Author’s Note: This is third and final part of a three part series in a look
at the rise of F2P in the West. I will take a hard look at the path to a F2P
MMO market and what it means for gamers and developers alike.
Part
III: Trust
What
is the purpose of a video game company? Is it to make money, develop games, or
is it something greater? I believe that video game companies are Trusts between
those that make games and those that play games. Saying that video game
companies are just a business or just a company that makes games ignores the
very real bond between gamer and developer. I remember going to camp and having
to do the ‘trust fall’. Anyone who has ever gone on a work retreat probably
knows what I’m talking about. A small group of people go up a platform and fall
backwards to each be caught by the group. Each person has their hands tied in
front of them before attempting the fall. If there is trust, then everything
works smoothly, but if one is hesitant or afraid there is the wild swinging of
arms and elbows; it usually means more is injured then just pride.
Zynga
is the maker of casual games like Farmville, Zynga Poker, and Mafia Wars. The
games are predicated on the fact that they can be played for free. When the gamer wishes to
play more or to do things more quickly they need to buy micro-transactions;
which is to say it is a subscription-less model. The strength of the model is
that a game or company can have a far larger amount of eyes that a subscription-based model on its product.
People will naturally stick around for a product they believe they are getting
free.
Two
things became quickly apparent in the aftermath of Zynga’s IPO. One, the
company had been grossly overvalued by themselves and various stock analysts and
Two, the various management heads were all unloading stock options and
abandoning ship. Listening to various opinions, Zynga’s problems were many.
From a business that was more entertainment driven than tech company, which is
much more populist driven. Zynga also had a problem with horrendous working
conditions and tyrannical management. Worst of all, profits made business
decisions. Games are entertainment and as such a certain consideration has to
be made for whether or not the customer enjoys the experience. While it might
pay short term dividends to fleece your customer, in the long term its bad
business. Most importantly Zynga’s rise and subsequent fall was a picture
perfect portrayal of the fickleness of both the consumer and the developer.
One
thing gamers, writers, and developers need to have a better grasp on is the
economics of MMO’s. These games have become enormously expensive beasts and the
business model of spending large sums of money to try to do everything is
untenable. Game costs are already spiraling out of control. Not only can games
not continue to attempt to do everything, it’s a disastrous business model. I
remember reading how Funcom was aghast at how few games they sold of The Secret
World. Their in-house estimates or hopes had been between 500K to a million
units sold. I remember reading that and being befuddled that Funcom had thought
that a niche title like The Secret World would have sold so well.
Game
Informer had an interview [G.I. 235, p.43] with the founders of Riot Games,
makers of League of Legends. They were asked about the free-to-play business
model and they said “I think free-to-play
is one of several business models. The whole appeal of free-to-play to us is
there shouldn’t be one-sized fits all model. Free-to-play isn’t the answer for
every game. It really comes down to the content itself and finding a model that
provides players with the most choice and the most value. In some cases that
will be free-to-play as we know it, and in some cases that will be novel ideas
that we haven’t come up with yet.”
Gamers
and Developers have alike have lamented the days of yesteryears without
considering the cause of their demise. According to an article on the
Escapist, “Leaving couldn't have been an easy decision. BioWare has a
stellar reputation in the industry both for the games it makes and as a place
to work. Not to mention they were fans before they got hired. ‘It was my dream
job’ says Tobyn Manthorpe, who joined the company to work as an artist on
Baldur's Gate. ‘I was psyched’ agrees Dan Fedor. A technical artist, he gave up
a job with a prominent Manhattan media company, an office overlooking Times
Square and half his salary to go to BioWare. The job turned out to be
everything they'd hoped. Fedor remembers: ‘I was elated for at least a year or
two. It didn't matter what I was doing or who I was doing it for.’ Manthorpe
found himself shut in a room with three other guys inventing the game that
would become Neverwinter Nights. Both were quick to tell me that they would be
happy to work there again. Yet they made the decision to leave. They each have
their reasons, but there are some common themes. Chief among them is the
problem of growth. Veterans like these remember a different game industry, one
in which a team of less than fifty could make a high-profile game. They lived
through BioWare's growing pains, as it became a multinational corporation and
was ultimately acquired by EA. As the company got bigger, so did the budgets
and, importantly, the teams. These developers lament the lost esprit de corps
that followed. Fedor describes the good times: ‘I loved working with certain
people, and it didn't matter what we were doing. We could be in the deepest
shit, trudging through Vietnam, and the fact that I had people who had my
back-that could carry me pretty far.’ Remembering his time on Mass Effect 3
multiplayer (itself a small team), he adds, ‘The core group of us was under
fire constantly and it was nice to be able to turn away from the computer and chuckle
to each other and say, You know what, this is crazy but we're going back in
there.’” More than a decade later
and yet the story of Mass Effect 3’s multiplayer is eerily similar to the story
of the birth of Rare’s Goldeneye multiplayer. The things we love, whether they are
graphics, music, story, or any other facet of a game, demonstrate the need for larger
developer teams and thus a dilution of the final product. We cherish the old
ways without realizing that it’s the very same upgrades and innovations we
enjoy now that make it impossible for games to be made as they used to be made.
In
the end to look at video games as tech, or a piece of software is to miss the
point entirely. In many ways video games and the companies that develop them
are akin to Hollywood actors, directors, and screen writers. While a history of
successful films are often the measuring stick in regards to salaries, the
highest paid actors are rarely the best looking or most talented; they are the
ones who have best formed a bond of trust with the audience. It is not Brad
Pitt, Bruckheimer, or the Scotts’ that bring audiences to the seats, rather it
is the perception that they only put their names on excellent products; they
have established a bond of trust that hasn’t been broken. Rue the day though,
when an audience feels that it has been lied to, and watch the storm that
follows.
F2P
is not the savior of MMO gaming as some would have it be but it brings the
possibility of choice for both gamers and developers. It’s no longer necessary
for every game to have a subscription level where the game is turning a profit.
Some games will benefit from having both or just F2P while other games won’t
survive on either model. It’s important for gamers and developers to look at
the business side with open eyes. Developers can’t shun F2P simply because it
looks like the death of their game. Quite frankly it might be the exact
opposite and gamers will not benefit from every game being F2P, there is simply
not enough pie to go around for everyone. MMO’s failing is bad for gamers as
much as it is for the developers whose company made them. Consider it as if it
were a country. The more people who are making a lot of money, the less tax
everyone pays. In regards to MMO’s, the healthier the MMO world is, the more
people are likely to take chances, to make the unusual, and the more the money
guys are likely to fund the dark horse.
I
have tried to be even-handed about the rewards and pitfalls with the F2P model,
both from a business standpoint and a gamer standpoint. While we can predict
trends from historical models, life rarely fits into square holes; only time
will tell if the rise of F2P in the West is a boon to the struggling MMO industry
or ultimately the beginning of the end.
No comments:
Post a Comment