F2P, Micro-Transactions, and the Subject of Competition

My buddy Heartless_ has a thought-provoking post up on the subject of Battlefield: Heroes and micro-transactions, and it got me thinking.

I've always agreed with the notion that micro-transactions that allow for players to purchase items that give them an advantage over others are unfair and ruin gameplay.  Forking over $5 and getting a gun that does 3x the damage of the ordinary gun all the F2P chumps use seems cheap.

On the other hand, players that do spend money can hardly be blamed for the system that's been handed them, right?  I mean, some may be millionaires, lottery winners, who have all that extra dough just waiting to be spent on fancy apparel that will turn their WWII character into a pirate.  The reality is that most of the people who spend the money aren't seeing it as a waste.  They put time into the game, got it for free initially, and see no problem spending a few bucks here and there to get more enjoyment or an edge over others.

Upsetting the Balance of Gameplay

Many gamers have expressed the opinion that micro-transactions are fine as long as they don't upset the balance of the gameplay, meaning they don't allow players to purchase items that give them a direct advantage over those who don't.  Essentially, this limits micro-transactions to cosmetic items, ones that only influence the appearance and not the base mechanics or stats.

Unfortunately, this doesn't support the F2P business model very well at all.  Most gamers would rather spend money on things that actually influence gameplay.  After all, they aren't playing The Sims and chances are they aren't 40-year old soccer moms.  So, if the micro-transactions are limited, and not generating enough money, then it isn't a sustainable business model.  The alternative?  The game switches to a pay-to-play model or a one-time transaction model.

Now, I typically avoid pouring money into games using micro-transactions because it's a dangerous and slippery slope.  Oh, sure, a few bucks here for the awesome gun, maybe a dollar there for a cooler hat.  A month later and you've spent $15 on items that, like in most games using this model, expire after a certain number of days anyway.  In fact, most of the micro-transactions are more like renting items rather than buying them because you only get to use them for a short while before you'd have to "buy" them again.  Of course, this is also a necessary part of a micro-transaction model because if players could purchase the items they want at cheap prices and keep them for life, they would never need to make another micro-transaction purchase again, which also hurts the longevity of this business model.

Ruining the Competitive Aspect?

Putting all of that aside for a moment, there is another argument on the concept of competition.  Many believe that games using micro-transaction models destroy the competitive aspect of the game.  They find this to be a result of the players using purchased items versus those using the default weapons.  If the advantage is big enough, then there is a chance that gamers who don't want to pay for the better items may get discouraged and just quit.  Who could blame them?  It isn't very much to consistently lose against someone who has a significant advantage before you even start.

Creating Rifts Between Players and Increasing Competition

This reminds me of when I played NCSoft's Exteel a while back.  It is also a F2P game using the micro-transaction model, and yes, it allows players to purchase items that give them a direct advantage.  Now, whether or not that specific model drove away a lot of gamers who were discouraged by the inherent disadvantages, I cannot say.  Nevertheless, I can say that for me, and the guildmates that played it with me, we found it to be a competitive challenge.

We enjoyed heckling gamers who had purchased items by calling them "coiners," a term that is derived from a user buying NC Coins to purchase better items.  We routinely found ourselves in CTF matches against teams that had several "coiners."  When this happened, it only motivated us to play better because nothing was as great as defeating a team full of "coiners."  We often boasted about how many "coiners" we were able to defeat on our own and outnumbered.  Killing 2-3 coiners by yourself was considered to be quite the accomplishment.

Drawing from these experiences, I've found that the micro-transaction model doesn't necessarily kill competition.  In some cases, depending on the gamers, it can enhance the competitive aspect.  Yeah, it does create a rift between the playerbase, regular users vs. the "coiners," so to speak, but rifts like that exist in games using other business models.  For example, there was a rift between rifle-only and machinegun players in Medal of Honor: Allied Assault, and everyone (for the most part) paid the same retail prices.

Customizing Your Experience, Potentially Saving You Money

The beauty of the micro-transaction model is that it allows gamers to customize their experience to the detail.  What if you only like one of the weapons the game offers?  Would you rather pay $1 to get it, or $50 to get free access to all of them, even if you'll never use them?  Think of it like purchasing a television service.  Currently, they offer you packages that you get for certain prices, and those packages will often contain channels you'll never watch, but you pay for them anyway.  Now, imagine being able to call up Comcast, and tell them exactly which channels you want, and they charge you a per channel fee.  Now, instead of paying a lot more money for a ridiculous amount of channels, you only pay for the ones you actually watch, and you save a little money.