Actually, the idea with charging more for higher grade accounts isn''t about profitting - its more a mechanism to balance out a games actual economy and change the feeling for it, while giving gamers that want more the option for it.

I''d imagine that if you give your average users different roles and things to do once they''ve reached a certain level, rather then getting better items and higher levels, it would cause less heartache to player''s spouses - make for a differently entertaining play style, and what not.

I mean, the main focus would have to be on the standard player account - so you''d focus most of your effort on making that part fun. But you''d want a certain percetage of population that are stronger then the rest - and they pay for the privelege.

Why? Because I suppose it creates a cool atmosphere, where they''re heroes and normal guys walking around.

Indeed, if something like the ''legend'' account went ahead, the idea would be to make these characters talked about - and looked up to or something - you''d provide them with a unique service - and their exploits would be recorded as gaming lore or something.

The idea isn''t to make huge profits from the special accounts - Its relying on the higher fees to make alot of people stay away from the account - but have features that would attract some people regardless...

quote: a mechanism to balance out a games actual economy and change the feeling for it, while giving gamers that want more the option for it.

Huh? Um... no. I''ll get more to that in a second.

quote: give your average users different roles and things to do

Didn''t you say ''giving gamers that want more'', not ''giving them something different''? That''s like saying that it''s about giving them 2 apples, then saying that it''s really about giving them an orange instead of an apple.

quote: the main focus would have to be on the standard player account

I just don''t see a company focusing on the low profit-margin players. Return on Investment is very important to companies for a reason. Your backers will push you to find incentives to convince more people to pay the additional amount for more.

quote: I suppose it creates a cool atmosphere, where they''re heroes and normal guys walking around.

Yeah, many blacks in South Africa thought it was cool to be a second class in a nation that they were the majority in.

No, it''s not the same thing, but it might as well be. What you''re suggesting is that if someone pays more they can play a hero... otherwise you can play a normal guy. I''d either play the hero or not play.

Stop trying to look at some silly ''big picture'', look at it from the gamers point of view. I''m sure that everyone can agree that there are two reasons people game: To be entertained and to be taken out of their normal life and be something more, if for a short period of time. Do you really think that a gamer wants to be reminded of his financial failings by the fact that he can''t afford a ''real'' character? No. Do you think that the people who have the time to invest the money in these ''hero'' accounts are the same that will invest the time or will it be the people who have the disposable income already?

It''s a more dangerous route than some people realize.

While you may think that it''s about gameplay, twelve seconds after you outline the concept to your financial backers (or publishers), they will be trying to think of ways to convince more people to pay that additional amount and pushing you to do exactly that. If you don''t do it, then they will find loopholes in the contract until they can replace you with someone who will. It''s not personal, it''s just business to them. Meanwhile you get remembered as that guy that made the game that started out pretty cool, then the makers got greedy... they don''t remember that you left because of it, they remember that you made it.

That''s so cynical

and damn I hate these smileys.

"I just don''t see a company focusing on the low profit-margin players. Return on Investment is very important to companies for a reason. Your backers will push you to find incentives to convince more people to pay the additional amount for more."

You would try to argue that the ''low profit-margin'' players represent the standard charge - increasing the standard charge would cause the user base to shrink, decreasing revenue and profit. If your ''backers'' can''t see that, then they shouldn''t be ''backers''. You''d make an attempt to explicit explain that the higher charge accounts are not attempts at greater profit margins, but as a social/psychological mechanism for balancing out the games own social/economic factors.

"Stop trying to look at some silly ''big picture'', look at it from the gamers point of view. I''m sure that everyone can agree that there are two reasons people game: To be entertained and to be taken out of their normal life and be something more, if for a short period of time."

The idea is to put them into the role of a veteran soldier (or whatever class they choose) that''s either some sort of mercenary or part of an ''empire''.
And exactly what do you mean normal life?? Do you realise how successful ''The Sims'' are? Enough to make the online version a surefire hit to be sure.
Indeed, for the normal account, the best way to play the game might be to go play through with all the characters - acquiring different skills and playing through with a different style.
Its different in enjoyment therefore to a normal MMORPG, where you have to spend inordinate amounts of time just on the one character to get anywhere. You may argue its a disposable experience - or you may argue that it would attract a larger population of ''casual'' (actually, normal gamers that are daunted by the hardcore nature of online rpgs) gamers.

"Do you really think that a gamer wants to be reminded of his financial failings by the fact that he can''t afford a ''real'' character?"

There''s a 5 dollar difference. If you really can''t afford that difference, then you probably can''t afford the time, the computer and the net connection in the first place. The point is the barrier is psychological, not financial.

"Do you think that the people who have the time to invest the money in these ''hero'' accounts are the same that will invest the time or will it be the people who have the disposable income already?"

Any ''hero'' account would require an investment of time and money. Some people may pay for a bungee jump, or a skydiving session, or a luxury car, etc. The concept of the ''hero'' account is a little like that. Not just anyone will be able to afford it - tho it does add that character to a world otherwise full of same ol'' same ol'' (high level characters).

"While you may think that it''s about gameplay, twelve seconds after you outline the concept to your financial backers (or publishers), they will be trying to think of ways to convince more people to pay that additional amount and pushing you to do exactly that. If you don''t do it, then they will find loopholes in the contract until they can replace you with someone who will. It''s not personal, it''s just business to them. Meanwhile you get remembered as that guy that made the game that started out pretty cool, then the makers got greedy... they don''t remember that you left because of it, they remember that you made it."

Indeed - if it is just business to them, they''ll see that setting the standard rate at lower or equal to the industry standard (of 10 dollars a month) would be the most viable decision for them. Forcing the higher price point, would cause a reduction in the userbase - eventually meaning that the userbase won''t be big enough to make a return on the invesment. But it really depends on the quality of the product (and thus demand) and the elasticity of the market. I''m guessing its not so good (the elasticity).
And if I''m remembered as the guy that made a cool game, then thats the best situation for me - I get a very nice title to place on my resume, so I can move on and develop other games, within my eclectic interest.

The only major problem is that the psychology of it effects the game negatively - so much so that the players miss the point of what the ''standard'' account offers - and that would be the main killing point to the idea.

Zaptruder

quote: Original post by Zaptrudr
increasing the standard charge would cause the user base to shrink, decreasing revenue and profit.

Not always true.

quote: And exactly what do you mean normal life?? Do you realise how successful ''The Sims'' are? Enough to make the online version a surefire hit to be sure.

''The Sims'' is not a rpg game and it''s something completely different. I know there is a Sims Online from EA in production. I have no doubt it will sell big in retails. However to be honest I have no clue how it will do in the MMOG market since the original game is all about interaction with AI as oppose to MMOG games, which stress human interactions.

quote: Any ''hero'' account would require an investment of time and money. Some people may pay for a bungee jump, or a skydiving session, or a luxury car, etc. The concept of the ''hero'' account is a little like that. Not just anyone will be able to afford it - tho it does add that character to a world otherwise full of same ol'' same ol'' (high level characters).

Not quite that simple. I got one word for you, "Titanic". Say you''re the pilot on a plane with 3 passengers. One paid for the first class ticket while the other 2 paid the common price for 2nd class tickets. After the plane took off, one of main engines failed and the plane looks like it''s going to crash no matter what. You looked around and you manage to find two parachutes. And then you look in company handbook and the guidelines specifically says that in case of emergency the first class passenger should be guarenteed safety. Okay, now you wanna try and tell the guys in 2nd class that you''re sorry but they paid a lower price for the ticket so they should suffer? They will rip out your throat and the first class passenger''s and take the parachutes for themselves within 5 seconds I promise you! Such is the way of human nature.

quote: There''s a 5 dollar difference. If you really can''t afford that difference, then you probably can''t afford the time, the computer and the net connection in the first place. The point is the barrier is psychological, not financial.

Wrong, this is MMOG and not a regular game. It''s a social issue and not psychology; you''re dealing with mobs, not indivuals.

EQ just released news that they will raise the monthly fee to $12.99 to pay for more CMs during GDC if you guys didn''t knew it already. I''m gonna stick around and observe the effects of it. Lalala.

I just remember the article "The Tragedy of the Commons" by Garrett Hardin. Definately a must read if you plan on doing anything MMO related.

http://dieoff.org/page95.htm

EQ is doing it right by having "Legend" on a complete different server to the others. If you attempt to mix 2 different classes of customers, don''t say I didn''t warn you.

"''The Sims'' is not a rpg game and it''s something completely different. I know there is a Sims Online from EA in production. I have no doubt it will sell big in retails. However to be honest I have no clue how it will do in the MMOG market since the original game is all about interaction with AI as oppose to MMOG games, which stress human interactions."

You could say it was ''about interaction with AI''. Or you could more correctly say that it was a game about virtual lives - something that carries over in the online version.

If anything, the virtual life becomes more complete as character interactions are no longer based on a few stats and the AI, but rather with many dynamic people. It will bring in the addictive nature of online avatars, and chatrooms and combine them together to form something lifewreckingly potent. At least that''s my guess.

Anyway - yeah, its about the social interaction, but I suppose its also about the need for collecting - endlessly and continuously... friends, items, strength, etc. Ideally, the game could be done, so that while you can advance to a certain degree, if you choose to continue playing with the same character, the game advances to a social stage, with great deal of depth in the core combat - other then just increasing strength and items - it could be feasible.

"Not quite that simple. I got one word for you, "Titanic". Say you''re the pilot on a plane with 3 passengers. One paid for the first class ticket while the other 2 paid the common price for 2nd class tickets. After the plane took off, one of main engines failed and the plane looks like it''s going to crash no matter what. You looked around and you manage to find two parachutes. And then you look in company handbook and the guidelines specifically says that in case of emergency the first class passenger should be guarenteed safety. Okay, now you wanna try and tell the guys in 2nd class that you''re sorry but they paid a lower price for the ticket so they should suffer? They will rip out your throat and the first class passenger''s and take the parachutes for themselves within 5 seconds I promise you! Such is the way of human nature."

Or what about a more appropiate analogy? Those that pay for first class tickets are accorded with better service and more luxuries, then those that pay for the economy class tickets. However, the economy class ticket holders recieve the same fundamental service that the first class ticket holders do - and thats transportation from one location to another. If the plane were to crash, the first class passengers would be no more likely to survive then the economy class passengers. There''s no ripping out of throats on the plane btw. Of course the reality is that both these analogies are flawed in their logic. First class passengers aren''t about providing a class disctinction (although they do it quite well) - they''re about acquiring a higher profit point for the space on the plane.

"Wrong, this is MMOG and not a regular game. It''s a social issue and not psychology; you''re dealing with mobs, not indivuals."

Depending on how account differences are balanced, it can be made into a social thing. But the reality is that it IS a psychological point - alot of people won''t be willing to pay that extra 5 dollars a month (even tho they can more then afford it) - but they can still experience alot of what the game has to offer. Pay that extra 5$ and you can experience the game in a DIFFERENT manner - without that distinction, and neither recieves the experience that the game was designed to provide. If you explain to many individuals properly, you hopefully won''t get mobs of dumb people forming.

"EQ just released news that they will raise the monthly fee to $12.99 to pay for more CMs during GDC if you guys didn''t knew it already. I''m gonna stick around and observe the effects of it. Lalala. "
The thing with this is that, not that many new players are signing up - they''ve reached a saturation point with EQ and mmorpgs in general. Those that would enter at this point, wouldn''t see the extra 3 dollars as a barrier anyway. Combined with the brand name of EQ and the addiction of the game, and you''ll have alot of players staying put - regardless of the (seemingly reasonable) price hike.
My prediction is that some users will leave - they were always intending to, but the price point pushed it, while the rest that stay on will be content with the changes. Overall, little impact in the userbase - larger profit margin.


Zaptruder

quote: Or what about a more appropiate analogy? Those that pay for first class tickets are accorded with better service and more luxuries, then those that pay for the economy class tickets. However, the economy class ticket holders recieve the same fundamental service that the first class ticket holders do - and thats transportation from one location to another. If the plane were to crash, the first class passengers would be no more likely to survive then the economy class passengers. There''s no ripping out of throats on the plane btw. Of course the reality is that both these analogies are flawed in their logic. First class passengers aren''t about providing a class disctinction (although they do it quite well) - they''re about acquiring a higher profit point for the space on the plane.

Ahem, try explain to people why they pay 5 bucks extra per month and when disaster like losing an item/xp or character pwipe happens, it still takes 2 weeks of waiting just like all the other customers before the company fixed it. They will immediately go back to the lower class, trust me. The first thing these higher class consumers demand is more security. There is just no point in charging people for more extra content when you can''t offer them more safty to protect these extra content.

quote: The thing with this is that, not that many new players are signing up - they''ve reached a saturation point with EQ and mmorpgs in general. Those that would enter at this point, wouldn''t see the extra 3 dollars as a barrier anyway. Combined with the brand name of EQ and the addiction of the game, and you''ll have alot of players staying put - regardless of the (seemingly reasonable) price hike.
My prediction is that some users will leave - they were always intending to, but the price point pushed it, while the rest that stay on will be content with the changes. Overall, little impact in the userbase - larger profit margin.

EQ has pretty much saturated that I agree. However, saturation of MMORPG in general has yet to be proven. (You have to find me the statistics on this one.) And remember, MMOG is all about loyalty, not addiction. Players can just sell their EQ ($12.99 per month) account on EBay and then purchase an DAoC ($10.00 per month) account with the money. There''s gonna be a lot of action going on with the auction that I can tell you.

"Ahem, try explain to people why they pay 5 bucks extra per month and when disaster like losing an item/xp or character pwipe happens, it still takes 2 weeks of waiting just like all the other customers before the company fixed it. They will immediately go back to the lower class, trust me. The first thing these higher class consumers demand is more security. There is just no point in charging people for more extra content when you can''t offer them more safty to protect these extra content."

Well, I suppose you could ditch your exclusive guild recruiting abilities and your guild along with it, when you change to the lower class...

I think to make this succeed, the 15 dollar account would be about providing a different gaming experience in the same world then the normal 10 dollar account. If you''re following the rule that you don''t want to alienate the majority of the userbase - you just have to try your hardest to get everyone back online - and that only makes sense if you don''t want segregation on different servers - you can only restore one server at a time - its 5 dollars - not $20,000.

"EQ has pretty much saturated that I agree. However, saturation of MMORPG in general has yet to be proven. (You have to find me the statistics on this one.) And remember, MMOG is all about loyalty, not addiction. Players can just sell their EQ ($12.99 per month) account on EBay and then purchase an DAoC ($10.00 per month) account with the money. There''s gonna be a lot of action going on with the auction that I can tell you."

Loyalty, addiction? is there that much of a difference - sure you could do what you said, but when you''re addicted to the game, it means that you enjoy the paticular style, setting, and yes of course, the people that inhabit the MMORPG. As a longtime player of EQ, you could turn your back on all you''ve achieved in EQ and your friends there - so that you can jump to an unfamiliar territory, with an unfamiliar character...

I think the current style of MMORPG is limited by a few things - among it is the paradigm on which the fundamentals of the games work - materialism - in the hyper economies of MMORPGs, they stuff up economies and produce a steep barrier of entry for new gamers. (this kinda paradigm requires long hours to get anywhere - a significant investment in time and effort - alot of us have heard the stories - and we''re not attracted to the idea of been attatched to the computer feeding of ''Evercrack'')
Other things that limit MMORPG userbases are broadband connections - not compulsory to play, but then again, height isn''t a compulsory requirement in the NBA.
As well as just the general limitations in setting and gameplay in these games (something that the new wave of MMORPGs might change (WoW, SW:Galaxies, etc).

Zaptruder

quote: Original post by Zaptrudr
Well, I suppose you could ditch your exclusive guild recruiting abilities and your guild along with it, when you change to the lower class...

Guild will always form on MMO games even if you don''t support it. Just take a look at Diablo.

quote: If you''re following the rule that you don''t want to alienate the majority of the userbase - you just have to try your hardest to get everyone back online

3GM trying to convince 10k players. Good luck dude, I''m not holding my breath... It takes a huge amount of men powers to go around for this kind of goodwill preaching.

quote: I think the current style of MMORPG is limited by a few things - among it is the paradigm on which the fundamentals of the games work - materialism - in the hyper economies of MMORPGs, they stuff up economies and produce a steep barrier of entry for new gamers. (this kinda paradigm requires long hours to get anywhere - a significant investment in time and effort - alot of us have heard the stories - and we''re not attracted to the idea of been attatched to the computer feeding of ''Evercrack'')

Can''t really do much about this. I would agree that a game would benefit from some reform of the economic models in the current MMORPG but you need to take into account that hardcore players play 10+ times as much as the casual gamer. The best solution really is look for other methods and gameplay that would attract the casual gamers since the hyper economy is expected.

quote: Other things that limit MMORPG userbases are broadband connections

Broadband dosen''t limit MMORPG userbases. Most of the RPG games out there I could play perfectly fine with 56k... Unless you mean how broadband is eating up all the bandwidth resources across the net and cause an overall lag?

quote: As well as just the general limitations in setting and gameplay in these games (something that the new wave of MMORPGs might change (WoW, SW:Galaxies, etc).

Expect to see a lot of MMORPG in the future that specifically target niche audiences with the settings and gameplay. I wouldn''t be surprised if Microsoft start to work on a BattleTech online MMOG. Anyone out there wanna make me a Shadowrun/Syndicate type of MMORPG?

quote: That's so cynical

Well, you're too optimistic and overestimate everyone from the userbase to businessmen.

The stuff that you're saying really reminds of the things that I hear from people who have went to college for too long and gain an unfeasable mix of socialistic and capitalistic views. Every single person that I've known who goes > 6 years for a bachelors degree or > 10 years for a masters degree has this strange thing where they think that schooling should be free but that they should gain the capitalistic benefits from that education (increased income, status, etc...).

quote: increasing the standard charge would cause the user base to shrink, decreasing revenue and profit

No, the end result would be to find the 'sweet spot' between expansion in userbase and profit. EQ is increasing prices (as we all obviously know) by 30%, do you think that they will lose 25% of their userbase? I don't. The one thing that we all also know is that for the money, EQ is one hell of an entertainment bargain. Even if you only spend 2 hours a week playing the game, it's still ending out at around $1.5/hour for the entertainment. I did some of the math for you earlier in this thread, you can start extrapolating out from there and you will quickly find what your costs will end up as from there, thus how much each client costs and the resulting profits from their playing of the game at each level of payment. Like someone said (I think Mooglez), EQ isn't increasing userbase... so the sweet spot is somewhere around parity right now. That 30% increase probably won't lose them more than 5-7% of their userbase and decrease the CS and bandwidth needs accordingly. ROI increases.

quote: Do you realise how successful 'The Sims' are?

Yeah, the character that I'm playing is a God that is directing these poor people's lives. Pretty much like my life right now, right?

quote: There's a 5 dollar difference. If you really can't afford that difference, then you probably can't afford the time, the computer and the net connection in the first place.

You said you wanted it to be sufficient enough to basically keep the majority of players from playing this acct. If you're looking at only a 50% premium you're not going to deter many people. As I said, they will probably play a 'hero' acct or not play.

You also seem to lack a fundamental understanding of socio-economic trends. The people who have more disposable income usually have less disposable time. This is why there is a large market for people who will sell items within EQ, because the people with the money don't have the time to acquire the item and those who have the time don't have money. The majority of the time peoople who have money end up earning it, believe it or not. Do you really think that the executive making $150k/year is going home after 8 hours at work to play EQ? Don't get me wrong, he'd probably love to, but he's still working. He's doing market research, maintaining business contacts and generally spending every waking moment focused on his career.

Contrary to your argument, if you don't have the money to invest in the game, then you quite probably do have the time to invest.

quote: Any 'hero' account would require an investment of time and money.

What are you going to do, downgrade them? They already have a hero character... you going to gut him when they don't play enough because the assumption that you made about time != money was wrong? Good luck, you're going to need it if you go with this assumption.

quote: Indeed - if it is just business to them

It is. If it wasn't, they wouldn't be in the business. People don't just toss money at VC companies or at new ventures within an established company, they do it because they expect a better return on their investment than they would receive if they had invested in an already established company. If you're not willing to provide the superior return that VCs expect, then they will replace you with someone who will. Your name will be mud then, just as John Romero's is right now. We don't remember that Deus Ex == Ion Storm == John Romero, we remember Daikatana == Ion Storm == John Romero. Regardless of the fact that it should probably be Daikatana == Ion Storm == Stevie Case. Of course, the fact that John won't go anywhere without his boob queen makes it all rather a moot point, as John Romero == Stevie Case, or at least that you're getting two for one if you want John... not that Stevie is worth anything but eye candy.

quote: alot of people won't be willing to pay that extra 5 dollars a month...

...wouldn't see the extra 3 dollars as a barrier anyway

Should I have to point out that you just stated, in 2 consecutive paragraphs, that 5 dollars would be enough to create a barrier, but then you arguing that 3 dollars isn't even worth considering? Please, if you're going to argue, be consistent.

quote: Ahem, try explain to people why they pay 5 bucks extra per month and when disaster like losing an item/xp or character pwipe happens, it still takes 2 weeks of waiting just like all the other customers before the company fixed it.

The $5 paid for the better characters and access to different areas would be exactly that. Obviously they will expect a higher level of service, but it's not going to happen and they're not going to give up their characters to make a point.

quote: Ideally, the game could be done, so that while you can advance to a certain degree, if you choose to continue playing with the same character, the game advances to a social stage

Market research is an amazing thing...

People who play Civilization generally played MOO, played Age of Empires and played Empire Earth. Why? Because they like a particular style of gameplay. You won't keep customers by changing the way that they are playing a game later on in the game, you'll lose them.

Simply make social play an option that anyone can take at any point in time, whether high level or a character created 5 minutes before. The ability to rule has never been dependent upon combat experience, neither has the ability to socialize. In general you will find that those who are better in the social arena are the same people who avoid combat. Why? Because they're not prone to resort to violence to resolve a situation and will find ways to work disputes out through verbal discourse instead.


I don't want you to take this the wrong way, but it sounds like you are arguing from a point that you decided upon before considering all of the implications from every side. The best way to look at something is usually to try and figure out every single possibility and then set up the worst case scenario. That will usually be what happens.

[edited by - solinear on April 7, 2002 2:02:52 PM]