Taugrim's MMORPG Blog

Allods Online (AO) started its Open Beta last week, and the playerbase is irate over the initial pricing of Item Shop virtual goods and the changes announced for version 1.0.07.07. Keen has written an excellent summary of the concerns of the playerbase.

AO’s Closed Beta was a very positive experience for many players. So what happened at the start of Open Beta? To understand the situation, let’s discuss the basics of a F2P (free-to-play) game from a player perspective:

1. you don’t have to pay for the game client
2. you don’t have to pay for game account(s)
3. you can play the game without having to pay, or you can optionally pay for virtual goods and/or in-game “buffs”

The success of a F2P game depends on the game’s ability to acquire new players and convert some of them into paying customers without alienating the non-paying players, who are advocates for the game and may eventually convert. Typically 10% or less of the playerbase of a F2P game spends real money on the game and the other 90% of the playerbase plays it for free.

An Example of Savvy F2P Core Game Design: KnightOnline

There is a lot of cynicism among players regarding F2P games, but I have played a game, KnightOnline (KO), that had a savvy design for its “item shop.” Let me first state that KO had some major game design and implementation flaws – notably the game was very hackable and exploitable. I’m not here to say that KO was a “good” game, but KO elegantly supported its item shop via two game mechanics:

1. the magic anvil for upgrading items
2. the buff scrolls for PVP

The magic anvil was usable by anyone, and you could upgrade any gear piece or weapon to +1, +2, etc up to +8. Each plus rating granted a significant improvement to the item’s performance, and typically players tried to get gear up to +6 (very good) or +7 (excellent) or even +8 (amazing). And for the cool factor +8 weapons glowed! However, there was a catch: when you attempted to upgrade an item, if the upgrade failed the item was destroyed, and as you tried to upgrade the item to higher plus ratings, the probability for an upgrade to fail increased. KO’s item shop allowed you to buy an item called a “trina” for $15 USD which would increase the success chance of an upgrade by ~20%. This may not sound like a good deal, but consider that upgrading from +6 to +7 had a ~25% success chance, so a trina brought that up to ~45% or almost double. For some players, the risk of having a very rare weapon or item burn in the upgrade process wasn’t worth the time it would take to farm it again, so they would purchase trinas (in my case mostly through a monthly subscription) to use when upgrading very rare items starting from +5 and up.

In KO, you could get equivalent buffs from either a player priest or from buff scrolls. Enemies could place a debuff on you that would cancel out a priest buff or scroll buff. But here’s was the catch: when you removed the debuff, any priest buffs would need to be re-applied, whereas if you had a buff scroll, once the debuff was removed you still had the buff effect. Simply put, buff scrolls were simpler and more reliable from a playability standpoint.

So when I played KO back in 2005 you didn’t have to pay to play the game, but I and others in my guild eventually signed up for the optional $15 USD monthly subscription because we felt it was worthwhile to do so. And that’s how the F2P model should work – you get hooked, you see the benefit of paying, you become a paying customer. Some of our guildees paid more than $50 USD per month – more than triple your typical P2P monthly subscription – to buy virtual goods such as trinas. One guildee, a business owner from Brazil, was paying $100+ USD per month.

KO’s game developer made some F2P changes after I quit playing in 2006 that I thought were poor ideas, such as login queues for players who didn’t pay. But I saw firsthand how the trina concept and buff concept successfully motivated players to pay real money for virtual goods. It was incredible to witness from a business perspective.

The Paradox of Allods Online Planned F2P System

Now that I’ve described a functional F2P example, let’s talk about the game mechanics in AO at endgame and the implications for the players. When you die at endgame you get a debuff, Fear of Death (FoD), for 51 minutes that lowers your stats by 25%, and the debuff can stack up to 4 times.

Currently you can remove the debuff by getting resurrected by another player. However in version 1.0.07.07 resurrection will not remove the debuff so your options are:

1. spend in-game coin, or
2. wait until the debuff wears off, or
3. use an Item shop consumable called Perfume, or
4. some combination of the above

Perfume costs $13.50 USD for a stack of 20, and they last 30 minutes each. Therefore if you die 20 times a month and decide to use Perfume to remove the debuff each time, you’ll be spending $13.50 USD per month, which is conspicuously close to the industry-standard monthly sub of $15 USD. The FoD / Perfume mechanic effectively turns AO from a F2P game into a P2P game because the game experience of not paying will be lousy. The game operator and developer are not going to pull the wool over anyone’s eyes about this.

The kicker is you get the FoD debuff if you die in PVE or PVP. This is more harsh than the item repair costs incurred when dying in PVE in WoW. The FoD mechanic has major implications in terms of growing the playerbase and the extent to which players will participate in activities such as PVP where death is part of the experience. I was hoping to see robust, active PVP in endgame for AO, but with the FoD mechanic, it’s not going to happen.

Who is to Blame for the Allods Online Situation?

Some players are claiming that the game operator gPotato is pulling a  “bait and switch.” Certainly, gPotato has culpability in terms of the initial outrageous Item Shop pricing, e.g. $20 USD for a backpack with 24 slots instead of the 18 you start with.

However, the situation may go much deeper than just the game operator. Check out the following comments from a Russian player regarding the game developer:

Guys if u r really do not understand what is going on, i will explain to you from Russian point of view. Firstly – original developer team stopped developing Allods Online at CBT1-2 at Russia, because Nival – company developer, merged with astrum and mail.ru, main game designer left this project because he had another point of view on this game before he could finish it, new director came, after that Allods progress stopped almost completely, mail.ru bought AstrumNival so at this point game was destroyed, because mail.ru is the most greedy russian game service platform.That explains why they cannot fix music and sounds easily, why it tooks so long of them to fix bugs, why animations are partly ruined and Kanian fem for example run through ground, and explains why there are bugs in game that were already fixed before, they just do not know the code well, and they are not capable of further Allods creation. Allods original developers and designer are working now on project that has Dota like gameplay, and that explains why you have a feeling of unfinished good game,because allods creation was stopped at Closed Russian Beta. But however they see the situation so they r trying to make the maximum profit out of game until it will be too late, because they r not capable of programming anything really new, because they have not developed this game, period. even russians not happy with shop, not even game not finished but i found myself not able to afford stuff

If that information is correct, the game changes in version 1.0.07.07 are being designed and implemented by people who were not part of the original development team. Yikes.

When a game has contuinity in the development team’s leadership and staff, it’s reasonable to expect the following positive outcomes:

• there is clarity on the game’s business model
• there is consistent alignment on the game design: the core game mechanics, the direction for content, and how to improve and evolve the game over time
• there is consistency in the quality of implementation because the development team has learned over time how to architect, design, develop, test, and scale the game, and they know the code base inside and out
• there is a consistent feeling of ownership by the people working on the game – it’s “my game” as opposed to “someone else’s game that I’m working on”
• there are strong relationships between the game developer and its customers (the game publishers and game operators) and they collaborate to create a compelling player experience that drives revenue

However, as noted in the comments above, there may have been significant turnover in the AO development team at both the leadership and staff level. It’s unclear to what extent there is a development team that is continuing to work on the game.

I truly hope gPotato and the game developer can sort the situation out in a way that makes sense from a business perspective and from a player perspective, because AO is an excellent game property.

Update @ 8pm PST, 22 February 2010:

There is a great thread by galethbg regarding the ownership structure and history of the companies involved in AO’s development. This at least gives me some hope that there may be some stability and continuity on the AO development team. Hopefully the game developer will heed the worldwide player feedback on the upcoming changes and adjust them in a more reasonable fashion.

In addition, gPotato is now solicting feedback about the Item Shop on their forums, which is a step in the right direction.

Update @ 1am PST, 23 February 2010:

gPotato has posted an article that communicates the development team is intact and that gPotato is evaluating the Item Shop prices based on the feedback thread listed in the previous update.

Update @ 3 March 2010:

gPotato has reduced the prices in the Item Shop to what I consider reasonable levels. Good news for fans of AO!

The majority of the subscribers I have on my YouTube channel subscribed because of my Warhammer Online (WAR) videos. People frequently ask if / when I will come back to WAR. The answer is never, because of reasons beyond WAR itself.

EA is shifting its focus in online gaming to the social gaming sector with its acquisition of Playfish in late 2009. Around the time of the acquisition, EA laid off 40% of the staff at Mythic Entertainment, the studio that created WAR. Those layoffs have obvious implications in terms of what Mythic can do with WAR moving forward. Fewer resources = less new game content and game improvements.

It’s a shame, because WAR has gradually improved as a game, and some players think that if it had launched in its current state, WAR would have been a success instead of a colossal failure. I shared that viewpoint when I played WAR’s excellent Patch 1.3b over the summer.

That being said, I don’t think that the EA/Mythic/Playfish case is an isolated incident that had its roots strictly in the failure of WAR as a game. Rather, it’s an indicator of the shift in the online gaming industry towards social gaming. Social gaming has been experiencing wildfire growth because of potent, synergistic drivers:

• the cost to launch , maintain, and evolve social games is (relatively) low
• social game developers leverage analytics to customize games very quickly based on what users are actually doing. It’s a very “Agile” approach to game development – instead of massive investment up-front, you start with something and evolve it based on user behavior and feedback
• social gaming has a huge and growing potential player base (thanks to Facebook), and the corresponding strong viral network effects
• social games have user-friendly (i.e. simple) game mechanics. Social games in the online gaming market is analogous to the Wii in the console market – anyone can play them, and that’s how they suck you in

Contrast that with MMORPGs, which have traditionally cost a lot of money (e.g. tens of  millions of US dollars) to develop and launch and have a (relatively) steep learning curve for players.

A guy I know, who was the CEO of the company that launched a best-selling console game, told me he thinks the console gaming sector is in jeopardy. Social gaming is where it’s at, from a business perspective. And I think that the MMORPG sector, as we currently think of it (WoW, Aion, Eve Online, etc), may be in trouble for the same reason, over the medium- to long-term.

I’m a fan of traditional MMORPGs, because they provide the kind of rich and complex environment that I find challenging – especially in terms of PVP. So I hope that the market for traditional MMORPGs continues to grow, to sustain the economic drivers which enable game development and evolution. If MMORPGs become a niche market over time, there will be fewer options for us to choose from.

It’s been fascinating to watch the increasing level of real-time visibility of MMORPG content outside of the game.

One of the first advances made by game developers in this regard was to provide player and guild profiles on the web. Most of the major MMO’s (e.g. WoW, WAR, etc) provide profiles for each character, where you can see things such as their current gear.

Aion includes this; it’s “table stakes” in my opinion to have parity with competitors. E.g. here is a screenshot of my Chanter’s profile on aionline.com.

There are many reasons why this kind of information is very helpful, e.g.

• to figure out when forum posters can credibly back up their claims in terms of progression or gear
• to see how other experienced and skilled players enchant/socket their gear and which gear pieces they go after (crafted vs PVE)
• to share your character’s progression with your friends
• to find out how strong players of the other faction are
• etc

However, Aion has gone further than just player and guild profiles. When you login to aiononline.com, you can see the status of your current Auction House (AH) items and how many of your friends and guild mates are online:

Aion limits a character to 10 items on sale on the AH. However, I can tell at any time which, if any, of my AH items have sold with a web browser. Even when I don’t have much time to login and play, this visibility has enabled me to keep my AH “stocked.” I’ll login simply to post new sale items when I know some items have sold.

We’re in the nascent stages of increased MMORPG access across “channels.” The market is evolving, and the question becomes, where is it evolving to?

Let’s consider social games. For many popular social games, you have a flexibility of playing the same game on Facebook, on a game site, and on your handheld (e.g. iPhone app) or on your PC. Social games create a strong “pull” for players by enabling them to experience the game regardless of their location; you can play via a web browser at home, at the office, while traveling, etc. On top of this, social game developers have learned how to create a sense of urgency that makes players feel the need to login and play. We see this phenomenon with “time management” games, such as Mafia Wars, where players have energy that is expended on missions and regenerates even when a player is “offline.” So players have a sense of urgency to login and spend energy after they are full, so that they can maximize the progression of their character. I feel that same sense of urgency with Aion when my AH items have sold – I want to log in, collect the sale proceeds, and put more items up for action.

So how far will cross-channel integration affect MMORPGs? That is, what will the experience be when we are not logged in to the game client? That’s the big question.

Several years ago, the question was which platforms (PC, console, or Mac) a game would be supported on. But the rise of social media and social gaming, coupled with the evolution of mobile devices with high-speed wireless Internet access, is causing structural shifts in the gaming industry. The question is no longer which platforms a player can play on (PC, Mac, console), but rather how does a customer experience the game, regardless of their location. The MMORPG market must innovate, as it did earlier this decade when MMORPGs created new social meaning (playing games with other people in a rich environment), to remain relevant and attractive to consumers.

My hope is that MMORPG game developers will be creative and open-minded in terms of how they approach cross-channel integration. There are the obvious concerns for MMORPG players. E.g. increased out-of-game access (e.g. being able to buy/sell on the AH) could be vulnerable to exploitation by “gold farming” companies. However, at least in the short term, there are mechanics that companies can implement, as NCSoft has done, to allow players to still feel connected to and see what is happening with their characters, even with they are not logged in to the game client.

This morning while reading legion (guild) chat, I was struck by the different experiences our players were having.

One of our two level 50 guildees was expressing how bored he was; he couldn’t find people to run instances with. I responded in guild chat that people would eventually catch up, give it 4-6 weeks.

If you haven’t played Aion, let me provide some brief context. Relative to mass-market MMORPGs in the past several years, Aion requires a lot of time to level to end-game. My estimate, based on talking to the 1st player in our guild to reach 50 (a Sorceror named Loreilai), is that leveling to max level (50) will take roughly 500-600 hours. That is multiples of the past 2 games I’ve played (LOTRO and WAR), where I was able to reach max level in under 200 hours. Some folks would debate the 500+ hr number, but check the server censuses. Very few people have made max level in the first 2 months.

I made a comment in legion chat that went something like this:

The players of Aion who are having the most enjoyable experience are those in the “middle of the pack” in terms of their level. They are the ones who can find many near-level opponents they can fight in PVP and plenty of groups for PVE, and while they get occasionally get ganked by the hardcore player of much higher level, overall it’s enjoyable.

Several other guildees agreed, and a picture popped into my head to describe it:

In terms of PVE, the experience of folks who leveled ahead of the curve should improve as the population in the 40-50 range fills out, which it inevitably will. At that point, there will be a high supply of players to run end-game instances, which is good for the player base.

But let’s stop for a moment and consider Aion PVP. Here are 2 areas of concern:

• there is no system for preventing ganks in PVEVP zones. Once you level to 20+, many of your quests will be in zones that the other side can invade via rifts, and there is no “filter” for preventing high-level opponents from coming and ganking your low-level ass. That’s life in the big city, Aion style
• there is no system for ensuring same or near-level PVP against the other faction. Other games have implemented systems for this. E.g. WoW has battlegrounds (and arenas), WAR has level tiering and scenarios (1-11, 8-21, 18-31, 28-40) and a buff to adjust stats for the players at the lower end of a given tier

So what happens, in 2010 and on, when there is a high population of players at max level? There will be a lot of players who deliberately spend time (for fun or out of boredom) invading the other faction’s lands to gank lower-level players who don’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of fighting them.

I’ve listened to players in-game and on Vent express frustration at being ganked and then camped by griefers. I have a reasonably thick skin, and from a practical standpoint, I’ll simply move on to a different zone or take a break. But the bottom line is it’s not an enjoyable experience on the receiving end, and getting killed is a time setback, which matters in Aion, given how extremely time-intensive the game is for leveling.

When I look forward and think about what this means for Aion, I think there is a big risk of the PVP system creating a “vicious cycle”:

Simply put, new players in 2010 and on will have a rougher experience than players now, and it should get increasingly worse if NCSoft doesn’t implement mechanism(s) to address PVP level differentials.

I’m not saying Aion will fail or that Aion sucks. After all, I choose to spend my valuable free time playing  (and occasionally writing about) it. But I don’t foresee Aion having a strong “pull” based on the PVP mechanics; I expect the opposite to be the case. Most players simply won’t have the patience or willingness to hope that end-game PVP is actually fun, when the road is very long and full of getting ganked along the way. The people who rave about Aion PVP are players already in the game, whereas new players months from now are going to have a very different experience.

There is an inane sentiment from some players, esp the hardcore or old-school ones, that people just have to gut it out, the “uphill both ways” mentality. But that doesn’t fly from a customer or consumer experience standpoint for most products and services.

I can give an example from one of my hobbies: cycling. There is a leather saddle manufacturer called Brooks. They’ve made classic, beautiful saddles for decades. But the kicker is that it took several hundreds hours to “break in” a Brooks saddle, at which point it is very comfortable. But these days, the saddles that sell well are the ones that are comfortable out of the gate, such as the Terry saddles that sold like wildfire to women back in the 1990s, and then to my surprise, to men over the past decade. The game has changed, and even Brooks had to adapt by releasing saddles with a perineal channel to stay relevant.

Will NCSoft respond, if there are long-term issues with the PVP system? We shall see!