Many MMOGs use in-game player markets to engage the mercantile instincts of players, and as a means of re-allocating resources. Some games support in-game markets fairly informally, such as Everquest, where all that is provided is a text chat system and a user interface and transaction model for trading goods/currency subject to the inspection and approval of both parties. Other games that feature markets more prominently, such as EVE-Online, provide more abstract tools for managing in-game auctions and ability to obtain a range of historical market data.
Why do games support, in varying degrees, market activities? A narrow view is that they provide a sub-game that players enjoy playing on the side. A more liberal view is that they provide a sub-game that players enjoy AND that somehow complements play across the other game aspects. In other words there are synergies between it and the larger game. So, for example, players can hawk goods and trade for new rare armor in EverQuest without having to "go find the spawn" themselves: thus the markets arguably serve as a means of broadening the benefit and experience (of use of the new armor) amongst all players.
These two roles are not necessarily incompatible. Consider a "two-tiered" MMOG design (short activities for casual players embedded in a larger game requiring more time) where the market can be played on either level. For example, Eve-Online supports a range of "trader" opportunities - sized by the trade network and basket traded.
The question then to ask is this: why do in-game economies for most MMOGs appear to be so terribly designed? Why do most MMOGs have markets incapable of functioning long-term without considerable external intervention? Most appear as rickety contraptions that lead to in-game instabilities from hyper-inflation and deflation. Worse still, most attempts by MMOGs to address the shortcomings seem aimed to manage the symptoms: they use item "drains", price-fixing, and market segmentation to manage the effects. But fundamentally the system is very often broken and the players know it.
A (too) simple answer might be that "MMOGs can live without 'em" - players do play MMOGs with broken markets in increasing numbers and so maybe a well-functioning MMOG economy only contributes marginally to the player experience. Said in another way: "an MMOG typically does not strive to be a market simulator."
On the other hand, perhaps there are real impacts which hobble MMOGs going forard - gee, they could do so much better, if they worked? One might claim three impacts resulting from in-game market malfunctions:
1.) A less interesting sub-game (market) for the player
2.) A less useful sub-game (market) to the game as a whole.
3.) It encumbers the game developers with additional work.
(1.) - Is hard to quantify and depends on the role of the market in the game as a whole. However, it doesn't seem unreasobable to believe that a malfunctioning sub-game is likely to impact the overall virtual world illusion.
(2.) - For many MMOGs it appears that the markets serve as a useful "lubricant" for exchanging goods among players in-game so they can broaden their experiences. But why are players largely responsible for implementing trades amongst themselves? Why not just rely upon the Artificial Intelligence (e.g. NPCs) to act as brokers, always? Does having players trade among themselves add some benefit to the broader game?
(3.) - Speaks to the already considerable effort that engage MMOG development teams when it comes to tweaking and re-balancing games (tuning item "drains" etc.) in response to perturbing new content (patches, GM events) or just drift over time. The alternative is to have a system that can "right itself" using mechanisms that are transparent to the player.
So. Why are virtual economies hard to "get right" for most MMOGs? And how important is it, really?
Recent Comments