Someone has to pay for the "free" in "free to play"
“Something similar happened to Free Realms as well. SOE found that apparently too many players were happily playing that game without paying, by sticking to the Free2Play classes and not using the premium classes. So they patched the game and now you can play any class for free, but only until level 5, and you need to pay if you want to play any class beyond that level. I’d say it’s a case of turning an already bad micropayment system into a worse one, but the principle of a patch changing the business deal remains the same. – Tobold, “Free2Play Gone Bad”
As much as we here at No Prisoners No Mercy (NPNM) have come to respect Tobold, the quote above leaves us wondering about the point of view of the publisher of a free2play game. It is at this point we imagine one of our personal heroes, John Smedley” waving a magic wand over a silk top hat announcing to a host of gamers, “And now for my next magical trick I will pull development money out of my ass.”
The simple fact of the matter is an eternal truth. Your grandparents said it, our grandparents said it. It has always been true – say it with us:
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A FREE LUNCH
The money to keep development studios going is a staggering amount – as much as one million dollars a month in some cases (if you want to know what industry professional said that you will just have to listen to NPNM show 50, now out on early release). If you set your personal “way back” machine for just two years ago you will find a western market where the “free to play” label had a stigma associated with it normally reserved for lepers. While things have changed, the obvious point here is that the viewpoint of microtransaction supported games is a new advent for the western gamer. The business model is still in its infancy with some companies like Turbine dipping their toes in the water while other companies like Electronic Arts sit back and wait for Turbine to tell them if the water is hot.
So while it may come as a shock and surprise to some players that the “free” in “free to play” isn’t always free, we here a NPNM expect it. After all, the money has to come from somewhere and if the majority of the players in a game are happy to sit back and let “the other guy” pay for further development and support of a game, there can rapidly reach a point at where there are no “other guys” paying the bills. At that point it becomes a “change or die” situation for game publishers.
To that end, there is a fantastic article over at Gamasutra.com that is a MUST READ for anyone interested in the advent of Free to Play gaming in western markets (article available here). Here is a quote from the article:
The PC gaming market is often depicted as either entirely dead or at least in a dire crisis. A major cause for this crisis is of course not that the PC is finished as a gaming platform, but rather that a high level of piracy is undermining the traditional retail model.” - Daniel Kromand, What Gamers Think About Microtransactions
Since the first free2play game hit western shores, they have been seen as either the savior of all that is wrong with the world or some weird anthropomorphized embodiment of the anti-christ. So far, at least, no one seems to have no opinion. While we can understand when players scream about things like “unfair advantage” there seems to be many gamers who are content to hope that everyone else but them is “the other guy” who will pay to keep the servers open. In his article, Daniel Kromand addresses this issue directly:
“Consumers obtain goods that have a physical presence in the game world, a sword for example, but also realize that the virtual reproduction of the item is costless: there is in fact no logical reason as to why the developer needs the sword back. The clash can easily produce annoyance if the players believe that they have to agree to unfavorable conditions that only serve to maximize the developer’s revenue.” - Daniel Kromand, What Gamers Think About Microtransactions
This, of course, is exactly what is happening with Free Realms – having failed to predict gamer behavior, Sony is forced to say “ok, we tried it your way, now let’s try something else”. And who can blame them? Not only are microtransaction business models far from being set in stone, they are still in the experimental stages and seem to have more iterations than there are fish in the sea (Depending, of course, what major body of water you have in mind).
THE SQUEAKIEST WHEEL
The squeakiest wheels, of course, are those players who feel that microtransactions give other players an unfair advantage. When Cryptic came out with Cryptic bucks most players (including me sadly – that is a bit of crow I had to eat) thought the world as we know it had come to an end. This is especially true if a publisher like Activision/Blizzard is seen to be trying to introduces the whole “subscription plus microtransactions” business model after the fact. Witness the advent of the sale of those cute Pandas in World of Warcraft as an example – you would think that Rob Pardo had said untoward things about player’s mothers.
But when players are done worrying about playing the dozens with Rob Pardo and Bobby Kotick, perhaps they would see things differently if those publishers with microtransactions on their minds require a certain player ranking to use virtual items bought with real cash. This is the suggestion of author Daniel Kromand:
“It therefore seems sensible to include effort-related rank in the game and require a certain rank for the premium items…The rank requirement means that a buyer has to play for a while before he can use the asset. This system both diminishes the influence of outside wealth on game balancing and also gives the player a tangible reward for advancing in the game. “- Daniel Kromand, What Gamers Think About Microtransactions
IF YOU CAN’T RUN WITH THE BIG DOGS, STAY ON THE PORCH…
The author quotes one of those individuals he interviewed for his article with saying, “If you want to play with the big boys, you have to pay.” While there may be players who, given the opportunity, will pay good money to keep up with the crowd, another problem (from the publishers point of view) has to be faced.
“It was not unusual that the players had left the game cold turkey and deleted their accounts. These quotes reveal a general problem that often — in the words of the respondents — is equated to drug abuse, although with some ironic undertone. A large number of respondents had quit their player accounts solely due to restraint issues.” – Daniel Kromand, What Gamers Think About Microtransactions
The idea here, of course, is that players often stay longer in a game than they intended to simply for the sake of their friends. If the publisher is lucky, like a marriage made in heaven (or perhaps hell in this case) the couple (the couple in this case being the player and the game) will stay together for the sake of the kids (the other players on their friends list). In fact this was one of the issues that Tipa discussed with us on No Prisoners No Mercy show number 49, telling us that she reached the point where she resented her online friends for not being willing to move on to another game. Now, of course, the advent of encouraging “group play” takes on a whole other meaning when it comes to free2play. Games that create a social atmosphere, above and beyond a quest line to complete, will no doubt be those with the servers that remain open. Perhaps the application of this is why, rather than Rob Pardo being in league with the devil as I have always maintained, the virtual shores of Azeroth remain open so all may yet set sail for them.
See you online,
The No Prisoners, No Mercy Team