Can Acclaim's Free Model for MMOs Work?

[Kefkataran]

Under new management Acclaim is now to begin publishing Asian MMOs that will be completely free, supported by ads and in-game items that cost money. Next Generation (http://www.next-gen.biz) has an interesting story (http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3081&Itemid=2) on this new venture for the once-mighty developer.

From the story:

In theory, the term "free" would send consumers flocking to a given product. This isn't always the case in the games business. People, especially more avid gamers, have learned to approach "free" games with apprehension, and often take heed to the adage, "You get what you pay for." Most of the time, gamers associate free games with casual, Flash-based games, but Acclaim intends to offer full-featured, "AAA" PC titles.

Marks realizes the stigma surrounding the concept of a free game, and intends to drop the term altogether. "When I realized we are a medium, the real differentiation would be the concept of free games. The problem I had with free games is that they're also viewed negatively, because in the past, 'free games' meant 'bad games'. We're not really going to use the term 'free game' for that reason."

Acclaim's first release, BOTS, will fit the new model by offering hundreds of upgrades for players' robot avatars. The shooter will be free for download from Acclaim's website, but you'll have to shell out bits of cash to acquire new robot parts.


When posed with the straightforward question of "Will this model work in the West?", Marks didn't make any huge promises, and instead presented a snapshot of the current market and his belief that the enjoyment of online multiplayer will be the foundation for Acclaim's potential success.

"I don't have a crystal ball, but people would rather play with other rather than themselves, and that is a fact. I've been in this industry for a long time, and I see people having way more fun than they had before. To me, that's a sign of something to come."

I'm really curious about if new business models for games like this will be able to adapt and survive in the American market. It certainly seems that there should be room for new ways of trying stuff beyond the old monthly fee for MMOs. I suppose the real question is whether or not Acclaim can really make the games to back this up.

[bean19]

that will be completely free, supported by ads and in-game items that cost

Um. . . that's a well known business model that is neither new or anywhere CLOSE to completely free.

[Soap]

Uhm...

Bye Bye Gold Farmers?

[Serapth]

I dont see it working, because basically without a cost of entry, you get surrounded by idiots. I have seen it in the few games that added a free year or whatever to try an float themselves, and every time, morons rush the game like mad.

Think the typical CounterStrike group...

Also, why oh why would they use the name Aclaim, way to close to Aklaim, universally remembered as being ass bad.

[NoName]

Uhm...

Bye Bye Gold Farmers?
Nope, the company now takes on the role of a gold farmer. Just, they have a monopoly on prices for in game items, plus they don't have to actually "farm."

It's a model of whoever pays the most will be the best. Doesn't sound fun to me...

[Kefkataran]

Um. . . that's a well known business model that is neither new or anywhere CLOSE to completely free.

It's new for Acclaim and reasonably new for the Western market (from a somewhat big developer anyways). And the GAMES are free. That's what it means.

I dont see it working, because basically without a cost of entry, you get surrounded by idiots. I have seen it in the few games that added a free year or whatever to try an float themselves, and every time, morons rush the game like mad.

Pretty good point. This does tend to happen, although it's arguable that just as many idiots show up in paid stuff.

[Soap]

Sorry Acclaim, you'll never get another dime from me.

Why do you ask?

One Word. Okay make that two words. Nevermind, make that 3 letters and one word.

WWF games.

[Uncle Ben]

I have to agree with Serapth's view on the idiots thing, but I would like to see games move more this way myself. Pay for what you do when you actually play and not a set fee every month no matter how much or how little you play.

What I don't like is from the sound of things so far you can't get anything without paying for it. I would prefer cash purchases to be more of a tempting option than a mandate.

[Serapth]

Sorry Acclaim, you'll never get another dime from me.

Why do you ask?

One Word. Okay make that two words. Nevermind, make that 3 letters and one word.

WWF games.

Different companies I do believe. Like I said, its stupid name...

[Kish]

Different companies I do believe. Like I said, its stupid name...

Yeah I'm pretty sure they just bought the name.

[rein]

Fuck yes!

The more I think about it the more I think that this model is what would work best for me to play mmorpgs. I look at it this way. If I buy a mmorpg I pay $50 for the box and $15 a month. I don't have time to sit 4-6 (or more) hours each night to farm an item. I will never have a chance to get some items because of that. With this model, I can spend my first $65 and probably get some decent equipment to get started.

For people that bitch about it whoever has the most money wins. Instead of sitting in front of wow for 8 hours a night, get a fucking job...



...just kidding about the job thing. :D

[Kefkataran]

Yay! Rein's the first one not totally opposed to this. :)

[Grimgrock]

This isn't for me. I don't find myself required to play any amount of time to do anything in the game. All the time I spend is voluntary. Spend 30 minutes here, 2 hours there.

The game itself is free. That's true. But this would be the "Horse Armor Incident" x1000. That's what I think.

[Cha-Ka]

If there is PvP in these games, and the items sold upset the balance of said PvP, then this idea deserves to crash and burn.

[gawaintheblind]

I've done this a few times before. Its not a new thing. Generally I log on, play till I realize that I've reached the Ceiling Of Free (which is where you can't get a whole lot further without shelling out cash for something or other) and quit. Now I lump these games into the same group as "free" Ie: the ones I don't play.

Do I enjoy paying 15 bucks a month for a game I "own" ? No. But I like the idea that the "world" stretches out before me, with every possibility open. Even if I quit in a month when I realize that i've been doing the same epic dungeon every day for the last three weeks or so, at least the POSSIBILITIES exist to me.

Rein: The problem with this model is that eventually you'll need to shell out more cash for a uber sword or something that you can't get through the game without, or your character isn't viable in pvp without, or something. There has to be, because they still have to get that money somehow to carry their servers and pay their staff. there will always be some new thing that costs money that everyone has to have, and if you don't have it, you "suxxorz". The influx of new users will sustain them for a while, but then they're stuck, because while their business model is different... the costs of running an mmo pretty much stay constant.

[motor]

It's a really hard problem. In my off hours I'm working on a casual/hardcore game that I'm trying to figure out how to get people to pay for. It has a server cost since it keeps your data and manages a fair amount of data, so it has to be some kind of recurring income stream, but which of the three ways do you do it: Periodic fee, advertising, selling upgrades?

Periodic fees are the simplest, but it cuts your player base drastically. Regardless of the quality, people have a problem paying for web-based games.

Advertising pays very little, but you get a huge install base, but you also get a ton of drop outs and half-hearted people.

Selling upgrades lets people get in for ree, but then you lose the whole competive side, because anyone can buy their way into a great setup.

Frankly, I'm still up in the air about what I'm going to do. Setting the advertising infra-structure is a lot of work, so I'm probable going to run a free crippled server and a pay-server and try to get people to upgrade.

[DirtyChimp]

Acclaim has the right idea, and from what i've seen it works. for example, Maple Story is a free 2d MMO. the way they make their money is by allowing the players to purchase items for their character. the game has a massive player base(granted, most of the players are 15 years and under) and it's been around for about three years now.

[51|RandoM]

Think the typical CounterStrike group...


If you're using a tired stereotype, you're not really thinking. Personally, I've had a lot more fun in a pickup CS group than I've had in a pickup WoW group. I still play CS:Source on a regular basis, whereas WoW only held me for about 6 months. I think mainly it is because CS:Source is skill-based, whereas WoW is mainly item-based.

As far as whether this "play for free, spend money to own people who play for free" model goes, I don't think it is going to work. Seems pretty obvious to me that the people who are looking for a free ride aren't the people you really want to target advertising at.

"Look at our great product, oh wait, you don't want to spend any money anyways."

[Derella]

NCSoft is working on a few titles with similiar business models that are going to be released in North America... Free to download, with no subscription fees, but to access some content, you have to pay money.

[rein]

Rein: The problem with this model is that eventually you'll need to shell out more cash for a uber sword or something that you can't get through the game without, or your character isn't viable in pvp without, or something. There has to be, because they still have to get that money somehow to carry their servers and pay their staff. there will always be some new thing that costs money that everyone has to have, and if you don't have it, you "suxxorz". The influx of new users will sustain them for a while, but then they're stuck, because while their business model is different... the costs of running an mmo pretty much stay constant.

As opposed too what? Shelling out money every month even if I don't log on to play? Seriuosly, it will really come down to pricing of items and how much the advertising is going to affect the gameplay. I would rather buy a few items every month for ~$15.00 and know what item I am buying than to pay ~15.00 a month to run through a dungeon hundreds of times in hopes that I get what I want.

[Kefkataran]

NCSoft is working on a few titles with similiar business models that are going to be released in North America... Free to download, with no subscription fees, but to access some content, you have to pay money.

Ah, that's right! They were showing these off at E3, and apparantly some looked quite good. Sort of extending the Guild Wars model.

[Pluvious]

I don't want to play games that have ads in them period. NO THANKS.

I play games to escape from that shit.

[Serapth]

If you're using a tired stereotype, you're not really thinking. Personally, I've had a lot more fun in a pickup CS group than I've had in a pickup WoW group. I still play CS:Source on a regular basis, whereas WoW only held me for about 6 months. I think mainly it is because CS:Source is skill-based, whereas WoW is mainly item-based."

See, I mostly swore off MMORPGs, first because they are horrible time sinks and highly addictive. However for me, the biggest thing that killed it was I started with EQ and knew a core group of people. But once I started going outside that group, it just wasnt fun. Mind you, thats true of all RPGs once you get to the upper levels.

As to Counterstrike, I dont know I have met ALOT of whiny annoying, to tKing bastards playing that game. Where as I play(ed) alot of DoD:S games and found that community to be much better. There still were idiots but no where near as often. Now, as an avid Live gamer, I have my best experiences there. You still get the few annoying nose talking kids, but for the most part ive had a better experience on live.

[Kefkataran]

I don't want to play games that have ads in them period. NO THANKS.

Got a feeling you're going to be missing out on a LOT of games starting this generation then...

I don't think ads are bad if they've got the right context.

[jacktion]

This is a great idea. Everyone can try the game out for free, but you have to pay to get extra stuff and guns and things. I think it's great.
Someone said that whoever pays the most will be the best. I guess that is true. But only in the same way that those people who buy the Battlefield 2 game are better at it than the people who don't buy it or play it.
Yes, people that buy all the content will have an advantage over people that don't, but that is sort of the price for playing for free. So many more people will play the game who would have not shelled out $50 before. And if you want all the bonus guns than you spend some dough. It is just the same as before. If I want all the guns in Call of Duty I have to buy the game. The only difference is that there is now lower-tiered play options for people who will try the game for free. I don't see the problem.

[Serapth]

Also, be wary of "Free, just buy in game items"

I got bit by the Magic the Gathering Online bug, as a former magic player, the idea of playing online solves to many of the real world magic problems.

At first I played with a starter set... maybe like 15$, cheap by any measure... then I added a deck here or deck there... 4$ each shot, then I got into a tourny and there goes a tourny deck, say 10$, then a pack again, and again. My the time I stopped playing id guess that free game cost me about 250$.

[Serapth]

I don't want to play games that have ads in them period. NO THANKS.

I play games to escape from that shit.

Dont take that attitude with Movies, or shit, you wont be able to watch any anymore. Product placements is pretty much the norm in movies, and now in alot of games. It will happen more and more, but frankly, its already happenned.

[Johan]

Acclaim is only Acclaim in name, as they went belly up and the name was sold...so it's actually an entirely new entity with an old brand (my hometown is about ten miles from their former hq on Long Island).

Marks is right about the stigma of 'free.' I lived in South Korea for a number of years as an English teacher; one thing I can say for sure about the region is that 'free' can be a kiss of death, because what is free is seen as 'free of any real value.' Groups that wanted to open non-profit English-language programs would charge so that the product had a perceived value, not so that they would make money (though language schools ARE big money in Korea). It's actually similar in the U.S. with opening English-language programs for internationals. The free models, run as outreach programs by churches or other groups, often end up charging a nominal fee in order to give perceived value to the product. I wonder how this might impact 'free' MMOs??

It reminds me of the debate over the upcoming PS3 'free' online service and Live, which charges...do consumers want a service that is probably more pay-as-you-play or pay individual developers, which would be less coherent/centralized but perhaps cheaper, or a centralized service like Live, which charges a set fee? Interesting to see the shakeout of free MMOs and free Sony Live...

[Skjef]

Sounds like any CCG... only it's from Acclaim.

I got out of Magic: The Gathering because it was costing way too much to keep up. I'm not even going to try to get into this.

[Zurik]

Let's take that Magic: The Gathering anology:

So you buy a starter, and every once in a while buy a few boosters. Then there's that rich kid that buys 5 boxes of boosters everytime a new one comes out. Was he fun to play against? Course with regular MMOs whoever spends the most time in the game comes out on top, so there's no real win for people that have a life outside these games.

[Heretic Machine]

I like the Guild Wars idea of selling mini-expansions than this idea... But Guild Wars isnt' an MMO, and no MMO has attempted this model yet (to my knowledge). There have been MMO's like Acclaim's though, and they're just as stupid as they sound. You are exactly as powerful as you are willing to pay for.

[Serapth]

Let's take that Magic: The Gathering anology:

So you buy a starter, and every once in a while buy a few boosters. Then there's that rich kid that buys 5 boxes of boosters everytime a new one comes out. Was he fun to play against? Course with regular MMOs whoever spends the most time in the game comes out on top, so there's no real win for people that have a life outside these games.

That actually wasnt really the case. There are a few uber rare cards that are overbalanced, but for the most part with mostly commons and uncommons you can make a viable deck. But yes, lots of money definatly gives you an edge, I fear that will be the same in this case, although they say the sold items will have no effect on gameplay. (Then who would buy it???)

[Soap]

Well, I could imagine items like Custom Mounts (Horseys, Goats, Hamsters) would be a good seller. Or Guild/Clan housing. Or armor/wepaon dye. As an ex WoWer, running through Lag Forge or Lagrimmar, you would get tons of deja vu because a lot of 60's gear basically looks the same.

[mkelehan]

Works for television.

[Savok]

How could you even balence a game like this? You nerf one item, and everyone who payed for that item back when it was worth having complains. Placing a really awesome in the game, then nerfing it 6 months down track only to be replaced by another awesome item, $$$. Or maybe an arms race where every player in order to keep up just has to keep buying gear. It's so easy to screw you with this system it's ridiculous.

[Kefkataran]

I like the Guild Wars idea of selling mini-expansions than this idea... But Guild Wars isnt' an MMO, and no MMO has attempted this model yet (to my knowledge). There have been MMO's like Acclaim's though, and they're just as stupid as they sound. You are exactly as powerful as you are willing to pay for.

I dig Guild War's model. Acclaim COULD pull this style off well -- I think it could be done well if balanced right... it just remains to be seen that they will.

How could you even balence a game like this? You nerf one item, and everyone who payed for that item back when it was worth having complains. Placing a really awesome in the game, then nerfing it 6 months down track only to be replaced by another awesome item, $$$. Or maybe an arms race where every player in order to keep up just has to keep buying gear. It's so easy to screw you with this system it's ridiculous.

They would obviously have to take all that into account very early on and keep it cautiously in mind with everything they do.

[OrangePulp]

Ugh, this model of MMO is very unappealing to me. Especially when you look at it like this:

In a regular MMO, people that are better have put in more time (for the most part; skill is involved, but it's mostly items and levels). If you're not as far along as them, well, so what? You haven't played as much, you've done other things with your time. You can even be an elitist asshole about it, and say, "Well, I'm not a loser, I don't play this game 24/7" or something like that.

But what about when someone beats you because they pay more money? How do you put a happy face on the fact that they're rich, and you're not?

On a more serious note, putting time in to get items is what gives them worth, in my mind. Sure, they're also better at killing stuff, and that is it's own worth. But otherwise, it's like using cheats in a (singleplayer) game to get all the goodies. Fun to mess around with, but it isn't really as enjoyable as earning the things through time and effort.

[51|RandoM]

How could you even balence a game like this? You nerf one item, and everyone who payed for that item back when it was worth having complains. Placing a really awesome in the game, then nerfing it 6 months down track only to be replaced by another awesome item, $$$. Or maybe an arms race where every player in order to keep up just has to keep buying gear. It's so easy to screw you with this system it's ridiculous.

Who said balance? Balancing the game is actually contrary to the business model. You want uber unbalancing items. Those are the ones that people will pay for... and once you've got your addicts, you start turning these items out... and all of the lemmings have to buy them after alpha lemming ganks people for a day with it.

[Savok]

Who said balance? Balancing the game is actually contrary to the business model. You want uber unbalancing items. Those are the ones that people will pay for... and once you've got your addicts, you start turning these items out... and all of the lemmings have to buy them after alpha lemming ganks people for a day with it.
And when everyone owns it, the money stops, thus, arms race to keep the cash coming.

And in the history of gaming, a MMOG developer has yet to have a thought, let alone keep things in mind.

[drakkarim]

i could care less whether the game is free or not, my only care when >I< choose to play an MMORPG is whether i can play it solo or i'm eventually forced to group to progress. if the latter, then i won't waste my time even if its the best game in the world and its free.

[Kefkataran]

well, almost EVERY MMO ever makes you group at some point. There's just varying levels of how much you can solo.

[Savok]

The entire point of a MMOG is the group....

[Kefkataran]

I wouldn't say it's the only point (or has to be), but it's certainly something that inevitably must come in MMOs. Otherwise, you know, why make them MMOs.