« Sarge, I Can't Run Ten Miles: I Failed My Constitution Save | Main | The Skinnable World »

Mar 10, 2005

Comments

1.

How does the decision to forgo an activity one does not enjoy present an opportunity cost?

If the existence of trade increases the general production of game goods (which, in fact, it might -- see section 3.1.3.2), then I can see how a refusal to trade might make the player relatively poorer, since other players become relatively more powerful. Aside from this (presumably) small effect, I don’t see how -- in strictly economic terms -- such a decision could hurt the player.

Nathan Combs wrote:

> Does having players trade among themselves add some benefit to the broader game?

It encourages socializing -- or have I missed the point of your question?

2.

Jeremy>
"opportunity cost"

I meant it the other way around - e.g. as meant here

http://terranova.blogs.com/terra_nova/2005/02/social_security.html


Jeremy>
"trade increases production of goods...strictly economic terms..."

no disagreement here. however, does this imply fun? Is it the most efficient way to fun for the player base (ala 3%)

>
"encourages socializing"

many in-world markets are in-fact "streamlining out" the socialization opps - npc surrogates, eve-online. which leads to the next point - is this the best way to encourage socialization among players? then we're back to the "mercantile divide" and opportunity cost discussion.

3.


A few comments..

The vast majority of games directly support some form on in game market. Including EQ which your original blog stated as having only informal support. Such markets have developed inevitably from player demand. As long as the basic mechaanisms for trade exist there will be a market in the game.

Even in the pre-Luclin days of EQ there were strong, organized player markets. Players organized trade caravans on a regular basis when travel was difficult. Some of the oldest and most durable guild originated as a part of that behavior. When servers matured, and travel was a bit easier it settled primarily into a regular event typically around the East Commons tunnel.

Its been metioned that player trade encourages socalizing. I'd have to say that depends on the implementation. More modern MMOG markets tend to discourage socializing. IE: EQ2 and SWG where it is possible to execute trades with minimum interaction. Games with more minial support actually encourage socializing more.

There are certainly more relevant economic factors that make markets desireable to players. One factor that seems to be getting missed it that game items aren't just consumables. In fact only recently have games incorporated large amounts of cosumer goods. Equipment in a MMOG isn't a consumable, it is a means of production.

By not participating in the player market you are limiting the value of resources you produce, and you are preventing yourself from easily improving your means of production...

The difficulty of keeping a working economy once trade does develop is a seperate issue.

4.

Nathan Combs wrote:

> I meant it the other way around - e.g. as meant here
>
> http://terranova.blogs.com/terra_nova/2005/02/social_security.html

I’m afraid I’m a bit confused by your posts. Wikipedia’s notion of opportunity cost, which you alluded to in that post, is the one I’m using. Earlier, you wrote:

> At that time I wondered whether for the other 97% if in-
> game markets presented a set of opportunity costs that
> subtracted from their overall experience:
>
>> On the one hand in-game economics and markets can be a
>> fun and engaging subgame for some. Yet, they also may
>> be unsettling to others: if I don't participate, am I
>> losing out relative to my peers who do engage...

This seems to imply that forgoing trade represents an opportunity cost even for players who don’t benefit from trade (if such exist). That is inconsistent with my understanding of the term. Moreover, the garage sale example you offered in the other thread doesn’t quite follow, as a correct accounting of costs would include the time it takes to list your goods on eBay, et cetera.

>> "trade increases production of goods...strictly economic
>> terms..."
>
> no disagreement here. however, does this imply fun?

Careful here; I said if trade increases production, then certain effects might follow. And in fact I don’t think that aggregate game goods production correlates with ‘fun’, but is that relevant to the question you originally asked?

5.

A question that I think is the core of the issue (and could be Nathan's question) in economic terms is that does the acitivities of in-world markets have a multiplier effect on the fun quotient for non-market participants?

Thabor's conclusion on equipment appears to imply that in-markets does not have a multiplier effect as games focuses too much on equipment (means of production).

So perhaps to increase the multiplier effect, more consummables should be in the game. Potions, scrolls, decorative items, etc.

I learn from playing lots of empire-buidling games that increasing luxuries have the effect of increasing happy faces. Perhaps this is the direction we should take.

6.

...but (anecdotally) for some number of players, consumables decrease the fun level. Having to make the decision of whether or not to use some difficult-to-replace item now is (1) strategic, good, but (2) stressful, bad. The balance between the two appears to vary from player-to-player, but in the tabletop RPG community there's a number who self-report as not able to use consumables effectively because of the stress/secondguessing their own strategy, and I've seen similar behavior in MMOGs.

7.

Tom Hudson wrote:

> ...there's a number who self-report as not able to use consumables effectively because of the stress/secondguessing their own strategy...

I have this problem with single-player games, though I attribute it to bad design rather than lack of confidence. Specifically, bosses vary wildly in their strength, and the supply of potions, et cetera, is seldom predictable, so I hoard items so as not to get stuck later.

As for the ‘stress’ this might cause, how can it be bad to give players choices? I think that’s the very essence of ‘play’. Perhaps those players prefer ‘MMORP’ and are less fond of ‘G’?

8.

In-game markets are a huge aspect of MMOG's that differentiate them from single-player games. Markets mean that an individual can rely on others to find the "uberloot" and other rare content in the game. MMOG developers can make certain things incredibly rare, which wouldn't go over well in a single-player game.

As your statistic says, farming for money by performing PvE activities seems to be the preferred way to get game money which can be traded in the market for rare items/content.

So, I'm not sure what you're asking exactly. Are you implying that most players don't enjoy buying goods/content from other players in the "marketplace" (whatever that may be)? I just don't see that to be true. Only 3% may prefer to "play the market" just for fun, but I think everyone appreciates the rare goodies they can get in the marketplace. And getting amazing/rare/cool/attractive items is a big part of the fun in MMOG's, whether it's a drop in the environment, or a successful transaction in the marketplace.

9.


>So perhaps to increase the multiplier effect, more consummables should be in the game. Potions, scrolls, decorative items, etc.

I would lean more towards the non-functional items like furniture, housings, art, pets, special emotes/animations like dance training, acrobatics..
Anything that graphically or audibly distinguishs a player without impacting the game might be a candidate.

I'm not certain how much of a multiplier it will have before later stages of the game though. I think less time intensive things like furniture, or things that others players can benefit from like pets would be better.

As was pointed out in another topic, games costs are ultimately in real time that could be spent doing other things. Better equipement accelerates the grind, and lets you consumer content more quickly costing you less real time.

10.


So, I'm not sure what you're asking exactly. Are you implying that most players don't enjoy buying goods/content from other players in the "marketplace" (whatever that may be)?

no - they surely enjoy obtaining goods. my wonderment only applies about the "means" - do they enjoy "the market" part. or would they prefer something easier. to the extent worlds seem to be currently streamlining/automating how players interact with the "markets" - i would assume that this is a reasonable position ... unless there is another interpretaton.

11.

Nathan Combs wrote:

> to the extent worlds seem to be currently streamlining/
> automating how players interact with the "markets"...

You mentioned Eve Online as an example of this, but I don’t know much about that game. Can you offer some examples? Perhaps you’re thinking of systems like UO’s NPC vendor?

12.

Hi Nathan,

Just wanted to hop in here and add a few comments and maybe address a question or two that that you raised.

First, I think I should say that most likely, a highly consumer centric world like There probably caters much more to the casual player than most any other world these days. I would not be surprised if the 3% number is double or triple that in places like WoW or EQ2.

Second, in virtual worlds 3% may not be that small a number. Two quick examples:
A: Looking at the QuickStat page at WarCraftRealms.com (http://www.warcraftrealms.com/quickstats.php) it looks like the number of characters set-up to RP Horde is about 2.29% [48,456/2,118,977](3/12/9:30am). (note: it may be that RP players are less likely than PvP players to use the technology that uploads this type of data to WCR.)
B: While I'm sure there is a good data point that I should put here, my gut instinct is that the number of players that lead a guild with more than 20 members is also lower, if not much lower, than 3%.

Second, there really isn't an economic reason that says you can't do the majority of all trades through NPCs. I haven't been in CityofHeros for a while, but if I remember correctly, for the most part, everyone just sold enhancers to NPCs and there were very few things that NPCs didn't sell.

I guess I should make a note here. Even if an economy can be designed with most trades through NPCs, part of the fun of MMORPGs is that we have the opportunity to try to unlock some of the secrets of the human condition through accelerated simulations. And, not only are there a number of economic questions that humanity has yet to discover, I would go as far as saying that most people don't even have a good grasp of some of the most basic economic principles. MMORPGs give us a great place to highly simplify many things in a way that a 3rd or 4th grader can easily understand if we wanted to. To highlight how far we have to go in the realm of education, I had to chuckle when I saw that the MMO Economy Discussion at GDC was listed as an 'Intermediate' level class because participants were expected to understand the concept of 'supply and demand'.

Third, under the question of "Does having players trade among themselves add some benefit to the broader game?", there are more than a few. I bet if you asked players if they enjoyed 'grinding' less than 3% would say YES!!. But, if you asked them if they like to level, a fair majority would say "uuuuhh, yeah!" Luckily questing emerged as a way to increase the fun and decrease the pain of leveling. In the case of economies, while very few players may enjoy playing the time-shift arbitrage game, more than a few players like things like crafting or upgrading their armor, and Auctions adds a number of fun little meta-games that many players do seem to enjoy.

Personally, I think the main question going forward with MMO economies is what designs (similar to questing) decrease the pain and increase the fun. And who knows, maybe someday, economic concepts (like supply and demand) can be added to that basic set of knowledge that we expect all high school graduates to understand.

-bruce

13.


You mentioned Eve Online as an example of this, but I don’t know much about that game. Can you offer some examples? Perhaps you’re thinking of systems like UO’s NPC vendor?

At this location is faq discussion about trading strategies in eve. Specifically:


First step in becoming a trader is to fully explore and understand the market interface. Little things like the check box for show all items available in region, traders can uncheck too see whats now available. Setting the supply section of an item on the market to table view too see quantities and lcoations of items rather than the map. (And Much much more... to come)

Reselling The reseller is partly a rogue, rather than put in the time/effort of the trader or miner, the reseller invests capital in buy orders for a fraction of the value of the items on the marketplace, and then either re-processes, sells them on at a hihger price waiting for buyers, or moves the items to a different location in eve, where they are more sought after. E.G - Electronic warfare, ammo, weps from 1.0 areas into the combat regions near 0.0. Re-selling is a long term Investment, and if you plan to operate in a system for a period, it is a way to cheaply acquire the items you need. E.G rather than pay full market price for ammo, place a buy order for 50% and slowly your wallet automatically changes and your assets increase. To make large amounts of isk re-selling requires capital and as much knowledge of the market as a trader.. Re-sellers can also be found trading on escrow, where they snap up cheaply priced items such as weapons, implants. Re-price them, and stick them back on escrow at a profit. I originally started trading with Owayn by re-selling implants, and as i had no implants in my head, there was no risk as if one didnt sell, i could use it.

Escrow A means to sell rare items, ships, transfer items, and sell items that cant be sold on the market.

At this url is discussion about how to set your self up as merchant in EQ2.

In both cases you don't directly have to "meet" the person (though in EQ2 I think you get a price break if you do):


Players can choose to find you in your home and buy from you in person, to pay only the price you have set. If they would rather have ease of buying over low prices, they may also utilize the brokers and black market fences in either city to buy your wares at a higher price, but without having to seek you out.

As long as you stay in game, and in your house, you may keep your store open and other players may shop from your store. If you wish to share your home with friends and set up a little neighborhood shop you can do so by clicking on your door, and granting them Friend or Trustee access to your home in the window that pops up.

14.

bruce>

there really isn't an economic reason that says you can't do the majority of all trades through NPCs...

Personally, I think the main question going forward with MMO economies is what designs (similar to questing) decrease the pain and increase the fun.

A point which I raised earlier (though not directly enough) related to this was whether there was an intrinsic advantage to "trading" with other players over NPCs if you subtract out any socialization side-effects. Put it another way, if an NPC computed the clearing price (however it did it) of an item you wanted to buy/sell and bought/sold items from all players, would it ever make a difference?


What I was wondering about was whether for some players the visibility into the "market" (vs. some hidden voodoo approximation implemented by NPCs) was important -e.g. fairness?

15.

Well, ok, so maybe we should ask a few more questions.

When you say 'intrinsic advantage', or 'would it ever make a difference', or 'important'; these are some pretty hard qualities to quantify.

First, we might have to define, for whom? Is this for the player? For the programmer? For the game designer? For the producer? For the customer service department? For the industry?

Along these same lines, I think we also have to ask how are economics being used in the game? In the case of There.com, we use economics to help make the production of items as efficient as possible. In more traditional EQ-clones part of the fun is based on inefficient markets. If you can easily find the 27 parts you need to make a cloak of levitation, its gonna be really hard to keep that item rare.

Historically, I think there are a few reasons we don't see AI NPC based economies today. First, early attempts at this failed terribly. Like a giant communist experiment, when these systems crash, they crash hard. I think another reason is also along those lines, in that if we are trying to teach/simulate RL economics, westerners/Americans are more likely to try and teach/simulate capitalistic principles, than say socialistic or communistic, etc. The very thought of a huge AI driven marketplace would make most free marketers run screaming in terror. That said, I guess I should note that the industry seems to be ok, with AI driven production (ie loot rates), just not AI driven redistribution, which seems a bit ironic.

There is also a pretty pragmatic reason as well. My guess is that the AI that might be required would be fairly complex to even make a simple prototype system. It would also carry a fairly high risk that the system could be gamed by players. On the other hand, setting up an AuctionHouse like the one in WoW, most likely takes less time and is certainly lower risk.

I'm also not sure if it’s a question of fairness, whatever fair means in a world like EVE online or 'Anarchy' online. Again, more likely the issue is with the complexity of what a system of AI NPCs would require to build, and the effects such a system might have on the meta-game gameplay.

Games are made with plenty of compromise, and there is a cost/benefit calculation behind almost every feature in the game, call it the economics behind the economies of virtual worlds. While people like Ted are going around saying that the economies of these worlds can be compared to real life economies, its unfortunate how few economy designers there are, say compared to level designers or UI designers or even Quest designers. I mean, even Namibia has its share of economists and economic advisors.

Again, personally, I don’t think the issue is wither or not games use AI or player trades. I think the issue is more likely that designers aren’t putting the time and upfront thought into their economies that they are into the other systems in the game.

-bruce

16.

Given the lack of resources in designing the economic aspect of virtual game worlds, there is at least the basic cost/benefit analysis of adding an economic system into the game world.

Here are some categories:

1. No markets (economic gameplay is not a feature)

2. Markets as a necessary appendage to another core gameplay (P2P market interaction is not necessary, NPCs wil provide the function)

3. Markets as a secondary gameplay feature (P2P market is an extra feature that adds to the worldiness)

4. Markets as a core gameplay feature (playing the markets is an equally viable activity).

5. Markets as the primary gameplay (you don't play it, you lose out)

EVE Online seems to be pick #4 while other game worlds are designed differently. For example,
Randy has put forward an adult-proof design for kids that rely fully on a NPC clearinghouse for trades.

Thus, fairness and transparency doesn't appear to be a core concern for many. If they were, they would probably demand to know the exact loot/drop probability tables and full disclosure on the inner workings rather than enjoying the meta-game of discovery by observation. Knowing the odds in Las Vegas enhances gambling earnings but it sure reduces the fun quotent for many.

To look at this from another angle, we can look at the designs for providing regenerative consumables to avatars (the game design for food, drink, healing potions, etc.) Should we get NPC vendors to do the grunt work of selling these items or should we get players to trade among themselves? Are the NPC seling the items at a fair value and the process is tranparent?

This may matter if the markets are at #4 or #5, but for #3 or below I don't think it is a concern.

Frank

17.

Nathan Combs wrote:

> What I was wondering about was whether for some players
> the visibility into the "market" (vs. some hidden voodoo
> approximation implemented by NPCs) was important -e.g.
> fairness?

While NPC merchants could certainly be made smarter and more aggressive, I think it will be a long time before they’re clever enough to put most human arbitrageurs out of business. Assuming it did happen, however, the NPCs wouldn’t displace the market as such; they would at most displace the players who formerly ran it. Aside from the loss of social opportunities, I don’t think other players would see a difference.

bruce boston wrote:

> If you can easily find the 27 parts you need to make a
> cloak of levitation, its gonna be really hard to keep
> that item rare.

I don’t think this is quite true. Efficient markets may lower the cost of craft somewhat, but if components drop infrequently or are otherwise costly, the product will remain rare.

> While people like Ted are going around saying that the
> economies of these worlds can be compared to real life
> economies, its unfortunate how few economy designers
> there are...

To the extent that games manifest ‘economies’ (not very far, in my opinion), I agree that they should be regulated effectively. However, most players don’t seem to enjoy overtly economic play elements. For example, when I read that a cartel of UO players had cornered the market for reagents, I thought it was brilliant; most players, however, were apparently just pissed off. Perhaps things will change as players become more sophisticated, but I suspect this will remain a niche play style.

18.

"Assuming it did happen, however, the NPCs wouldn’t displace the market as such; they would at most displace the players who formerly ran it."

I think I would agree with that. Again, due to the fact that the system is already deciding loot drop rates in the first place, I see no reason why NPC AI couldn't better automate the re-distribution of those items if the game wanted to.

"the product will remain rare"

So maybe I should say “as rare”. I think that AI assisted vendors would have the tendency to increase the number of items in the world when compared with what we have today. At minimum, I would hope that the AI was at least smart enough to increase the overall productivity in the world.

For example, I think that the current state of imperfect information does have an effect on quantities. If a player is out hunting and they pick up a 'Breath of Wind', they may or may not know that it’s the rare component in making a Phantom Blade. This state of imperfect information increases the probability that it will be sold to a local vendor by a player quickly trying to make room in their inventory. With AI assisted NPCs, they would most certainly know better than to not re-distribute it for crafting, thus most likely increasing the number of Phantom Blades in the world.

"However, most players don’t seem to enjoy overtly economic play elements.....Perhaps things will change as players become more sophisticated, but I suspect this will remain a niche play style."

So I think there are two parts to this. First, what percentage of the players enjoys this type of play as its available today? Again, I think I would agree with you in that its fairly low, maybe between 3% and 7% at the beginning and it goes down from there depending on how high the reward is for those that know how to benefit from the current rules.

But the second half of the question is; does it have to be that way? Again, with leveling we have found that questing is a cool mechanism, and with PVP, I think that WoW is making some great headway here with some of the things they are doing.

Looking at other places in the industry, I think there is at least some evidence that players like economic games given the right set-up. 'Tycoon' games from RollerCoaster to Zoo to Lemonade have done fairly well. Even traditional games from Monopoly to Life to Risk all had a heavy economic element that people enjoy. In MMORPGs, I think the design is a bit trickier because it can turn into a bad game of Monopoly that last 6 years. But, as far as demand is concerned, certainly there is a fair bit of evidence that the mass-market has enjoyed these types of games in the past. And, after attending "Game Design Challenge: The Emily Dickinson License" at GDC http://www.wired.com/news/games/0,2101,66846,00.html, I am pretty much convinced that just about anything can be turned into a fun game given the right forethought.

-bruce

19.

bruce boston wrote:

> For example, I think that the current state of
> imperfect information does have an effect on
> quantities.

I totally agree with that, though I’ll add that knowledge of items and their value is one of the relatively few ways for a player to manifest skill (as opposed to mere diligence) in MMORPG play. I’m not sure that especially matters, however.

> But the second half of the question is; does it
> have to be that way? ...Looking at other places
> in the industry, I think there is at least some
> evidence that players like economic games given
> the right set-up.

That is an excellent point; there’s no saying what can or will be made with this design element. I remain somewhat doubtful, however. In my cynical opinion, many MMORPG players simply don’t want to be challenged, not in this or any other meaningful way. In fact, as I’ve argued elsewhere, this is the treadmill’s hidden function: to ration success without disqualifying the unskilled. Thus, economic play mechanics present a very difficult problem to designers (albeit one that manifests itself in other ways, such as PvP): to simultaneously satisfy both those who enjoy challenges, and those who do not.

20.


I think it would be interesting sometime to try an implement an AI market. I think I would approach it by trying to build a fluctuating number of AI "players" to participate via the in game market mechanisms.

You could have buyers, sellers, and actual traders.. Buyers would inject currency but remove items. Sellers would inject items, but remove currency. Real traders would basically be temporary sinks for existing items or currency..

21.
Jeremy Neal Kelly> Thus, economic play mechanics present a very difficult problem to designers (albeit one that manifests itself in other ways, such as PvP): to simultaneously satisfy both those who enjoy challenges, and those who do not.

Thabor> I think it would be interesting sometime to try an implement an AI market. I think I would approach it by trying to build a fluctuating number of AI "players" to participate via the in game market mechanisms.

One of the things that I'm wrestling with in my current twink/commodifier-resistant economic model is whether to try to introduce market balancers... either via AI players, or human beings acting as "shills" for the purposes of smoothing out some of the bumps that might appear.

I'm trying to meet the challenge aspect of the market via a robust anonymized marketplace for ingredients, so I'm reluctant to build the system out-of-the-gate with external market interference... I will, however, put the hooks in place to allow for corrections in the best interests of the game overall.

Players looking to dispose of ingredients which they have in abundance will have substantial flexibility in selling their items to others... either manually or automatically controlling their pricing and urgency parameters.

Players will be able to track a history of successful trade prices to get a "feel" for the current market conditions, but you'll never know at any given moment who provided the unit you just bought, and vice versa.

Players who enjoy playing with marketplaces will have an outlet for optimizing their results, and those who prefer less challenge can buy or sell quickly with a listing at "current market price" with easily adjustable parameters to protect themselves from too-severe swings (think "stop loss").

I've largely eliminated direct player-to-player trades of objects and currency, and instead put the focus on crafting/buffing as a service industry. In effect, all directly-usable items that drop are bind-on-pickup. You can sell them as vendor trash for game currency if you don't need them, or try your luck with gambling in a "recycling" model similar to WoW's disenchanting. Only crafting ingredients can be traded on the marketplace, and only for game currency.

By making most player-crafted items substantially superior to dropped items, I'm hoping to push things away from the "camp forever for rare item drop #472" model. Instead of a piece of shiny loot that can be traded, you're more likely to receive skill bonuses from a tough encounter that directly affect your character's abilities... and these are non-transferrable.

Other players can help make better player-appropriate equipment for you, assuming you've gathered or are willing to buy the right ingredients on the market, but your journey towards greater power is largely a function of your in-game accomplishments... rather than what simply buying some powerful object.

In order to reward crafting players for their services (and other players), I'm considering allowing players to trade subscription minutes with each other.

Of course, the other real kicker to the model is that you only lose subscription minutes when you are actually playing the game... time spent logged off doesn't count against you. More casual players will typically spend substantially less on the game than the hardcore players.

This should hopefully be a financial model that is more friendly to those who are typically reluctant to pay a standard monthly subscription fee for a game that they might have little time to play this month... as well as keeping players who might want to play multiple different games at the same time.

Of course, if you want to spend a large fraction of your life in the game without spending any money at all, you could always set yourself up as a major crafter, and dedicate a chunk of your time to helping others improve their equipment or providing buffs in exchange for some of their game minutes. =)

Guilds are likely to treat the service aspect of crafting as part-and-parcel of the whole socialized experience (we help each other hunt, and level, and craft)... while those who are more independent can seek out the minute-trading crafters for fast service.

Guilds will act as a natural brake to excessive price gouging by minute-traders, as they can't stop you from getting the same services from someone with a less mercenary outlook towards helping others.

Even if someone decides to commodify game minutes, there's little that they would be able to do with a large balance of minutes besides actually play the game. A large real-world bank balance doesn't translate directly to cheapening anyone else's accomplishments.

22.

bruce>

So I think there are two parts to this. First, what percentage of the players enjoys this type of play as its available today? Again, I think I would agree with you in that its fairly low, maybe between 3% and 7% ...

I think there is at least some evidence that players like economic games given the right set-up. 'Tycoon' games from RollerCoaster to Zoo to Lemonade have done fairly well. Even traditional games from Monopoly to Life to Risk all had a heavy economic element that people enjoy. In MMORPGs, I think the design is a bit trickier because it can turn into a bad game of Monopoly that last 6 years.

Contrary to how I framed the question initially - perhaps the question "what percentage of players like to engage in this type of play" should become "what percentage of time do players like to engage in this type of play?"

Somewhere in between the assumptions posed by these two questions perhaps lies the true contours of choice here.

23.
Nathan Combs> Contrary to how I framed the question initially - perhaps the question "what percentage of players like to engage in this type of play" should become "what percentage of time do players like to engage in this type of play?"

I think the second question is almost certainly the better discriminator when trying to design economic aspects of games... the tricky part (IMO) lies in the incorporation of enough of an interesting economic mini-game without making it so crucial that you alienate those who resent investing time in that mini-game.

24.

I think the problem with “playing” the economy has to do with both shortsightedness and the priorities of the developers.

Shortsightedness: Devs seem to think you cannot has a low-tech society with a dynamic economy that isn’t driven by the players alone.

Several space-based MMOs has partial supply and demand worked into their economic systems, in the sense that if you wanted to buy low and sell high in another far away region, the opportunity was there to earn some cash. Eve and Earth & Beyond come immediately to mind. Yes, it could be tedious, and the rewards weren’t that great, but for time invested you could usually earn more than from adventuring.

Then we come to fantasy-based MMOs, and there’s certainly no foreseeable shortage of those. Well, they don’t have advanced trading interfaces, transactions are typically limited to being in person, and auction houses and their like are designed to aggregate goods and congregate players. Also, most fantasy-based worlds do not have NPC shops/traders that reward PC “traders” by paying for goods brought from far away regions; every good has a set “trade-in” value.

In WoW, if I catch a fish that isn’t available except from the northern ocean, shouldn’t it be worth more to a landlocked area in the south? Nope, oddly enough, never having seen my type of fish (armor, herb, pelt, etc.) before, the NPC trader automatically knows its exact value in the more plentiful northern lands.

This leaves me, a player, with no motivation to use NPC shops unless I’m dumping loot garbage, but hey, that gets me to the auction house and all the other players, right? Hmm…I don’t know about the rest of you, but overcrowded areas are laggy in any game I play, and if I’m using a shopping/auction interface that pretty much takes up my whole screen, it rather limits the extent of my social discourse. Wait, what was the point of the developers underpinning player economy on these places again?

Priorities: If it is not the most broken thing, don’t fix it.

[Sample dev meeting at major MMO]
Team Lead: So, Dev Beta, Dev Alpha just reported on fixing the major fighting bugs where the players were dying by their own swords, what do you got?

Dev Beta: Great news! I’ve ignored the 10,000 current major and medium bugs and developed a broad, realistic, and dynamic economy based upon late-feudal markets of Europe.

Team Lead: Wow! You might want to consider turning that into a Master’s thesis, y’know, particularly because you don’t work here anymore.
[End Sample]

Don’t get me wrong, I like playing the market in any capacity (it’s basically free money for my characters), but most games barely account for economies, let alone accommodate players who are interested in them as an aspect of the game. I’ll take a good ping over a good GDP any day.

The comments to this entry are closed.