Beauty of Micro-transaction MMO’s

Taken from Florensia OnlineThere is room to grow in the world of massive multiplayer online gaming. A large online community should not have to subscribe to a monthly charge to play great MMORPG’s because there are other known models that work, including the micro-transaction based MMO.

At first, this sounds like a dirty word, micro-transaction. Often we relate it with being “nickle and dimed” through a video game by means of dirty marketing which feeds our enthusiastic gamer addiction. Put this thought aside for a minute and keep an open mind.

Imagine a game with worlds the size of World of Warcraft and stories as in-depth as Guild Wars (which is not monthly itself) but free from monthly payments (or “playments” a new term that needs to be coined). The reason behind the monthly charge covers service fees, technical support staff, bandwidth, servers and sheer volume of Activision Blizzards user base.

The micro-transaction concept could still help pay for all the overhead of running an online gaming business because gamers tend to be over-enthusiastic about their great addictive games. If you build a game with excellent content, replay value and strive for a community atmosphere a micro-transaction title can work just as well as a subscription based game.

One beautiful aspect to micro-transaction models is paying for content when you’re willing to pay. This includes cosmetic character alterations, basic needs items (health potions) and other products to enhance the playability of the game without requiring the gamer to do so. There will be some gamers that use this as a “free ride” and never buy anything while other gamers spend way too much because they have expendable income which helps balance out costs.

The trick to a micro-transaction game balance is allowing players to enhance their experience without taking away or crippling their game to force a micro-transaction. You do not need a “fire enchantment” which causes a bit more damage and looks really cool, but it can make your character look more sinister and provide slight benefits to battle.

Wouldn’t this make the rich more powerful than those without a lot of cash? It might might them moderately more powerful and definitely more pretty to look at, but it also allows players who would never be able to experience any of the game a chance to play. In some ways, the level ground is already broken in MMO’s like World of Warcraft based purely on game experience… a player who’s been playing for three years and has a level 70 character will dominate a person with casual gaming habits. Nothing in the world is fair, at least this gives lower level characters a chance to spend some cash to get their character on par when they’ve not got time to work through the game with hours of time investements.

A player that can’t play World of Warcraft but would love to play the hot game is worse off than having battled someone with a better ring, more options and a lightening staff. At least gamers with small budgets can have a massive multiplayer experience without having to foot the bill for a monthly subscription.

There is a time and place for subscription and micro-transaction style games, it might be time to try a micro-transaction system in the United States to help compete against the World of Warcraft addiction. The trick will be to provide users with a great game play experience, higher end graphics, professions, side-quests and storylines with many possibilities.

Try a micro-transaction title today, checkout Florensia Online and Silk Road Online.

0 thoughts on “Beauty of Micro-transaction MMO’s”

  1. sure micro-transactions are fine if the people who spent shit loads only played a bit, but the majority of people who spend real money on in-game items are old people, who are retired or in college and play 24/7. The best type of game is one like Guild wars with no monthly fee and no sale of in-game items, because otherwise old people who shouldn’t be on games just beat all the normal players (people under 18).

Leave a Reply

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

Related Post

Kaz Hirai Dooms 360 To Short LifeKaz Hirai Dooms 360 To Short Life

Sony’s PlayStation 3 has a 10-year plan. We’ve heard about the plan, we’ve seen Sony’s current execution and we’re starting to see some of the titles making their way to the PS3 for 2009. The Xbox 360? Kaz, Sony Computer Entertainment’s head man, made his thoughts clear when speaking to Official PlayStation Magazine.

kaz“Last time I checked, they’ve never had a console that’s been on the market for more than four or five years and we’ve committed to a ten year life cycle, so you do the math…,” he says. He goes on to state that the Xbox 360 won’t have a larger install base by the end of their 10-year plan has been completed, “unless things go really bad.”

Of course, nobody says Microsoft’s 10-year plan isn’t to push out yet another console. Is that wise? We don’t really know, but you can’t count them out on it. Maybe they’ll only have half the install base but two consoles in the market within the next ten years, nobody really knows.

The one major hole we can see in his comments revolve around their claims that the Microsoft doesn’t have any history of a console being on the market for very long. If I recall, Sony managed to squeek one by on Nintendo with the original PlayStation, which changed everything for the next ten years. Sony didn’t have a 5-year track record when they started taking Nintendo down, why does Microsoft need to have an extensive resume as well?

As for Wii?

“It’s difficult to talk about Nintendo because we don’t look at their console as being competitors. They’re a different world and we operate in our world — that’s kind of the way I look at things…” (kotaku)

Say what you want about Microsoft vs. Sony, but it sure sounds like Sony doesn’t want to acknowlege Nintendo’s success because it casts a dark shadow on their own product. Nintendo and Sony have been battling for years, that’s just the way it is and that’s how the industry sees it. When NPD releases numbers, when journalists write articles about consoles and when the war is finished one thing remains constant: all three consoles are included in the equation.

Wallets Shrink, Used Game Market GrowsWallets Shrink, Used Game Market Grows

Over the last year we’ve seen developers scrambling to find “value add” features to new game purchases. Their goal is to convince the customer to buy new instead of used because developers don’t see a penny from a used game sale. While GameStop sees 48% profit margins from the used game market developers struggle to stay floating in the industry.

for-saleThis is not the fault of GameStop and their 48% profit margins because they’re only getting 7% to 20% profit margins (say analysts) on new game sales. As someone that’s run a game store online, if you’re getting 15%+ on a new game you’ve got some great hookups in the distribution channel or are buying in huge quantities.

Buying games in huge quantities to build profit margins can be a huge mistake in this industry. Gamers are fickle little creatures and they’re going to buy their top tier games for a few weeks and then sales will drop significantly. No retail chain wants to purchase a thousand copies of GTA IV (only as an example) and sell seven hundred over the first few week to be stuck holding onto a few hundred copies when the dust settles. Now you’ll have to put them on sale to get them out of the store because the hardcore gamer have already done their shopping and you’re not going to get any price protection if you’re not a major player in the industry.

Why take 7% profit margins when you can get 48% on a used game? The gamers don’t seem to mind because they’ll trade in a used copy of a sports title like Madden to save $5.00 on the latest franchise release. Gamers will buy Fable 2, beat it in a week and rush to the store to get the “most for their dollar” before the game gets stale and buy-back prices drop like a stone. Why not rent Fable 2 and save yourself $50.00? Of course, renting pisses off developers as well because they see no additional revenue.

While the economy struggles and consumers fight for their jobs, the entertainment side of life continues to grow. People would rather “cocoon” in their homes playing video games and watching movies on their brand new HD television because it takes them away from the low points of the economy if only for a few hours. History has shown us trends in entertainment during the down points of economies, it’s natural to want to get away for a bit.

But, consumers want to play these games on the cheap because their job may not be there tomorrow. Saving $5.00 knowing the store just took the title in for half the price doesn’t bother you; $5.00 in your pocket is better than in their pocket right? The fact that they just pocketed upward of 40% on the game doesn’t matter to you — it’s all about your bottom line!

While we’re bargain hunting during the recession developers are going to try and up sell you to a new copy of the game. If that means giving you special game items and features with a “one time code” upon purchase, it will be up to you to decide if it’s valuable. All the while GameStop will lock out the game industry from selling used games because 42% of their overall gross profit is from used game sales.

You, the consumer, benefits from a slightly cheaper game, bargain bin fire sales and additional game features if you do choose to buy new. The economic down turn is a great time to be a gamer, as long as you remain employed.

Why Doesn’t iTunes Have Game Trials?Why Doesn’t iTunes Have Game Trials?

Nothing is more annoying than going into iTunes to see what video games are available for the iPod Touch and iPhone to find it cluttered with hundreds of duplicate games. Developers seem to find it most useful to release two games instead of one single game: a full version and a “lite” version.

itunesDevelopers know gamers want to try before they buy, so many will create a game they’re hoping to sell, then a limited “lite” version with partial levels or stripped of features. They’re obviously trying to work around the fact that Apple released a half-assed game shopping experience. These pro and lite versions assist in cluttering the shopping space.

iTunes App Store should allow users to trial a game by allowing them to download a neutered version of the game title or using a time-trial like many other downloadable game services. Electronic game downloads are usually non-refundable because you can never give back a product which you can make infinite copies. The solution to getting users to buy into your product is to allow them to try before they buy.

Apple’s obviously enjoying the immense game sales from the application store but they may be able to increase their sales by allowing gamers to see what they’re buying before they walk away empty handed. This would also limit the total products found in the App Store because developers won’t have to post to revisions to their game title to allow gamers to try before they buy them.

There are some obvious downsides, Apple wouldn’t be able to boast the thousands of products in their store because many would be substituted for a real game download system. Okay, that’s really the only download I can think of… any others?

Developers may opt out of a trial system, forcing gamers to buy it before they try it based on the text and screenshots or utilize a time trial or limited featured version.

Thoughts?