Our Properties: Gamasutra GameCareerGuide IndieGames Indie Royale GDC IGF Game Developer Magazine GAO
My Message close
Latest News
spacer View All spacer
 
February 10, 2012
 
Road to the IGF: Lucky Frame's Pugs Luv Beats
 
Analyst questions validity of unusual January NPD results [12]
 
Blizzard opposes Valve Dota name registration [1]
spacer
Latest Features
spacer View All spacer
 
February 10, 2012
 
arrow Virtual Goods - An Excerpt from Social Game Design: Monetization Methods and Mechanics
 
arrow Principles of an Indie Game Bottom Feeder [20]
 
arrow Postmortem: CyberConnect 2's Solatorobo: Red the Hunter [1]
spacer
Latest Jobs
spacer View All     Post a Job     RSS spacer
 
February 10, 2012
 
CCP - North America
Animation Director
 
Toys for Bob / Activision
Senior Programmer
 
Toys for Bob / Activision
Lead Programmer
 
Vicarious Visions / Activision
FX Artist-Vicarious Visions
 
Vicarious Visions / Activision
Tools Engineer-Vicarious Visions
 
Treyarch / Activision
Lighting Artist, Cinematic
spacer
Blogs

  Sell Your Money!
by Simon Ludgate on 08/28/09 03:45:00 pm   Expert Blogs   Featured Blogs
20 comments Share on Twitter Share on Facebook RSS
 
 
  Posted 08/28/09 03:45:00 pm
 

In my previous blog entry, I described how adding PLEX to EVE Online failed to stem RMT in CCP's MMO. I concluded that the game operator would simply be better off selling in-game currency directly to its own players because they would not only be able to beat RMT at their own game, but would monetize the demand for their in-game curreny.

So why don't they? Well, it might infuriate players who think the practice is unfair or that it will destabilize the market or that it might just be plain evil. I'm in no place to psychoanalyze perceptions. What I can do, at any rate, is explain the effects selling currency would have on the in-game player-driven market.

MMO markets are (usually) in perfect competition

The most important thing to keep in mind is that MMO economies, by and large, are in perfect competition. There are many "firms" (each player acts as a firm), the goods are homogeneous (all goods are identical copies of each other), there are low entry barriers (every player could potentially get/produce every good), and there is limited restriction on access to raw materials (by and large, everyone can get what they want from the game world).

In such an economy, a player always has the choice to either buy something or go get it for themselves. Given such a choice, the price of everything is the amount of money you could get in the time it would take for you to get that thing.

Rate of Money / Rate of Stuff = Cost of Stuff

So, for example, say you're playing World of Warcraft and you want some Flasks. You can either go gather herbs and make the flasks, or do daily quests and use the money to buy the flasks on the AH. If it takes 1 hour to get the herbs for 5 flasks, and in 1 hour you could get 100g from daily quests, then it would make sense that flasks sell for 20g each.

If they were more expensive, then players would farm them rather than do dailies; and would farm enough for a surplus to sell and profit from the price imparity, thereby increasing supply and, since players are in perfect competition and underbidding each other on the market, prices go down. Conversely, if flasks are cheaper, people just buy them and quickly buy up the stock on the market until all that remains are market price flasks.

Controlling the Rate of Money and Stuff

By and large, the Rates of Money and Stuff are strictly controlled in a game world by the game's design. How often harvestable resources or monsters spawn, how often monsters drop loot, how often a player can do a quest or dungeon, and how long it takes it do any of these things. This is why it seems like anyone who bypasses the limits set by the game's designers is cheating, because that player is getting something outside the normal rates.

But would buying currency actually destabilize the market? Well, it could, but only if too many people do it. As it stands, an MMO market is already a fragile thing, and players could potentially play havok if they were sufficiently dedicated to do so. If enough players harvested enough money and bought every good on the market, and had enough money to keep on buying every good on the market, then normal players would never be able to buy anything on the market. The market would be ruined. It's possible to do, but it would be rediculously time consuming, and you'd have to have a lot of people working on it.

Directly selling currency could also have the same effect, and it would only take one really rich player, but again you'd have to spend a tremendous about of real money to make it happen. Maybe there are people out there who would spend a hundred thousand dollars to destroy the market in a game, but frankly if they just want to throw money at pissing off people there are far more effective and direct ways of doing it (maybe spend that money hiring hackers to take control of everyone's account?).

Selling Money is less harmful than RMT 

For players who want a "pristine" game environment to play in, the most important thing to keep in mind is that players buying currency directly from the game is less harmful to the game experience than the presence of RMT. RMT doesn't only sell currency, it also has to acquire that currency in the game, and they often employ exploits, cheats, or abusive practices to get it as fast as possible. In EVE, some asteroid belts are permanently stripped clean by RMT miners, meaning that regular players are denied the opportunity to mine there by RMT.

On the other hand, players are rarely affected negatively by people who actually buy the money from RMT. RMT is HUGE. Don't try to hide from it. There's a good chance that you've run across dozens of players in whatever MMO you play that buy in-game currency. And somehow, they don't ruin the game. As it happens, as huge as RMT is, there are far more players who just want to play the game without buying currency, more than enough to make the effects of buying currency miniscule on the economy itself.

The Actual Consequences of Selling Money

So what would happen if Blizzard or CCP or any of the other main MMO companies started selling their currency directly to players and ran RMT out of business? The short answer: not much. Oh, sure, there would be some people up in arms because their fragile ideals of how the game ought to be played would be shattered, but most people wouldn't notice any change at all.

So why don't companies do it? I have no idea. They should. Good money to be made there.

What do you think? Would you quit a game if the company started selling currency directly? Would you buy any? Or would like just go on like normal? 

 
 
Comments

Enrique Dryere
profile image
As I see it, selling in game currency is the simplest, yet least controlled version of a microtransaction business model. But with the use of additional forms of "currency," such as honor points or faction rating, a designer can insure that prestige items remain a part of the game. These are the sort of items and rewards that are earned through accomplishing difficult, in-game tasks rather than simply being purchased. In this way, I believe designers can appease the purists as well as the casual gamer that would rather pay an extra $10 for a mount, than grind money for 20 hours or so -- not to mention, earn extra revenue!

Tommy Hanusa
profile image
I think RMT can be an answer to flawed game design. To allow RMT for a game is to say, playing out game is boring and/or repetitive. At that point you are basicaly paying money to play a game, and then pay more money to have fun. It makes no sense. (you could also argue that you would run the game on a free to play model, but you still haven't adressed the fact that your game is boring; or worse you desinged your game to be boring for the specific reason of promoting RMT)

Idealisticaly, the ways of getting money in a game should be engaging, low levels and high levels should be entertaining. When you play an mmo, you should be buying an enjoyable expereince.

However, it's hard to imagine RMT NOT taking place in a popular mmo. People will always try to sell stuff no matter how fun it was to get it (or even becuase it was fun to get it). I think there are just risks with developer sanctioned RMT that you need to be aware of.

Simon Ludgate
profile image
@Enrique,
I completely agree. I think having some things not be buyable, either through special points or achivements, preserves the exclusive bonuses for players who work towards them. Everyone wins!

@Tommy,
This is also a very good point. A lot of people don't have the time to grind MMOs, or don't enjoy the grind. But, conversely, there are also people who do enjoy the grind, who enjoy farming for long periods or feeling the sense of accomplishment after finally getting enough money after a lot of work. It seems impossible to make everyone happy, though maybe selling currency is a passable middleground for those who want to skip ahead?

Blake Nicholas
profile image
Doesn't seem right to me to be able to sell something that you can create out of thin air like that. RMT farmers have to actually generate the money they sell with real time spent. A company that sells money can just type in /givemoney and boom they got themselves $100 bucks real money. If this happened, I wouldn't pay a monthly fee as well that's for sure, and if I felt the game design forced me to have to buy from them, I'd quit. Now if you're talking today's quality of standards and design (able to earn with time) for a $15 per month MMO minus the monthly fee then I'd be fine with it as long as the game design isn't changed in such a way that I'm unable to earn the stuff on my own as well.

Also SOE already does something similar to this for EQ2 and Vanguard. They don't sell the stuff themselves, but they allow players on specific servers to sell in-game items and money for real money over their website. This method I think is better than the company itself selling money because then the company has no conflicts of interest that could affect the design of their game.

Tommy Hanusa
profile image
@ Simon
I think you are confusing enjoying grinding with enjoying the results of grinding. People don't often grind because 'it's fun' they grind because they want a higher level (better) game-play. If you are selling currency so people can 'skip ahead' you have a design problem because your game isn't enjoyable 'right now'.

I'm not really opposed to RMT, but I am opposed to the possible outcomes. If you are making a chunk of profit through RMT, it makes sense to make all the 'fun stuff' expensive, or the free stuff boring. You can also expect to have design problems get covered up because players can just 'buy past' boring spots of the game.

Prehaps the market for RMT and the call for offical RMT are really just symptoms of a larger problem(s) in MMORPGs.

Simon Ludgate
profile image
Well there's really three elements at play: Enjoying grinding, enjoying earning the results of grinding, and enjoying the results of grinding. Let me give an example with World of Warcraft's XP grind, the end result is level 80. You can enjoy:

-Grinding itself (you enjoy killing monsters and completing quests)
-Earning the result of grinding (you enjoy the satisfaction of reaching level 80 after all that hard work)
-The result of grinding (you enjoy being 80)

"Skipping ahead" only helps you with the third of these. Different people will enjoy different combinations of these elements. If there exists a player who only enjoys the third one and is happy to spend real money to skip ahead, does the game itself have a design problem? I don't think that is necessarily the case.

The "possible outcomes" slippery slope argument is difficult to quantify. On the one hand, if direct currency sales were added to current MMOs such as World of Warcraft, the game design doesn't necessarily change to make it more desirable to buy currency. But it could influence future game design to make currency sales more desirable. That said, a company like Acti-Blizz, who's goal is to simply make the most money possible, has to balance the money made from currency sales against the lost money from people canceling subscriptions. If the latter outweighs the former in the case that design is shifted too heavily towards currency purchasing, then the developers won't change their design. I don't think players have anything to worry about in regards to game design marginalizing subscribers who don't also buy currency.

Simon Ludgate
profile image
Oh, and to touch on the larger problem issue, I think the larger problem is simply that some players have more time to play than others. If your game is designed such that players who play, say, a minimum of 10 hours a week have the 'optimal' experience, then players who only play 5 or fewer hours a week have a 'problem' with time-sinks in the game (such as grinding). However, as a general rule of thumb, people who have the least time to play games usually have higher disposable incomes, so much so that paying money to 'skip ahead' represents a negligible cost for the entertainment provided.

Is it the fault of game design that different people have different play styles, lifestyles, available time or income, etc? No. Should a game be flexible enough to accommodate as many people as possible? Yes. Is it wrong to monetize this accommodation? Answer this and you answer the question of selling your own game's currency to players.

Blake Nicholas
profile image
If a company is able to sell money out of thin air like RMT companies do now then it creates a conflict of interest. The game will start to be designed to where instead of having "gold" "badges" "honor points" you'll also have "RMT points". What I mean by this is that if I were a player of a game that allowed a company to sell in-game money for real money I would be worried that they would create special incentives for those people that buy in-game money possibly to the point of making it the ideal way to play, or the way to get the most "powerful". As long as everything can either be earned and bought then I don't have a problem with it, but I'm not so sure the design would stay as we know it now if companies had that conflict of interest. The game would basically become one of those free to play MMORPGs where the design is all about "what can be bought to make me look cool to others?"

So I definitely think MMORPG companies should not sell in-game money and items because it would most likely have some effect on how the game is designed. The EQ2 method of allowing the players to sell in-game items and money and even characters for real money is much better because then it accomplishes the same thing (allowing those with less time but more money to skip ahead) without involving the company itself.

Andre Gagne
profile image
I agree with Blake, ever heard of a little game known as ZT online? There was an article circulating about it a while ago online. Basically the heavy PvP focus of the game leads to a situation where the game world mirrors that of real life; those with the cash can buy themselves to the top and have to keep on buying themselves to the top to stay there.

and besides, doesn't CCP already do a form of RMT? here's the dev blog on it:

http://www.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&bid=684

Thomas Langston
profile image
I disagree with the author's assessments.

http://www.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&bid=684

PLEX provides a fair market value for legally gained ISK. RMT prices represent the value of illicitly gained ISK.

Creating ISK at a price competitive with RMT prices is impossible. If players spend more money on ISK than it costs for someone to hack their account, then RMT is alive and well no matter what the $:ISK ratio is for the legal purchase.

Thomas Langston
profile image
@Andre

EVE Online's system allows trading game time cards for ISK. Simon claims that doesn't work and the only method that will is creating ISK and selling it directly to the customer.

Chris Kozlowski
profile image
It seems like there are a lot of assumptions in this piece that EVE's economy is similar or the same to WoW's. I'm going to go through a few things to show that this is not the case, but furthemore, that RMT does hurt EVE in ways that it does not hurt other MMOs.

Perfect competition does not exist.
In EVE, every item created is the same as every other one. However, that is where the similarities end. The costs involved in production vary wildly with player demand, skill, location of goods, security and cost of upkeep of production assets, quality of blueprints, and so on. The end result is that while the item may be the same, the costs and margins that went into making said item are not. In WoW, a flask will always require a set number of components to make. In EVE, this changes constantly.

Furthermore, EVE does not operate on a 'global' auction house. Items made in location X stay in location X, and cannot be moved unless someone physically moves them there. If you buy an item, it does not magically appear in a mailbox, you have to go get it. If you want it delivered, expect to pay someone to move it for you.

The result of all of this is that prices and supply are constantly in flux due to changing demand and the status of resources. RMT traders who frequently engage in unlawful activities such as Macro mining, botting, etc disrupt this natural process, whether by creating too much supply for minimum effort (deflation), or sucking up the supply of raw materials so that lawful players cannot address demand (inflation)

Consequences do exist.
In EVE, ISK matters. Goods are produced, but also destroyed. This is a key feature that separates EVE from WoW. Ships are destroyed. Stations blown up. Ammo is expended. The vast list of material components that went into making that carrier are vaporized the moment it's destroyed.

In EVE, where player corporations vie for power and control, the almighty ISK determines at the end of the day if a player has the resources to go on fighting. Sooner or later, that battleship will be destroyed, and continuing the fight means having the resources to replace it. Some pay others to fight in their stead. No such mechanic exists in WoW, and whether a player as a one gold or a million has no bearing where there is no true death involved and no destruction of goods. That battlefield will always be there, your armor, once acquired, will never go away. All players are capped at whatever max level and max item Blizzard bestows upon them. Once you've reached that peak, you're at the top. There's a limit to how far you can spend as a result. The only question is how long it takes you.

In EVE, where there is no level cap, and the strength of fleets is only limited by resources and the number of pilots under your banner, ISK can have a hugely imbalance effect. Adding RMT into the mix only instability this further. The introduction of PLEX was to add a safety valve to ease pressure on the demand of ISK while providing an alternative to the shady world of RMT traders. But more importantly, it dodges having to introduce a new ISK faucet into the game and sending inflation soaring. It prevents those with massive wallets from being able to buy power in EVE.

These are reasons CCP understands all too well, and as such, will never implement a system. As such, the question of those leaving said game out of such a reason is rather moot.

However, it is important everyone understand that the reasons for doing such things in WoW and other traditional MMOs does not necessary make it a good idea for EVE. EVE is, and continues to be much different, and it's economy is no exception. It deserves a more nuanced look than this.

Vicente Cartas
profile image
@Chris You don't know the case of the leader of RED.Overlord (an alliance in the south of Eve), right?

http://dl.eve-files.com/media/corp/Verite/influence.png

He is a russian millionaire who has bought trillions of ISK using Plex, and the game keeps going.

Either way, in general ISK is not a problem right now in high level play (0.0 alliance warfare): big alliances and their members have massive economic assets (Tech 2 BPOs, moon income,...) and the problem is more in coordination, activity of membership, morale and the ability to grind towers and set up alarms clocks ops in all timezones.

Simon Ludgate
profile image
@Chris, Vicente

While I agree that EVE's economy is complex and deserves a more nuanced look, I think Vicente has a strong point. I'd argue that the amount of ISK one would have to buy to be able to destabilize an economy like EVE's, where there are already countless trillions of ISK in circulation, would be far beyond the spending power of most players. I'd guesstimate that, at the rates described in my prior blog entry (more specifically on EVE's economy) you'd have to buy well over a million dollars worth of ISK to make a considerable impact on the economy. Moreover, unless that person goes on to keep spending just as much each month, the economy would restabilize quite rapidly after absorbing and redistributing that big blob of cash.

Keep in mind that the cost of things is not based on the amount of money you have, but the rate at which you can get money. It isn't enough to simply buy a lump sum of money if you want the economy turned around, enough people have to be continually buying tremendous amounts of money to influence the overall rate of money in a game like EVE. While it is possible that currency purchases could mess with EVE's economy, the amount of real money being dumped into the game to make it happen would probably be far greater than the amount of real money CCP makes on monthly subscriptions, possibly an order of magnitude greater.

It's far more likely that direct currency sales, despite a large initial purchasing period when first made available, would be limited to reasonable spending and wouldn't significantly interfere with the flow of the game.

---

Also, as Vicente describes, in the case of "winning" in EVE, it's not really about the ISK, it's about the manpower. If you want to "win" at EVE, you don't need to spend money buying ISK, you need to spend money hiring people to play the game for you. Maybe that's the next big thing from China? Replace RMT with mercenary squads who fight wars for your alliance for a hefty fee of real money?

Thomas Langston
profile image
@Vincent, Simon

By focusing on Chris's description of the locality of markets, you miss Chris's other point. Chris doesn't argue against the use of PLEX. He argues against creating ISK for direct sale to the consumer. The use of such a ISK "faucet" would necessitate the use of another ISK sink as well to balance the economy.

Of course the nature of EVE may make that easier than in other games, but it does illuminate why creating ISK for direct sell to a customer is a terrible idea. This all still doesn't give you the chance to make direct sells competitive with RMT.

Simon Ludgate
profile image
@Thomas,

This I disagree with, because there's already an infinite ISK faucet in the form of bounties and missions. Nothing but practical logistics stops an RMT from making a million accounts and farming ISK-generating sources to open the tap on already existing ISK faucets. The only reason it doesn't happen is because of practical logistics: time, people, subscription fees, etc.

Incidentally, as I discussed in my first blog about EVE, it's specifically this element of RMT, of increasing load on the sever to generate ISK to sell, that makes RMT a doubly-painful punch: not only does it deprive the company of income, but it costs the company more in hosting the significantly heavier load of RMT activities.

Direct currency sales doesn't generate currency where currency wouldn't be generated, it just generates it in a different way. IE: the faucet is already open, it's just a question of whether the RMT or the company is going to supply it (and profit from it).

Vicente Cartas
profile image
@Thomas

More ISK would probably mean that there would be more combats all around or that people would use more expensive ships and setups (T2/T3 ships and equipment, rigs, implants in combat clones,...). Right now most people just adjust their combat style to their ISK income.

Honestly, I don't think Eve lacks ISK sinks, you can lose pretty bigs amounts of money very fast if you aren't careful.

Thomas Langston
profile image
You still have yet to address my original claim.

"Creating ISK at a price competitive with RMT prices is impossible."

@Simon

Inflation is the reason why you don't just print extra money whenever you feel like it. Economies can grow however over time or as additional members are added without resulting in rampant inflation. Even macro play holds to these economic balancing factors.

RMT's server load is balanced by the subscription fees they are paying.

It isn't the question if the faucet is open or not, just whether or not you're going to drown the economy.

@Vincent

I don't disagree with those assessments. I alluded to the same thoughts in my quote "...the nature of EVE may make that [adding ISK sinks] easier than in other games...".

Jan Stephan Pontzen
profile image
It actually IS (should be) possible to NOT have RMT in an MMORPG. Check out my diploma thesis, "The Development of a Price Control Mechanism for MMORPGs" (and feel free to share any feedback on it you may have).

http://www.db-thueringen.de/servlets/DocumentServlet?id=12972&lang=en

Mark Steelman
profile image
I think you need to consider the practical ramifications of selling an in game currency. Selling 100000 ISK for $20 is fine as long as 100000 ISK is worth $20. But in reality it fluxuates almost constantly.

You would basically have to establish an exchange rate for each real world currency for your currency and I think that is more work than a game provider is willing to do.

The PLEX solution is good because it is like a share of stock in EVE than can be traded. It floats on the economy. Even with gold farmers, it might make sense to buy the gold from the gold farmer and then use it to buy a PLEX card. However, I do not think it is a good idea to deal with gold farmers... you are inherantly supporting the black market and you are inherantly making deals with criminals.

Second, you start dealing with a risk of being dragged into a money laundering scheme or some other illegal activity due to declaring a real world value for your in game currency. If I can buy gold in your game from you with real money, why can't I sell gold from your game for real money? I think the fear of getting mired in some legal problem is a big deterant for game companies who look at the possibility of selling currency from their game.

In truth, the PLEX solution is the best I have heard about for a subscription based game.

Good article, thanks for writing it.


none
 
Comment:
 




 
UBM Techweb
Game Network
Game Developers Conference | GDC Europe | GDC Online | GDC China | Gamasutra | Game Developer Magazine | Game Advertising Online
Game Career Guide | Independent Games Festival | Indie Royale | IndieGames

Other UBM TechWeb Networks
Business Technology | Business Technology Events | Telecommunications & Communications Providers

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Contact Us | Copyright © UBM TechWeb, All Rights Reserved.