The Lawbringer: What WoW can learn from other microtransaction models, part 2

Two weeks ago, The Lawbringer took a look at the EVE Online currency model, what happens when value is dictated by the players, and the successes and failures that Blizzard can learn from when moving forward the revenue model for WoW or any other secret MMOs in the pipe. This week, part 2 discusses the batch currency model, where players purchase one set of currency and earn another. While WoW is not likely to move to this type of currency in the near future, Diablo 3 has already embraced it with the real-money transaction auction house, which eschews a purchased currency for, well, currency.
The prime example in recent gaming history of the successful batch currency model is Riot Game's wonderful League of Legends. I've been a Defense of the Ancients fan since the early days of the mod, and the fact that such a simple concept has evolved to a genre in and of itself is remarkable. Combined with the fact that there are 15 million accounts, millions playing all over the world, and a ridiculously successful microtransaction model for customization and convenience items, League of Legends has got the world captivated. But why is World of Warcraft not something that could benefit from selling its own currency, or, rather, why would Blizzard never let it happen? Let's find out.
Microtransactions are about revenue
When a developer decides to implement a microtransaction system within its game, the logic is not "How can we make more money?" but rather, "How can we make money?" For most games that use a microtransaction model or purchasable currency, the system is set up to be the game's monetization. This isn't about getting rich quick or sticking it to the players -- this is about making money from the product that you designed to make money. There are notable exceptions to the rule where a game was not developed with a free-to-play microtransaction-funded model in mind and eventually went on to some more success (Lord of the Rings Online, notably), but for the most part, designing the game from the ground up makes implementation of a transaction-based monetization scheme work better.
I used the term batch currency before, but I didn't define it. That seems like a good idea. Batch currency microtransaction models have been around for a good, long time in terms of spending real money to buy "fake" money to spend on in-game stores. Xbox Live Microsoft points are a batch currency model, for instance. You use real money to buy predetermined packages of points and then spend those points on the store.
But why sell currency in batches like this? Well, the stated gamer reason is that the amount you purchase is never the amount you spend, meaning you will always have a little extra in your wallet to tempt you into purchasing more currency. The real reason is credit card charges, and each time you make a purchase, credit card companies take a cut. The bigger and fewer the transactions you make, the less money flows outward from the business. Having a little extra currency in your in-game wallet is a happy coincidence that no one will argue with, however.
World of Warcraft's monetary system
WoW was designed and implemented with a subscription model in place, built from the ground up in the style of the great and all-powerful EverQuest, with plans for content updates, expansions, and the rest at the regular clip that defined a generation of MMOs. World of Warcraft pays for itself already with subscriptions. While I believe more players want more options and are willing to spend more money in game in WoW, there is no need for a robust pet store, ever-growing mount store, or even convenience or glamor items, because World of Warcraft already has its revenue model in place. There is a remarkably conservative outlook when it comes to the WoW revenue model -- a subscription-based MMO with minimal microtransactions and a reliance on one currency, gold, to purchase not only power but convenience. We call this "old school."
Convenience from the ground up
The League of Legends model isn't actually the League of Legends model but many approaches to revenue stream cobbled together from different, successful facets of the gaming industry and given life through an excellent game. Here's how it works. Two currencies exist within League of Legends, Influence points and Riot points. Influence points are gained by playing the game, winning, or losing. You play, and you get points. You can spend Influence points on purchasing new characters to play as, including the new champion releases. You also spend Influence points on in-game power through an intricate system of character progression called Runes. Only Influence earned in game can be spent on making your character stronger.
Riot points are bought through the store in a batch currency manner, with varying bundles becoming more cost-effective as you climb the price ladder. Riot points allow you to purchase new champions and their cosmetic skins. Skins make your champion look different from others on the battlefield and show an odd sense of dedication to your champions of choice -- you like this character so much that you put down a couple of bucks to make him look unique. You can also spend Riot points, and only Riot points, on convenience items that increase the amount of Influence points gained per game or experience boosts -- all temporary, of course, for convenience's sake. As Gabe in Penny Arcade shows us, this can be a little addictive.
The conservative nature of the subscription model
So the League of Legends model is, in a nutshell, a ground-up, dedicated microtransaction system that has two currencies that occupy two separate roles. Riot points are about convenience, time, and customization, whereas Influence points are about playtime and power. League of Legends was built during a time when the games industry went through a somewhat violent change in the acceptable ways people spent money on games past the point of purchase. Free-to-play entered ascendancy in the western markets after a successful run in the east. People didn't like spending money after the fact and after the point of sale, but what happens when there is no point of sale?
The subscription model WoW favors is the old way of thinking. There are great limitations to the subscription model that we as players (and not businessmen) never realized until free-to-play came along. It's not about getting value out of your $60 purchase anymore, but getting unlimited revenue from a free title that hooks you and doesn't let go. The conservative nature of the World of Warcraft subscription model is going the way of the ancestors -- walking face-first into a giant rock.
Think about it this way: WoW has a fixed amount of money that it can earn per month based on the number of people paying to play the game. That's it. The game's revenue generation comes from subscription numbers with a few added services like server transfers, race changes, and the like. Barring those, the number is fixed. There are 10 digital products in the Blizzard store to purchase as additions to your WoW account. Ten. That's it. Games with batch currency models have potentially hundreds. I am not criticizing the model, because it clearly works at the level and scale WoW is operating, but that might be the reason it's working -- built-in level and scale.
The impossible numbers
When you have a game without a hard cap in revenue model, because everything is extra by design, the amount of money being spent on the game can range from 0 to everything. All the money. Making the product compelling enough to get people to spend on it, and spend more than the average monthly subscription cost, is not necessarily a hard sell for many people. I know people who spend well over WoW's subscription cost per month on League of Legends and get the same time investment and entertainment factor, with new content updates in the form of champions and soon-to-be game modes, must like WoW's own content update model. The key is that there is no ceiling when people are in control of the amount of money they want to spend.
Blizzard hasn't given players an outlet for all that extra money they want to spend on WoW but can't. Isn't that why people purchase gold, at the end of the day? Gold in WoW is everything, from convenience to power, time, and energy. Other games with batch currency models separate out the time-consuming currency from the convenience currency, the power currency from the aesthetic currency. There is a divide. World of Warcraft does not have that divide, so all of the money that otherwise would have gone into the game via some other channels for convenience's sake enters through the gray market that provides that convenience as well as account security issues and customer service problems.
So what can WoW learn?
MMOs are defined in the video game industry by their fairness. Players in subscription MMOs have the ability to be the best or the worst, because it is fair, based on time commitment and minimal outside interference with the game world. This is true, especially in the days of subscription MMOs when prestige was about the armor you wore and the time you spent and less about your guild's rank on the server and achievements earned. Everyone should read one of the best articles on MMO fairness by Simon Ludgate over on Gamasutra, The F-Words of MMORPGS. Simon, email me; I want to talk to you forever.
The article's main thesis is that maybe, just maybe, the amount of fairness we attribute to time spent playing versus "cheating" and unfair outside influence is less than we really think. It comes down in my mind to the fact that players don't want to do certain types of content that they otherwise have to do remain competitive. It sucks, but you do it, because that's the game. League of Legends lets me purchase a day's worth of added experience and Influence points, making that day important to me. I get to spend a little to make the most out of my one big day of play.
So what can Blizzard learn from the new convenience architecture? Move away from the conservative notion that MMOs have this inherent fairness associated with the amount of time that you spend on the game and somehow equates to progress. We all grew up, got jobs, had kids, and everything in between (well, except me), and time has become a rare commodity for players of a genre where time is still the essence of progress. All you have to do is get us to play once a day during any given month, and you've got our 15 bucks. And on that one day, players want to get as much as they can accomplished.
Filed under: Analysis / Opinion, The Lawbringer







Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Vitos Aug 12th 2011 4:10PM
Great article, but I feel like you wrote it just so that you can talk about LoL some more.
Not that I'm complaining. I love LoL.
Mathew McCurley Aug 12th 2011 5:01PM
I do like talking about LoL, but I figured it was a good reference to deal with, just like the last installment was an excuse to talk about EVE Online ;)
Lucidique Aug 12th 2011 5:30PM
Well, League of Legends and EVE Online are talked so much about because the articles center around those two games.
The articles are about microtransactions in games. The writer describes a bad and a good example of that and rounds it all up with his own opinion on it. What else should you really do in such an article?
Oakraven Aug 12th 2011 7:04PM
It might be a good idea if you never ever bring up EVE onlines currency system again, because otherwise people will be bringing up things like, oh, I dont know
THIS
http://massively.joystiq.com/2011/08/12/biggest-eve-online-scam-ever-recorded-nets-over-a-trillion-isk/
Amaxe Aug 12th 2011 8:39PM
You like LoL? LOL!
isn't it funny how internet abbreviations can make communications totally unclear? ;-)
james2342man Aug 12th 2011 9:19PM
don't we all like talking about LoL! excellent article. I've been using http://lolskill.com to track my own progress of improvement in the game, and I try to do research on my opponents on this too!
Vitos Aug 12th 2011 9:51PM
@Amaxe. Well the "Expansion" for LoL is League of Legends: Domion.
aka LoL :D
Good Job internet. You made a fun game happy!
perderedeus Aug 12th 2011 4:13PM
Were WoW to adopt a F2P microtransaction model, I cringe to think of the monetized offerings they'll cook up. Some things are natural... character slots on a server, the ability to play certain races, mounts, pets. I also think that dungeon packs would be a good option, and expansions are a given.
Then we come to the elephant in the room... paying for in-game power. Something I might be OK with would be heirloom items for your alts, as they cease to be powerful when you reach max level. But buying tier pieces? Weapons? Or purchasing JP/VP/Gold, which effectively translates to buying gear.
Also, there's a chance for even more premium services to creep in. Some can be one-time fees that flag your account as have the option to... say, reforge items. Some could be ongoing mini-subscriptions, like $3 a month for the remote AH/Guild app. These are a little worrying, as too many account options can start to segregate the community into the haves and have-nots. Dungeon packs or unlockable classes would do that already.
Oakraven Aug 12th 2011 4:42PM
Ok first things second
you can easily argue that we already have the microtransaction modle in play.
we pay a bundle price in expansions for what in other games you end up paying more for individual "packs" from the FTP games as oposed to paying for each new zone individualy
those "expansion packs" also give us limmited access to additional content after we buy them.
Oakraven Aug 12th 2011 4:44PM
EvE online by comparison does not charge for its "expansions"
Dan Aug 12th 2011 4:50PM
As someone who is disabled and thus has to live on a limited budget, I actually prefer WoW's "old-fashioned" model because it's a very cost effective source of entertainment. While LoL's model may work well for someone with plenty of disposable income and little time, sometimes there are situations (like mine) where you have plenty of time, but money is tight. Sometimes, both time and money are limited (this happens a lot when you're working minimum wage and/or going through college), in which case you have to make tough choices about one or the other.
In this case, I prefer WoW's model because I know that Penny Arcade comic won't become reality for me. It's something that's easy to be tempted by, but one that I daresay most people can't afford these days. Not all people who log lots of time into subscription MMOs are lazy "parent's basement dwellers", nor is every casual player with a family and resposibilities a clueless noob - there's a whole spectrum in between those two extremes.
Bottom line: sometimes, subscription MMOs like WoW aren't about power or time; they're just the most cost effective form of entertainment available.
Sergel Aug 12th 2011 4:52PM
I wouldn't mind someone doing a sort of inbetween model. The thing that annoys me about F2P's are some of the things you can only get in cash shops. For example, I'm playing Dragon Nest right now, and for a skill reset you have to pay $20. So if you want to PvP one day, you have to pay the $20 for a reset and allocate points to PvP skills, but when you need to go back to PvE dungeons and stuff, you pay another $20 for another reset. It's a recent thing that has turned off lots of ppl.
You have to pay money for certain gear. They are costumes, but they have stats, percentage increases actually. It's a bit disheartening knowing someone will have better stats than you since they paid more.
I think Aion offers a decent middle ground. You pay a monthly fee, but you can buy tons of things with your own money. Not just a race or faction change, but new mounts and carrier pets, skins for weapons and armor, new clothing designs (for show, no stats), new hair and certain dyes, and new dances. You can use the cash shop, and many have, but you don't have to at all for your actual gaming. The only thing i would change is lower the $15 a month fee to something like $10.
Shade Aug 12th 2011 4:57PM
There are very few things Blizzard could turn into microtransactions that they haven't used already. Stretching my mind to come up with as many possibilities as I can...
1) Equipment skins, both unique and existing, on per-slot and item set levels. Bundles could be accomplished in many ways - every set in a patch, all pvp/tier sets in an expansion, etc. Legendary weapons should be excluded from this list.
2) Multiple guild memberships (only one guild can be active at a time for purposes of reputation, grouping, and achievements)
3) More bank space, provided they don't somehow design around everyone having it
4) Alternate voices
5) Loot buffs for gold, nodes, and JP/Honor points, ideally on a per-drop basis. Buffs kick in AFTER guild bonuses to avoid GMs coercing their membership for additional automatic guild bank money
6) Profession points up to the start of the current expansion... maybe... this one is right on the line, but there are far worse things
Seana Aug 12th 2011 5:07PM
Why has Blizzard been refusing to allow gold sellers to do business as part of the ToS for years? Are they really going to sink to that level now?
DarkWalker Aug 12th 2011 5:25PM
I sincerely think WoW would do better by making the game itself more like a F2P one: charge for the subscription, but don't charge for the base game or the expansions.
Instead of charging for expansions, Blizzard could make a promotional pack, in both digital and physical versions, with a few goodies. for example, release a digital pack of a mount and two pets related to the expansion for the usual price of a WoW expansion, and a commemorative box in place of the Collector's Edition that featured the digital commemorative pack, a couple exclusive CE digital goodies, and the usual assortment of CE physical goodies. If Blizzard wants some extra good will, make such packs also for WotLK and Cataclysm, and award them for players that actually purchased those expansions before granting every subscriber access to the whole game.
I believe, in the end, WoW would make more money this way. Plenty of players would purchase the packs (and I think anyone who would purchase the CE would also get the commemorative box). Plus, WoW would have a much lower barrier of entry (just make an unlimited trial account, the way players can do now, and if you want to progress just start paying the subscription).
Todd Aug 12th 2011 5:32PM
I've been spending extra money on games anyway. I bought a special mount for Warcraft, and one or two pets over the years when they've gone towards charity efforts. I've spent money for Mafia Wars on FB, and on DLC for Dragon Wars. Yeah, I know I'm moron for that, but the point is, we all have those emotional moments when maybe there is some special in-game item we want, and when a dialog pops up and says, "Hey, you can grind for another month to get the special item, or for $3, you can have it today!", that $3 starts to sound like an awfully darn good deal. And so you do it.
Does that mean I think Warcraft should allow it? I dunno. It does break what they've been so adamant about for so long. That being said, I'm a casual player. I see young guys who have no family/job/life who can raid every night and afford to get Tier-XX gear, and that's just never going to be me. I want that gear though. And there is no way for solo/non-guild/casual players to get it. So it would be really nice if I had a chance at getting geared up too without having to ruin my marriage in the process. Just sayin.
Some people may view that as not fair, and I get their point. But going back to example above, you can make a choice. Want it for free? Raid until it drops, and bask in the glory of the effort you made. Can't make the cut as an uber-raider? Then open your wallet. Both require sacrifice, just of a different kind.
Blagaah Aug 13th 2011 2:42AM
All for cosmetic pay items. Not at all a fan of pay for power. I make in game money supplying that power to my fellow players, for one. Two, I raid casually. I don't want my pug spots evaporating because I don't have the finances to gear myself out on day one. In game power for pay IS unfair. Power should be accessible for any who spend in game time to get it. If you aren't in content that drops that power, you don't actually /need/ it.
Ata Aug 13th 2011 3:17PM
You mention basking in the effort...part of the freakout over 'hardcore vs casual' and why the hardcore set was upset that the 'casuals' could get visually identical gear for badges was that they were no longer a special snowflake. Say a game allows you to pay for something that would otherwise need a hefty time investment. You stand a guy who ground for however long on that gear next to someone who buys it, and they look the same. To an outside viewer, they look the same, and if you can pay for that gear with real money, generally there's going to be an assumption that anyone with that gear paid for it, which for some people will get a negative reaction. No matter how much the guy who put the time in for the gear says he did so, without a way to show that he did, no one's going to believe that he didn't just spend money on it, and that's frustrating, and not fair.
That could be fixed with a visual difference between the two, different color or completely different appearance between the bought set and the earned set, but that's not a time commitment that a lot of games are willing to give. Any game where you -can- buy armor or the like in a F2P market, you're still not going to be able to get that high level very best stuff for money, it comes only from the time investment, and games need to keep that distinction and the two different. They need to do something to encourage people to spend time and play, along with offering the incentive for paying them money, and that highest prestige gear is probably the best way...get people to pay on the way up, to make it quick to get to that last level, but then you need to give -them- something and give them some time in game.
Nospoon Aug 12th 2011 6:47PM
My curiosity goes to the average income per WoW player vs. those of the F2P variety. My wife and I are on a tight income and $30/month for entertainment is nice. To buy xpacs, we have to start saving a couple of months ahead of time.
My understanding is that this is a common issue for adult WoW players: being able to have inexpensive entertainment and still have a more level playing field.
Phos Aug 12th 2011 8:18PM
I cannot speak for LoL, but I hated the F2P model of LoTRO. It is like TV with commercials. The game is constantly bugging you to spend more money in its store. That and with no bar to admission the place was full of idiots. I am gonna sound like an old man, but I'd love it if we could get a 21 and older only MMO. Now get off my lawn ;)