On September 10, continuing a trend away from the subscription model, the Tolkien MMOG LOTRO opened the doors of Middle Earth to anyone. I hadn't dropped in to check until tonight; I couldn't sleep so I thought I might kill some orcs for awhile. I was surprised to find, at this hour (3am US EST), a queue on my server. The game normally had 8 servers, now it has 15. There were more people than usual questing at mid-level, and quite a few young hobbits running around the Shire. I don't know about the end-game - as with most MMOGs, its more of a sport than a fantasy RPG at that level, so I don't have characters up there.
In other words, it seems that Turbine's guess that F2P would greatly increase interest was accurate.
The economics of this involve network effects and entry costs. If your product provides exponentially more value when more people use it, you really want to take a loss on the first users. Those early users are the source of value of potential new users, and having them in your game means that more outsiders will join.
There's also an aspect of low entry cost here - why indeed should there be any barrier at all between the new user and the experience? The prior test drive mechanism required people to get the software at the store, sign up to pay, and then quit within a month if they were unhappy. The new method lets people simply download the client for free and click 'Play.' So long as you can eventually get revenue from these more casual folks - through simple in-game points systems and such - this can work.
The question is, will you get enough revenue? By opening the door, will you get enough new people that the nickle-and-dime revenue strategy makes up for the loss of good, solid, almost-guaranteed subscriptions?
The fact is, even though F2P started among casual games, it is the main model of new launches these days. It will be interesting to see whether LOTRO's move further extends this trend to the intense-game space, or conversely provides a counter-example.
So far, it looks like a winner.
I assume you know that EQ2 opened up a free to play server earlier in the month. Traffic is great and questing is heavy in all new zones. Multiple instances of the new zones were up for most of the first few weeks with New Halas having 15+ instances for much of the time.
Posted by: thoreau | Sep 16, 2010 at 12:12
Thanks for your update works. I was really waiting for your update as I like your writing style very much. I hope you will continue the updating for this website.
Baby Seat.
Posted by: Baby Seat | Sep 17, 2010 at 00:55
In the olde days, the pay-to-play MUDs were better designed, better implemented and more fun than the the free-to-play ones, which were famously "free, and worthy every penny". However, the free-to-play ones ate their lunch. Too many people will take free over something twice as good that's not free.
Today, the trend is to combine free with pay-to-play in the same virtual world. The gameplay loses an edge, because you know that other people are buying success, but "hey, free is free!" wins out.
The model relies for its success on the willingness of a few players to subsidise the remainder. In the long term, therefore, the aim has to be to widen participation - get players to accept microtransactions as part and parcel of the game, so it becomes the norm.
The downside, though, is that the virtual world itself isn't as good. In the short term, yes, fine, you can have a lot of fun, but in the long term it's vacuous. You don't ever get to BE someone.
It's sad, so sad...
Richard
Posted by: Richard Bartle | Sep 17, 2010 at 04:01
Richard, I'm lost hope that the current MMOGs ever allow someone to BE someone. Quest hubs, for example, are like bus stations - everyone is running through, curing the horrible plague over and over. In the end game, its just a gear competition.
When I really want that feeling of being a hero, I play single-player RPGs or Pathfinder. The online multiplayer industry has completely lost that part of the experience.
When I play MMOGs now, I play in the mentality of a lowly scout, sneaking around, minding my own business, watching the world go by. I quest only in order to see the next zone and its particular slice of humanity. I have no aspiration to be important or heroic.
It may be impossible for MMOGs to provide the hero experience. The "Massively" part creates a huge problem. In younger days, I identified this as the Paradox of Memorials: In the 13th century, having a gravestone was a big deal. In the 18th century, it was still a big deal. By the 20th century, there are so many gravestones that cemeteries look like crowded cities. In their quest to be memorialized, people have made their memorials meaningless.
It is not hard to imagine how one person can be a hero. But how can EVERY person be a hero? Don't scoff - this question is deeply connected to the question of how every person can feel significant, which i itself connected to the question of how every person can fully partake in the dignity of being human and not a mere animal.
How every person can be a hero:
1. Lots of empty worlds populated by AI. Everyone a hero in her own set of lands, to her own set of AI-people.
or
2.Faith in a higher power who knows that you are a true hero and an important person, even if you fear that you are be insignificant. "Not a hair of your head remains uncounted..."
Posted by: Edward Castronova | Sep 17, 2010 at 12:26
Ed said, "When I play MMOGs now, I play in the mentality of a lowly scout, sneaking around, minding my own business, watching the world go by."
It's really interesting that you say that Ed. Currently I'm playing EQ2X (the free server)as a scout and I'm playing in 'RPG mode.'
What I mean by RPG mode is I have configured my interface by:
1. Disabling all world chat, /ooc chat, /auction chat, etc.
2. I have turned off having guild names displayed.
3. I have configured the display of names so that NPCs and players have the same color.
4. I have block all types of invites. No guild invites, group invites, etc.
5. I have a few alts that do crafting for my toon. I buy nothing and sell nothing via the broker.
The result of this is I am treating (and experiencing) EQ2 in much that same way that I would Oblivion or any other RPG. I am able to stay immersed in the game world. And I don't have to see and read that some group is trying to kill a named NPC for the 10th day in a row. I mean, how many times must General Fyst die before that orc stays dead?
I am starting to think that EQ2, when properly configured, is a very strong RPG.
Posted by: thoreau | Sep 17, 2010 at 21:57
Ted>But how can EVERY person be a hero?
By completing their hero's journey.
Unfortunately, when the sense of achievement is gone, so is the hero's journey. You have to work at it, rather than following a path to it.
Richard
Posted by: Richard Bartle | Sep 18, 2010 at 05:51
>> I mean, how many times must General Fyst die before that orc stays dead?
DFC for me is nostalgia and I would point to it as influential design, before they nerfed it. It did have a tendency to lag people out, though. *I* thought it was fun running away in a circle and aggroing every single laggy x2 orc in the courtyard, after falling off that wall. And originally the quest had a totally buzzkill bug where the first person to click through the NPC dialog prohibited everyone else from dinging, causing alot of "I'm taking my ball and going home now" politics for raids... All in all, however, it was alot of fun getting that shiny shield (or dagger, etc). Years later, of course. The title (Destroyer of Orcs) represents many many attempts to kill Fyst, which we ultimately did, two or three times. ;)
Do you suppose we will see a world with mobs that level up and name themselves, can loot players but are subject to permadeath? Might not be much fun but would be interesting. I can't see how a mob would choose the name Emperor Fyst.
Posted by: robusticus, Destroyer of Orcs | Sep 20, 2010 at 12:58
robusticus>Do you suppose we will see a world with mobs that level up and name themselves, can loot players but are subject to permadeath?
Apart from the naming themselves thing, the mobiles in MUD2 do this.
Richard
Posted by: Richard Bartle | Sep 21, 2010 at 03:29
Do they form boss/miniboss/troop hierarchies and build citadels to prevent zerging? Where it feels scripted like EQ2's Zek.
Plus you need it now ISO FB with a cash shoppe. ;)
Posted by: robusticus | Sep 21, 2010 at 10:03
I think we need to ask the question: What is a hero (in today's world)? And how does the heroic journey translate into meaningful goals or motivations?
I'm an educator currently exploring the idea of using the structures and features of MMOS as emergent situated learning models. The question of the hero journey (raised above) and Bartle's player types is particularly fascinating to me in relation to motivation and learning styles. In fact, I'm likely going to write a post about how Bartle's player types might be applied to classroom learner/learning styles. Having worked with at risk youth (some of them court ordered to be in my class), I've seen less of an orientation to mastery learning or achievement BUT the same students can excel in videogames. I had two wow players. One of whom had been an accomplished pvp arena champion (but gave up the game because it ate his life). Another, casual gamer, had gone quite far in WoW but failed to connect with classroom learning. I believe these students led a heroes journey in game but didn't experience the same feeling of heroism in relation to skooly success measures (i.e., grades versus boss drops). While there is effort in obtaining a grade (which is a signifier to others of hard work - as Castronova says), the prize itself isn't meaningful - and usually the work required to get it takes place in a space of sensory deprivation (the typical high school classroom).
Similarly, many of the adult gamers I've played with did not finish high school and lack the kinds of material and social signifiers that the real world recognises as success. And yet, day after day, they put 14 hours into in game tasks that fulfill those higher order needs that don't appear possible in RL.
I recently obtained the Abracadavre staff as an ICC drop with my guild and this was meaningful to me. It represented my in game and guild success. For me, the most heroic thing about getting it was the social feedback and meaning within my group of peers. It's one thing to get an epic staff. Quite another for that to be a result of collaboration with others who are there to witness and grats you. That feels heroic.
Posted by: Melanie | Sep 21, 2010 at 11:54
I think we need to ask the question: What is a hero (in today's world)? And how does the heroic journey translate into meaningful goals or motivations?
I'm an educator currently exploring the idea of using the structures and features of MMOS as emergent situated learning models. The question of the hero journey (raised above) and Bartle's player types is particularly fascinating to me in relation to motivation and learning styles. In fact, I'm likely going to write a post about how Bartle's player types might be applied to classroom learner/learning styles. Having worked with at risk youth (some of them court ordered to be in my class), I've seen less of an orientation to mastery learning or achievement BUT the same students can excel in videogames. I had two wow players. One of whom had been an accomplished pvp arena champion (but gave up the game because it ate his life). Another, casual gamer, had gone quite far in WoW but failed to connect with classroom learning. I believe these students led a heroes journey in game but didn't experience the same feeling of heroism in relation to skooly success measures (i.e., grades versus boss drops). While there is effort in obtaining a grade (which is a signifier to others of hard work - as Castronova says), the prize itself isn't meaningful - and usually the work required to get it takes place in a space of sensory deprivation (the typical high school classroom).
Similarly, many of the adult gamers I've played with did not finish high school and lack the kinds of material and social signifiers that the real world recognises as success. And yet, day after day, they put 14 hours into in game tasks that fulfill those higher order needs that don't appear possible in RL.
I recently obtained the Abracadavre staff as an ICC drop with my guild and this was meaningful to me. It represented my in game and guild success. For me, the most heroic thing about getting it was the social feedback and meaning within my group of peers. It's one thing to get an epic staff. Quite another for that to be a result of collaboration with others who are there to witness and grats you. That feels heroic.
Posted by: Melanie | Sep 21, 2010 at 11:54
I Feel a little timid and under qualified for commenting on this blog, but here goes.
When Richard and Ed talk about 'being' somebody, I wonder if you guys are talking strictly about role playing? The emphasis on the 'hero' and quests seem to suggest this. In the modest research I conducted for an undergrad dissertation on WoW, it seemed clear to me that you could be someone in the player community. A particular example was of an alliance mage who concealed himself in Stormwind Keep during a horde raid on the city. At the critical moment he revealed himself, sheeped the tank, and subsequently allowed for the raid to wipe on the king.
It was my experience that stories about a few player's epic deeds (often not related to in-game quantifiable achievements), played a crucial role in the formation of the realm history/mythology. Of course, not every player can be elevated to this level of status. If the real issue in the argument is about everyone feeling like a hero, is this actually realistic in a MMOG, where being a hero is not so much a feeling that a game can impart, but rather the status a community places upon you.
I am not sure how relevant this is to the conversation, but I hope I have made a meaningful contribution.
Posted by: Dean | Sep 21, 2010 at 19:02
Quite meaningful, Dean. Thank you for chiming in.
Posted by: Edward Castronova | Sep 22, 2010 at 13:46
robusticus>Do they form boss/miniboss/troop hierarchies and build citadels to prevent zerging?
Nah, their hierarchies are fixed. If one of the regular dwarfs killed some high-level players and rose to a higher level than the king dwarf, he wouldn't get to be the new king dwarf.
Richard
Posted by: Richard Bartle | Sep 22, 2010 at 16:11
Melanie>I think we need to ask the question: What is a hero (in today's world)?
Why do we have to ask that question?
>And how does the heroic journey translate into meaningful goals or motivations?
The hero's journey marks a to self-understanding. It's called a hero's journey because, having completed it, you become a hero. That's the definition of "hero" in this context: someone who has completed their hero's journey. If you talk about "hero" in the modern sense, as in "he saved the little boy from the mad dog - he's a hero!", you're using the term "hero" in what was originally a metaphorical way. The person who saved the little boy is not a hero (he hasn't completed his hero's journey) but he's exhibiting the qualities of someone who has done so.
Words change meanings. If someone brings you a coffee you wanted but didn't have time to go get it yourself, you might say "what a hero!" as thanks. You don't mean they ARE a hero, just that they've done something selfless for you. It's like that with the "hero" who rescues the little boy, but a step up; he's done something selfless for someone else, just as a hero might. These days, that's what people tend to mean when they use the term "hero" literally; however, in truth it's a metaphor itself.
This is why I asked you why we needed to ask your first question. In the context of a hero's journey, the answer is the same in today's world as it's always been: you follow the 17 steps and voila.
>The question of the hero journey (raised above) and Bartle's player types is particularly fascinating to me in relation to motivation and learning styles.
You do know my player types theory maps directly onto the hero's journey, don't you? If not, there's a short but to the point explanation here.
>I believe these students led a heroes journey in game but didn't experience the same feeling of heroism in relation to skooly success measures
You don't have feelings of heroism having completed a hero's journey: you feel you're yourself. That does indeed make you a hero, because being and becoming yourself is what the end product of the hero's journey is; however, it's not "heroism" in the everyday sense of the word. Ultimately, people don't play to "be somebody", they play to be themselves.
Richard
Posted by: Richard Bartle | Sep 22, 2010 at 16:35
Dean>When Richard and Ed talk about 'being' somebody, I wonder if you guys are talking strictly about role playing?
When I talk about it, I mean being someone else so you can be yourself. In MMOs, it's usually a soft role-playing (you're not trying to play as a distinct, fixed personality) as opposed to the hard role-playing you might get from serious role-players (more like inhabiting a character in a play).
>it seemed clear to me that you could be someone in the player community.
Yes, you can. That's as good a signifier of having "made it" as any other.
>It was my experience that stories about a few player's epic deeds (often not related to in-game quantifiable achievements), played a crucial role in the formation of the realm history/mythology.
They do, but in a game like WoW where player impact is quite low, deeds are more likely to be remembered at the guild level than by the player base in general.
>If the real issue in the argument is about everyone feeling like a hero, is this actually realistic in a MMOG, where being a hero is not so much a feeling that a game can impart, but rather the status a community places upon you.
The word "hero" is unfortunate. What it means in "hero's journey" isn't the same as it means in everyday usage. You become a hero when you yourself decide you're a hero (which is to say, decide you're who you are); being lauded by your peers is one way you might reach this conclusion, but it's different for everybody.
Richard
Posted by: Richard Bartle | Sep 22, 2010 at 16:48
Dean>When Richard and Ed talk about 'being' somebody, I wonder if you guys are talking strictly about role playing?
When I talk about it, I mean being someone else so you can be yourself. In MMOs, it's usually a soft role-playing (you're not trying to play as a distinct, fixed personality) as opposed to the hard role-playing you might get from serious role-players (more like inhabiting a character in a play).
>it seemed clear to me that you could be someone in the player community.
Yes, you can. That's as good a signifier of having "made it" as any other.
>It was my experience that stories about a few player's epic deeds (often not related to in-game quantifiable achievements), played a crucial role in the formation of the realm history/mythology.
They do, but in a game like WoW where player impact is quite low, deeds are more likely to be remembered at the guild level than by the player base in general.
>If the real issue in the argument is about everyone feeling like a hero, is this actually realistic in a MMOG, where being a hero is not so much a feeling that a game can impart, but rather the status a community places upon you.
The word "hero" is unfortunate. What it means in "hero's journey" isn't the same as it means in everyday usage. You become a hero when you yourself decide you're a hero (which is to say, decide you're who you are); being lauded by your peers is one way you might reach this conclusion, but it's different for everybody.
Richard
Posted by: Richard Bartle | Sep 22, 2010 at 16:48
Looks like the old "it doesn't look like it's doing anything, I'll click Post again" issue is back. Sigh...
Richard
Posted by: Richard Bartle | Sep 22, 2010 at 16:55
Hi Richard,
Thank you for your thoughtful responses to my comment. I have indeed studied the hero's journey and I'm well familiar with the archetypes. I think I was unsuccessful at explaining how I was trying to make a connection between your player types and notions of motivation that currently dominate education - namely, "multiple intelligences" learning styles. My point is that we might have a richer understanding of learner engagement if we looked at your player types in addition to the learning styles. For example, the player who identifies as a killer has certain tendencies and game play style that might also characterize his or her way of learning - though it would be quite shocking for an educator to say "this learner is a killer type" I am nonetheless convinced that your types have application in the classroom (and specifically relating to how one feels heroic/successful). All I know is, kids come into school with all kinds of experiences gaming. Many of them are already oriented towards certain kinds of game play and reward structures. Game designers know this. School boards and teachers don't. I want to tap into this - that's all I'm saying. So I'm presently looking at your types and how they break down in terms of learning activities (exploration, achievement, etc). I'm thinking this could speak to something that multiple intelligence theory misses.
Posted by: Melanie | Sep 22, 2010 at 22:59
Melanie>I have indeed studied the hero's journey and I'm well familiar with the archetypes.
I wasn't questioning your knowledge of the Hero's Journey; rather, it was that you seemed to be making a connection between the Hero's Journey and my player types, yet I wasn't sure if you were aware or not that there is already established such a connection. Indeed, it's what gives my player types their theoretical underpinning. Without it, my theory is "this seems to be how things are"; with it, my theory is "this is how things are and why".
>My point is that we might have a richer understanding of learner engagement if we looked at your player types in addition to the learning styles.
Well it probably couldn't hurt. I make no claims that my player types theory applies outside MMOs, but that doesn't mean it doesn't.
>For example, the player who identifies as a killer has certain tendencies and game play style that might also characterize his or her way of learning
Hmm, so you're saying that the way people play games gives insights into their psychology which can be used to determine how they might better learn? Yes, I can buy that, although I'd caution that people change their play styles over time; putting "explorer" on someone's permanent academic record and then subjecting them to a lifetime of explorer-focused education is not a good thing. You need also to provide hooks for them to pursue other types of learning, so if they need to change then the pathways are existent and open.
>though it would be quite shocking for an educator to say "this learner is a killer type"
That's just because of the word "killer". If you look at it in terms of its axes - people who like acting on other people - then it's not so bad at all. Using the distinction afforded by the 8-type version of my theory, there's a difference between "politician" and "griefer" that's quite pronounced. You probably wouldn't want to teach them both the same way.
>I'm thinking this could speak to something that multiple intelligence theory misses.
It sounds as if player types is orthogonal to multiple intelligence theory, in that it's possible they could both be true at the same time. This would make sense. It's all well and good knowing someone has great interpersonal and linguistic intelligence but poor existential intelligence, but that merely tells you what they're good at; a "learning types" theory could indicate the kind of activity that would best motivate them to learn.
The question you'd then need to answer would be whether there was a separate player/learning type for each intelligence or whether there was one that applied across the board. I would assume the latter (because that's how it is for MMOs), but I could well be wrong.
Richad
Posted by: Richard Bartle | Sep 23, 2010 at 03:05