Standard import from our friends in the Far East. But while some may abhor the microtransaction-based business model of so many of those games, it does allow for the game itself to be both free to play and free to get. Buying stuff is contingent upon enjoying the game, so what's the harm in merely checking it out?

I won't say this is a harbringer of other microtrans games, mostly because the fact they're already coming.

Basically, a player sued an MMO company because their account was banned for long enough that their virtual goods depreciated in real world value.

Here's something for you MMORPG players out there. This month, an online gamer won a lawsuit worth thousands of dollars against Chinese game operator Shanda. The lawsuit revolved around devalued virtual game equipment and a damaged reputation.

Here's what happened: According to the report, a player of the MMORPG Legend of MIR II earlier this year logged into the game simultaneously from two accounts on the same IP address in order to transfer equipment from his account and another player's.

This prompted the owner of the second account to complain to Shanda, saying that his account had been looted by the first guy. Shanda then proceeded to suspend the account of the the guy accused of virtual theft.

It didn't end there (if it did then we wouldn't have a story at all). The player whose account had been suspended sued Shanda in Hengyang County, and according to the report the lawsuit included "requiring Shanda to unblock his account, and pay compensation of RMB 45,000 (US$ 5,625) for the depreciation of his game equipment during the suspension period, the damage to his character's reputation in the game, and his travel expenses."

The court evaluated the player's equipment through 5173.com and found his claim to have merit. He was awarded compensation of over RMB 30,000 (US$3,750). This decision was handed down on November 15. Shanda has made no comments on the case, and the company has four days left to make an appeal.

The details don't matter to me much really. Like, why would the player who had the second character complain they were looted when it was supposedly the recipient of nice new goods.

But what I do find interesting is that this 5173.com site (which I can't find an English version of) has such clout a judicial body would reference it to track the real world value of a virtual good. And then to actually require the company pay that player back for it.

There's lots of questions and potential ramifications here, but the biggie for me is this:

If an external company can ascribe real world value to a good, and the government validates that, then the control the developer has over that good is reduced. What happens to game balance then? What if an uber sword was deemed too uber and was nerfed? Suppose that sword was already sold to another player? Would that player be able to sue the company for diminishing the value of their purchase because they decided to better balance the game?

What does this do for mudflation? Can that even happen anymore? Or will a good need to stay the same relative value throughout the life of the game?

I am really hoping this is an isolated exception to the general rule, because otherwise there's big trouble ahead.

Quote from the newsletter:

Nielsen Media Research has unveiled plans to launch GamePlay Metrics, an all electronic video game rating service.  The service will establish new metrics for the buying and selling of advertising in video games, while also tracking the activities of gamers across other media platforms, such as TV and the web.  Slated to begin releasing video game ratings results in mid-2007, the new data will support the video game industry's development of an advertising business model to help offset the growing development costs of game titles for new next-generation consoles.  Nielsen says the data will also provide advertisers, agencies, and marketers as well as hardware manufacturers and game developers with demographic information, while also offering information about how video game play impacts the use of various other electronic media, such as what gamers are watching on TV when they aren't gaming, all of which will support advertisers ability to better negotiate ad deals and target digital gamers with both in game and around game advertising.  GamePlay Metrics will be the first offering from the newly created Nielsen Wireless and Interactive Services division.

Ingame advertising started a long time ago. With this though, I feel like it has finally arrived, at least in the mainstream Business 101 sense.

Reference:

• Ingame Advertising and Microsoft- Microsoft buying Massive Entertainment
• Ingame Advertising and the Future of MMOs- Theme and Business needs
• Ingame Advertising turns 5- Project Entropia
• Ingame Advertising turns 4- Auto Assault
• Ingame Advertising turns 3- Anarchy Online
• Ingame Advertising turns 2- Planetside
• Ingame Advertising- Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory, and Mall Tycoon

And that got me thinking about designing for the past, or at least, designing an old idea during an age of change.

These games take years to produce, refine, tweak and launch. And then they generally have years more to continue producing, refining, tweaking and expanding. There is no clear dilineation between generations, beyond what is used in advertising. There is also, as yet, no metric by which people measure when a game should close. The entire genre itself (depending on where you start) is only slightly older than the more recognizable names in it. Within the span of time that covers MMORPGs, some games have been around "forever".

So we're in an age of both new and old, where old ideas are rehashed such that they aren't even considered old anymore.

Some designers take a look at the contemporary space, identify the successes and look to refine the problems. Yet in doing so, they are automatically designing for the past. Their vision will not be realized for at least a year (if it's a small-scope game) or three (if it's not). What has happened throughout that development process though? Who has come in from left field to radically alter the measures of success or introduce new "must have" features? How have player sensibilities changed, either due to the players themselves changing or by a massive influx of new ones with new ideas?

Development is no easy task. In some cases, the process is so complex it can effectively take people out of the genre, almost altogether, the old "we don't have time to play anymore" problem. In a way, they can enter a form of temporal stasis. Their focus on their project prevents the constant exploration of an ever-changing space.

To offset this, they rely on their fans and early testers. Unfortunately, both groups are generally fairly narrow in their own perspectives, depending on the sort of game being made. These groups come from the genre as it is. They love what is there and are seeking merely a slightly tweaked version of it. Hopefully that group is big enough to get the market share one needs. Often times it is not though, something discovered only much later, after a number of binding decisions have already been made.

Trendspotting is an art and a science. It requires constant diligence, either by the designer or by the right group of people inputing. It's basic research at a time when it seems some companies still think these games are labors of love, garage-brewed on a shoe-string budget until a venture capitalist or publisher can be convinced otherwise.

We are well beyond the point where just being an MMORPG is an automatic ticket to some success though. Gamers make their choices these days well before they pay for the game. It has long been my contention that open betas are folly, for they allow everyone, from gamers to reporters, to make their assessment of a game before they've paid a dime into it. And as more games continue to come, more are preordained successes or failures earlier in the proto-stages of their lives.

The keys to success continue to change.

• It's not just IP, but how well one understands both it and what makes the fans like it.
• It's not just about launching content complete, but whether that content is any good throughout the game.
• It's not just about players being able to customized their character or spaces (or WoW and GW would have long ago tanked), but whether that personalization is part of a broader game mechanic that is compelling to many.
• And, it's not about how many players you can attract, but whether you attract a sufficient quantity of the right ones for your game.

There is no bullet-point list of answers, just an ever-changing list of questions. They need to continually be asked lest one be left behind. This is more than just knowing your audience. It's knowing who they will be at launch and beyond.

• E3 Business and Media Summit
• July 11-13
• A daily luncheon conference session with top executives and/or analysts and a Serious Games showcase
• They're considering an Independent Games Showcase, which to me sounds very much like Independent Games Festival Student Competition from GDC.
• The software showcase (the reason most people went to E3) will be located in the Barker Hangar, right across the street from the Santa Monica Airport. According to Gamasutra: "The venue will allow participating companies to showcase their games in standardized, turnkey displays areas ranging from 100 square feet to 400 square feet. "

Here's a quote about the event.

The newly restructured three-day event will, as expected, be invitation-only, and will offer the opportunity for both ESA members and non-members to stage major press events, and to have intimate meetings in hotel suites and meeting rooms with media, retailers, developer partners, and other unspecified audiences. ESA expects that event booking will be launched within the next 30 days.

Basically, the event is being split to separate business and industry functions from entertainment functions. I can't fault the logic, and I am also happy they're maintaining the software showcase. Barker Hangar is very onvenient to the airport, and changes the travel patterns of a lot of attendees. Should be interesting to see if anyone complains about the impact on the local economy.

It also is odd to put this in July. I wonder if that is when they'll always have it, or if it is just because they couldn't get anything sooner for 2007. The May E3 was perfect, between the GDC of March and AGC of August. But it was only perfect if you attended all three. Moving E3Expo to July may compel some companies and people to decide between Santa Monica and Austin next year. I'm going to both, particularly if E3 continues to charge a premium for the conference track that was free at AGC. Those sessions were more valuable to me than any number of the long list of derivative game demos.

Ultimately, this is shaping up to be the more intimate event they set out to create. Should be an interesting summer.

What was the worlds first graphical MMORPG?

The problem, of course, is what constitutes "first".

Who's Said What?

According to the Korea Times, Kingdom of the Winds was the first "graphical" MMORPG, launched in 1996.

According to Wikipedia's MMORPG section, there's a couple of firsts:

• Islands of Kesmai was the first "commercial" MMORPG, launched in 1984. 
• Neverwinter Nights was the first "graphical" MMORPG, launched in 1991.
• Meridien 59 was the first "modern" MMORPG, also launched in 1996.

This presentation by Raph Koster talks to the very breadth of factors to converge into the modern MMO, and while he lists Air Warrior (an MMO) as 1995, he mentions about Ultima Online and Lineage 1: "With these two, the modern MMORPG is born" (his timeline should also be required reading).

GameSpy agrees with Wikipedia on M59.

And then there's the question of the origin of the term "massively multiplayer" itself. GameSpy notes:

Meridian 59 also marks the introduction of the term "massively multiplayer." In 1996, as Hawkins tried to explain his game to the press, he used terms like "massively multiplayer" and "3D persistent world" quite liberally.

Rich Vogel, currently vice president of development at Sony Online Entertainment, was working at 3DO during that time. He confirms that these terms originated with Meridian 59. "The term 'massively' was first used at 3DO. Actually, 'massively multiplayer Internet game' was Meridian 59's revelation. We coined that phrase."

Koster, who worked at Origin Systems, remembers things differently.

"The massively multiplayer term was coined by Electronic Arts marketing. At that point, Ultima Online was announced. I remember the meeting in which they told us they were going to call it 'massively multiplayer' and we were like, 'Okay, whatever.'" (Looking back, Koster admits that it is possible that 3DO coined the phrase and that Electronic Arts marketing borrowed it.)

Where does it Begin?

Charting the history is almost impossible without taking into account the following:

1. The technology of playing games on a computational system. That goes back to ENIAC
2. The technology of bringing live people together into the same virtual space to play together or competitively. The first real example of that seems to be Space Wars from MIT. In 1962.
3. MUDs themselves, which have no clear beginning in concept either, though MUD, developing by Richard Bartle and Roy Trubshaw is cited as the first one.
4. The emergent preference for playing games in 3D can be charted to Doom, in 1997.
5. The dawn of modern formalized fantasy, which some credit to JR Tolkien, and The Hobbit. 1934.

So it seems like a lot of different people can claim the "first" MMORPG, if they stretch the definition a bit.

What do you think?

In this conversation with Dellaster though, I feel like it's high time we ask the fundamental questions:

What is the apple?

And, is there one by which all games can be measured?

Short answer: No.

Dellaster's latest comment got me thinking along these lines:

Raph's preferred metric, average weekly uniques, would be an improvement. But that wouldn't necessarily mean that those uniques have ever contributed to the bottom line ($$). If the companies could somehow be kept honest, a count of how many accounts have transfered money to the game operator in the past week/month would be more meaningful and would allow comparing subscription games with those that use some form of RMT. Also, it would be nice to see how much money was spent per account for that time period. We'd be comparing apples and apples that way.

Even a few years ago, games started entering the genre (or were finally recognized as being part of the genre) that did not have the flat monthly fee as their primary or even sole source of income. Whether it was the ability to buy pre-rolled characters from EA for UO, or it was using a premium service like changing your character's name in EQ (or the premium server itself), companies have for a while broaden their potential revenue sources.

This has only expanded. Soon games that solely exist on flat monthly fees alone will be the dinosaurs. Already we're seeing many different ways to structure and measure an MMOG company:

• Company A (CCP, Mythic, etc) might consider Average Weekly Uniques important because that helps them assess how much it costs them to continue running the online world populated only by people who pay a flat monthly fee to play it. To them, the higher the uniques, the more burden to their servers and systems, the less money to them (maybe).
• Company B (Wizet, GPotato, etc) might consider Per Player Revenue important because their business model relies on players using realworld money to buy ingame abilities as their sole source of income. Average Weekly Uniques matters to them as it would Company A, but is not something tied to direct revenue.
• Company C (SOE, Linden Labs, etc.) would take both into account plus look at the breadth of their offering of premium services for a measure of their total experience offering, something with a breadth that far exceeds Company A and B as it includes flat monthly fees, real item sales, extra community based premium services, and so on.
• Company D (Postopia, Millsburry, etc) may only be looking to advertising revenue as their main or sole source of income.
• Company E (MGA Entertainment/Miuchiz) may be funding their online world through the realworld sales of hardware at retail, potentially someday looking to activate a secondary stream of revenue.

To me, the "apple" is as different for each company as there are games. This very short list highlights the four main sources of income:

1. Flat monthly (tiered or one-size-fits-all)
2. Microtransactions
3. A hybrid of both
4. Advergaming
5. Hardware sales.

There's more. And there's more companies coming from left field bringing their own unique vision and business needs

WoW, to me, capped the Age of Flat Monthly Fees. The expectations for future games funded on this model are beyond the reach of probably 80% of those who are interested in this genre. But that certainly does not close the door on new games coming. It just means their relevance, both experientially and financially, must be different. When someone has "won", either someone else has to find their weakness and be better, or they have to change the rules and set new win conditions.

Or maybe, like so many recent entries, they just ignore the rules entirely and hit a different player altogether.

In the future, I expect to see any new game immediately categorized into a bucket populated by games of its ilk. To say "MMOG" won't nearly be enough". How the genre gets bracketed remains to be seen. But ultimately, it will need to be so that those who fund these things understand, truly, what they're paying for and what they're going to get.

It's not just about apples to apples anymore. It's about apples to apples, oranges to oranges, peaches to peaches and so on. 

—————————— 

Ref:

• The Numbers Game 

Fortunately, The Economist is with-it as well.

Some interesting data-points are mentioned within.

• There are 747,263 residents as of late September
• This is growing by about 20% every month
• There are about 7,000 profitable businesses in the game, with the top 10 entrepreneurs making about $200,000 in profit every year.
• About 25,000 lease property of some amount (at $20 per acre), which generates about $1mil a month for Linden Labs
• A possible Democratic candidate for President in 2008 gave an interview in the virtual world (with 62 people attending, heh)
• Roughly 9,000 people are logged in at any given time.

Wait a sec… 9,000? Out  of almost 750k?!

I'm not sure what's more telling: that a game with so many residents barely collects just $1mil a month, that only 3% of them are paying any money into the game at all or that so relatively few of them are online at any given time.

It makes me wonder: has the concurrency roughly been around that number for all of this time with only the number of residents going up? Do they include in that 747k all residents, including those who pay nothing but still have an active account? 

To me, SL has always been the game most people talk about but don't actually play. Web 2.0, a new form of browsing, the next Matrix, whatever, it's still a fairly niche experience with a very steep learning curve. As "big" as the game has gotten, it still is incredibly hard to pick up for a neophyte, not to mention all of those people who haven't ever been around content creation tools. I'm sure Mark Warner (that Democratic candidate/hopeful) had a whole staff of folks not only customizing his avatar, but programming how it'd move).

<>That this makes for a great market/commerce opportunity for real SL residents has long been proven. But I'm forced to wonder if their market is a bunch of temporary hey-this-is-cool seekers who dive in, make some choices, buy some stuff from other players, realize the Herculean task ahead of them to actually learn this stuff, and head off for games that deliver to them content on a silver platter. 

Unlike the old days, when AO, DAoC, SB, AC2 and so on were all going to dethrone the then-dominate Everquest, there's just too many games out now, splintering the playerbase into discrete sub-groups.

It's like other features of bygone days: the magic has been replaced by sheer quantity. And it's not just lots of people playing WoW.

Like there no longer being one community site to rule them all, there is no longer a single game everyone is at, nor just one game to which people look forward. We're finally out of the shell where anyone saying "MMO" meant everyone else knew exactly what they're talking about. Heck, even the relatively light list at MMOGcharts shows the sort of diversity that MMOGs have become over the last five years. And because the majority of games that could be called "massively multiplayer" don't collect a monthly fee, they don't appear on that chart. Yet, they add to the very depth and breadth of the whole.

<>This is because there's so many different types of games to like, played by lots of people. How much does the dedicated Eve Online player care about the Burning Crusade expansion in WoW? Probably no more than the fan of the latter caring about Eve's Kali expansion. 

So there's not one big "next MMO" to which everyone looks.

<>There's a whole bunch of them. <>

For me, as much as I like to keep up with the Maple Story/Virtual Laguna Beach/Kart Racer side of things, I'm still looking for the deeply immersive, where the game is the focus, not a business model wrapped around some sort of  community in which the game is a foregone conclusion (and iterative of everything I'd already been paying a monthly fee for). So I look most forward to Tabula Rasa, Conan and Pirates of the Burning Sea.

I have some other thoughts.

Yea, supplies may be up. Yea, Blizzard banning 50,000 accounts is pittance against the millions they have. But, demand is still down. I think there's three more reasons for this:

1. WoW is a virgin territory for new farmers, but the amount of buyers has not increased at the same pace as the number of farmers. Maybe that's because the game is easy enough people don't want to cheat. Maybe it's because so many players are new to this genre they don't even yet know how much time-sinky stuff they really want to put up with. Or maybe:
2. The game rules don't compel RMTing because the best stuff most sought can't be bought just with gold (either requires Honor Points or being on a Raid to loot it)
3. Blizzards rather contrarian view to the practice is pervading the business end of the industry. How much can IGE actually grow if the biggest portion of the space in which they operate (not the genre all over, but the diku-inspired Black Market end) adamantly opposes them? WoW is the Wal*mart of the genre. If you're a supplier of something Wal*mart would carry, and Wal*mart decides not to carry it, you're in trouble. They're not the only game in town, but they make and break companies thataren't as diversified. IGE might be in a number of games, but WoW's market is clearly the largest in this subset of the genre. Not tapping into them means not being able to grow as a company beyond the size they are. And a company not growing is a company generally seen as being in trouble.

What do you think?