Are subscription game item shops the third Trammel?
by Brooke Pilley 
Nov 8th 2009 at 4:00PM
Filed under: MMO industry, Making money, Opinion
We like to keep our ear to the blogging (under)ground here at Massively because we often find interesting ideas and perspectives on the MMO industry. For instance, Green Armadillo of Player vs. Developer (PvD) just made a bold yet insightful statement about subscription game item shops being the third Trammel. For those unfamiliar, Trammel changed the way most people played Ultima Online and could be considered a paradigm shift in the industry from "harsh" PvP-enabled MMOs to safer PvE.It's no secret that the rise of microtransactions and MMO item shops (aka real money trading or RMT) are a big change in direction from traditional subscription based MMOs. However, it now seems we're seeing the line blur between the two. Dungeons & Dragons Online, Champions Online, and most recently World of Warcraft are all subscription-based MMOs with built-in RMT. Are we witnessing the birth of the third Trammel?
As for the second Trammel, PvD calls out WoW's solo quest system. Never in any previous MMO did players enjoy such easy soloability and it seems that every triple-A MMO since WoW has relied heavily upon the solo quest system. We think PvD may be on to something here.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
eyeball2452 said on 4:11PM 11-08-2009
It'll certainly be interesting to see.
Right now, I'd personally resist the change to the licensing + micro-transaction model. I feel like the micro-transaction system (server xfers, costume pieces, pets, etc) are just there to nickle and dime the players on top of software and licensing fees.
The WoW pets are a total rip off imo, but the worst micro-transaction is the server transfer fee. Put a cool down timer on the ability to move around. Being penalized for wanting to play with friends was an awful design decision. It's especially terrible in CoX where the game doesn't need independent servers since it's all instanced anyway.
Reply
Scuffles said on 4:17PM 11-08-2009
Not going to be any paradigm with me
your either P2P or your F2P
I either subscribe to your game and get EVERYTHING
or I play your game free and purchase this and that as I go along
You don't get to do both because you try and I will drop your game faster than you can say market saturation. Contrary to everyone preconceptions WOW is not the only awesome MMO out there and F2P is quickly catching up with quality and content.
I'm sure there will be people who will eat this up but I'm also betting there will be people who will be walking away from the game in disgust. In the end I doubt it will be anything that will make any serious ripples in the WOW pond.
Reply
Skypp said on 9:54PM 11-08-2009
I'm with you.
In fact, I think my "addiction" has finally been broken due to my uncompromising belief that I should not be paying 15 bucks a month for the privilege to pay more for items I find essential(the so called fluff of costmetic).
Costmetic(yes I know I am spelling it wrong, its on purpose) items are a tax on the players that find such things fun. The jock gamers that care only about hard numbers and raiding get a free pass because the fluff loving players pay a tax for the kind of content they like. They take our tax, feed it into the servers, and the free loading people reap the rewards.
I want to know why its so damn acceptable to tax one style of game play and not the other.
F2P with a store, or P2P with no limits
ToyChristopher said on 4:40PM 11-08-2009
I am very disappointed that WoW opened up a cash for items shop. They can claim that they are only selling "cosmetic" items that don't affect gameplay, but in a virtual world everything is "cosmetic."
I really dislike micro transactions. It seems like a deceptive practice to me, and I can see how consumers end up spending a whole lot more on micro-transactions than they would on a monthly subscription.
Micro-transactions + a monthly fee + the initial cost of the game just seems like gouging to me-- and no matter what cash for items affects game play.
Reply
Jeremy S. said on 5:02PM 11-08-2009
Forgive me, but I can't remember who first said this, but here's my first initial response to it, that I originally left on spinks blog.
"Green Armadillo waxes nostalgic about the good old days, with a pang of regret that the third “trammel” has arrived.
I think it’s misleading and misplaced to make those comparisons.
devs never at any time placed designing a game we want to play over making money.
RMT and sub MMORPG’s are one in the same philosophically. Devs at one time designed games that we’d want to pay to play.
Yes, through it all they used what freedom they had to design a game with varied amounts of heart and soul.
They still do this. The different way we play hasn’t changed devs artistic desires or corrupted them in some kind of cthulu type manner.
It really operates more like a micro-government. The things that are happening are based on capitalism and player “votes”.
Really what’s happening is that players have voted and devs are giving us what we want, while still being able to make money.
But who am I to say he can’t wax nostalgic at past gameplay that he or others miss now:)"
Reply
Plastic Rat said on 9:38PM 11-08-2009
"devs never at any time placed designing a game we want to play over making money."
Actually they've always been one and the same. If you want to make money, you make a game that players want to play. Fairly simple.
"They still do this. The different way we play hasn’t changed devs artistic desires or corrupted them in some kind of cthulu type manner."
Actually microtransactions present a very worrying conflict of interests in game design. It ends up being in the devs (or their controlling, suit wearing corporate meatplow overlords) best interests to design a game in such a way with flaws, which are only repaired by the player spending more money on microtransactions.
If the flaws are subtle enough, players won't complain, they'll just haul out their wallets and buy those XP potions, rare weapons or mounts.
Sure if the game sticks to only selling cosmetic items, then this might be avoided, however a lot of people play these games for the cosmetic items. In the case of WoW, they're already paying 15 bucks a month for access to cool looking pets and mounts. Now you're withholding some of those cool looking pets for more money? Sounds pretty damned unethical to me.
"Really what’s happening is that players have voted and devs are giving us what we want, while still being able to make money."
The 'vote' in this case is misleading. There will always be more than enough dumb people to make any reasonably couched product sell. Hell, plenty of people bought Microsoft Vista. In any given day you can find a plethora of moronic items that for some reason still sell like proverbial hotcakes. In fact I'd be willing to bet a pandaren monk that a significant number of people complaining about the microtransactions are STILL spending money on them.
Cinnamoon said on 5:15PM 11-08-2009
Sometimes Massively seems massively behind the times. "Now" we're seeing a blurring of the line between the two? Where have you folks been exactly through all the many, many years when games like UO, EQ2, and Guild Wars have run successful stores to sell pixelcrack -- to say nothing of single-player games in which mods are distributed for pay both by the developer and by private designers, like the Sims? And these are just western examples. This isn't even remotely new in either hemisphere.
Top top it off, the "Trammel" analogies are vacuous. Let's ignore the insinuations that Trammel was a Very Bad Thing (it wasn't, judging by subscription rates) and focus on the fact that Trammel was introduced to UO after EQ1 -- which as you'll recall was effectively an entire world free of PvP, ie, an entire game of Trammel gameplay. The actual Trammel wasn't a paradigm shift at all, but a resigned and somewhat late-to-the-party mirror-image. Obscure Ultima pun intended.
Reply
Jack said on 5:27PM 11-08-2009
The WoW real cash item store is not in game there is no trace of the store ingame! There are only 2 pets for sale and it does not hurt the hardcore group of the game one bit! The pet people already where buying ingame items and pets for a long time on ebay with the real world WoW trading card game and Bliz's event pets code did go for a real high price!
Pets do not do anything to the game they are pretty lame if you ask me same like useless cheesements they added.... really people stop crying WoW does not have any IN Game cash store and the pet sale stuff is going on for years now I not even remember when they first started with the lame trade card game!!
Reply
Utakata said on 6:39PM 11-08-2009
It should also be noted that it's just a Pet Store. It's not a mount store or a tarbbard store or a gear store, but a Pet Store - where you can only purchase vanity pets. It seems Massively seems to be getting ahead of itself on MT's in WoW, without taking it in the fact though this Pet Store even if it's an item mall by defintion, but extremely limited in comparison to what you find in Maple Story for example...or even in Champions for that fact.
There's is evidence to suggest Blizz set this up so they can they could fund money to charities easier without having to go threw TCG mechanic...which was the only way to get vanity pets with RMT up until that announcemment.
Either way, perhaps this is the result of Massively being overly biased, if not sensationlist in favor of MT's in all games. Which should be treated with the same disgust on the same level botter's and gold spammers, if it gives the wealthy player advantages over everyone else playing that sub. Because it's cheating, whether it's game sanctioned or not.
Jack said on 11:06PM 11-08-2009
I agree with everything you say only disagree with 1 thing ..I not know about the Blizzard charities thing like only 1 of the two pets give a 50% to the make a wish people (what I support 100%) and there is a limit till the end of the year after that the pets still will sale.... and well its a known fact that giving money to charities do great things for your tax discount....
I am not saying Blizzard trying to pull a fast one here I never can be sure......
ErmanSup said on 5:53PM 11-08-2009
EQ1 is probably more responsible for the "first trammel" than UO was, it was released 1999 while trammel was 2000. That said, I can still remember the outcry over trammel, the day even Ultima Online went casual :)
Forgetting the analogy. WoW is now without a question the game that sets the standards for all AAA titles. It was certainly not the first MMO to combine subscriptions and RMT, but it is the game that makes it ok. Now that WoW has pets for sale it will become acceptable for everyone else to do aswell.
People forgive and forget surprisingly fast. Just look at Bill Clinton, hes cool again. And once that happens for RMT selling of pets, it's time to expand the system. And expand it will. Profits dictate that over time it will inevitably include actual gameplay affecting items and at that point it will be too far along to go back anymore.
Voting with your wallet is too dramatic a move that people would realize to do it when change is slow and gradual.
Reply
The Claw said on 7:13PM 11-08-2009
The point of the Trammel analogy is not that Trammel was the first appearance of a virtual world where you could avoid PvP if you wanted to; it's that Trammel marked the point where it became "accepted wisdom" that you could not have a successful MMO unless you made it possible to avoid PvP.
Is that accepted wisdom true? Maybe, maybe not. But that's the point of the Trammel analogy, and the fact that EQ1 came out a year earlier does not invalidate it, because it's not about a game without PvP, it's about a PvP game feeling forced to offer an option without PvP.
Plastic Rat said on 9:46PM 11-08-2009
"Voting with your wallet is too dramatic a move that people would realize to do it when change is slow and gradual."
This is a really good point.
People rarely just cancel their subs over one thing if it's brought in innocuously enough. Over time you can get people used to and accepting the most horrible stuff, just do it gradually.
If WoW went subscription + item shop with a whole bunch of items being required to progress in the game only purchasable from the shop, tomorow, huge numbers of people would quit. However if they introduce everything in tiny increments over a period of a few years, they'll probably retain most of their subscriptions. People might whine and complain at every change, but they won't quit unless the change is extremely dramatic.
Dread said on 2:54AM 11-09-2009
What 'outcry'??
Oh you mean the 5% gankers who had no-one left to gank with gay abandon and no consequence?
There's a reason why 'old', and by old I mean Felucca, UO died and that was because 95% of the paying subscribers didn't want their gameplay ruined by ganking turds who's only way to have fun was to ruin other peoples gaming fun. Trammel was a godsend to the overwhelming majority of the customer base that actually wanted to play and enjoy the game.
So I agree, using Trammel as a negative example only exposes your own, extreme minority view, that Trammel was a bad idea. The deserted shards of Felucca the minute after Trammel went live put pays to that idea.
ErmanSup said on 9:26AM 11-09-2009
I never said trammel was a bad thing. I happen to enjoy casual MMOs quite abit myself. I was simply implying that EQ1 might have been more responsible for popularizing that type of gaming and UO followed it's example with trammel a year later. Then again no one has done a proper study on the matter so the best we can do is speculate.
5% is more than enough to fill the internet with tears. It was nothing compared to today but 2000 was a different time.
Mewmew said on 6:39PM 11-08-2009
When WoW does it, suddenly everybody talks about it. Sony has had RMT in their subscription games for a while now. In almost all of their games actually. I guess people forgive them because they have much smaller subscription numbers and are trying to make up the money somewhere. Either that, or just not enough people actually play their games to know :D
For the most part, I think it's BS. If they want to charge a small monthly fee like $5 and then use some RMT on top of it, that may be a bit more acceptable. But to have a full subscription game and then also RMT, I don't really like that at all.
You pay monthly so that you can get everything in the game. Otherwise you are free and have RMT to make the only money that you make. To do both is shameful. Is Blizzard really not making enough money with WoW that they have to do this?
The other thing is full games are doing it with these little packs. E.A. likes to charge you to get extras into your game that are available at release and really shouldn't be charged for. These aren't like downloadable content packs made later, these are things available from the start that they just want you to pay to get.
Moves like these are why I don't feel that guilty pirating a game or two sometimes. Do two wrongs make a right? No, but it sure makes me feel a lot better.
Reply
mpdivo said on 2:21AM 11-09-2009
Pirating is why companies are forced to move to things like this to make money (and to sustain a business).
Games like Spore showed that it was impossible to make a game that couldn't be pirated and there is still a huge majority of idiots out there that feel it's their right to be able to "try a game" for free.
So the subscription game is the last way to make a profit.
I say whatever strengthens the industry, go for it. Funny how people pay to advance or level (by buying expansions) but act like someone just ran over a puppy when they offer pets for sale.
Perhaps you want your popcorn free when you pay for a movie too?
The Trammel comparison was great because the outcry was just as loud and in the end, it saved the game and set a precedent for the industry.
Loktofeit said on 8:02PM 11-08-2009
"As for the second Trammel, PvD calls out WoW's solo quest system. Never in any previous MMO did players enjoy such easy soloability..."
UO? AC? It's hard to believe that I'm reading this article on Massively. :(
"Cinnamoon said on 5:15PM 11-08-2009..." a whole bunch of awesomeness.
Reply
parliement said on 10:47PM 11-08-2009
WOW now has 3 bizz models. 1 box sales, 2 subs and 3 RTM. you know what that =? pure greed.
Does not matter how you toss the dice they always land on the greed side.I quit all MMOs for this reason.The only one i may give a shot would be GW2.See the frist one had RTM and box sales but no sub and no server down time and that = win in my book.
But entell big biz gets a tax of 90% again then i will never buy any new game,movie,music, or books. Legal greed is BS and i will not take a part of it.
Before you say well there giving some of that greed to the needed at 50%. Well you know the more money you give the more of a tax write of you get its a win win for blizz. The whole nickel and dime dumb people is lame and wrong in my book.
Money time and the need to get something for doing something will end i hope but people are dumb or just retards. You will all be slaves to god oops i mean money entell you stand up and not buy there shit anymore but to bad TV will keep you brain wash.
LEGAL GREED will keep going if you want it to. stand up for the human you are and just say no
Reply
Loktofeit said on 11:47PM 11-08-2009
Parliement, greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right, greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of its forms; greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge has marked the upward surge of mankind. And greed, you mark my words, will not only save Blizzard, but that other malfunctioning corporation called the USA.
Thank you very much.
Reply