Imagine a Free World of Warcraft

Once upon a time the folks at Blizzard Entertainment thought they could support the entire world of World of Wacraft by ad revenue. This would have created an MMO experience which would cost you nothing but a bit of annoyance by ad providers; what would the total audience be if the game was free?

Had WoW launched free of charge they would probably have significantly more users playing the game, but the ad revenue from the sheer amount of people would be nothing compared to a monthly charge for eight million subscribers.

Although only a small number of those subscribers are US based, they’re still raking in the cash compared to an ad-based model, even if they were to have triple the subscribers.

However, the Blizzard exec noted: “We didn’t want to charge a subscription, but as we researched market conditions, we realized that wouldn’t support us.”

It’s possible, perhaps, that Blizzard would have fallen under its own weight had they created a world where anyone could play for no charge. Imagine the server utilization, the volume of traffic and the support calls they would get for triple or quadrupal the player base with only ads paying the checks.

Granted, a free system would be excellent in theory, but in practice, making us pay is the only way to throttle our addictions. Sad, but true.

(Thanks, gamasutra)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Post

Evolution of RPG’s – Gamers Don’t Want an End?Evolution of RPG’s – Gamers Don’t Want an End?

I remember a day when old RPG games had either a level cap or a definite ending. From Pool of Radiance to Secrets of the Silver Blades to Final Fantasy the game had a final boss or stage and often had some type of level cap. Today, gamers don’t want it to end, they’d rather have the option to wonder around aimlessly or completing minor quests in order to soak up every ounce of money they spent on the title.

linkNow even Bethesda is saying “we’ve learned our lesson” from the whiplash of ending their game title and capping levels. Gamers want to go back and re-try content they missed, they want to run side quests and talk to everyone in the world they want to grind themselves to über powerful levels and become a god in their fantasy world. Can you blame them?

You can’t really blame them for wanting to maximize the content, although it’s slightly more evolved than RPG’s of old. Perhaps it was World of Warcraft and other MMORPG’s that brought us to the stage in life where we all want to squeeze every last RPG dime out of the title. As a kid I wondered the world of Hyrule and covered every tile of graphical color, burned every bush, bombed every stone looking for all the content. However, even Zelda had an end with scrolling credits – you didn’t just land on a platform with your master sword and a dream.

Other titles have used level caps to limit you and draw you into the next release of the game. This was popular in the D&D world because the game is designed to target specific levels of difficulty. They may only allow you to gain level 10 because the enemies are no tougher than level 13, allowing the challenge to be good but not overwhelming. If they allow you to get to level 50 they’d have to design the game so all the enemies grow powerful along with you — that’s not always a desired result.

Final Fantasy is a popular franchise that typically allows you to grow infinitely powerful depending on how much time you want to spend repeat killing the same enemies. Gamers aren’t always into the grind, they just want to grind “enough” to make the challenges a little more do-able.

Today, however, with larger storage capacity, larger development teams and the desire to build more value into your gameplay experience titles have dozens of side quests and sub-plots that are totally optional. The result of so many sub-quests results in a player who is much more powerful at the end of those quests compared to a player who sticks to the narrow path of the main plot. So, games much grow dynamically challenging to keep the fun per dollar high.

Do you like your RPG’s to have a definite end and a high but capped level?

Episode 455: It’s Been a Fun Ten YearsEpisode 455: It’s Been a Fun Ten Years

Back in 2007, Derrick and Jennifer Schommer, along with Don Dunn started the Gaming Podcast, with their unique sense of humor and take on the biz of video games (as well as starting a popular World of Warcraft guild.) The trio would move on, with Derrick starting his Everyday Drinkers podcast and Common Man Cocktails site. Jonah Falcon took over, and merged it with the Videogame Roundtable. In that time, we’ve had hosts including Jordan Lund, Paul S. Nowak, Dan Quick, Scott Dirk and most lately, the inestimable T.J. Denzer. We’ve also had guest hosts including Hilary Goldstein and the late Andrew Yoon.

This episode celebrates the past 10 years, including an intro by Dan Quick and Paul S. Nowak joining this week’s episode, to discuss this news:

  • ‘Father of Pac-Man‘ Masaya Nakamura dies at 91
  • Nintendo is gearing up for more mobile games, plans 2-3 per year
  • $500 million awarded to ZeniMax in lawsuit over the Oculus Rift
  • Asheron’s Call comes to a quiet end after 17 years

Let us know how long you’ve followed the podcast for!

Developer Wants License Keys For Console GamesDeveloper Wants License Keys For Console Games

UK developer David Braben from Frontier Developments believes smaller development studios are in the worse position when it comes to re-sale of “pre-owned” video games. Since a developer only gets their cut of the profits when a game is sold new, pre-owned titles allow gamers to play games without paying the developer for the effort.

This also hurts larger publishers, but they’re able to recover because of the sheer volume of games and game titles. One idea David had, was to code each game with a unique license key like a PC game that gamers must enter before playing. This would kill the ability to re-sell video games back to the market for others to buy at a cheaper price (translation: better value).

The future shows a higher degree of downloadable games, which cannot be re-used or sold back to the market, but for now, developers have to deal with pre-owned video games cutting into their profit. Presumably you could have a great game with smaller sales and a high degree of resale in the pre-owned market.

Problem with this take on development? Besides large scale video game sellers like GameStop making 80% profit margins on resold games (rather than a 10-15% on new), gamers want a way to make back some of their money on expensive titles. When you’re paying $60 for a game and you beat it in a week or two, you want to resell it so you can invest in a future title.

My theory… make games more affordable so we don’t feel gouged on the price. We may decide to hold on to it longer and tell our friends about it. A good game reference and a reasonable price will increase sales every time. Don’t try to solve pre-owned problems when the problem is the publisher and the industry making huge game prices.

(Thanks, Kotaku)