Massively^™

NCsoft announced yesterday that players of City of Heroes are now able to purchase respecs (opportunities to rollback character development decisions they've made in their characters' lifetimes) for $9.99 from a store in the character select screen. The company noted that this feature "does not allow the primary or secondary powerset to be reselected; it functions like existing respecs currently available in game."

Players are still able to find opportunities to respec through gameplay, but NCsoft claims that the community has been requesting a shortcut like this.

Some sites are characterizing this move as the introduction of microtransactions to a subscription-based game. That term conjures up images of players buying powerful items and stat bonuses with real-world currency. But Blizzard has been charging for character name changes in World of Warcraft for a long time. What's the distinction between charging for what's deemed an expected service, and the microtransaction business model?

"There's gold in them thar online worlds!" That, at least, is the diagnosis of the guys over at TechCrunch Virtual Worlds Management (they're actually the ones who did the research for second quarter) -- they tallied up all the money given to virtual world developers this year, and ended up at a whopping $345 million. That is a lot of investment dollars sunk into worlds that don't exist -- about the gross domestic product of Western Africa's Guinea-Bissau. Which, come to think of it, doesn't sound quite as impressive as we'd hoped, but still, venture capitalists clearly think this online thing might have staying power.

Turbine was one of the big winners so far this year -- their $40 million investment will give the Lord of the Rings Online and Dungeons and Dragons Online developer lots of leeway in their "business strategy shift." But 9You, as previously reported on this very site, was the biggest cash-in so far this year -- $100 million was passed out to them to work on its product called GTown.

Of course, investment only means so much, and there are only so many hours in the day people can spent in virtual environments. Some of this money is being thrown away. But we're only halfway through 2008, and deals are being brokered left and right -- it's a virtual world boom!

The pay-to-download business is booming, more and more MMOG companies are taking advantage of alternative non-credit card payment options. It sure beats driving down to the local big-box store.

A few years ago now, I heard a news story about a man who traded one red paperclip for a house. There were several intermediate trades, but the basic gist of it was that he started with a paperclip and traded up from there until, eventually, he was offered a house in Saskatchewan in exchange for a movie role.

I remember thinking then what an interesting concept it was (and wishing I had thought of it first). He really did not need any particular skills except maybe negotiation. He did not need any money. In the early stages, he probably didn't even need a lot of buzz. Just some connections and a dream.

In more recent times, I have seen similar things done in games. Using the auction house and connections with guildies, friends, or just willing participants in the streets, it is entirely possible to trade your way to fame and fortune without ever picking up a trade or completing a quest.

Do you feel you're getting enough value for your $15 per month MMO subscription? Casual gamers or people who are just too busy at times for games would likely say they're not getting their money's worth. It's one of the big reasons free-to-play business models are becoming increasingly popular. Dave Spohn, who covers internet games at About.com, looks at how game expenses compare to other forms of entertainment.

A lot of MMO gamers use this to justify their time sinks -- but the more time you play, the more value you get for your money. So if you play beyond 10 hours in a given week, you're actually getting your kicks for less than 50 cents per hour. Sometimes you're paying far less than 50 cents if you're a hardcore player of a particular title you sub to. But do you need to rack up ludicrous amounts of gaming time to really get the full benefit from that sub? To answer that question, Spohn looks at a few of the most popular forms of entertainment and breaks down their costs per hour in comparison to subscription games.

Despite what the bitter naysayers have been claiming about the addition of ATMs to EA-Land just before its complete closure, it appears that Electronic Arts won't be claiming all those last-minute Simoleons after all. In a recent announcement, EA-Land Community Manager Parizad Parav has said that every transaction completed through an in-game ATM will be completely refunded by the company. Remember that these transactions were the conversion from real dollars to virtual.

It's nice to see a big company doing right by its former constituents, when they have no real obligation to do so. Of course, it's no skin off of EA's nose either, as their pockets are plenty deep enough to cover this amount. Still, it's a sad affair all around -- at least this will be one less point of angst among the formerly faithful.

[Thanks, Sean!]

For many, the cost of a game -- the initial purchase plus the monthly fee -- is simply assessed once, then never considered again. You have to pay something, after all, and you don't really have a choice if you want the content. Obviously, this doesn't take into account free-to-play games, but some people believe that you get what you pay for.

But there is also the consideration of value over time -- was it worth that fifteen dollars for the month if you didn't enjoy the gameplay? If not, then why not? What would be worth that fee? Is it fair to say that sometimes you have to absorb the cost of a game you disliked to find out for yourself that it wasn't worth playing? Are there any games that you're happy to pay for, knowing you're helping ensure the maintenance and further development of the title?

There's a person out there who claims that all they need to know about business can be learned from World of Warcraft. A fine sentiment, to be sure, but I take issue with its accuracy. Today we are discussing the first of their eleven business topics: value chains – and why they don't work.

In brief, value chain analysis states that for any good requiring multiple stages of production (meaning you don't just rip it out of your backyard and eat it), value is added at each level of refinement. Therefore the price should increase along its path to becoming a finalized product.

Does it seem strange to save up to buy a house in a game? We are in an era where the real world economies of some nations are paralyzed by debts incurred from home purchases. Yet in games where there is player housing there is a surprising lack of player debt. MMOGs offer a simplified financial system seemingly impervious to the ills of modern society. What could we as a gaming society learn about real-world finance and money management from the way we act in game?

After reviewing Activision-Blizzard's case for a few weeks, the European Commission announced its approval of the huge merger yesterday. The EU had final say approving the merger because Vivendi is a French company. Officials decided the deal wouldn't threaten the fairness of the market.

The commission made a statement, saying that Activision Blizzard "would continue to face several strong, effective competitors, such as Electronic Arts, and the game console manufacturers, such as Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft." There were some concerns that the company could have an unfair advantage in licensing music for games because Vivendi owns Universal Music Group, but they were set aside because "competing game publishers would continue to have access to a sufficiently large portfolio of music rights from alternative suppliers."

The lesson: Activision Blizzard is officially not a monopoly, thanks to EA. We could go into extreme detail weighing the pluses and negatives of the decision, but we've analyzed this merger plenty enough already. At some point, you just have to decide to sit back and see what happens.

... And we're not talking about selling accounts on eBay.

One of the most frustrating aspects of being a new player in an established game, to my mind, is the cost of start-up crafting materials. Hit up any public market area, auction house, trade square or similar as a newbie and you will see what I mean. Even low-level items of any use (i.e. not vendor trash) are sold for seemingly absurd amounts given the time that would be required at early levels in order to generate the money. It can make the start of a new character infuriating and the game too taxing (pun fully intended) to continue. Why does this happen? What makes these things so costly? Why can't we all just get along...? (Oh wait, that's another column entirely)

Techcrunch is reporting that developers Realtime Worlds (makers of last year's Crackdown, which could be an MMO, and the upcoming All Points Bulletin, which we heard lots about at GDC) have picked up a whopping $50 million in funding from a round of investment capital, including lots of it from Maverick Capital.

So good news for APB fans -- of course, it's just a fraction of that billion dollars that Activision Blizzard CEO Bobby Kotick claims anyone will need to take on World of Warcraft, but $50 million buys a lot of artists, programmers, and servers, all things that a great MMO needs for a strong launch. APB is still in the development stages of course -- we've heard that it'll drop this year, though at this point (and with the extra cash going into a little extra development), we're probably looking at a spring 2009 release.

Everyone generally takes real world testing seriously, because if they don't there's always a person there in the flesh to scold them properly. However, when any testing takes place in the virtual space such as Second Life (or any MMO really), the problem of people goofing around and lying becomes rather rampant. This post on Terra Nova goes into some further detail on the subject and finishes the post by posing the question, "How can virtual world participants be encouraged to take online research seriously, or should no attempt be made to change their online behavior?"

Do you have a hot 3v3 team in WoW? Do you want to win some money? If so, this news is for you. Blizzard announced a new global 3v3 arena tournament yesterday, starting in April with two qualifier rounds. The tournament events will run on specialized realms where players can create level 70 characters and choose epic gear from vendors, to level the playing field. The vendors will be stocked with Arena and honor gear as well as "a selection of raid epics with the approximate power level of the Arena gear." Characters will also be given access to gold, gems, enchants, and class-specific items like ammo and soul shards. There will be an entry fee to compete in each qualifier round of $20/€15/local equivalent per competitor.

The qualifiers are broken down by region: Europe, North America, South Korea, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Macau, and run for six weeks. After this, the top four teams in each of the two qualifying rounds for each region advance to the regional finals, competing for "more than $27,000 in cash prizes." The regional winners will then compete in the championships, with $120,000 in cash prizes available. And the grand prize? $75,000. Who's going to take a stab at it? For more details, see the tournament FAQ.

[via WoW Insider]

I logged into World of Warcraft last week, excited to invite an old friend to my guild. After hopping on and chatting with him for a bit I opened the Social window, selected the Guild tab and was about to add him to the guild. It was then that I noticed the Add Member button was grayed out. All members of the guild (except initiates) had invite privileges the day before. Now, suddenly, I didn't. I checked to make sure I hadn't been demoted. I checked the guild's message of the day to see if I had missed something, but the MOTD still had information about the upcoming Karazhan raid. So I asked one of the officers if he could add my friend to the guild for me. "Sure," he responded, before realizing that his member adding privilege had also been revoked. What was going on?

Fortunately, one of the founding members of the guild was also online at the time. I asked him if he'd be kind enough to add my friend. Instead of the usual "Sure!", I got the third degree. "How long have you known him? What level is he? Why does he want to join?" I let the founder know my friend was level 61 and that he was switching back to some of his old characters to take a break from his primary server. Satisfied with my response, the founder switched from his alt to his main, and invited my friend. Of course, the very next thing I did was ask why our invite privileges had been revoked. At first I thought maybe it had to do with the fact that we were now over 200 members or that the guild had an adequate representation of most classes by now. But, after the questions about adding my friend I had a hunch something more sinister had taken place. Why would an open invite guild suddenly become an invitation only guild? There had to have been some breach of trust.