Business And Economy Archive

This is a repost from the Core Systems Profession board. I felt it deserves to be posted here as a topic in its own right.

We have seen many individuals come forward and proclaim they are cancelling their account. But what strikes me and many others I am sure is the sheer volume of account purchases that are just now being revealed. The rhetorical strategy is understandable. If an individual ispaying upwards of$150 or more for ten or more accounts, then it stands to reason that the individual should be taken more seriously than the rest, at least from their perspective. But in truth, is the ownership and prevalence of multiple account holders an indication of what is right with this game, or what is wrong with it?

Not all subscriptions are of the same value. For example, $15 a month from a disruptive and abusive player is more of a liability than an asset, if that individual causes many players who equally pay $15 a month to cancel or leave. I am not saying all multiple account subscribers are abusive. What I am saying though is that a player who pays double the subscription fee is not automatically worth double the game play value to a simulation such as this one.

It is my belief that the prevalence of a large number of multiple account users is not a sign that this game is successful.

It is a sign that this game suffers from major, fundamental flaws, and is unsuccessful.

If the game truly represents what it claims to represent, then an individual should be able to find satisfaction in this game with one account; givinga subscriberten characters in ten galaxies. Individual players should not need extra accounts to have a worthwhile game experience. And while one always considers the personal motivations of wanting to gain an advantage, it is a sign of bad design as well to make the advantage so extreme in many cases that it strips all motivations to play in any chosen profession.

When multiple account holders make themselves apparent in large numbers, and even boast of the fact, then it is a sign that we are no longer supporting a vision of individual players in an interdependent system. It is a sign that the player economy is a conglomeration of single "prime" characters with an entourageof auxiliary characters who serve no greater purpose than to serve the "prime" character.

Take entertainers for example. The ability to generate the entire functions and placeof the entertainer player, while at the same time exploring other aspects of play with a main character creates an eroding effect. The unattended mule "serves" players that would normally need a real player to do, reducing the need for players to fill in the "niche." Why have players do vital functions at all if non-players from multiple account users can do the functions?

Take smugglers as second instances for a weaponsmith or armoursmith, who serve no greater purpose than to slice the weapons and armour of the prime character.

Take "base crackers," or characters that serve no greater purpose than to mule skill points to destroy a base single handedly.

Take crafters. What can we say for a crafter who does not need to do anything else but sit in a room running experiments in clothing that is provided by a main character?

What all these character types share is that theyhave no motivation or independent status oftheir own.They aremerely an appendage of another character. And yetthey cannot help butinfluence the economy in just as strong of a sense as the single account player. Indeed,they have a greater impact, becausethey havetheunqualified talents of all the other characters in a player's entourageavailable when needed.

What results is a slow degradation of the player base. While revenue may still be the same from a financial perspective, actual "players" decrease in number. Galaxies that perhaps could boast of a population of 5000 players playing 5000 characters become galaxies with 2500 players playing 5000 characters. It is the same revenue, but half the number of actual players.

There are things that are just as valuable--if not more valuable--than subscription fees to a game like this one. An account alone cannot get its friends to play, nor can it group, nor can work together with other players to eliminate a base, nor create new opportunities to engage in collaborative efforts of any sort that requires activity and roleplay. Onlyplayers can do that. And when we start to substitute ornamental accessory characters to supply our individual, guild, and city needs, the result is fewer opportunities for actual players to add to the galaxy, engage in the economic life of the galaxy,or promote the galaxy to their friends.

The fact that so many individuals argue so strongly that they simply cannot function in this game unless they have access to unattended accounts to buff them, log-as-needed accounts to create goods, and the use of auxiliary character slots to leverage lot trades is not a sign that this game is working on a fundamental level. It is a sign that there is something deeply and seriously wrong. It is also dangerous, because when the multi account gamer does leave--for whatever reason--he or she createsa vacuum that is rather difficult, if not impossible to fill.

In my opinion, this game needs more players, not more characters.

If gaining more players means initially losing more accounts from multi account users, then it is a short-term loss that is necessary for a long-term growth, and a sustainable product.

One satisfied player's $15is worth much, muchmore to SOE than the extra $15 for a second instance. That one player provides not only $15 a month, but content for all the other players. And the result is that the play becomes rich, fun,sustainable over time, and infectious.

Entourages of alt characters, whilethey facilitate content for a single player or a small group of players, oftentimes cannot help but provide it at the expense of all the rest--especially new players. I would go so far as to say that the $15 extra that is gained from a multi account subscriber is actually more of a failure than a success from a marketing and financial standpoint.SOE only gets $15 a month, not another content provider.

Buffbots do not bring players into the game. Crafting alts in looted clothes do not either. Neither do "base crackers" provide for an exciting GCW and PvP. They only sustain the players that are already here, and in a way that is ultimately less than satisfactory compared to a galaxy filled with independent actors all pursuing their own interests. 15 million in account fees from one million players, 500,000 players, or 250,000 playersis not the same.

Because one million players paying $15 a monthare one million potential group mates, one million potential sales for armour and weapons, and one million players who may get their friends and family involved.

15 million in account fees from 500,000 players is half the players paying twice as much for half the potential fun.

250,000 players paying $60 a month is still 15 million, but now they are paying four times as much for one quarter of the potential fun that can be had. And with each new account that is purchased on top of the previous one, it gives brand new players that much less of an incentive to stay past their 30 day trial subscription, gives long term players that much less of a reason to stay, and even gives multiple account subscribers that much less of an incentive to justify the added expense.

No. Money isn't everything. And while the revenue from multiple accounts is indeed significant, if the game facilitates the purchase of multiple accounts as an almostde facto requirement, then it is an indication of shrinking economic viability, not robust viability.

The rhetoric of the Combat Upgrade brougt up statements of, "I have canceled my six accounts." To finances, it is $90 US Dollars a month. But to game play, the loss is but one economic actor.