Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by timwiseman 5210 days ago
As you say Zynga proves it can work for some games.

But I can also understand the resistance to it. I only just started playing my first MMORPG (SW:TOR), and as a player I think it would bother me if they openly sold advancement to the people that would be in the PVP matches with me. I know a certain amount in the background is unavoidable, but that is fair easier to tolerate than having the company sanction much less be involved in it.

So, if the amount of money they would gain from the purchasers exceeds the amount they would lose from people with my opinions dropping the game, then from a business perspective they should do it, but it comes at a cost. Of course the middle ground is to do it on some servers and consider outside purchases cheating on other servers, but even that might turn off some potential players that see it as distasteful.

1 comments

Actually its not Zynga - I think the original was a Korean MMORPG which set the tone for other AAA MMOs.

The f2p model was tested with a lot of other games, both in China and Korea. I think gunz online was one of them.

Anyhoo - the major American brands resisted because of the cultural idea behind an MMO of the time - as in a world, which you subscribed to be in, and act within.

Being able to pay money to advance faster than other people broke the golden rule of immersion the original founders/artists had in mind.

Dont forget, this is now a bygone age of gaming - where people created games as an extension of their imagination and a hope to enact cool things in character.

Today those drives are still there, but completely leashed to the need to ensure profitability.

Its led to more attempts and games, but you now don't have things like sprawling empty wastelands in the barrens of WoW. Every square inch has been maximized to ensure that it has no dead spaces, or environments which let people advance at anything beyond the average rate decided by the designers.

Most designers for MMOs will avoid selling advancement enhancing goods - it destroys the game in the long run.

The model they use is one where if you aren't paying, you are the content. They need to make sure it is egalitarian at a gameplay level.

Beyond that, its free for monetization.