Massively Overthinking: Nickel-and-diming in MMORPGs

Massively OP reader and listener Suikoden79 recently wrote in to the podcast with a gem of a question I thought would be more fun for the whole team instead of just our podcasters. He told us that he used to be a subscription type of MMO player, but as his family and responsibilities have grown, he’s shifted from being hardcore to casual, and so now he appreciates being able to scope out a game before deciding whether to spend money — and when he likes a game, he does shell out. Here comes the but:

I posed Suikoden79’s question to the Massively OP team for this week’s Massively Overthinking.

Andrew Ross (@dengarsw): Getting nickle-and-dimed drove me away from SWTOR, and it’s starting to do the same with Pokemon Go. Hearthstone always gets my cash for their new adventures and some on new expansions, and I can admit that I’ve bought more DLC for games that I could actually consume, and I don’t feel too bad about it (yet). Having a sense of ownership makes wasting spending my money easier, but maybe it’s also because I hate feeling like I’m gambling on purchases (yes, cards are a bit of a gamble, but when it’s a new set, I know I’m mostly getting new cards).

I think I’m in the minority though. Look at casinos. Gambling’s something people do. As Ramin Shokrizade notes, monetizing free to play is all about showing you what you could have and taking it away from you to induce “fun pain,” the idea that you pay to make a kind system less painful and more “fun.” Clearly, it works. Combining the two may make cash, especially in the short term, but I keep wondering how long the model will be sustainable. Like Suikoden (great name btw), I’ve gone more casual and toss cash at F2P games I like, but I’m getting more and more critical about the models used, and I wouldn’t be surprised if, not only individual gamers, but gamers as a culture start rejecting the nickel-and-dime models.

Brianna Royce (@nbrianna, blog): To directly answer the question: I think the F2P nickel-and-dime model works better than the B2P charge-for-content model in some games and worse in others, and I don’t mean that as a cop-out answer. I have a hard time saying nickel-and-diming in free-to-play never works because Marvel Heroes exists and is so incredibly appealing to me. Its content is free, it’s free-to-play, but I’ve put down plenty on characters and costumes all the same, even though I’d rather pay a chunk for content. It works there because the game isn’t really as much about the content itself as it is alting. I had this same experience in City of Heroes and thought nothing of costuming microtransactions. How the game is shaped and why I play it can tip that balance.

Personally, I’d say classic Guild Wars sold me on the idea of buy-to-play MMOs originally, and I haven’t wavered much in my preference over time. But that has never stopped me from playing a sub-only or F2P-only game. As Suikoden notes, core MMORPG players are hunting for a good game and not worrying as much about a few bucks here or there, as long as what we play is fun. Unfortunately, studios aren’t really chasing us with these models to begin with, so it’d be a mistake to look at just us when it comes to what’s better for the health of the genre and the games themselves.

Justin Olivetti (@Sypster, blog): I’m definitely more of a spender who appreciates paying once for content delivery (DLC, expansions), but from what I’ve seen in many MMOs is that it is very tough for studios to pump out new zones and content packs on a consistent basis to create a dependable revenue stream. New cosmetics and about anything you might encounter in a cash shop? So much easier to create and implement, with more coming all of the time.

Players do get fatigued with games constantly trying to pry money out of them, but F2P/B2P games need to make money, so striking a balance is important to get that cash without driving players away. Players resent it when the cash shop is pushed on them and made mandatory, but are much more willing to part with dough when it feels “fair” and is something extra that they genuinely want. Long-term, that might be much more healthy for a game, but who knows? Perhaps demographics and churn show that aggressively milking what players you have right now will result in more money. I hope not, though.

Larry Everett (@Shaddoe, blog): I think Suikoden79 hit the nail square on the head when talking about how and why the business models work. I have been a big proponent of the buy-to-play model for a long time, ever since I saw it work in the original Guild Wars. I’ll admit that it sounds weird when I was in the middle playing my subscription MMO that only gave us one character per server (Star Wars Galaxies). I had no idea how the game was going to make any money, but it did. By far, my favorite model is Elder Scrolls Online’s model. Sub if you want or buy the DLC individually. It’s fluid and you determine which way works best for you. And in the end ESO profits.

The other models — the nickel-and-dime models — work best for impulse buyers. I would venture a guess to say that younger, single players without children are more likely impulse buyers, so that’s why it doesn’t work for Suikoden. However, I do believe that that model might work for say college students, who — if they are anything like me in college — get super excited about finding five dollars and are more than willing to spend it on knick-knacks in their favorite game.

I don’t think that one payment model works better than another, but I do think that else model has its own audience, much like every MMO has its own audience.

MJ Guthrie (@MJ_Guthrie, blog): I don’t know how relevant this is to anyone but me, as I understand I am a somewhat unique creature. The bottom line is that games without subs get far, far less from me. Often nothing if there is no sub offered. I will happily pay a subscription for a game I play, especially if it gives me access to everything. Why? The answer is two-fold.

Personally, I agonize over decisions. Seriously, I am decisionally challenged at superficial silly things like what to eat at a restaurant, which choice in storyline (when you can’t go back and see other results), etc. I am like a walking poster child for “What if I miss out by choosing the wrong thing?” So to have to take the mental energy to chose whether I want or need or may someday need this or that little thing or whatever is too exhausting and stressful, so I don’t. I just don’t buy it. I don’t buy anything. A part of this I believe also stems from the second reason…

I totally agonize over spending money — even small amounts like $5. I have been that way since I was young. I’m not ashamed to say I grew up very poor, and there wasn’t money for extras. There were plenty of times I had to decide (or watch be decided) which necessity was actually going to get the available funds. I couldn’t toss money somewhere for something I wasn’t absolutely sure I wanted/needed because if it turned out I wanted/needed something else, there was no possibility of going back to get that. That just wasn’t ever an option. So honestly having one purchase instead of lots of little ones is way better for me. I just don’t need or want that stress and anxiety. So in the realm of nickle-and-diming, those companies won’t get my nickles or my dimes. It is sub or nothing.

Like I said, I know my situation is not something that represents many — if any — others. I can only speak from personal experience here. If you want a more blanket overview, I’d need to have the financial numbers of all the companies and how much they make from the nickle-and-dime items versus their subscriptions to be able to offer an informed statement.

Your turn!