EVE General Discussion

As a strong opponent to the idea of the micro-transaction business model, I have been horrified to to recently see its appearance in EVE. However, what is even more disturbing to me is that people on both sides of the debate seem to be accepting as fact that this business model is successful. Even the most vocal opponents to the Nex store qualify their arguments with statements such as: "MT has worked well in other MMO's, but it does not belong in EVE." or "CCPs adoption of MT is understandable given how successful it has been for other companies." (Rough paraphrase of the sentiments I have picked up on EVE-O forums)

I for one challenge the validity of that idea. I do not believe that any MMO has benefited from the addition of micro transactions. The vast majority of games that incorporate MTs fail completely. There have been some games that manage to survive on other merits despite the MT model, but those games eventually feel the effects of a focus on MT development and do not provide long term viability. The MT business model depends on a constant focus towards pushing new MT content at the expense of developing core game play.

I am sure at this point people are going to bring up WOW and its vanity pets. The thing is, even WOW is feeling these same effects. The game is in decline; and even though I do not have personal experience with the game, the consensus seems to be that is is largely due to lack of innovation in core game play mechanics. I can not help but feel that MT content development played at least some role in this.

So I ask you, can anyone provide any proof that these statements carry any weight? Can you point to specific examples that support these ideas?

1. The MT business model is a sustainable model.

With very few exceptions, the MT model is used by inferior MMO's as a cash grab once it is realized that the game is in decline or flawed form the start. In cases where MTs are introduced to already successful MMO's, they universally begin a period of decline.

2. A company can ignore player feedback from the "vocal minority."

Nearly every failed MMO has one thing in common. The communities (namely the vocal minority of hardcore players and forum warriors) attempted to alert the devs of the game to the problems they saw apparent in the direction the game was headed. I do not mean one or two forum warriors taking up a personal opinion about some game mechanic they think should be slightly tweaked. I mean the majority of the community coming to the consensus that there is a major flaw in where the devs are heading and providing a coherent argument as to why. The vast majority of the time, they are absolutely correct. Go visit the SWG or the JG:E forums for some very good examples of this.

3. Any press is good press.

Personal pet peeve of mine. If you believe this, you are a moron. In some very limited situations, bad publicity can lead to things such as "sightseers" trying out a product just to see what everyone is ranting about. However, these types of costumers are extremely short term and very likely to simply contribute to the negative public perception of the product. In the long run, a bad reputation is nothing but damaging.

I do not believe that WoT is viable long term. It has enjoyed some success thanks some innovative game play mechanics, however it is certainly not because of its MTs. In my opinion, the game would have been much better of with a traditional subscription payment model, or even a one time purchase fee.

WoT is doing what every other MT game does. It attracts a small following which are willing to pay to win for a short time. After a while, the novelty of the game play wears off as there is no iteration or development beyond pushing more MT items. Then the game dies a slow death.

Can you make money doing this? Yes, as a short term cash grab. Is it viable long term? No.

Well, what definition of "long-term" are you using? I would say that MT certainly is good for a company, but whether an individual game suffers or succeeds...I'd say there is scan evidence either way. But to be fair, there is also little evidence that a subscription model is successful "long-term" either.

Looking at population charts, every game declines after a period of time. The lifetimes of most of those games are generally too short to determine whether MT or sub models were a cause. I would say that subscription model games have proven to have shorter lifespans on average. An MT-based game can survive longer on a lower population than a subscription-based game. If a game doesn't get the subs required to 'stay in the black' it simply shuts down. The examples of that are myriad.

Subscription based games that transition to MT have extended their lifespans, albeit with diminished populations and probably less content. But they survive.

KB

Little evidence that subscription models can be successful long term? There are dozens of examples of subscription games that that have been around over a decade and are still being developed and have growing populations.

APB can not be considered anything but a complete failure. It was shut down a few months after release and then later reopened by a different company that payed basically nothing for it and still did not manage to make a profit. Fallen Earth was and still is subscription based, but can hardly be considered to be successful. It is terribly bug ridden and unsupported with a free falling population.

Also.. Gamersfirst does not develop their own games. They purchase failed games for basically nothing and then squeeze a few bucks out of them using a MT model because no one in their right mind would pay a subscription for them. They are not able to support a development team, or anything more that the bare minimum customer support on the income from MTs.

I would define success for an MMO as the ability to continue content development and support population growth. The line between short and long term is not easy to define, but games such as Fallen Earth, APB, Black Prophecy, Star Trek Online, LOTRO ect.. clearly can not be considered "long term."

The MAJORITY of the community still play Eve and have said nothing thus far. The whole issue is trivial nonsense by a ratbag element. I made a post on old Eve-O about mob mentality.

To whit. Some people in England were interviewed over the riots. A huge percentage said "we're fighting them". When asked who "them" was the reply was "you know, THEM". What are you rioting over was the next question? "I'm supporting my brothers" was one comment. Over what? "Well, we've had a gutful of THEM".....

In other words, no fn idea, just seemed like a good idea at the time.

99% of any riot participation is the blind acceptance of the compassion of the other 1%.

Same deal when someone was asked why he was looting. "Cos I want my taxes back" he cried. wtf??

So they burned, stole and were generally assholes to their OWN people. To get back taxes? Sheesh...

During the riots however, the smart and rational ones stayed home, locked their doors and only after the idiots were locked up and the ringleaders nailed to a wall, they grabbed their brooms and helped clean up.

Something else I am seeing here on Eve-O which is heartening. I've watching the Bad Bad CCP arguments slowly shifting focus as the claims are slowly but inexorably ridiculed as the crap they are. Many posters are being exposed as the sheep they are and are jumping their arguments to get some distance from the "popular rabble".

Until this silent MAJORITY can win back some sanity, I'm personally going to keep hammering on the few stupid heads just how stupid they really are. If you're too stupid to shift focus from mayhem and rioting, then you're beyond help and I'd rather you DID leave Eve so we can get some IQ back.

When all this crap is debunked as the crap it is and the ringleaders are exposed as the wannabes they are, I think you'll find that a MAJORITY of Eve players will come out with their brooms to clean up this godamn awful mess you call a "revolution".

Dradius, the sudden interest in the MT business model is easy to see if you're familiar with how studios do their work. You cite WoW's similar decline as a defense, I would point out that the particular model of subscription + MTs is very unpopular right now. I'm a developer and I also hate the MT business model with a passion, it feels like nickel and diming consumers and it's just unpleasant all around.

From the business standpoint, it's simple - it takes a lot less development time to see a return on investment. Making the TRH from WoW probably consumed all of a hundred man hours, and then they made stupid money off it. They can pretty much spit stuff like this out at any time and make money as needed. In a subscription model there's an expectation that there is going to be regularly published, large chunks of content in one go. It's actually way more expensive for companies to do that kind of development versus one-off MT items, because there's more to QA, more time in development, more time in design, etc.. that's why MT is so attractive.

From the average consumer's point of view, MT models are also great because they don't have to pay for the content every month. Video game players tend to be impulse shoppers so even then they might end up spending like.. $60 in one month even when they would have normally spent $15.. and they feel like they are still playing a free game. It's very bizarre but there's some psychology behind it, and ultimately the studios end up making more in doing that. Just look at Riot.

And then there's savvy consumers, who think it's slimy. I tend to agree with them, but it's still a legitimate business model.

This is kind of my point exactly, game studios have an incentive to go after easy money in the form of MT items. This is great for exploiting the small subset of gamers who are dumb enough to fall for this, but is extremely detrimental to healthy game growth and content iteration. The only reason it kind of worked for WOW was because they had a huge sub base when they introduced it, only did one or two MT items, and still kept their focus on actual game content. However, I still believe in the long run they did more harm than good.

If they ever introduce MT on a scale to be significant next to their obscene income from subs the effect will be even more pronounced. They will sell lots of MT items in the short term but even at $15-10 an MT item it would not take long for a small fraction of lost subs to out weigh the income from the MT items.

Introducing MT is in most cases a calculated decision. The game company is betting that their game would not have lasted long enough for the amount of lost subs to counter balance the short term income potential of their MT items.

really youre saying the forumgoers MADE the guys developing the game waste so much time and money that the backers sued them for the money theyd put into the development of the game? Hell they should be suing the forumgoers instead then

For the sake of argument, lets ignore games which were "developed fail." Thanks to rampant consumerism, it is fairly easy for a game company to purposely cheaply developed a crap game, sell it to idiots, make back more than their meager dev budget, and then completely drop support and move on to the next game to do it again. These games can hardly be considered a "success" even if they do technically turn a profit.

I was not offering any prof that an MT game can not work. I was simply stating my opinion that some people (on both sides of the MT debate) seem to think that it is a fact that MT is a viable long term business model for an MMO. I have not seen any supporting evidence of this, be it a market research study or the actual success of a product.

Do you know of a game which incorporates MT as a main source of income that you feel meets a reasonable definition for long term success?

This has been going on for decades, though. There are several MUDs that were established in the mid-90s that offered in-game benefits for money ("donations"), some along the lines of game-breaking things. Most of these MUDs are still running strong. Keep in mind, these are text-only games!

Medievia
Materia Magica
the collection of games herefore referred to as the Iron Realms games (Aetolia and the rest of 'em)

It's worked well for them. It's actually made their operators a LOT of money, for text based games. Also, let's not forget the guys that made Gemstone and Hero's Quest or whatever it was all the way back to AOL. You could buy stuff from them in addition to requiring a subscription, and now they make the HeroEngine and license it for big money.

More contemporary MT-based games?

League of Legends - doing quite well and sustainable, until they stop making new heroes
Dungeons and Dragons Online
Maple Story amidst a handful of lesser known Asian MMOs
LotRO seems to be doing fairly well off of it
Puzzle Pirates

and some others that were either already named but I forgot about.

You mentioned earlier that it was a small subset of consumers that supported those games. To be frank, it's because of those ignorant customers you mentioned. For every market-savvy player, there are 10 people willing to pay for things that they think are "cool".