Gradthrawn
Veteran
I must have missed this at some point, but I didn't know the Agency uses UE3, as that interview mentions in passing.
I must have missed this at some point, but I didn't know the Agency uses UE3, as that interview mentions in passing.
http://www.virtualworldsnews.com/2008/05/sony-partners-w.html
What in the world is "Real Money Trading" in MMO ?
What in the world is "Real Money Trading" in MMO ?
buying virtual items with real money.
Boo to that! Unless it means no subscription fees.
Previously, the "Station Exchange servers" have all been on their own, and I'm fine with that. It doesn't remove the black market from other servers, but it does give people who WANT it an out, and it helps reduce the demand a bit on the other servers, so...
It all depends how they plan on implementing it in these games.
It all depends how they plan on implementing it in these games.
Lucid_Dreamer
Veteran
That's exactly what it means...no subscription fees.
Gradthrawn
Veteran
Could simply mean premium items, along with a subscription fee.
The boiler-plate statement says that, yes:
...but that doesn't mean that's the road they're going to pursue. Still depends on implementation.
Lucid_Dreamer
Veteran
Does anyone think that two revenue models in one game would be successful in a console environment? These people have the studies in their hands. Who thinks those studies re-enforce that a two revenue models should be successful (simply from a business perspective)?
The consoles have already shown that bite-size DLC sells, so... They could pursue whatever they wish.
Lucid_Dreamer
Veteran
...and that would be the equivalent of a MMO that's using a free-to-play model. Do you see what I mean? No subscription fee.
dabomb665m
Newcomer
I think for an MMO (off topic btw), the way to incorporate a 2 revenue model (or even multiple revenue models) is to balance and target the different "types" of mmo gamers. I don't have any concrete models, but you can review the current situation with WoW and past situations with EQ and shoe-horn certain players into their respective categories.
An example would be:
1.) Hardcore social go-getters: Definition would be those who are into MMO's to be in big social groups who compete with other social groups to gain the "best" items... which in turn helps them get "better" items quicker... which in turn gives them social bragging rights at every interval.
How do you create a revenue model to target these people? I don't have a solution for this one. This is the toughest group to target because any benefits you give to other groups will come off as unfair, as these guys are the ones that spend night and day in your MMO.
2.) OCD Completionist: Definition would be those who want One of EVERY character. You often find people like this to have multiple accounts which often means multiple subscriptions in order to maximize leveling efficiency (dual boxers).
The solution here can be quite simple. Make per-character subscriptions which can be individually logged on as opposed to having ONE account with X amount of character slots. Allow people to link these characters under one account, just have individual subscriptions to each character, hence, simultaneous login allowed.
3.) Weekend Warrior: These are the people who love the game but just don't have time to play as much as the previous two types. They are usually the ones who end up using REAL world money to buy in game assets. In fact, they will even buy in-game characters to help their main characters, somewhat mimicking the OCD Completionists.
The solution here is also very difficult to acertain. If you don't allow purchasing of in-game assets with real world money, 3rd parties will do it anyways. If you blatantly allow purchasing, Group 1 and some of Group 2 will complain about all their hardwork.
Keep in mind there are many flavors of players. Even moreso who fit a little bit in each category. These are just examples that can easily be identified. I think a starting solution can be the following:
A.) In game items/gold can be sold to players FROM EACH OTHER, not from the developers. The rationale here is those in the "hardcore" group can't complain because they will most likely be the ones doing the selling. Real money is an extra incentive. They also can't complain about people getting "free" power ups for being rich because the items/gold come from hard work somewhere, not out of thin-air from the developers).
B.) Developers take a percentage cut based off the selling price of the items/gold. Developers can credit sellers (deducting subscription first maybe?) and they can debit buyers directly from their linked credit cards, debit cards, or paypal accounts.
C.) Subscription will be per character based.
D.) Free to play should be minimalistic but still fun. You get one character, no rights to buy/sell in game assets with real money, no access to guilds, and perhaps even an early artificial level cap. Hell, maybe you have to stare at ads.
Anyway, I realize this is more than you were asking but the bottom line is, multiple revenue models CAN work if the process is well thought out and actually fits in with your game. Your game may even have to be designed with it in mind from the ground up. I realize all of my possible solutions will run into issues, but it's a start. I'm a firm believer of simplicity + ease of use. You can sell almost any service to anyone if you have those prerequisites. (Ebay, Paypal, iTunes come into mind... all can technically be had for free but you pay for the convenience).
An example would be:
1.) Hardcore social go-getters: Definition would be those who are into MMO's to be in big social groups who compete with other social groups to gain the "best" items... which in turn helps them get "better" items quicker... which in turn gives them social bragging rights at every interval.
How do you create a revenue model to target these people? I don't have a solution for this one. This is the toughest group to target because any benefits you give to other groups will come off as unfair, as these guys are the ones that spend night and day in your MMO.
2.) OCD Completionist: Definition would be those who want One of EVERY character. You often find people like this to have multiple accounts which often means multiple subscriptions in order to maximize leveling efficiency (dual boxers).
The solution here can be quite simple. Make per-character subscriptions which can be individually logged on as opposed to having ONE account with X amount of character slots. Allow people to link these characters under one account, just have individual subscriptions to each character, hence, simultaneous login allowed.
3.) Weekend Warrior: These are the people who love the game but just don't have time to play as much as the previous two types. They are usually the ones who end up using REAL world money to buy in game assets. In fact, they will even buy in-game characters to help their main characters, somewhat mimicking the OCD Completionists.
The solution here is also very difficult to acertain. If you don't allow purchasing of in-game assets with real world money, 3rd parties will do it anyways. If you blatantly allow purchasing, Group 1 and some of Group 2 will complain about all their hardwork.
Keep in mind there are many flavors of players. Even moreso who fit a little bit in each category. These are just examples that can easily be identified. I think a starting solution can be the following:
A.) In game items/gold can be sold to players FROM EACH OTHER, not from the developers. The rationale here is those in the "hardcore" group can't complain because they will most likely be the ones doing the selling. Real money is an extra incentive. They also can't complain about people getting "free" power ups for being rich because the items/gold come from hard work somewhere, not out of thin-air from the developers).
B.) Developers take a percentage cut based off the selling price of the items/gold. Developers can credit sellers (deducting subscription first maybe?) and they can debit buyers directly from their linked credit cards, debit cards, or paypal accounts.
C.) Subscription will be per character based.
D.) Free to play should be minimalistic but still fun. You get one character, no rights to buy/sell in game assets with real money, no access to guilds, and perhaps even an early artificial level cap. Hell, maybe you have to stare at ads.
Anyway, I realize this is more than you were asking but the bottom line is, multiple revenue models CAN work if the process is well thought out and actually fits in with your game. Your game may even have to be designed with it in mind from the ground up. I realize all of my possible solutions will run into issues, but it's a start. I'm a firm believer of simplicity + ease of use. You can sell almost any service to anyone if you have those prerequisites. (Ebay, Paypal, iTunes come into mind... all can technically be had for free but you pay for the convenience).
I've said it elsewhere but I'll repeat myself here. What's really needed for voice-chat is proximity based scaling. A room with 50 people chatting would be gibberish, but if you can only hear the few people you're close to, it'll work like real life and provide an intuitive way to manage conversations. It'll eliminate jerky trash-talking as you can just walk away from a chump, and you can provide direct dial solutions for, say, 4 player team direct coms with added game-wide communication by proximity.
Throw it into a 5.1 audio system, and you'll be able to sneak up behind people and shout Boo before you whack them with a spanner!
I noticed last night that in GTA4 they have proximity based chat (not positional), at least in the racing modes. I haven't tried it yet. It's definitely a fantastic idea for MMOs and room chat, where there are a lot of people around.
Also the details on the chat system for the Agency are pretty fantastic. I'm not sure about calling in on my cellphone, but some people might use it. More options is rarely a bad thing.
They're already used to paying no subscription fee on consoles.
If a game was also free to download and play, it would likely attract a lot of eyeballs. Since they're used to DLC, it's pretty safe to assume that they wouldn't suddenly become frightened and confused if they saw DLC as the route the game was taking to support itself, rather than charging a box price and charging a subscription. (Or "minimal box price." Or "box price only after letting you have a free look with a no-holds-barred trial period. Or...)Would they stick with it and start opening their wallets? That's the big question for ANY of those games. I don't see anything that would particularly stand in the way. The percentage of the console audience that doesn't have constant access to a card to buy content with (or the money to pick up gamecards) might be less than on PC games, but then it should be opening things up to a wider audience, so...
Cabal Online is probably the best example of one of those games that gets the revenue model right, but ultimately it doesn't look like that could fit Agency's playstyle. We'll have to see what crops up, if it's anything different at all.
Funcom had a no subscribtion fee model for Anarchy Online in its last years, being sponsored with commercials and making users pay for DLC.
I have a genuine question. Would you guys play a MMO on a console, in the living room ?
My PS3 is practically a desktop, so I can see myself poking around an MMO. I would have thought console gamers are not that into MMOs in general... unless they tweak the MMO concept further -- like making it more like a party game as opposed to an individual conquest.
My PS3 is practically a desktop, so I can see myself poking around an MMO. I would have thought console gamers are not that into MMOs in general... unless they tweak the MMO concept further -- like making it more like a party game as opposed to an individual conquest.
Last edited by a moderator:
Why not? I think the problem with MMO's is that they are designed around the PC and mouse control. Take something like GTA4, which people will play on a console, and turn it into an MMO where everyone is online together contributing to the world...why should it suddenly lose it's appeal just because it's labelled an MMO? Likewise people play offline RPGs with character levelling, so the MMO concept of developing your character (which is only a prejudcied perception of the MMO idea, and who's to say you need that?) is something console players are happy to do.
I see nothing intrinsic in the nature of MMO, very large multiple-user games, that renders playing it in a living room with a controller a disagreeable prospect.
I see nothing intrinsic in the nature of MMO, very large multiple-user games, that renders playing it in a living room with a controller a disagreeable prospect.
Technically a move like that was more considered an act of desparation, since they abandoned the regular model to do so. It's not something you really want to start doing immediately, unless you've built a cogent model around it all or have use for it.
Planetside's, too, was more of an attempt to salvage the work by bringing people into an "extended free trial," give people an extended taste, and give the dedicated players more activity to enjoy rather than a feeling of stagnation.
Coming from either of those directions might be an idea, but they have to do it from a strong, pre-though model that fits the gameplay they want and is more modern, involved, and--dare I say it?--"nuanced." The alternative models many games have pursued have done so from a position of weakness, not of strength (or at the very least, self-assuredness).
Depends entirely on the MMO. Auto Assault, for instance, would probably have played better on consoles, because communication wasn't leaned on and "arcade-y car games" have always been more of a console activity. Planetside feels more like a console game as well, because right out of the gate it was trying to push voice chat more than text, the "levelling" systems are not all that complicated, and now that the console audiences have embraced FPS games fully, one that has heavy driving and flying use could all be played with a gamepad and simple button layout pretty easily.
Supposedly the Agency is aimed more in that direction, as "pick up and play" is a focus, and it seems to be "FPS-like play, but not a full-bore FPS" which makes the mouse/keyboard advantage not as pronounced. If they lean on clever voice chatting as well, it seems like it would could feel more like other online multiplayer games than a balls-to-the-wall PC MMO, only with a more clever and involved lobby system.
I can see myself doing it if it's a game that is still compelling, won't make me feel "gimped" by not being in front of my keyboard or using a mouse, and where the communication aspect is still there and done well.
I'm much more likely to want the PC version when given the choice, but that's mainly because MMO's haven't moved away from their heritage very far yet, so the PC is still just a much more rich experience. Which is why I say it "depends on the implementation."
Of course if they simplify things to large extent for console play, I'd certainly have to question if it'd be worth paying a regular MMO subscription, etc. I'd have to examine their trial options, free-play options, just what revenue streams they're pursuing...
Similar threads
