Raph's Website » “ArchLord will sell XP!”

blog · games · writing · music · art · shop · about Raph · contact

“ArchLord will sell XP!”

August 4th, 2006 (Visited 8046 times) Tags:

Grimwell Online has the story as well as commentary.

The PlayPLUS system will enable players to purchase packages that include both game time and in-game bonus credits. Credits will be redeemable against in-game items and benefits, such as experience bonuses, teleportation spells, health boosts and many other desirable enhancements.

Many will cry foul and then Matt Mihaly will pop up to say “we’ve been doing this since…” I think it’s just inevitable. People seek advantage and they seek convenience.

A golf cart costs money. If you own a golf cart, you’re not getting as tired walking the course. This may help you play better. The club will rent you one. Aha, company-sponsored RMT. ArchLord, like the golf club, is merely charging a premium for the “easy” difficulty setting.

Is it fair? Of course not. Fair and commerce, despite legislative intent, usually do not hang out at the same parties.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.

63 Responses to ““ArchLord will sell XP!””

Jump to reader comments » | Leave a reply »

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

Faith wrote on August 4th, 2006 at 12:30 pm:

[...] Comments [...]

MMODump.com » “ArchLord will sell XP!” wrote on August 4th, 2006 at 3:41 pm:

[...] will sell XP!” “ArchLord will sell XP!”: “Grimwell Online has the story as well as commentary. The PlayPLUS system will enableplayers to purchase packages that include both game time and in-game bonus credits. Credits will be redeemable against in-game items and benefits, such as experience bonuses, teleportation spells, health boosts and many other desirable enhancements. [...]

Grimwell Online :: View topic - When Money Defeats Skill:Codemasters Announces PlayPLUS wrote on August 4th, 2006 at 4:32 pm:

[...] Well, Raph has this linked to this article on his website… but strangely enough heartless didn’t put this onto his blog or onto Slashdot (but heartless did post the CGW stuff to /. )? Why not cross post this everyplace heartless?_________________Humans learn from the Earth The Earth follows the Heavens [...]

The Forge · Virtual World Business Models wrote on August 9th, 2006 at 1:51 am:

[...] Finally, I thought of another category which sometimes overlaps with other categories: tiered subscriptions. This is where players can pay more per month for more goodies/access/whatever. Examples include Skotos, as Christopher Allen mentions above, Simultronics, Runescape (a special case where the lowest tier is “free”), and even the upcoming game Archlord which as generated some discussion on other blogs. This is also a version of what Anarchy Online does, but you have to pay subscription and fees if you want to play with the expansions. [...]

Universo-LF: Foros / Otros Juegos. / ARCHLORD juego onlinee yaaaaa �� wrote on August 11th, 2006 at 5:06 am:

[...] Uno de esos items te da un bonus a la xp o algo as� le�. Un par de lecturas chulas sobre este sistema de pago:EnlaceEnlace [ Editado Fri Aug 11 2006, 02:44PM ] �No obres nunca sino de manera que puedas querer que la m�xima que rige tu obrar se transforme en ley universal� [...]

Mischiefblog » Blog Archive » Kitty girls wrote on September 29th, 2006 at 4:57 am:

[...] Everyone wrote screeds against Codemasters’ discriminatory pricing structure, and now everyone will write self-congratulatory posts about how Codemasters isn’t going to charge for a tiered service after all thanks to the vigilance of bloggers and really pissed off beta testers. But they all missed what was important. The game has kitty girls, tailless Manx cat gothic lolitas, who ride lions (not tigers, so this is completely original). [...]

Game Design | The Cesspit. wrote on March 27th, 2007 at 12:03 pm:

[...] Submitted by Abalieno on August 6, 2006 – 13:39. Two controversial comments I wrote over at Raph’s blog about RMT, money vs. investment of time and the problem of the accessibility and processes of [...]

Mischiefblog » Blog Archive » Kitty girls wrote on April 9th, 2007 at 1:16 am:

[...] wrote screeds against Codemasters’ discriminatory pricing structure, and now everyone will write [...]

Reader Comments

Dragon said on August 4th, 2006 at 12:23 pm:
Does it have to be fair? It’s just different rules for a different game and one where all the pro-RMT lot will have a field day. More time spent working equals less time in game but also equals more money (well, in theory) therefore better advancement and less time in game needed.
It doesn’t appeal to me but I don’t see anything necessarily wrong with it.
Trucegore said on August 4th, 2006 at 12:30 pm:
lame.
Chas said on August 4th, 2006 at 1:06 pm:
Playing Devil’s advocate:
It depends on what you consider “fair.” If we’re here to share an experience, not compete against one another by leveling the fastest or spending the longest time online, is there anything “unfair” here.
“Earning” something has always been a weak illusion that never really went very far- things can be traded and twinking is done so easily that any claim of competitive value is here.
Many of the “fair/unfair” claims are based on metrics that players generate to try to give value to the goals they set for themselves. People who “leveled the hard way” might claim that powerleveling is “unfair” or complain that an XP-earning boost “reduced the value of maxing out.” Who cares? Your achievement has value for what it meant to you, but others will make the achievement in different ways, valuable to them. Comparing the two is an exercise in futility- we all have different obstacles in our path.
You can argue that the performance enhancements affect PvP, but PvP in most games is hardly designed to be an even matchup. Is there much difference between a level 50 ganking a level 20 and someone doing essentially the same thing, but paying for it? Does that mean that the merit-based ones don’t stand a chance? Not necessarily, it could be that the paid-for boosts don’t pass the “cap” that a maxed out character has found. It could just be that the level 50 can’t look at the level 45 as a trivial foe, but maybe a real contender. Did you lose that “fair match of level 25-25 due to twinked out armor or a paid for buff? Does it really matter?
Matt Mihaly said on August 4th, 2006 at 3:24 pm:
Actually, we haven’t done this. Our games are free to play, so there’s no reason to sell a combination time/credit package, though such an approach is logical for a subscription game offering virtual item sales.
–matt
Allen Sligar said on August 4th, 2006 at 5:51 pm:
Have to agree with Chas logic there. Its all time differentials, its the same behavior that occurs without the tacit approval of the game companies when people “buy” experiance, and “purchase” items from gold farmers. That its validated by the game company makes no differance. The underground economy exists. Would players have it by what is fundamentally a regulated company provided method or an unregulated and possibly risky illegal means is one of the things at issue here.
However the gist of this is that players have recourse in one system and none against an offshore company that operates under the radar of its own countries legal system.
As far as MMO players go, the demographic is a broad one. Some players have more money than time, some more time than money. Arguments premised on what is “fair” from either side are from the POV of investment of money vs. investment of time.
Should the game company miss the opprotunity to provide its player base with legal means of advancement, and a secure means of doing so, and as a result have more money to ensure the games ongoing viability/quality. Or should the game company ignore the potential revenue stream and leave its players to use a blackmarket gold farming/leveling service with no recourse when things dont go right.
I view this as a responsible way of protecting players and validating whats already happening anyway.
Michael Chui said on August 4th, 2006 at 8:59 pm:
To third Chas, I’ve never seen a reasonable concept of fairness: it’s always invoked when an offended party had their expectations violated.
To me, this goes back to the issue of blame. People in America have very closed minds; if they expect it to be a certain way, then it has to be that way. I think a more open mind would start expecting something different. In research, they’d call it bias, illustrated by the anecdote of the researcher who concluded frogs live on one side of a river, so he tossed all the frogs on the other side across because they were on the wrong side.
If you want to invoke justice, by all means. THAT is a reasonably solid concept. Demanding fairness is a loser’s last holdout, with the ground crumbling underneath them.
Psychochild said on August 4th, 2006 at 10:26 pm:
As I have said before, I think the “pay for perks” model is going to dominate, at least for the smaller games. Making a million-subscriber game will still be wildly profitable even if you “only” charge subscriptions.
However, I think trying to charge subscriptions and sell perks will not work. It’s understandable: you want the increased sales from items along with the quasi-regular income from players. However, it’s really the worst of all worlds for the player. Why pay to play a game where the most effective route to success is paying more money? Some games have successfully done this in the past, but I think it’ll be a turn-off to most people.
I predict that this game won’t be as successful as it could have been by trying to have its cake and eat it, too.
My thoughts,
Psychochild said on August 4th, 2006 at 10:45 pm:
Ah, after doing more reading, looks like they aren’t really doing a hybrid model as I accused, rather they’re giving credits based on increased monthly subscription. At least they don’t mention the ability to buy the additional currency directly. Interesting, but still not quite optimal, I think. It’ll be interesting to see how the game does and if the higher level subscriptions really give a bigger advantage.
Michael Chui said on August 4th, 2006 at 11:10 pm:
I know that Dragonrealms uses a two-tier subscription model. Premium subs get extra perks, and pay extra for them. But they don’t get any real perks to either experience gain or gold income. (Except indirectly, through say… items they can sell or weapons that are above average or special in some way.) I’m not sure if it’s widespread throughout Simutronics’ games. I suspect it works very well for them. They’ve had the model for at least a decade now, IIRC, with minimal significant changes.
Dragon said on August 5th, 2006 at 12:55 am:
I view this as a responsible way of protecting players and validating whats already happening anyway.
What’s already happening is that people are cheating. Behaviour that is not tacitly approved by the company is simply breaking the game rules. If you want to be able to get ahead by buying xp/items or so on then play a game, such as Archlord, that permits you to.
It would be like playing rugby and wanting to pass the ball forward or tackle players who aren’t carrying the ball. If that’s what you want to do, why not play American Football instead? Similar concept game (well, similar shaped ball anyway!) but different rules.
Micheal: In a game, which is defined by its rules, is it not reasonable to expect those you are playing with to play by those rules too? Is it not reasonable to expect a “loser” to appeal to fairness if the victor has cheated? Or is it simply being close minded?
Michael Chui said on August 5th, 2006 at 2:05 am:
In a game, which is defined by its rules, is it not reasonable to expect those you are playing with to play by those rules too? Is it not reasonable to expect a “loser” to appeal to fairness if the victor has cheated? Or is it simply being close minded?
If the rules change, would you accept the change? Would it still be unfair? If you disagree with the change to the rules, would your disagreement be based on fairness?
Fairness in games is typically an illusion. The only fair game is a game of chance. In any other game, the characteristics of the players, and various choices on variables, such as setting, victory conditions, etc., will determine the winner. Why? Because some people are better than others in the ways that matter for that game. I lose almost every game of chess I play, not because I’m a bad player, but because I play against people who are better. Is it unfair? Of course it is. But it’s an unfairness I am prepared to accept.
When you say that it becomes a different game, you have struck at the crux of the problem. Players who view RMT as cheating believe their game has a number of rules. Players who approve of or participate in RMT alternatively believe their game has a similar, but different set of rules. If the rules authority, in this case the game company, has not explicitly stated that RMT is cheating, then you get into a philosophical discussion on implicit rules. I address that here. But if they have not, then the fact is that the players who disapprove of RMT in that game are deluding themselves. Their minds are closed.
If the rules authority declares that rule, then yes, they are cheating, and in many places, they are thusly banned. This is just. In other places, the rules authority has not declared such a rule, and in those cases, it is not cheating. In ArchLord, for instance, it would not be cheating.
You can contest that it is morally wrong, economically foolish, even unjust, whatever you like. But it is not unfair. You can argue that RMT shouldn’t occur, or that it should, but your reason cannot be an appeal to the idea of fairness. Fairness is a random dice roll determine your gender, class, level, skills, gear, and location for the day. Some people like such a game; dice games are largely based on that idea. It is unfair to have an unequal chance. But MMORPGs are persistent, and thus by definition, unfair. Much like life.
There is no concept of fairness outside the bounds of a game. In summary, you are correct. It is not close-minded to call for fairness or accuse another of cheating. But also, there is the classic regard of cheating: if you didn’t play by the rules of the game, did you really win? And what is victory, in something like a MMORPG? What is victory, in something like life? Understanding that they didn’t win at all means that you didn’t lose. In which case… you wouldn’t be the loser demanding fairness. You’d be someone whose game was disrupted and unresolved, with good reason to complain, because those whose job it was to enforce the rules… didn’t.
Dragon said on August 5th, 2006 at 6:33 am:
If the rules change, would you accept the change?
It depends on the nature of the change. Looking again at rugby (a passion of mine), many years ago, they changed the scoring so that tries scored more than they used to. The reason for this was to encourage more try scoring and less penalty kicking. Did I accept it? Yes.
If they changed the rules so that you were not allowed to handle the ball, reduced the number on a team to 11, gave you goals you had to put kick the ball into (i.e. turned it into soccer), I’d accept that they had the right to make these changes but I would no longer be interested in the game and would not want to play or watch. (I might, however, start up teams that played by the “Old rules” just for my own satisfaction!)
I think we’re in agreement as to what the idea of “fair/unfair” represents in respect to the rules of a game. You’re right to point out that there are other determining factors as well (skill, size, training, kit whatever). In fact, I can’t disagree with much that you put forward regarding the semantics of “fairness” at all.
Your last point, regarding victory in MMORPG, is also well made. There is no clear definition of what is “winning” in an MMORPG (aside from the obvious: the ability to defeat another player in PvP). Personally, I’ve never worried about the fact that some people might have bought a jedi character over eBay for hundred’s of dollars or gold from a gold farmer except when it disrupted my game (spawn camping and such like). Fortunately, I am quite able to keep in mind that no matter how much like life it is, it is still only a game.
JC John SESE Cuneta said on August 5th, 2006 at 6:47 am:
Many Korean MMOGs were made with the VA model in-mind. VA model as in “Virtual Asset model”. VA model is what we use officially in the industry, outside, they call it RMT (Real-Money Trading). In most casual games, the VA model is called “Avatar Items” or “Avatar Shop” or “Item Shop”, but its all based on the VA model (with the exception of RMT, which can be both legal and illegal depending on whose maximizing the secondary market).
In the Western world, these concept is really new, or more appropriately, the view is ‘hostile’. The VA model is viewed as “something that will destroy an online game’s economy, integrity and fun”. It isn’t so here in the Eastern world. The VA model works, it was proven already that this business-game model will give a company higher earnings than a subscription based model. The very first company that used this model is NHN. No one believed them before, everybody said they will fail, but now, many are embracing it.
It is a very long explanation, especially that, (not being racist) many Westerners will argue that, “if that’s the case, then what IGE do is ‘legal’”. Bottomline, unless sanctioned by the game developer and/or game publisher, it is illegal (or just plain neutral).
Btw, I am coming from an experience and knowledge I learned since I became part and directly involved in the gaming industry, and of course as a gamer who used to believe that any form of the VA model will ruin an MMORPG game.
^_^
Darniaq said on August 5th, 2006 at 12:22 pm:
It doesn’t require much ingenuity to make money on something, so companies turn to RMTing-like things such as this (and Space Cowboy) to supplement the lack of innovation in their experience.
Good for them. Good for the genre. Either we’re wrong and the dinosaurs becoming extinct or these games are the mutant genes and will last but one generation
Dave Rickey said on August 5th, 2006 at 1:44 pm:
Frankly, although it may be against my best economic interest, I am highly reluctant to let assets purchased from me for my games affect gameplay. From what I have seen, selling shineys (things with only aesthetic effect) is equally viable (VHR2 gets 60% of its revenue that way, VHR1 40%) and doesn’t make me feel like the only purpose of my game is to extract money from the customer as efficiently as possible.
Ultimately, if I don’t make money I can’t make games, so I can forsee the potential for me giving up on this, if it turns out there aren’t enough people interested in playing games that don’t require them to let me set a syphon directly into their bank account. But I dislike that notion for the same reasons I dislike the idea of Chinese-style governmental regulations taking hold in the US/Europe: I don’t want to have to design games around such restrictions.
Anyway, nobody has to play Archlord, and as long as everyone who does knows going in what the deal is, I have no issue with them experimenting with the business model.
–Dave
Andy Havens said on August 5th, 2006 at 5:09 pm:
After an interminably long set of comments on TN, I became convinced that calling RMT “cheating” — which I used to do — was not accurate, if the company publishing/sponsoring the game did not take sufficient steps to prevent the activity. As Michael states, if you have a game that’s played with (at least) two sets of expectations, your ideas regarding play when it comes to concepts such as cheating, fairness, good conduct, etc., will depend on which set of expectations you bring to the table. This (obviously) doesn’t even have to touch on issues of RMT; something as simple as relative levels of in-game, out-of-character behavior can cause a dissonance between two players, making their shared experience less pleasant for one, possibly to the amusement of another.
Since that discussion, I have continued to think about the issue of RMT quite a bit. Because it still bugs on me. And it comes down to this, for me: If it is explicit, I have no problem with it. If it is not, I do. Why? Because in the absence of transparency, I don’t know what game we are playing, nor whom I am playing with.
To use Michael’s chess analogy: suppose I want to play a game with a player of similar ability to mine in order to have an enjoyable game, advance my skills somewhat (but not get skunked or totally blow him/her away too easily). Let’s say on a universal chess ranking scale of 1-100, I rate a “43.” I find another player who, through this common ranking system, has a listed ranking of “45.” OK, I think. That’s pretty close to me. Should be a good game. I go to the time and trouble of setting up a match… and beat the person in 12 moves. And the second game… I beat them in 14. And then in 12. And then in 13. And then I just give up.
How did they get that 45 ranking? You guessed it. RMT. They paid somebody to advance their ranking in the system, so that they’d show up as a higher level player, so that they didn’t have to pay their dues, do the lower-level stuff, etc.
Same holds true in MMOs. I’m a guild master or a player looking for a partner. Players A & B come along who have similar specs. I pick ‘em both to hang with me. Turns out A “earned” the specs, B bought ‘em. Mr. B has no idea what Mr. A & I are talking about when we discuss the game history, strategy, back-story that was involved in the wresting of various loot that is in his inventory. Why? Because he picked it up in RMT-Mart.
Now… is it “fair?” Sure. Is it “cheating?” No. If I know that RMT is available and common practice, then it’s part of the game. I have to take that into account when I’m playing. If I’m an RMTer and am looking to play with folks who have similar goals to me, and those goals aren’t affected by the side-effects of RMT… no problem. RMT becomes a game element, just like whether I like to play with hard-core role-players, people who use voice-chat, people I know in real life, all tanks, only GLBT-friendlies, etc.
But if it’s not transparent… well… let me ask you something. If somebody asked you, “Did you earn that armor, or buy it?” And you bought it, would you tell ‘em? Or if they asked you, “Did you level this character yourself, or is it an RMT job?” would you tell ‘em? If you wouldn’t, then I’m pretty sure that we’re back to RMT being “bad” even if it ain’t cheating or unfair. Because something you’re ashamed of is usually bad, eh?
And if you’re not ashamed of it, why not make it transparent? Mark purchased levels and items as such, so that folks can tell the difference.
Here there be RMTdragons…
Jim said on August 5th, 2006 at 8:10 pm:
People toss around terms like “fairness” and “the rules”, but don’t really dig into why we have the rules, or a sense of fairness for that matter, in the first place.
I’m surprised no one’s brought up the root cause of resentment against RMT– the fact that it dilutes bragging rights. This is another aspect of the same resentment against twinks. They didn’t “earn” it ingame. No one who has what they have can claim credit for it without being suspected of coming by it dishonorably; having come by it honorably is no longer such an honor. And getting pwned by someone who has power not because they have skill or they worked for it but because they bought it, that’s just heaping insult upon insult.
And remember, the bragging rights, the sense of accomplishment, are what a good percentage of players are looking for in the first place.
On the other side of the coin are the MMO developers, who actually created the game, and are seeing the (money-type) credit for it going to ingame farmers. I’m not surprised in the least that they resent the idea that the grey market for ingame items (in defiance of just about every TOS/EULA out there) is making lots of money for someone, and that someone’s not them. Whether they see this as a bigger problem than the dilution of ingame bragging rights probably depends on the developer.
So, a good solution to this problem would probably be something that a) allows devs to profit from their hard work, and b) allows players who worked hard for their ingame achievements to distinguish those achievements from those who did not work hard for them.
Allen Sligar said on August 5th, 2006 at 8:11 pm:
I’d like to clarify, I neither support or am opposed to RMT business models. My point was more that in an overtly RMT system players have recourse if thier items and/or purchases are not honored. Whereas in an “illegal” blackmarket system they do not. Businesses select thier business models for any number of reasons. Most the time with the consumer in mind, so one must initially give them the benifit of the doubt that they selected thier price structure to ensure business viability over the long term. If on the other hand the model selected is to maximize profits at the expense of consumer satisfaction, that eventually becomes readily apparent as consumers choose to play or leave.
Iakimo said on August 5th, 2006 at 9:53 pm:
I will not play a game that allows RMT. The chase for uber items is generally a big part of the “point” of the game. Why buy a game if you’re not gonna play the thing?
And, yes, I regularly report accounts if I see evidence of wrongdoing, such as toons set up on an “invite-to-group” macro for the purpose of spamming come-ons to RMT websites. In fact, I’m seriously considering mentioning another category of odd occurrence to GMs, such as seeing unusually large numbers of a particularly hard-to-pharm item placed for sale by one person, as happened earlier this week when I saw one player’s name associated with a couple dozen stacks of Stonescale Eel. (To put that into perspective, it takes me about a half hour to catch one eel when I’m fishing. And a single full stack equals 20 eels. Twenty-four stacks of 20 eels, times half an hour? It’s possible, but to do so in real time without the aid of an AFK macro is mind-numbing. Hence my skepticism.)
But then, I admit to an old-school mindset.
Michael Chui said on August 5th, 2006 at 11:36 pm:
RMT is delusory when it confers status normally gained through experience. It is reinforced by game designs where player skill matters very little, and thus the ownership of accounts or their contents typically means equally little, whereas their transfer has great value. To extend Allen’s chess analogy, the game of chess lies entirely in player skill. You can’t buy a more powerful queen to use, nor can you unlock moves. So buying that status is pointless. (Well, not always pointless, but the context of discussion doesn’t include that class of status purchasing.)
My personal stance is that RMT of things like characters and accounts is merely a symptom of poor game design, and that RMT of things like rares or uber items is the nature of the magic circle being a delusion. I don’t think RMT should be supported, but I am also a huge advocate of player skill, or more accurately, player knowledge. (The other reason RMT is thriving is because of persistence; obviously, we shouldn’t remove that.)
Richard Bartle gave a talk a few years ago at a Dutch conference I cannot recall… he had a diagram of how players automatically bring real-world baggage into the game. (I only read the Powerpoint; I didn’t see it in person.) It’s inevitable. Your personal history, your upbringing, your reasons for play, your choices and perceptions: they all color your experience inside the magic circle. It is therefore entirely unsurprising that your economic status does, too. Economies do not care about things like magic circles; they care about value, and people value dollars and people value virtual items, characters, and accounts. It is utterly impossible to break that connection. Even in a game like ToonTown, where player-player communication is minimal, all it takes is a service being bought by one player by another using a currency non-native to that world.
Not anticipating it in your game design, or at least in company policy, is unwise. That doesn’t mean to incorporate it; it means to realize that it will happen. There was even RMT on MUD1, which “reset periodically”, meaning your purchase would be gone. It should never come as a surprise. Not anymore. I might disapprove of RMT, but I wouldn’t design the economy with the assumption that it would never happen.
Abalieno said on August 6th, 2006 at 4:17 am:
As far as MMO players go, the demographic is a broad one. Some players have more money than time, some more time than money. Arguments premised on what is “fair” from either side are from the POV of investment of money vs. investment of time.
Like if the main reason why someone plays is to “invest”. On what? Two, three years later he will probably abandon the game anyway.
One is supposed to play a game because it’s an interesting and fun experience to be had. Like if you read a book because you are interested on it.
Of course this requires time. Everything requires time. If you have no time, then you cannot play a game and enjoy it. The “time” isn’t a currency, the time is just what is absolutely necessary for you to enjoy something. If you don’t have two hours you cannot go in a movie theater to enjoy the movie.
So the point isn’t about *time*. Because if you play a game then it’s absolutely sure that you have time for it. The point is just about if you can have fun for the time you can dedicate to the game.
RMT is an exploit to leech money, not a scheme that leads to better games.
I don’t say that the model cannot or shouldn’t be used, I’m saying that the games will suck.
Abalieno said on August 6th, 2006 at 4:51 am:
RMT is delusory when it confers status normally gained through experience. It is reinforced by game designs where player skill matters very little, and thus the ownership of accounts or their contents typically means equally little, whereas their transfer has great value.
And I also disagree with this because I don’t think that mmorpgs should require “skill”.
The content is there to be enjoyed. The basic requirement is that you want your game to TEACH skill, not to discriminate players on it. If a game fails to teach, then it’s a game’s failure, not player’s failure. A game isn’t a good one if people with “no skill” cannot play and cannot advance in any way. There should be no skill required to enjoy a good story and participate in it.
A virtual world should strive for that ideal. People have different skill sets. A virtual world should give home and deliver fun to everyone, not to the most skilled. Everyone will then contribute with what he can. But there shouldn’t be processes of selection, distinctions of merit and so on. There shouldn’t be “premium” players who can enjoy the game more because they are more skilled.
Of course there should be “challenge” in a game for the it to be fun. But the challenge shouldn’t be a way to tell skilled players from not skilled ones, it should be instead something that *everyone* can overcome. Because that’s the DUTY of a game: make everyone succeed.
The best game isn’t the one where a x% of the total players fails while another x% succeeds, because, again, the purpose is to present challenge and then offer all the conditions for that challenge to be overcome by everyone. So a game where the TOTALITY of the players are included, instead of discriminated or selected.
The objection is that in current games the challenge is just about perseveration and time invested. This is obviously not a good model because that’s not real challenge and that’s not what I’m wishing.
It is possible to preserve challenge and skill in a game, but again not with the purpose to discriminate the players and exclude some of them. Guides, tutorials, HowTos… There are plenty of ways on the internet to overcome the difficulty of a game. Asking other players, creating bonds and have more experienced players helping you and answering your questions are very good ways not TO REMOVE the challenge in a game, but to make it accessible.
There’s one absolute principle about games and virtual worlds: they should be accessible to the largest group of people possible.
I do not want any discrimination about skill, nor discrimination about the wealth of a player in RL.
Darniaq said on August 6th, 2006 at 5:46 am:
I see no flaw in neither RMTing nor Archlord, because as Dave Rickey said earlier, you can change the channel.
Before the relatively recent publicized influx of ingame advertising and RMTing, this genre was already broad. Eve and Guild Wars are technically the same type of game, sold in the same market category. How whack is that?
So consider games like Archlord and Space Cowboy just another channel. This won’t change how everyone does games because the players in this “genre” sub-divide into so many different target markets. There are some trends that can translate across all games, but I for one feel traditional RMTing in games bearing a lot of resemblance to early EQ won’t be one of them for long.
Michael Chui said on August 6th, 2006 at 10:36 am:
And I also disagree with this because I don’t think that mmorpgs should require “skill”.
Whoa. I didn’t say they should. I said that because they don’t, they support RMT. The quoted statement was not a value judgement; it was an analysis.
The basic requirement is that you want your game to TEACH skill, not to discriminate players on it. If a game fails to teach, then it’s a game’s failure, not player’s failure.
That’s fine. But is there any reason to learn anything, when it doesn’t matter what you’ve learned? What, exactly, is the game teaching you? If you learn it, should you continue to play?
Remember, I’m saying that the fact that things like gear and levels and character skills are easily transferable is part of the basis for RMT. The reason they’re easily transferable is because they are encapsulated in the character, not the player.
What’s the point of teaching skill, if it doesn’t change anything?
There’s one absolute principle about games and virtual worlds: they should be accessible to the largest group of people possible.
Entirely not true. If I build a virtual world as a haven and support network for people who have been abused, their abusers should not be permitted to join. If I build a game for people who have trouble with math, ace mathematicians need not apply. If I build a game to make lots of money, and thus permit people who pay me the most to be the most powerful, then people who are poor shouldn’t play either (unless they’re masochists and enjoy being victims… I’d recommend some psychiatric counseling, then).
The lowest common denominator is not necessarily the best. I’m not saying that you shouldn’t go for it; if you want it, then you should snag it. But there are cases where you explicitly don’t want it.
Allen Sligar said on August 6th, 2006 at 3:57 pm:
There are many types of investment. You can invest time, emotion, money, all to learn a game, learn skill, learn about your enviornment, or discovery, develop a network of friends, participate in the game economy. All of these are broad “investments” in fun, and enjoyment, in your chosen hobby….
Yes, you can quit the game a few years later, perhaps when your investment has born fruit, when your “fun” is maxamized, when you have “learned” what you need from the “game(‘s)”
If you have no time, then you cannot play a game and enjoy it. The “time” isn’t a currency, the time is just what is absolutely necessary for you to enjoy something. If you don’t have two hours you cannot go in a movie theater to enjoy the movie.
I disagree, time is money, and it can be quantified, thats why people get paid by the hour to produce…..but back on point;
Enjoyment is then premised on available time? Therefore those without time should not persue thier favorite hobby; games? Of course movies end in 90 minutes, MMO’s are persistent.
“The game demographic is a broad one”, this means we can differentiate between 37 year olds with 40 hour a week jobs, married, a house, 2 kids, who has 5-8 hours of personal time for MMO’s and someone who’s 19, in college, and spends 25 hours a week on the same MMO. If person A has 5-8 hours (vs person B’s 25 hours) should they not “go to the show”? (I think game companies will agree everyone possible should be “going to the show”)Should the system be biased toward a 25 hour a week investment and a 6 hour a week investment? based on time, skill, items?
Now reverse this, Person A has 1150.00 a month in disposable income, (entertianment dollars) Person B has 75.00 a month in disposable income. Now lets a ssume a system of game sponsored RMT. Person A can buy (investing money)an easier experiance for his 6 hours a week “at the show” whereas Person B, buys the same (or superior, since no game has come out explicitly for the “haves” crowd, and time is still king) experiance though time (and likely social network building) through time investment.
Whos working harder to play; Person A at his real job to make the disposable income to buy maximum enjoyment, or Person B playing 25 hours of the game?
Fundamentally it does not matter what theyre buying. Maybe its skill, maybe its gear, maybe its levels, and maybe its dance moves……what matters is they get to play…..on an even playing field.
Where there is no tacit RMT system (and I wont comment on failures in game design not anticipating it, Im just a player not a designer) there is an underground. In the underground there IS no regulation, what you can buy is limited to your WALLET size.
In the underground player A can (lets use WOW since someone brought it up) can basically BUY a level 70 character for 400.00 in 17 days. Now we see there is a major differance in whats “fair” by tacit approval and regulation and “fair” by market forces when we apply value judgements on whats “fair” and what games have a “duty” to do.
So my point is that no, everyone does not have “time” for it absolutely, thats the same as saying “you failed to learn” or level, or complete the quest because you didnt not “try” hard enough, you didnt take enough time to learn…….these are statements of convieniance. But I agree on the second half, the point is that you should have “fun” (however a person quantifies it, be it Skill based PVP, or learning new dance moves) during the time you do “go to the show”.
Its just that some people are willing to pay for shorter lines to go see the show than others, if the management so allows, do not begrudge these people thier shorter waits in line, maybe they have more money than time. And if the shows not worth it people in both lines will be displeased and likely not see the same producers show again.
My concern is that people arent being let into the show through a side door illegally by thier “friends” (gold farmers) and getting the same seats I paid for either with my investment in time, or (in this case RMT) money.
If one believes this is unfair then plenty of regular theaters are available where everyone waits in the same long line to see the show (but there always seems to be “Friends” letting people in through side doors in these places)
Im sure theres a funny tie in to Fandango in this somewhere….hehe
As to your second post Albieno, I can only say that other gamers will disagree with you on what the point of the game is, and what goals you have and the reasons you play may be much different. The only “duty” a game has is to be fair and prevent people from having bad playing experiances as a result of others players actions.
Back to the theater analysis since its again applicable, most theaters are designed where some seats are better then others, some people are willing to “pay” (through time or money) for better seats a) because they want to have a better experiance at the show, or b) they want to feel a sense of superiority or c) both. Because you believe everyone should be going to the show to learn from the show, and have equitable seating, does not mean other people go to the show for the same reasons. If the theater is desinged in such a way as to encourage this do you blame the people in the better seats or the theater builders?
Further there are some people in the theater sitting near you, and up in those better seats, who want to shoot (grief) you while you watch the show, its the theater managements “duty” to prevent this….
Allen Sligar said on August 6th, 2006 at 4:07 pm:
This is why I said I’m neither for or against sanctioned RMT by a game company. Although ifs its badly designed I wouldnt stick around the theater for long….and I think neither will most other gamers….
Rik said on August 6th, 2006 at 8:42 pm:
There’s one absolute principle about games and virtual worlds: they should be accessible to the largest group of people possible.
If you mean the game should be accessible to people who might like it, sure. One does need to be sure that you aren’t watering down the content to make it appeal to more people. I’m picturing a board room, where a designer just explained his idea about a horror space game, Vampires vs. Aliens. (better make that Vampirez vs. Alienz. ) And the suit says “Hey, can you tone down all the violence?” If it’s a question of skill, isn’t checkers what chess would look like if you trimmed the need for skill down? Make it as accessible as you can, within your budget, without loseing you vision. MMO don’t need 4 million players to be successful. They do need to pay off develoment costs.
Dragon said on August 7th, 2006 at 5:54 am:
Allen: you forgot to point out person C and D in your example – person C being the person who only has 6 hours a week to play MMOs but also doesn’t have many entertainment dollars and person D – the player who has a vast amount of entertainment dollars and 25 hours a week to play. What happens to the “even playing field” then?
Allen Sligar said on August 7th, 2006 at 8:57 am:
Hmmm good question, Person C, I would think the game should have the right mechanics for person C to still have fun even (and theres the rub right?)in an RMT system. The game might not cater to Person C, but as a gamer I hope it dosnt discriminate against them. Else the game likely loses a member of its community thats there to “hang out” aka socialize. Person D, (for example you mean the kid that bought one of the fist Jedi in SWG off of Ebay for 3500.00) Well, some people have more time than money, some have more money than time, and some have more money than brains, while still others have more of the former (2) and none of the latter, tacit RMT should not provide Person D extensive advantage over person C, the same cannot be said of the unregulated market.
Im sure Raph or one of the professional designers around here can get more into designs that support Person C and Person D play styles. Especially re even playing fields…
Abalieno said on August 7th, 2006 at 9:32 am:
I disagree, time is money, and it can be quantified
Outside the game? Sure, inside the game? No, at all.
My idea is that the game should be accessible. This means that the developers should pay attention to make it fun even for those who can only play in shorter sessions.
Again, it doesn’t matter how often you can log, how much time passes from a game session to the other, or how long the session is. What matters is that your ten minutes are fun as the ten minutes of every other player. Whether those ten minutes are being played by someone who can only play from time to time or by someone who played the game five hours a day, each day.
Your ten minutes + $20 for an exp bonus aren’t going to be more *fun*.
At least if you aren’t buying content.
Fundamentally it does not matter what theyre buying. Maybe its skill, maybe its gear, maybe its levels, and maybe its dance moves……what matters is they get to play…..on an even playing field.
What matters is that they can play. Not that they can “buy”.
Allen Sligar said on August 7th, 2006 at 12:02 pm:
eh? Your either missing my point or ignoring it. My post went into detail about how time = money , yes, in a game, more importantly how outside a game the valuation of time vs money effects in game behaviors.
Yes, everyone agrees games should be accessable. No, I dont think developers go around thinking “if someone can only play 5 hours a week lets make it un-fun”. I went into that as well
Your ten minutes + $20 for an exp bonus aren’t going to be more *fun*.
Eh…I think I went into detail about how this opinion is premised on valuation of time.
Yes, what matters is everyone can play (on an even playing field)
And oh your quite right, it doesnt matter if the player can buy, players can always “buy” weather you like it or not, and in fact it dosnt matter weather the game company likes it or not. There WILL be buying and there WILL be selling. You cant stop it, I cant stop it, Raph cant stop it and Sony cant stop it. And fundamentally thats NOT the issue….
The issue is who a gamer buys from (Company or Gold Farmer) and how much (Limited by Game Mechanic/Regulated RMT or Unlimited “whats in your wallet?” to borrow a phrase..) and why. (business model or design issues/descrimination against certain demographics of gamers)
As I stated earlier (and because Im more interested in data and less interested in opinion/value judgements) I dont care about the who, thats the realm of others, I care about the “how much” (prevalence) and the “why” (business/design/demographics) because understanding this is important for video game players/makers.
Michael Chui said on August 7th, 2006 at 1:09 pm:
It just occurred to me that RMT actually includes buying the box and paying the subscription fees. Nothing in anyone’s definition ever excludes that, except perhaps the clause “illegal” which is annoyingly… variable. People with more money can pay for more subscriptions. They might pay their friends to act on their behalf. The fact that you have to actually pay to play in the first place is already discriminatory; Guild Wars has shown that it is not a mandatory model (though they were by no means the first).
JR Sutich said on August 7th, 2006 at 1:15 pm:
What it really all boils down to is cable.
You can get basic cable for 10 bucks. Or you can get 3000 channel digital cable for 49 bucks. MMOs are supposed to be entertainment, and the entertainment industry has been all about tiered pricing since some Greek paid 2 more coppers 4000 years ago for a seat where he could actually hear the actors.
Dragon said on August 7th, 2006 at 1:38 pm:
Allen: regarding Person A to B (or D as I’ve stretched it to now). The level playing field is already in place: regardless of how much “entertainment dollars” each has or even the amount of time each has in a week to play, the level playing field exists because, give or take, each player should be able to reach the same level as the other in about the same amount of time they spend in game. Sure it might take the person playing 6 hours a week the best part of a month to get to the same level the person playing 25 hours a week reaches after 7 days. But after 10, 20 or 50 hours in game, each will be at a comparable level.
That pretty much sounds like a level (or even) playing field to me.
(So much more to say but better people have said it before and better. I might stick to my blog! )
Allen Sligar said on August 7th, 2006 at 3:57 pm:
So much more to say but better people have said it before and better. I might stick to my blog! )
Yeah, I need to get this up and running soon, else a certain proprietor of this establishment, who is I’m sure sick of my posts on his blog gives me the boot….hehe
On the other hand I should post less anyhow, I’m knee deep in nasty things I and didnt like doing in business school much less in real life as well as building databases, algorithims, and etc…its all very exciting….no really…all premised on the idea that gamers will like it…”if I build it will they come?”
Over00 said on August 7th, 2006 at 4:02 pm:
Enjoyment is then premised on available time? Therefore those without time should not persue thier favorite hobby; games?
Funny, exactly the reason I don’t actually enjoy now what was (still could be) my favorite hobby (talking about MMORPG here).
Go figure, I still read a lot and get hyped about all the incoming games just in case one would allow me to play with the time I have free. Maybe that became my new hobby?
Guess I need one of those psychiatrist heh?
Rik said on August 7th, 2006 at 10:26 pm:
And oh your quite right, it doesnt matter if the player can buy, players can always “buy” weather you like it or not, and in fact it dosnt matter weather the game company likes it or not.
Take this out of the field of MMORPG and into any other field, and this arguement doesn’t sound that good. “College Board to sell SAT scores. Educators point out that people were buying score all along, and this way they get some of the money while cheaters get a better value.” “Judges in New York now give reciepts for bribes. Town hall says this will keep crooked judges honest.”
So on an emotional level, this arguement is no good. There are lots of things that are cheating, and the solution is not just to regulate the industry. There is not a law on the books that hasn’t been broken, and sometimes we even know who did it, but via the process we caan’t prove it and they walk.
On a designer level, I’m not convinced a game couldn’t be designed without any real way to gold farm. Certainly few people in City of Heros would have paid any RL cash for worthless coin of the realm. And while a player-run ecomomy is very cool when it’s working, it’s not a part of the definition of a virtual world or MMORPG. Simply take out trading with other players. Yes, that might be throwing the baby out with the bath water if you did it on the last night of beta, but if designed that way from the very start could be very interesting. You could still craft for yourself. In fact you could craft for other players, they just have to supply their own materials which are never actually in your inventory. In the meanwhile you would use whatever sword you found or whatever the NPCs sold. Just an example.
Allen Sligar said on August 7th, 2006 at 11:57 pm:
Rik-
Yes, I’ll agree taken out of context, thats a bunk argument, and it dosnt apply to many areas where society imposes rulesets (values/ethics) about behavior. Imposing values/ethics on gamers (to not cheat, RMT) is a bit more of a challenge, as you said if its not one of regulation (Archlord), then it must be one of design.
Also I put this up. I guess that’ll keep me busy besides everything else. Though I am still adding links and learning the functionality etc.
Dragon said on August 8th, 2006 at 1:11 am:
You make a good point Rik. Keeping the context in games (and, by extension, sport), I made the comparison in my own blog (as we’re going for shameless plugs!) that RMT is like taking drugs in sport (where, that is, RMT is against the “rules” of the game).
It would be easy to permit the use of performance enhancing drugs and it’s certainly a way of solving the “drug-cheat” problem. But to cater for all those people who don’t want to take drugs, you could, perhaps, introduce a two-tier sports structure – drugged and non-drugged. Which means that you’ve got to reintroduce dope testing for all athletes in the non-drugged games to make sure that people aren’t flouting the rules. Catch 22?
How does this relate to MMORPG’s? Well, in reference to Andy Havens’ comment and the disussion on TN, drug taking might be prevalent and “everyone” might be doing it but that still doesn’t make it part of the game or within the rules of the game. The sports authorities do what they can to prevent it but they will never be able to get rid of it.
If games are about teaching skills and/or values, what are we teaching when we say “Ah well, we can’t do anything about it, we might as well just accept it?” Are we teaching apathy and acceptance of the status quo or should we perhaps resist and attempt to encourage fair play and standing up for principles and ideals?
Allen Sligar said on August 8th, 2006 at 10:38 am:
I just dont think the examples that form conclusions based on value systems can be directly applied here. Your attempting to put a square block in a round hole. This is a market issue or rather a “commerce” issue as Raph points toward.
Are games about teaching skills/values? Are they about learning? IF this is the belief then whos POV is the teaching comming from? whos values? whos learning system? everyones predisposed to a mode of thought, even those who claim unbiased opinion.
Yeah, drugs are bad, cheating on your SAT scores is bad, bribing judges is bad. Whos giving this moral equivalency test? The government and society.
Where are they bad? Well theyre bad in a Capitalist Democracy (because we believe in fair play and market forces), but not in a capitalist society per se, because democracy does not always mean capitalism despite what they tought me in 6th grade (that was’nt a whole lot of unbiased teaching eh?).
Are MMO’s democracies? Well you find me one where I get to vote down the next patch because I dont like it, better yet design that patch by ballot.
So yeah, MMO’s arent democracies, but they can be capitalistic market systems, in fact most of them are else we wouldnt have gold farmers spamming spatial chat channels…which really pisses me off btw.
And, MMO’s that take the easy route of ignoring it and apathy, thats a moral relativist approach, “I dont want to impose my moral values because it might offend (the players)”
So my point is from an objectivist approach, if you say games are suppossed to teach and promote learning then your saying anything unfair is wrong (unless your teaching how to be unfair and how to do wrong). So whats the solution? Well one can co-opt the illicit activity (Regulate it by implimenting a company sponsored RMT system) or one can design a system that does not allow for RMT in the first place (Rik’s point)
And my posts above addressed making sure that any system so designed did not discriminate, and ensured a “level playing field” for gamers of all types
This is very much the collision of two POV, I’m not pontificating I am saying that its either right or its wrong objectivly. If its wrong then one needs to understand the “how much” and the “why” and fix that. If its right, then its not “kinda” right, just like drugs and bribes and cheating are not “kinda right” given a situation.
Is Archlord taking an objective stance on RMT? Well theyve included it into the game design and set up a regulatory structure for implimenting an RMT system. So they might be thinking that yeah, “gold farming is bad for our business and bad for our players”. Good for them on taking a stance and looking out for thier business and customers.
What no one can accuse them of most certainly is apathy in this area….not so much for other games….
Why? Because they’ve effectivly (from a data perspective) addressed the “who” (Archlord) gamers are buying stuff from and they were obviously cognizant enough to care “how much” (prevalence) and include it in thier business model, and the “why” (because thier system is designed such that players can buy/sell items, money, power ups etc).
For me, as a gamer, this is enough to say they’re doing right by thier customers, thats always a good thing. Its not enough for me to objectivly say its right or wrong because I havent played the game so I dont know if its “fair”. Weather its fair depends on if it discriminates based on demogrpahics (meaning if I cant buy my way up via RMT will I end up just as well off as a player that did via time investment?) and if its an “even playing field” (will thier be advantages conferred to RMT buyers that arent conferred to others?)
David said on August 9th, 2006 at 4:32 am:
I think it’s important to realize why so many players are against RMT (or VA). It gets back into the whole virtual world aspect of these games. Most of us don’t necessarily play MMORPGs to compete with other players, but regardless of that we still judge our own progress in the game relative to our peers. If we’re not leveling as fast as they are, or getting items as cool as they have, then our enjoyment of the game will be diminished. I’ve met very, very few players who are so secure that they truly don’t care about how they’re doing relative to others in the game.
The problem with RMT is that it brings the divisions of the real world into the game world in a very visible way. There’s already a culture of resentment between “casual”, or time-limited players, and “hardcore” players in most games. People don’t like the fact that others can get ahead of them because they have more time/don’t have to work/don’t have a family/etc. Whereas before you could look at someone who was higher/better than you and say “I can do that too, if I can just play for a few more hours, or if I can just get in a good guild”, now you’re looking at that person and saying “he bought his way to that level”. Even if the person earned everything simply by playing the game he is immediately suspect, because we don’t know that he didn’t go out and simply buy it. There are an awful lot of people in the real world who are not happy with their financial situation – they play the games to some extent to escape that and to be in a virtual world where their earning potential (in-game currency, experience, items) is determined solely by their time and ability, rather than outside circumstances.
I have a lot of friends online that earn less than half of what I do per year, and my yearly income is firmly middle-class in the US. They’re great people but I can see the frustration in their words when they talk about their car needing service, or that they had to go to the doctor and have to pay a prescription now. In the game though, we’re on an even footing. They can get the same items that I can, the same levels that I can, and at the same rate that I can. Many of them outdo me in these areas. RMT takes away from their chance to be equals, and to feel pride in what they do with their own two (virtual) hands, and that’s why I’m against it as a player. It brings the income gaps of the real world into the game world, and creates another division of haves vs. have-nots that ultimately detracts from the fun for many of the have-nots.
Dragon said on August 9th, 2006 at 5:58 am:
Allen, I think you’ve misunderstood what I’m trying to say.
Yeah, drugs are bad… Whos giving this moral equivalency test? The government and society.
I’m not talking about illegal drugs. I’m talking about the use of performance enhancing drugs in sport.
These drugs are not necessarily “morally” bad – for example, in some sports, caffiene is banned as well as other substances that are freely available through prescription or even over the counter in a pharmacy. The reason they are banned for use in sport is not through some “value” judgement but is an arbitrary ruling by the governing body of the sport. It is a ruling that could be overturned overnight if that’s what was decided.
Similarly, Blizzard might decide that from the 1st September, they would freely allow people to trade in game items for RL money. At the moment they don’t. The developers of Archlord will. There’s no value judgement being made – it’s an arbitrary decision made by both of the game companies, the governing bodies if you will.
The point about learning is looking for a reason for these rules. I said above (I think) that a game is defined by it’s rules. Not all of them, granted – some rules can be changed without impacting the essence of the game itself. If you don’t have rules then you no longer have a game, you just have ‘play’.
When I talk about games teaching values, I’m not talking about individual lessons from individual games (chess teaching strategy, football teaching co-operation, cheat teaching, well, um, cheating) I’m asserting the conclusion that I’ve reached from asking the question “Why do we play games?” (So yes, it’s a subjective opinion through my own reasoning). We can play games to have fun. But we can also simply play (i.e. without the limitations of game rules) to have fun so there must be an appeal to playing a game with rules. So another question: why play a game if you don’t intend to follow the rules?
Going back to the drugs in sport example: what do you do about this ongoing problem? Do you change the rules and “co-opt the illicit activity” or can you design a system that does not allow for the use of performance enhancing drugs in the first place?
With regard to athletics, I don’t feel you can design a system that doesn’t allow for taking performance enhancing drugs – a 100m sprint is, in essence, quite simplistic event after all. Nor do I see why the rules should necessarily be changed to permit drugs (although doing so wouldn’t change the essence of the event. A more substantial example would be this: do you change the rules of soccer to accomodate those who break the current rules by picking up the ball and running with it?)
Archlord is making an objective stance on RMT by including it in it’s game stance and I for one cannot fault it for doing so. I feel I’ve been quite consistent in making no value judgement about this. However, I personally choose not to play the game because of it in just the same way that I would choose rugby over soccer – it’s not a ruleset I enjoy!
Once again, I’ve think I’ve dropped the point I was carrying. Sorry about that.
JuJutsu said on August 9th, 2006 at 6:11 am:
The problem with RMT is that it brings the divisions of the real world into the game world in a very visible way. There’s already a culture of resentment between “casual”, or time-limited players, and “hardcore” players in most games. People don’t like the fact that others can get ahead of them because they have more time/don’t have to work/don’t have a family/etc.
As one of those resentful ‘casual’ players with more money than time I want to point out [as others have previously] that the ‘divisions of the world’ are already in games and they favor time over money. I’ve never used RMT but its not because of ethical concerns, I’m just a cheapskate.
David said on August 9th, 2006 at 8:04 am:
As one of those resentful ‘casual’ players with more money than time I want to point out [as others have previously] that the ‘divisions of the world’ are already in games and they favor time over money. I’ve never used RMT but its not because of ethical concerns, I’m just a cheapskate.
Money and time are often not mutually exclusive things though. Your statement would seem to imply that you believe that time-limited players have money to spend, but often they do not have any more money to spend than someone who can devote 6-8 hours a day to the game.
Also consider that the trend in the last few years has been to build in mechanics that help reduce the gap between “casual” and “hardcore” players. Things like WoW’s “rest” system, or EQ2′s “vitality” system. You could even point to EVE Online’s time-based progression, where players earn skill points whether they’re in or out of game, or the upcoming Pirates of the Burning Sea concept of “stored time” for crafting. All of these are examples of the industry recognizing that in any progression-oriented game, players with more time to play generally advance faster than players with less time to play, and trying to lessen the gap between “casual” and “hardcore”. The idea is to try and make it so real-world divisions and differences have less impact on gameplay.
But RMT throws a monkeywrench in that by allowing real-world financial differences to have a direct impact on a character’s viability in the game world. Sure, it enables those with less time to throw money at their in-game problems and make them go away, instead of playing through and conquering those problems within the game, but only a very few of the people with less time are going to really have the money to spend in this way. Compared with the masses of people who are left out because they don’t have the time or the money, and who just want the level playing field that they believe a virtual world should provide. No one who can’t spend the money is really going to enjoy playing a “rich man’s game” for very long.
All that said, it is much better for a game to come out and say up front “we’re supporting RMT for the following items/perks. “. Not only does this insure some degree of security around the practice, but it also very clearly lets players know what they’re getting into. If they decide to play anyway, even though they can’t buy the items or experience or whatever, then they have no right to really complain because they knew ahead of time that they would be in an environment where RMT was an accepted method of advancement. Since the practice is going to occur anyway, it’s much better for it to happen through legitimate channels where it can be controlled, and ideally where the funds generated can be used to further enhance the game.
At the same time, I also think that if selling in-character advancement or perks in-game were to become a standard business model, we might as well stop talking about these as virtual worlds, because they won’t be virtual worlds anymore. They’ll be “alternate universe” reflections of the real world, where a player’s social and economic standing in the real world determine his effectiveness in the virtual one to a very large degree. If that point were reached, I think that the games would lose a lot of their appeal, and many players might find themselves playing far less often or not at all. So, as far as business models go, as a player I am much more likely to play a game with a traditional subscription model, or even a pay-for-additional-content model, than I am to play one that requires/encourages me to spend $5 to gain a level or $10 to get a new set of armor.
Michael Chui said on August 9th, 2006 at 9:20 am:
To the people who are actively against RMT by reason that “They’re virtual worlds, and you shouldn’t breach the magic circle,” I ask this question:
Would you want to play in a disembodied Matrix-like world? As in, poof! you’re an elf in Azeroth. No sense of “Oh, I could log out and head to the supermarket.” I’ll plug the excerpts from this book as an example; I haven’t read the actual book. (And there’s a fourth chapter, btw. =P)
What people seem to be asking for is an equality of starting conditions and an equality of opportunities and an equality of outcome. Furthermore, you seem to be asking for a very complete divorce of the virtual world from the real. That is the myth of the magic circle. Until we invent the Matrix, this isn’t actually possible, nor is it something I would personally want, nor I think you. Keep this railing against RMT up, and all the people who say they don’t play virtual worlds for the escapism will become perceived as liars.
David said on August 9th, 2006 at 12:07 pm:
What people seem to be asking for is an equality of starting conditions and an equality of opportunities and an equality of outcome. Furthermore, you seem to be asking for a very complete divorce of the virtual world from the real. That is the myth of the magic circle. Until we invent the Matrix, this isn’t actually possible, nor is it something I would personally want, nor I think you. Keep this railing against RMT up, and all the people who say they don’t play virtual worlds for the escapism will become perceived as liars.
I highly doubt that it would lead to that perception. But what makes a game or a virtual world fun? For some people, that’s competition – and generally speaking, people prefer fair competition (yes, this gets back to the whole debate about what constitues fair). For others, it’s escapism – being able to get away from the problems of the real world. For others still, it’s immersion rather than escapism. I like the idea of being able to play out an alternate reality, as it were, in whatever setting. I don’t want the real world intruding on that setting any more than necessary. Sure, everyone has to log out from time to time, that’s an accepted part of the fact that it is a virtual world and not the real one. On a side note, the story behind the original .hack anime was about a player who physically couldn’t log out of his MMORPG, very interesting concept in both the series and the console games that followed it.
A friend of mine (who is female, you’ll understand when you see the link) sent me a link yesterday to an interesting article by Richard Bartle, talking about voice chat in MMOs, and how that threatens immersion. I would argue that RMT is somewhat along the same lines, although it threatens immersion more by rewarding players for out-of-game advantages (money) rather than by unmasking the players in front of their peers. Here’s the link: http://www.gamegirladvance.com/archives/2003/07/28/not_yet_you_fools.html
To get back to your statement, I don’t think people are necessarily asking for an equality of outcome. In any persistent world setting, players recognize that they succeed or fail based on their own actions and choices. They are, however asking for an equality of starting conditions and opportunities. That’s what RMT breaks in current games.
Allen Sligar said on August 9th, 2006 at 1:17 pm:
Whats particularly funny to me about the voice chat thing, is that for the longest time I refused to use it, because quite simply it would ruin my immersion. I eventually broke down and started using it when the guild Ive been involved with for 12 years or more, harassed me into using it. But much of my reasoning was related to the game I was playing.
Example: In SWG, voice was never required, furthermore it was never desirable, there was no “instanced” content. These were worlds, and I was a rare and solitary Jedi (well early on anyhow heh) perfecting my skills in the wilds…..well except for the occassional Bounty Hunters (PS: who needs instanced content when actual players show up with blasters looking for some action?…now thats FUN) so why would I need to talk to 30 other people in voice chat? I equated immersion to solitiude…
Example 2: In WOW raids, voice chat is almost certainly required for optimal efficiancy….the game mechanic forces that requirement. I cant equate immersion to um….well I cant say I was ever really immersed in WOW…hrmm
So as to Immersion persoanlly thats a hard target to hit, it seems rather variable.
Dragon-
I finally get your point, thanks for the clarifacation.
David-
To get back to your statement, I don’t think people are necessarily asking for an equality of outcome. In any persistent world setting, players recognize that they succeed or fail based on their own actions and choices. They are, however asking for an equality of starting conditions and opportunities. That’s what RMT breaks in current games.
that was my point above except I’ll add to a line to what you wrote:
That’s what RMT breaks in current games—and if they are going to include it the point is to make sure it dosnt “break” anything.
Michael Chui said on August 9th, 2006 at 1:45 pm:
This turned into a monster of a comment. So, WARNING: LONG. =P
(I haven’t read your link, but I’ve heard Bartle’s argument before.) Voice chat breaks immersion because you can’t hide your voice. RMT does not, because your avatar isn’t getting out his checkbook and scribbling out some cash. RMT is completely hidden, except where sanctioned and built into the game, and most of the companies who do it opt to section it off so that it’s a clear demarcation.
Play any of the Iron Realms Entertainment games and see whether or not the company-sanctioned RMT breaks immersion.
But what makes a game or a virtual world fun? For some people, that’s competition – and generally speaking, people prefer fair competition (yes, this gets back to the whole debate about what constitues fair). For others, it’s escapism – being able to get away from the problems of the real world. For others still, it’s immersion rather than escapism.
Competition – So does the person who starts a year after the game launches automatically lose? Does an elf automatically lose in the competition to be the first dwarven dragonslayer? There is no global victory condition in an MMORPG; if there were, you’d have periodic system resets, and it wouldn’t be persistent. You define your own victory condition, and you define the rules that constrain the way you make it to victory. If you think RMT makes it unfair, that’s actually your fault. I wanted to found the United States, too, but hey, someone beat me to it.
Escapism – While a reasonable reason for playing, no game company thus far has said their product is for escapism. Escapism has always been a tactic of self-delusion; maintenance is detrimental. Put simply, the escapist urge is something that should be cured, not encouraged.
Immersion – Already addressed. Though, if you see any flags above random characters saying, “I was bought!” let me know. We can boycott the game company together.
I don’t think people are necessarily asking for an equality of outcome. In any persistent world setting, players recognize that they succeed or fail based on their own actions and choices. They are, however asking for an equality of starting conditions and opportunities.
All three are actually impossible in a persistent setting. As pointed out in Competition, the nature of persistence is that the circumstances of the world change around you, constantly, and unless you set it up to be fair, “Hey, man, let’s start up new characters on July 8th and race for 80th level!” they won’t be.
When I gave my talk on what virtual worlds were, I had a lot of trouble describing persistence. Why? Because most people aren’t familiar with the idea of a reset. Nothing in life resets. After the king dies, you don’t clean up the board and return the prisoners of war back to their original positions. (Come to think of it, that’s a good analogy. Chess versus say… some random king who is now dead.)
Life isn’t fair. Why? Because it’s persistent. So how do we make it fair? Artifical rules. Made-up constraints. Extra boundaries. Most of our spectator sports are confined to a box with four walls. Life is not confined by four walls; if you lock down New York inside four walls, someone can airlift in or out. Or climb. Or tunnel. Or blow a hole through the wall. And more importantly, when they do those things, it stays that way. You can’t snap your fingers, return him to Central Park, fix the walls, plug the tunnels, and say, “Try again.” If you shoot him, he doesn’t try again. It is the nature of the game to impose artificial rules in order to unreliably model life.
And MMORPGs aren’t games. They are virtual worlds. Places. You can paint four lines into the ground and say you earn points by throwing a ball to one end or the other, but every now and then, someone will hand you bunch of money and ask that you play nicely with his kid, teach him the game, improve his skills. (Not that this ever happens, but there are a host of somewhat unrelated reasons why. Half of which can be summarized as, “We’d do it for free.” But that’s beside the point.)
So people who are against RMT because it breaches the magic circle are deluding themselves. There is no magic circle. I can walk across a basketball court whether they want me to or not; those four lines don’t stop me at all. They stop the players, though, because they choose to be restricted by them. This is not a bad thing, but it should be recognized. I can use my fancy brain and my fancy engineering skillz to build a ball-shooting machine, wheel it to half court, and feed it basketballs. Those four lines aren’t going to stop me. The magic circle is a myth.
The only way to stop RMT, the way you want it to, is to convince every player to not do it. As long as I want to bring my ball machine out, you can’t do anything about it. (Because the physics don’t allow it; yes, the analogy breaks down here, because of the virtual/real dichotomy, but I hope you get my point.) You have to convince me that my experience would be better if I didn’t. And considering how many people participate in RMT, that simply isn’t true. People’s experiences are improving due to RMT. If they were not, RMT would die by itself, due to a lack of a market.
RMT is, as aforementioned, a symptom of bad game design. Or poor economy design. And no MMORPG I know of has beaten it. Thus, Archlord: if you can’t beat them, join them. They really ought to design their game better instead, but I guess they can’t.
Jim said on August 9th, 2006 at 9:29 pm:
Bit of a puzzle, here…
If there has never been a demonstrated “good” design, how can there be such a thing as a “poor” design? You might as criticize combustion engines for suffering from entropy.
Maybe Michael didn’t mean his comments to be as critical as I read them, and in that case I apologize.
Rik said on August 10th, 2006 at 12:54 am:
A few replies:
Voice chat is needed for WoW raids because they are no fun and unwieldly. Everyone want the raid to end and the loot handed out as soon as possible.
I wish Archlord best of luck with their game and with this payment idea.
When I log into a virtual world, I don’t talk about the real world anymore. I don’t tell people my age, or what I do for a living, and I don’t ask such info of others. I don’t ask where they live, or if their gender matches their character. And they don’t ask me my skin color. Call it Immersion, call it Escapism, it’s a little of both. Sometimes I experence the character journey Professor Bartle talks about. But the point is that for a while, we are all equal. One person, One computer, One Avatar (at a time), and win or lose, it’s how you play the game. Anything that cuts into that in any meaningful way is something I don’t much care for. Example: Currently in A Tale In The Desert people who started via a FilePlanet offer have pretty gems around their chat bubbles. I hate them because when I see them it cuts into my immerson (How they joined) and my escapeism (these people are the sort of people that would use FilePlanet – I know something about them from the real world.)
Michael Chui said on August 10th, 2006 at 9:12 am:
If there has never been a demonstrated “good” design, how can there be such a thing as a “poor” design? You might as criticize combustion engines for suffering from entropy.
The difference is that your analogy is based what we consider to be natural law, whereas I consider “good design” to be entirely possible, if only people stopped trying to cling onto what doesn’t work. “Poor design” is not inevitable, in my most humble opinion. I think that it is entirely possible to design MMORPGs where RMT will not take place to a significant degree, and I equally think that most of designers would shy away from the very idea of implementing such things, and would accept RMT as something to be banned when discovered.
A note: I’m defining “good” and “poor” as opposites on an axis with regards only to RMT… the game might be extraordinary on some other axis. So, let’s think about it this way:
Remember that RMT is an economic phenomenon. Economics is about how people make decisions. And by the posit of inherent selfishness, you may assume that people will always act to increase their own quality of life or to avoid decreasing it (there are probably better ways to phrase that, like… this (read the actual Latin)). Because we can assume RMT to always be a voluntary thing (no one ever does it because they must) (yes, there are situations in which it is not… but I don’t think anyone here wants to get into the ethics of denying RMT to people who need it), we must conclude that RMT increases the quality of life of the transaction participants. Ergo, the only actual way to stop it is to make that conclusion untrue: RMT needs to fail to increase their quality of life. And that is a design decision.
David said on August 10th, 2006 at 9:25 am:
Remember that RMT is an economic phenomenon. Economics is about how people make decisions. And by the posit of inherent selfishness, you may assume that people will always act to increase their own quality of life or to avoid decreasing it (there are probably better ways to phrase that, like… this (read the actual Latin)). Because we can assume RMT to always be a voluntary thing (no one ever does it because they must) (yes, there are situations in which it is not… but I don’t think anyone here wants to get into the ethics of denying RMT to people who need it), we must conclude that RMT increases the quality of life of the transaction participants. Ergo, the only actual way to stop it is to make that conclusion untrue: RMT needs to fail to increase their quality of life. And that is a design decision.
I’ll agree with you on that point. It’s near impossible to enforce the practice out of existence, instead you just need to make it less worthwhile than actually playing the game. That’s somewhat easier said than done, however, because RMT ultimately centers around the desire of players to have things that they can’t get easily – things like levels, items, and money; however, much of the challenge and draw of MMORPGs for many players comes from working towards those same things. As long as there is a time investment required to achieve a goal, there will always be a subset of players who try to find ways to work outside of the system and shorten that time investment.
Michael Chui said on August 10th, 2006 at 10:01 am:
As long as there is a time investment required to achieve a goal, there will always be a subset of players who try to find ways to work outside of the system and shorten that time investment.
But is that a bad thing? Opponents of RMT say that if the “ways to work outside…” is using Real Money, then it’s bad. However, there are other ways. MMORPG tutoring, anyone? (And I mean tutoring, not playing for them.)
Allen Sligar said on August 10th, 2006 at 10:13 am:
Good stuff Micheal
Yes RMT by its very nature is an economic activity. I guess thats what I tried to get at earlier via example, but I tend to meander in my writing.
It’s near impossible to enforce the practice out of existence, instead you just need to make it less worthwhile than actually playing the game.
Ahhh ha! Its impossible because Games are not about punishing success…in other words design a game where success is punished and there will be no RMT, well its likely there will be no players either….here Im talking about games where players are differentiated by levels, items, etc.
David said on August 10th, 2006 at 10:56 am:
I don’t know that eliminating RMT is a very realistic goal, but it should be possible to construct a game so as to mitigate the effectiveness of it without detracting from the concepts of progression and achievement. As Allen points out to truly eliminate it you may have to punish success in many cases – that’s not fun.
Again though, I think the answer lies in why people choose to pursue or not to pursue RMT. There are a few people out there now that do it as a matter of habit – they have the money, why can’t they spend it? But the bulk of people who are purchasing items/levels/currency in game for real-world money are doing it out of frustration with some aspect of the game, usually competitive frustration – they can’t get the item they want because they’re having to compete with other players for the drop, for example. Sometimes it’s frustration with time requirements to obtain whatever it is as well.
I think a big step towards eliminating RMT is going to be getting away from the current “loot table” methodology of handling item entry to virtual worlds, since sales of virtual items probably account for 70% of RMT transactions (just based on my own observations and no actual data).

Page optimized by WP Minify WordPress Plugin

Recent Trackbacks

The ReAnimators Podcast: ...
The Simple Gamers: Simple...
Spectre Collie: Are You...
Spectre Collie: Are You...
Adding the Fun: Raph Koster...

Twitter @raphkoster

Apparently my wife fed her the answer. I married well, but my kid just lost points. 13 hrs ago
texted my daughter with "Fibble, fnord, arglebargle glop glyph, xyzzy." the reply: "Yes, with my bare hands!" I think I get points for that. 13 hrs ago
Watch the pledges climb! RT: @TimOfLegend: Double Fine will use Kickstarter to fund an Adventure Game + documentary! http://t.co/L26RdfEa 1 day ago
More updates...