The MMO Gaming Life


MMORPG (Massive Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game) has almost invasively become a nornmal segment in the internet entertainment segment in the past few years. It's gone a long way from the text based MUD from decades ago. Everquest really put it on the map and MMO's have been growing like weeds these days. The idea is simple: 1. make a virtual world where people can explore and collect items; 2. allow many people to interact with each other in the world; 3. allow characters that people build to be persistent.

Unlike most other industries, all this is virtual and relatively few resources are required. This means a low level of servicing to maintain it and reasonably manageable costs to improve and expand the world. Coupled with the fact that game addiction is growing phenomenon amid expanding internet usage, there's plenty of victims to reel in.

The game industry as a whole has matured from its heady VC days and have begun consolidating into larger entities. Small, successful game developers have merged, been bought out, or abandoned their companies to join larger entities. These larger entires like Sony, EA, Squaresoft, etc have been eating up market share to establish a persistent presence in the game industry mainly to guarantee that they have shelfspace to push whatever they roll out.

This strategy is a survival of the fittest and in the relatively unregulated game industry, it seems that it is the safest bet. Although this isn't all up and up. There are small game developers being beaten to the punch, muscled out of their market, headhunted of their staff, extainguished by parent buyouts, bombarded with IP lawsuits, dropped by VC's for various reasons, and the list goes on and on. Then you have the etherware games like Duke Nukem's never-going-to-see-the-light-of-day sequel, game developer staff being dropped like flies, worked to death with tablescrap pay, and MMO's pushed out like the Sims Online which appears IMBO to be a pure money grab attempt that failed.

Medieval world settings are the most popular means of MMO escapism - mainly because people recognize this type of world. Everquest exploited this rather "safe" recipe. Other MMO's soon cut into the field with titles like Diablo, Diablo2, Ultima Online, the recent Ragnarok Online and City of Heroes, Sims Online, Star Wars Galaxies, Star Ocean, Final Fantasy XI, and the soon-to-be-released World of Warcraft. In all, I expect 2005 to be a flood of MMO's that will take center stage. Some will fail miserably and others will see profitability for years to come.

For decades, game companies have battled piracy with a number of measures meant to make it more difficult to copy a diskette or CD. With so many options these days to circumvent copy protection (I'm not encouraging people here), some are going the AOL way. Just what is the AOL way? Simply put, it's using the cheapest method to distribute your software to the most people possible, then let them come to you with payment to create or maintain access to their account(s). In other words, they're limiting their worries to technical support issues, game development concerns, account billing/payment, and a IP issues.

The popularity of peer to peer like Bit Torrent are now eyed as the defacto software distribution system to augment fixed location FTP distribution sites and mirrors. Even the so-called secure Steam Powered software distribution system relies on Bit Torrent to relieve a chunk of its file distribution load.

MMO's will not replace a stand alone game. A single player game has several key advantages at the moment which aren't expected to be eroded anytime soon by MMO's. Among them are better graphics and sound quality, significantly better framerates and less latency issues, and a more theatrical gaming experience. Still, these advantages are not always realized if a given game isn't developed to its maximum potential. idSoftware's titles come to mind...

However, the cost of MMO's are going to squeeze smaller titles out of the market. Customers are no longer buying games just to try them out anymore. They're asking deeper questions like:

• How entertaining is this game?
  How long will this game last on my computer?
  What's the monthly cost (if any)?
  If so, what kind of payment plan is available?
  What kind of payment cancellation policy is in place?
  What kind of transaction security do you use?
  How secure is my personal information that you're storing on your server?
  What's the recommended (not minimum) hardware requirements?
  What's the learning curve like?
  What range of expertise does this game support?
  What comes with the game? Poster? Mousepad?
  Will I need an internet connection?
  If so, how secure is your client/server connection?
  Do I have to pay for updates or, for that matter, tech support?
  Are you going to use my connection for anything other than my gaming experience?

Okay, maybe people don't ask all these questions. But I'm sure everyone at least ponders a few of the above before buying a game these days.

When all is said and done, it's still a try before you decide if you like it or not. Virtually all game stores have a strict no-refund policy once you've opened the box. What this means is that budget conscious shoppers may divert their money away from trying more titles toward feeding a monthly charge MMO. With the cost to upkeep an MMO about the same cost as 2-3 new games per year, it's still expensive but not over the line.

But consider a few of the features and genres persistent in the game industry today and their evolution from yesterday. Most 2D games have gone 3D. And with 3D games, virtual worlds become the next goal. Overhead view games and turn based games eventually turn into RTS (Real Time Strategy, or everything happening in real-time) games. RPG's, no matter what interface it had before, are going 3D, RTS, and MMO. FPS (first person shooter) have been among the first to push into 3D and enveloping virtual worlds. Once voice communcation software came about, they extended the FPS interface to a higher level.

What is the next level? Virtual headset 3D worlds where we can do whatever we want? That looks like where we're going. But before that is realized, we should understand that games are an escapism that's junkfood for the mind. While it feeds our innate desire to explore, it can turn into an addiction that can, when overdone, cause a number of problems socially and economically. Such addictions compare almost 1:1 to other addictions like drug use, alcohol abuse, and gambling... perhaps I'll pick up this train of thought another day.

But see games from the industry point of view. The demand for interaction by players with other players is immense. FPS games would never have blossomed without player versus player, team versus team, team versus game environment options. A stand-alone game, although it may be great, is a one-time affair. You buy, you play, you discard. The company sees profit only once from the customer. For MMO's, most of which are pay by month, you buy the game, you play and if you want to keep on playing, you pay. The game company now pimps your gaming addiction for as long as it can keep you enthralled either by constantly providing new content for you, or selling you access to interact with other players.

So, when you boil things down to a pinch, you can see where this is going. I'm not saying pay by month is bad. I am agreeing it is probably the the norm for the future. But when you step back and take a bird's eye view, the same thing is happening to the gaming world as is happening to the IP/data world.

In the IP/data world, knowledge is accumulated/collected in large databases and sold to interested parties or clients. So, for example, if you wanted answers to a large number of Windows support issues, you sign up to a pay subscription to access a given database. In the gaming world, if you want access to your friends, you sign up to a monthly MMO to access your virtual characters and interact with your online gaming friends. You are now reduced to a piece of data and paying to be "alive" in any number of worlds you wish to be active in.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have some MMO characters to maintain...

There were many responses to the "Steam" article. Thanks to everyone who took the time to post a comment or reply. The input was varied and many included tidbits of interesting information. Let me clarify a few points that I think are the most prominent.

First, the issue of playing the game as long as you want (the standalone gamebox). HL included a code to complete the CD install. Once installed, it was unlimited usage and several updates were available which did not noticeably alter accessibility. Valve later decided to turn to Steam to address several issues (faster update delivery, theoretically better anti-cheat measures, better control over locking out users violating the EULA, etc). To cater to users wanting maintain unlimited usage of the games, Steam offered the offline feature to allow the user to play the accessible games without requiring an internet connection (don't confuse with LAN connection). This same feature will no doubt be available for all Source games as well.

Given the fact that most standalone games die off after 1-6 updates at the most, the automatic online updating offered by steam is above par for the course. On the other hand, you won't have any update files, meaning you'll have to be creatively saavy to backup the patched GCF files in your Steam directory should you want to backup the updated version for later reinstallation. So, all-in-all, I don't think standalone nor LAN gamers will be affected much, if at all.

Second, the issue of the credit card. If I sign up for a monthly subscription, then that's what I expect. Cancellation may require a bit of coaxing but if you keep an eye on things, it usually goes without a hitch. Sometimes a bit of stress is involved - fact of life.

But the Steam offer is kind of unique. It's presented like a sale of a physically obtainable product. But it's described like the product is a service (you buy, we install, you use). And wording in the SA depicts the product as a subscription. So my beef is that I'm believing I'm buying a game (not subscribing to a game), but I'm ending up with a product whereby Valve can decide to change this product into a subscription model without my approval.

Changing to a subscription based model would most likely only apply to connecting to online game servers, not LAN/standalone gamers. That part, I don't have that much of an issue with - should that happen, I will (and no doubt most Steam users, judging by the responses) find another game. It's the "without my approval" part that irritates me the most, especially when the words "credit card" is involved as it is in this case.

The suggested solutions range from dropping all Steam games altogether, to buying only the boxed version of HL2 for the code, to alternate payment methods. Disposable credit cards come to mind. The Valve/Vivendi disputes aren't expected to allow the HL2 CD and its code to be made avaliable by either party anytime soon. And even if it were, the CS:S and DoD:S might not even be included (sold as a separate money grab... I mean add-on).

The third issue is that question "Is Valve trustworthy?" I think it's too early to say so I'll stick with my "no". From what I've seen, they have a tendency to push things out into the market before they're ready (flawed updates, questionable changes, update rollbacks, etc). If anything, this gives me the impression of chaos than greed. But then again, I'm sure we've seen the two mixed together at some point or another. ;)

Given their HL2 sourcecode leak almost a year ago, I wonder just how secure their systems are now. Furthermore, I can't find any certificates of trust like Verisign nor assurances the Steam connection itself is secure. Perhaps someone reading this could kindly correct me.

But what about the looming Subscription model? After the Valve/Vivendi lawsuits are over, legal bills have to be paid. Of which the HL2 sales have to recoup a large portion of, in addition to breaking even the distribution and game development costs, not to mention the Steam system costs. There certainly is fuel to push toward a Subscription model, probably immediately after the sales peak of HL2 and its related "Source" offshoots. Or at least that's what I think...

Valve's Steam just released 3 software packages you can buy. It's great to be able to play CS:S while Valve and Vivendi duke out their legal battles. However, I have some concerns about their Subscriber Agreement - in particular, section 4.

Most people dismiss agreements like this. EULA's are probably discarded on a per-minute basis around the world, but this SA is slightly different. First, the games being offered are not for "purchase" but rather available for "access" via a "Subscription fee". If this doesn't fuel the fear that Valve will turn Steam into a huge subscription-based monster like Evercrack, I don't know what would (I'll leave the debate whether subscription based games are the future or not for someone else - read: don't discuss that here, thx). Even if Valve doesn't morph into a subscription-based system, the usage of the term certainly keeps this open (as if the terms in 4B doesn't). And second, there appears to be a "forced subscription" model in place - meaning that if you don't say "NO" loudly enough, you probably will have to foot a "bleeding from the wallet" fee.

In it, 4A suggests that the end user agrees to maintain up-to-date credit card information with Valve. Other than a pre-authorized payment subscription type plan, I don't know why else that would be required. Section 4B states that Valve offers a 30-day period for announcing changes to their fees and billing methods and that "non cancellation" of their services automatically means you agree to and authorized payment of the new fee(s) and/or billing method(s).

The concern of 4B is not limited to this Steam Powered SA and is apparent in many subscription and pre-authorized payment plans, albeit probably not in the exact wording. And if you're not careful, you may have ended up in this kind of credit card "trap" before.

By "trap", I mean that the credit card owner ends up paying for new and different services he or she may or may not have wanted in the first place. And that redressment, reimbursement, reversal of charges, or credit of any kind is not possible, as stated in the SA. I hate to be cynical, but you can hear laughter from the Swindler's gallery snicking "We've covered our butts, but we've prevented you from covering yours!"

This reminds me of the opt-in/opt-out warefare in the courts not too terribly long ago. The most recent in my memory is the Telemarketing do-not-call plan.

Here's an example of the Valve SA gone bad:

John Doe "buys" the Gold package and gets the merchandise 2 months later, all the while enjoying CS:S and awaits HL2 and other games when they're out. Then, he stops playing Steam games for some reason or other. Maybe it's going to Iraq for 6 months. Maybe he's KIA and his family's a mess trying to get his body back from some third world country. Maybe it's being laid off an no net connection. Maybe he's got a new baby and he has no time for the computer. Maybe his wife has cancer and he doesn't want to leave her side. Maybe he's in jail for insider trading. Maybe he's found a new game and dropped Steam games like a bad habit. Maybe he's just forgotten his password and given up on the damned thing. Or maybe he's installed a anti-spam software, e-mail filters, firewalls, anti-spyware, and disables services and system functions on this computer so that the accumulative effects prevented the announcement of a change in the fees and/or billing methods from ever being read.

Anyhow, Valve's new fee/billing method is not known for months until the credit card bill is examined. While the saavy credit card holder who bought the Gold Package may immediately know where to cancel, the poor widow of GI John Doe might take weeks to find out who the hell Valve is and put a stop to the incessant monthly billing. SORRY, NO REFUNDS!

The first thing you might laugh at is the assumption that John Doe doesn't read his credit card bill every month. Some people watch it like a hawk, and some people aren't as diilgent. It's a fact of life. But is it just to make such persons liable for new fees? There certainly isn't an option for automatically opting out of any fees in this SA. So that does that mean GI John Doe stationed in God-knows-where for six months should also face risk of being nickel and dimed without his knowledge? What about little Timmy's dad whereby little Timmy clicked on the close for the announcement of a change in fees/billing method and also deleted his father's email just because he liked the game so much?

For those familiar with changing trends in economics, personal financing, credit cards, and trust, this opens a whole new can of worms - one that much bigger than the observation I'm making here about Valve's SA.

To be fair, I sincerely doubt Valve's intentions are evil and insensitive to end users and that profitting from non-vigilant credit card holders is their "master plan". And this SA looks like it was drawn up from the mish mash of legalese assimulated from various documents. Not to say the SA is shoddy or plagiarized mindlessly from other material, but... well, let's say I believe it could be produced in a manner that's better for both Valve and its fans. Of which, I doubt every Valve and Steam software user reads announcements like a religion, hardcore gamers nothwithstanding

Although this issue can be solved by automatically opting out every "subscriber" not responding with an authoritative yes (little Timmy clicking on every YES button is not enough), there are dozens, possibly hundreds more similar "SA" situations out there. However, relatively few are involving as many under-18-year-olds and potentially financially irresponsible young adults.

CAVEAT EMPTOR, my friends!