've reduced the number of different quests, and therefore the time spent in the tutorial; while at the same time increasing the XP received for completing the quests that remain. So your character is still roughly the same level upon leaving the tutorial as at launch. Also, whereas before there were some hostile mobs (that will automatically attack when you approach), now you don't encounter truly hostile mobs until you happen to be following an enormous overpowered golem.

All this streamlining was vaguely disappointing, perhaps only because I know what had gone before. I even wrote the longest single vignette I've published on this blog based on my experience with the original Defiant tutorial. A lot of understanding of the world—at least from the Defiants' point of view—is lost. On the other hand, with the changes to the in-universe politics (thawed relations between the factions) and apparent defeat of the Big Bads, maybe some of that lore is no longer necessary. By the time I was done with the tutorial, it was pretty late, and I was already pretty tired. So that may have affected my opinion of the process.

I didn't get very far past the tutorial before needing to hit the hay last night, but I saw enough to know that the former "welcome area" quest hub is largely vacant, as well. I'll continue on at least to Meridian (the Defiant capital) to see what else has changed and to see if it's an improvement. The Instant Adventures are intriguing, they sound somewhat like the Renown (heart) Quests of GW2, a looser style that (hopefully) helps get the player involved in the local story in a more organic way than traditional MMO quests.

More to come. . .

QOTD: Loxbox Redox

That's what I think is important for offering random boxes. It's not as exploitative if you're still getting your money's worth on each pull. It's when the common result in the box is less then the cost of entry that it starts to get sleezy.
~RJ, commenting on Rohan's "Gambling and Lockboxes" at Blessing of Kings

Honestly, Rohan's entire post is an interesting analysis, but RJ distills my own opinion fairly well. If the minimum value of such boxes or packs is actually worth the cost of the key, then I don't have a problem with them. Of course, YMMV. However, when the minimum is nil or virtually nil, I feel it has no place "my" game.

Seriously, Blizzard created the Sparkle Pony for (I'm guessing) less than $1,000US, based on models they already had in the game. They made something like $75 million from THE FIRST DAY! Even though I didn't personally think it was worth it, I don't have a problem with that, since everyone who plunked down their 25 bucks knew what they were getting for their money. It's not that hard, Devs.

Whew! Sorry, that almost turned into another rant . . .

A Whole Herd of Dead Horses Now: Lockboxes

Think about this the next time you see some player character in truly Epic Pixels strutting their stuff in Orgrimmar, Destiny's Reach, or Meridian: Despite what may be months or even years of raiding, learning strategies and tactics for epic battles against nigh invincible foes, everything they're wearing boils down to good luck on some random dice rolls.

The basic assumption being that cash shops may cause players to lose control of their spending, getting addicted to a luck-based system looking to relieve them of their money. . . such as a slot machine with very random outcome (I do not know how many people get ruined by this rather than card games).
Syl, MMO Gypsy, "Free-to-Play vs. Gambling"

Syl, I think you'd be surprised—nay, shocked—by how many gambling addicts are doing just that, feeding money to one-armed bandits. This article from U.S. News and World Report online, March 2013 describes some of the pitfalls of gambling addiction amid growing availability of casinos in the U.S. There certainly is an element of skill and strategy to games like Poker. They're also played out over a relatively long period of time, with opportunities to judge played cards, odds, etc. "Professional" gamblers gravitate toward those types of games.

Photo by Jeff Kubina. Licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license.

Slot machines, as Syl pointed out, are completely random, resetting every time the arm is pulled or the button is pressed. I dislike loot boxes (and extremely rare drops from kills) for specifically that reason. There are people who'll spend hundreds (maybe not all at once) without realizing they have, and with nothing to show for it in the end.

Many gamers are already manifesting an addictive personality in subscription games. Think about how many times people run the same dungeon or raid over and over, hoping that that epic sword will drop and that they'll win the loot lottery against any other raid member who wants it. With cash shop keys, now you can bypass the dungeon grind and yank on the slot machine straight away. Y'know, that's kind of Tobold's arguments regarding bypassing unpleasant aspects of a game to get what you want. Carry on then.

Maybe there are other ways to obtain those Epic Pixels. I hope so, at least then you can assess how many keys are worth buying. But then, if you knew Epic Pixels were being sold for, say, $25, you might not be willing to spend $50 on lockboxes. And the games company can't have that. So more often than not, there is no direct equivalent in the cash shop. You have to infer the value.

I hope it is clear from my other posts that I have nothing against cash shops. Heck, when STO was young, I'd spend cash in the store on top of the subscription I was paying every month. I also spent real dough for minipets like Lil K.T. in WoW. I think pay-optional games are a great way for game devs to close the consumer surplus from "potential spenders" to whale-size spenders. But some items seem slightly underhanded.

Don't think that I am blaming players here, at all. I've been known to spend money on lottery tickets and slot machines—and even a loot box or two—when hope overpowers common sense. I've even won $$ occasionally. But . . .

I don't think loot boxes should be part of any game. You may have guessed that, like Tobold, I believe in working for the things I have, in game and in real life. I favor steady earning of currency for Epic Pixels, over random chance of gaining said pixels.

More Dead Horses: Money May Equal Time, But It Will Never Equal Commitment

Having given it some more thought and reading Chris' comments below, here is my post, distilled: Time spent on a thing does not equal Commitment to it. Commitment to a thing leads to Time and Money being spent on it.

This morning, jim, who also commented on Rohan's A Disconnect on F2P, shared his point of view with me on yesterday's post.

Without time spending there can be ABSOLUTELY no commitment on your behalf and therefore it is not possible to care for the game. Spending money is not the same as spending time because it lacks the connection that time spent involves.

One cannot replace spending 3 months farming for mats,gold and gear with 100$ or even 300$ because it is just not the same thing. The first case you end up with the game grown on you and the second has no emotional after effect whatsoever.

I for one do not have the time needed anymore but i would prefer a slow progression on a game that rewards my dedication rather than a game that has no possible way to make me empathize with it and my characters within it's world. Get teh damn 3-monthers' out of our way please!!!!!

I thank you, jim, for your input. I must say, you certainly have a passion for MMOs. You didn't mention what games you are playing right now, but I have to assume they are based on subscription revenue. I wonder if you have actually played any games that are F2P, because you seem to have a prejudicial notion of what F2P item shops actually offer.

I am committed (or not) to a game within a couple hours of starting it. If it compels me, I will continue to play. The "farming" you describe is irrelevant to my commitment to my characters. Nor am I advocating that "pay to win" items like high-end gear be sold in an item shop.

I, too, prefer slow progression. As mentioned in my post, I have never taken less than five months to reach max level in any MMORPG. However, I beg to differ that "grind" is the way to develop commitment in a player population. On the contrary, "grind" is boring by definition, the antithesis of what devs want associated with their game. I will admit that "farming" can be a relaxing way to spend an evening. So is knitting, but I don't have needles and yarn.

What I have seen in my own life is that a subscription led to a sense of obligation to a game, or rather, an obligation to myself to get the most possible "value" out of my monthly payment. That also made it difficult to break away and play other games (MMO and SP) that may have been just as good, or even better. This was also a time in my life that I needed a good escape from my day-to-day world. But I devoted almost all my free time to the game, and it probably wasn't healthy. Sure I made friends, I even met a few for lunch or dinner in the real world. But now, I have a social life outside the game world—though I still spend plenty of time playing games.

Many people see subscriptions as an economic equalizer: we all pay the same per month and then devote time to the game, those who devote more time advance faster than others, whether we're talking about leveling, professions, or in-game wealth. However, that sub/time scenario is no more an equalizer than the time/money one. Many players literally do not have the time to devote to a game others may, because of commitments and obligations in the real world.

Playing games that don't have that subscription obligation is literally freeing. Do I want to play TSW or STO tonight? GW2 or Neverwinter? Maybe I should read a book or watch a movie instead.

Are there annoyances? Sure. The constant announcements about l33t ships and mounts coming out of Cryptic's lockboxes are annoying as hell. But most of the time that there is a cash item shop in those games that I play, it is not obtrusive. Also, except for GW2, all the games I play are hybrids with both subscriptions and F2P options.

The elitism inherent in your "3-monthers" epithet is a bit distasteful, to be honest. They're not any more in your way than PvPers are in the way of end-game raiders. The idea that the way someone else chooses to spend their time in game affects you in any way—excepting griefers, of course—is preposterous. In fact, that sort of insular elitism—the attitude that "the rabble" are ruining your game—is what poisons many a game community.

Looking at your argument a slightly different way, anyone who's ever purchased gear—or anything really—in an in-game auction house is cheating, because they didn't spend the time necessary to gather the mats and create the gear themselves, or run to dungeons and yank on the loot table slot machines.

"That's ludicrous," you may say. "The auction house is part of the game." /shrug So is the cash shop. It's a way to stimulate the game economy. And it also stimulates the Developer's economy.

In the end, I cannot disagree with your statement that without spending time there is no commitment. However, ultimately it is only a game, and very ephemeral at that. All the personal time and commitment in the world won't stop your favorite MMO from becoming the next Star War Galaxies or City of Heroes. And then where will you be?

Dead Horse Discussions: F2P Rears Its "Ugly" Head

Hugh Hancock, over at MMO Melting Pot, has his finger on the pulse of the gaming blogosphere: Today, he rounds up three posts about the headaches of Free-to-Play. Rather than rehash his rehash, I'll just redirect you to it. However, I'll put my two cents here (having already them put on Rohan's Blessing of Kings.

A discussion arose in the comments of Rohan's post about the time it takes to get through content, and whether it makes more sense for the typical player to subscribe or to pay for amenities in a cash shop.

I have never taken less than five months to reach max level in any game, between real world obligations and severe alt-oholism. However, I really only jumped on the F2P bandwagon following my experience with GW2. (Yes, I realize GW2 is not pure F2P.) I spent years plunking down 15 bucks a month (sometimes less with longer commitments) for each game I played. I still haven't gotten to see ALL the content in any MMO, whether I've played for a day or for over six years, because of the weekly time commitment required.

In the case of WoW, I came to resent having paid for content I would never see. This demand from players to see what they've paid for actually drives what the self-styled hardcore gamers among us refer to as the dumbing down of the game. For me, it's not that it's behind a pay-wall, but that it is behind a time-wall. With F2P, I can buy what I need, or decide that I don't need.

Also, I may have a higher tolerance for it, but I haven't played a game I think is as intrusive as what Kleps describes in his post. Most of the time, some additional feature requires a special currency to unlock. As it turns out, this currency is available through an exchange of RL cash. But is that any different from other special currencies in the game that you have to earn through dungeoneering or short-term events? Remember the Time=Money equation. I don't have as much time as some folks, but I do have a little extra money. I don't mind spending it on something I feel directly benefits me.

Poll Results: Item Shops

So my poll didn't seem to go as well as I'd hoped. But I think there may have something wrong with the Blogger widgets I used. The total number of votes actually decreased after the initial surge last week, and I doubt people were retracting their votes. I think I'll use the Google Docs Poll tool next time, like I did for the Gamer Gender Issues Survey designed by Sctrz and me last August.

Anyway, people seemed enthusiastic for cosmetic items in cash shops, with less inclination to buy XP Boosts, "Gambling" Boxes, and other items. No one I saw respond wanted to buy high level gear, which is often viewed as Pay-to-Win. In fact, flipping the coin, most respondents would actually shy away from games that sell P2W items in the cash shop. with the same rough distribution of folks disinclined to buy the other items mentioned.

Happily for game developers, no one who took the survey outright refused to buy anything in the cash shop. Perhaps the proverbial freeloader is a bit of a myth. There's always something that will appeal to somebody in the item shop. The question is finding the right balance of items and pricing.

Quick Polls: Spending Habits and Revenue Plans

Inspired by a discussion on Twitter, and Trion's announcement of Rift's impending F2P transition, I just started two quick polls. Please see the questions in the right column (sorry, you'll have to hit the vote button twice). They'll be up till next Tuesday, then I'll discuss results.

If you don't find a category in the list that you feel strongly about, drop a comment. :)

QOTD: Rift Goes Free

Starting June 12 RIFT is FREE - No Trials. No Tricks. No Traps. There's a lot to learn! riftgame.com/free
— RIFT (@Riftgame) May 14, 2013

Massively has an interview with Rift's Creative Director, Bill Fisher, as well.

I can't say I'm surprised. Rift is an awesome game that I enjoyed playing to max-level. It was the first game my lovely bride and I played together fresh, neither of us having prior experience. But the trend is toward free-to-play with a cash shop even for quality MMOs. In truth, Rift will be a hybrid—like TSW and SWTOR—with Subscribers getting perks that F2Pers will have to pay for, if they are even available.

Subcription MMOs are quite frankly on the decline. Even the elephant in the room, WoW, is losing subscribers, though Blizzard is still the runaway leader of the MMO pack. Some folks prefer to play a subscription-based game "to keep things simple." I used to be one of them. But I have found, beginning with GW2, then TSW, and now Neverwinter, that I like free-to-play. I have spent money/points in all three games. Maybe not as much as I would have if I were subscribed, but more than if they were fully sub-based and I weren't playing at all (which was the case for a few months with TSW). So at this stage of my gaming life, it's not a matter of sub money or no money, it's a matter of some money, when I feel the urge or need. I see it as a good move on Trion's part, if they keep to their promises of "No Tricks. No Traps." I won't play SWTOR because I feel the F2P is punitive, so they get none of my gaming budget. But a well-managed F2P (or B2P) doesn't have to make the F2Per feel left out, and thus will encourage spending, when there is value for the player.

NO SUB!! liminal Message

So it seems the hiatus I spoke of yesterday will be rather short lived. Karl, Hinageshi, and Samantha are rarin' to go. Much like Syp, I am doing a bit of a happy dance today. I just need to patch, which may take a while given that I went on a business trip this morning and have only a hotel connection. Which is also why I didn't scoop anyone on this.

I have said repeatedly that TSW's mechanics and skill/ability progression system is my personal favorite of all the games I've played. The grimdark meant I would only play occasionally and I couldn't justify the subscription when I was spending so much more time with the no-sub Guild Wars 2. There are a lot of other people who have said they'd play if it were sub free. Given that there don't seem to be any restrictions on non-subbers, only perks for those who are still paying monthly (or did lifetime subs), Funcom seems much wiser than EA/BioWare at this point.

As MMOGC pointed out, we've known Funcom had the infrastructure for F2P in place from the get-go. They tried subscriptions, and struggled for a couple months. Then came GW2, with its box-only pricing plan (with cash shop). It was only a matter of time, sez HZero. I think this may be the way to go for MMOs going forward. They need to have a plan for making their money from box sales and cash shops, not subscriptions. And I'm glad I haven't sprung for any lifetime subs (for STO, Rift, SWTOR, or TSW). I haven't played any of them for long enough to recoup the expense. As Arkenor has pointed out, lifetime subscriptions increasingly seem like a bad bet, even with perks given to lifers when the games go sub free. Now, paying a box price (dare I say, $60+) isn't too bad, if I play for a while.

I'll probably be running with the TSW branch of the Knights of Mercy on Monday nights; I wonder if Sctrz will want to join in.

From Corellia With Love

Sctrz and I finished out the stories on Chicco (Chico!) and Versteckt on Tuesday. I also picked up this snazzy new jacket from the Corellia commendations vendor, giving the long coat I'd been wearing since the Black Talon to Ensign Temple. So many of the outfits available to the Agent were basically the Imperial Navy uniforms from the movies; which I never understood, given how much of the story I was supposed to be under cover. I really like this top, and the way the match-to-chest made my outfit look. Too bad it was the last two days of my time in-game.

This will be the last time for a while, that I deal with SWTOR, since I canceled my subscription effective yesterday. We pushed a bit to get to 50 and finish our stories before I did. The Secret World has been taking more of my interest, and the Guild Wars 2 headstart is on the horizon. I still enjoy myself when playing, but it is no longer compelling. There it's fun to play through the stories, but in so many ways they are not my characters' stories, they are what the BioWare writers came up with. I encountered spoilers a couple times, too, which dampened or nullified the impact of the story. That was my own fault I suppose.

IMPERIAL AGENT SPOILER!
I gotta say, my favorite part of the climax (maybe the whole story) was when Versteckt shrugged off the torture and kicked serious ass. I love it every time it happens in a movie that a hero surprises a villain with an extra-strength can of whoopass. It's one reason I love Black Widow in Avengers.
END SPOILER!

Honestly, and there will be people who are critical of my position, much of what dampened my enthusiasm for SWTOR was external to the game itself: the way BioWare and EA failed to understand how to run an MMO, how to relate to the players. The clumsily handled free-month giveaway to "valued players"; the forced mergers that were painted as anything but; the inflexible Legacy system that did little to encourage having an actual Legacy, the inept handling of an unjustified player ban; actions that caused whole guilds to evaporate (to highlight: Beskar was a guild for about 5 times longer before launch than after, as far as I can tell). I had better stop before I really start ranting.

The sad thing is the game is good. I like it. But it could have been great and wasn't. I'll be back when SWTOR goes Free-to-Play in November, to see the other stories. But I know now that they won't really be my stories.

The Death of the Subscription Model, Warmed Over

The news that SWTOR is transitioning to a "free to play" model (actually a hybrid P2P/F2P model) has sent the gaming/blogging/tweeting world into yet another tizzie. The pro-F2Pers are dancing in the streets to the strains of "Ding! Dong! Subscription's Dead!" Meanwhile, the self-appointed MMO pundits are sitting back in their armchairs, declaring, "I told you so," and trying yet again to nail the coffin shut on SWTOR. While I think the Truth is out there, I doubt we'll ever have enough information to prognosticate the end of the sub-based MMORPG.

by quaziefoto

Lest We Forget

The solar radiance of WoW shines a huge light on the matter. The elephant in the room has more active subs than all other "AAA" games out there combined; and while there are chinks in Blizzard's armor, I don't see that changing in the foreseeable future. Add to this shining example other veteran MMOs like EVE and Rift (does it count as veteran?) and you begin to see a trend—or at least a plateau.

But look, the "pundits" say, at all the games that have free to play just to survive! LOTRO, STO, CO, AoC. Now add SWTOR, the biggest budget game since . . . EVAHR! And they just cried uncle. ArenaNet didn't even bother, they're launching GW2 as F2P just as they did with the original GW. Clearly the trend is toward free-to-play.

Things are tough all over, even for Blizzard. But time and again I hear people say that they are willing to pay for a quality gaming experience. Some others would rather not pay a sub on top of a stiff box price. Stil others refuse to pay a subscription for any game, no matter what. These people are giving their personal philosophies rather than actually commenting on the business models. There are quality games that have no monthly subscriptions. Many more have a hybrid model, where for an upfront sub fee, you get extra content privileges or a stipend in an otherwise RMT shop. Others require a full subscription to play at all. If the quality is there, this is not a problem for me. But when I stop having fun, I don't want to pay anymore.

Everything Must Go!

Tesh commented on the recent Steam sale as well, and I think it is related. Sales are always great for the consumer. But we all to often think the sellers are doing us a favor, partly because they try to make it seem that they are. The reality is very different.

Imagine you're a shopkeeper. You've paid a hundred bucks for some cat food, 50¢ per can. You figure you can sell for the cat food for twice as much as you paid, $200. You sell about 50 cans at a dollar a piece. With a quarter of your inventory gone, you're half-way to the break-even point. But then sales start to dry up. Everyone willing to pay a dollar for a can of cat food has done so. So you reduce the price. And put a sign up. SALE! Cat Food, 75¢! You sell a few more but then sales dry up again. So you reduce the price again. Given the trend, you'll probably break even, but you won't make your profit goal. Under some circumstances, however, you'll be more worried about cutting your losses than making a profit.

While development costs muddy the water, the cost to produce a game license (because that's what you're really buying) is so close to 0¢ that it may as well be. Therefore, if a company can get any more sales by reducing the price from an initial premium, it is only to their advantage to do so. If it gets to the point where you're only paying a few dollars (or euros) for it on Steam, it's still worth it to the producer to sell it, regardless of whether they are making a profit or recouping a loss.

by Martien van Asseldonk

A game transitioning to free-to-play may be the best thing that ever happened it, turning a foundering title to a profitable venture. If reducing the box price of SWTOR and offering a F2P option induces more players to try it, that can only be good for EA/BioWare. It doesn't alter any perceived flaws in the game, itself.

As I said before, many people are willing to pay a subscription for quality content (much like a magazine sub). They say it's a more honest model. Others want to play for free and buy stuff from the cash shop only if necessary. Luckily, as I also said, most (all?) of the F2P games I've mentioned have the subscription option. Let's face it, the developer/publisher needs to make a profit to continue providing the game service. The money has to come from somewhere.

More Bang For Your Buck

The real question is, Does the game service provide you value? That is, is the game designed to your tastes? Do you enjoy playing? Is your investment in time (and money) worth it? If not, move on. Hopefully, the game will find its audience and succeed. If not, it will fail.

The other question is, Does providing the game service give value to the producer? Are they getting a return on their investment? Don't forget sunk costs, which can be a problem as the executives irrationally try to get back what they put in, perhaps throwing good money after bad. Or focusing too much on the bottom line and not enough on the art.

Regardless of the quality of the game itself, SWTOR may simply have been too ambitious a project, with too much money thrown at it in an attempt or expectation of WoW-like player populations. Like LOTRO and several others, SWTOR will hopefully find its footing in the hybrid model. There are too many games on the market, and they are all—for good or bad—in orbit of the elephant. It is my hope that new projects will have more realistic expectations of player populations, whether P2P or F2P.

As for those that bemoan the communities that may or may not sour as a result of the "rabble" invading the Halls of the Emperor, I say you can find the community you want in every MMO. I, for one, am grateful to be part of the (now) meta-Guild Republic Mercy Corps, as well as the relatively small community of like-minded bloggers and twitterers I follow. Every game I have played has brought me more friends. We don't always agree, but we always have fun. If we aren't having fun, then why play?

Coming Soon to a Galaxy Near You . . . F2P

So the big news today was that SWTOR will be going Free-to-Play in November.  I am withholding judgment until I see more details, but I'm don't think this affects my decision to finish out my Agent's story, as well as Sctrz' BH, before the game bills again in mid-August. I have felt an ennui about the game for a couple months now, between playing the affection and LS/DS meta-games instead of really playing my characters the way I want and the extra-game antics of the EA/BioWare team like poor CS and unjustified bans, etc.

The character stories will still be fully accessible to all players regardless of subscription status. But other features like warzones, flashpoints, and space missions will be limited for F2P players, and operations will be restricted to only subscription players. Bank, inventory, and in-game funds will also be limited.

The real segregation here is between people who wanted and still want KOTOR 3 and those who expected an MMO based on KOTOR. I haven't seen whether the basic game key will need to be purchased, or if a player can simply download the game and start playing, like the current trial. So if you want to play KOTOR 3 without the subscription, this is your big chance.