The Mummer’s Dance #21:

Cash and Carry Part Two: The Value Of A Gold Piece

"Show me the money!"
— Jerry Maguire

This weekend whilst wailing wearily and wandering around on Dark Age of Camelot (one of my newest addictions), a guildmate said to me: "I wonder how much a gold piece would be worth in RL money. $5 per 4? I need the money but don't have the time to earn them."

There's a Swedish company out there called Mindark which is making an online MMORPG which is free — no monthly fees — but in which the entire economy is based on players transferring real money to the company in return for Entropia money, which can then be spent in game.

Economy in MMORPGs is a hot topic, and I'm not talking about in-game economy, but the subject of this set of columns — the financial balance between real money and in-game benefits and money.

Buying An Intro

The impetus for this column came from fan 1stbigmac (see the Forums for more of his comments and criticisms) who wanted to see a specific subject covered, one that I touched on in the previous column: the aspect of purchasing a character at some level of development.

Whereas, as mentioned in the previous column, there is a certain stigma attached to purchasing high-level characters to play with in the MMORPG community (albeit a stigma I do not agree with), there may well be a benefit to allowing players to skip past the "annoying" parts of character development without giving them "too much" unearned power. In EverQuest, for example, where most of the major action occurs post-20th-level, the idea of buying a 20th level character built to your specifications should be promulgated — especially if you've already hit 60th level in another class, and simply don't want to slog through the earlier levels to get to play a different aspect of the game.

Unfortunately, most games don't have this option, for the reasons I mentioned in the previous column. Despite some commentators' opinions on the Forums regarding this matter, the primary reason I believe MMORPGs shy away from any such package is that they want players to pay to play their game for as long as humanly possible. The lower levels take time to achieve, and while they're boring, they still require a relatively large amount of the player's time to level through. Purchasing time spent by another player to level their character is presumably theft of service — the companies lose out on your playtime and accompanying cash. Consider that a 'professional levelling service' or a person who is intentionally levelling characters to get them up to a saleable point is doing it quicker (and hence, less profitably for the corporation) than a new player who has to learn the game from scratch. The people selling accounts are committing, in the eyes of the corporation, theft of service. This is, of course, just my opinion on the matter. Corporate entities like Verant are not given to discourse on such matters, merely legal statements demanding that such activities cease and desist.

By Your Bootstraps

Needless to say, the low-level achievement issue is prevalent in many, many games. Take Dark Age of Camelot, for example. There are three realms, dozens of different character types, and lots of unique experiences — and it takes hours to get them to an exciting point. There's still five levels of wandering-around-killing-squirrels time before you even get a single really interesting ability. While I (and many other players) would like to experience the different realms and options in that game, I also want to get powerful enough in a single class to play as a main character — and I can't devote the time to do both and still maintain a "real life".

Hence, the idea of starter packages in online roleplaying games of all sorts — text-based and graphics-based — is definitely one worth exploring and advocating. Being able to start out a new character at the equivalent of fifth level, or in the Inner Bailey, or as a Patrician in The Eternal City — name your particular poison — is something that players should be able to achieve via either payment /or/ as a reward for time spent or for specific achievements in game.

Players would be able to explore a wider variety of options available to them in the game without the concomitant time involved in working up from scratch multiple times to a place where they can explore the option. Players who early in the game made choices that precluded them from developing in different directions may be incentivized to switch to more desireable player types — something which they've either earned or can pay for. This may prevent them from leaving the game entirely, due to the grind and difficulty of getting up to an experience level again, with this different character type.

Show Me The Money

How much is it worth? This question is the stickiest part of the entire situation. You don't want to set a price that's unreasonably high, but by the same token, you don't want to dishearten players who have 'worked' for their in-game benefits by allowing anyone with a fat wallet to just purchase their way into the game at the same level and with the same abilities — or better! — than those players. Striking a balance is imperative.

One manner of doing so is under discussion for implementation here at Skotos Tech — based loosely on the Eternal City role-points system. By playing in the game (any game) for a certain amount of time, players accrue points for their achievements which can then be spent to purchase packages (like the Eternal City's patrician package). In the Skotos system, where there are many different games to choose from, this can be both a blessing and a curse — what of a player who gets a number of role points in Eternal City but then wants to spend them to become a noble Lord or Lady in Marrach, without knowing the system? The potential for a mismatch or imbalance exists, and of course, this requires administrative oversight. Staff must reserve the right to refund points if the choice of rewards disrupts the game in any way, and this can lead to disgruntled players (and disgruntled administrators!)

Another problem, of course, is that this still requires players to spend /some/ time doing something within the game at "low levels" to be able to accrue the rolepoints necessary. Additionally, what if the player doesn't have the time (or the desire) to work their way up at all from low levels? Should they be required to or is it ethical, desireable, and possible within the sociological constraints of the community to allow people to simply pay a premium price to start off at a high level?

Any such system needs to be well thought out by the designers. Premium priced packages where players can start at mid-level positions, without the same prestige and community standing as long-term players who worked their way up from the bottom (so to speak), are likely viable solutions to this quandary. A Patrician or minor Inner Bailey person or someone with a skill or position which is not game-imbalancing is feasible. These won't cause many problems.

However, as touched upon in the last column, the gaming community relates poorly as a whole to what is one of the defining aspects of the capitalistic society in which Americans live — the replacement or valuation of capital with labor (or 'sweat equity'). The idea that a player can, by spending a certain amount of cash, obtain an item, position, or level that other players who are not so gifted with money would have to work for over time is not well-accepted by the gaming community. It's viewed as unfair and wrong by many players, as can be witnessed by the vehement objections to players selling items and gear on Everquest auctions.

Personally, I see very little wrong with it — especially in pay-for-play game environments. It's a way of getting things that you don't have the time to achieve; a way to start the game with certain benefits that are impossible for casual gamers to achieve in a reasonable amount of time (for them); it allows them to enjoy the game in a manner that they would not be able to normally — it allows players to choose the level of experience they get out of the game, if they can afford it.

And In Conclusion

What does the future hold? What should a gold piece be worth? What's your opinion on the matter? I'd be very interested in seeing your responses on the Forums on this topic, so please don't hesitate to share them, even if you vehemently disagree with me on the matter. I'm also looking for future column ideas — I do requests. Until next time!