This is a follow-up post to the Money and banking in online games article from yesterday:

After heavy traffic and mixed feelings from Digg, I’d just like to summarize what the main benefits and detriments of having a banking system in a game are, as well as emphasize certain points that were lost on many people.

First: These ideas have little to do with World of Warcraft

These ideas (or rather, these suggestions) were not meant to be retrofitted into any of the games that are out there right now. They’re meant to be addressed by game designers for future games, and it looks like some game designers have already considered something like this to a degree.

Personally, while writing the article I had imagined what the effects on the economy of my EverQuest II server would be, as that is the community with which I’m most familiar. I’ve come to the conclusion that putting a system such as this into a game which has been thriving for any amount of time is completely unfair and pointless. These ideas are for new games only.

For anyone who would like to see what something like this banking system looks like in action, please consider the following games which have been suggested to me:

• Entropia Universe, which looks interesting, although the emphasis seems to be on transferring money between the real- and online worlds.
• Carnageblender 2: I can’t vouch for personally as I’ve never played it. It was suggested that many of the implements discussed in the article are currently in place in this game.
• Second Life
• EVE: Online, a very general sci-fi rpg in which a large-scale banking system run by players was attempted and eventually robbed.
• The Universal: This game reportedly has a system of banks whose interest rates depend on the owner of the planet. I’ve never played it, though.

I’ve personally only played EVE: Online, and found myself joining the game too late into its life cycle to really accomplish anything new or daring.

Second: The banking and financial systems ought to be designer-controlled, not player-controlled.

Those who read through the article in its entirety will notice that there is a large section near the end where I talk about how a system like this, while still flawed, could be implemented.

A basic principle in macroeconomics is that output equals input, so though monsters drop coins that players pick up, players spend those coins on repairs, mounts, and in-game items which effectively destroys that portion of the currency. Picking up where this leaves off, the game designers have full creative license to implement a system of banks and finances which use the information regarding coin drops and destructive sales (repairs, etc, mentioned above) to tweak not only coin drop rates in the wild, but interest and other factors in the banks themselves. Furthermore, what’s to say that a future game with these features doesn’t have a far more interactive social environment in which there are things to invest in?

Third: Much like the currency of the world’s nations, online currency is not backed by any commodity

This was the most common, as well as the most frustrating, complaint that the article received. Most people apparently do not know a thing about the currency in their own country:

Fiat Currency means “fake money”. Read about it. Your United States have been relying on this system since the 1970s.

Fourth: There is absolutely no mention of crossing over between real US dollars and online currencies.

The article was not about gold farming, not about moving assets from the real world to the online world, not about selling your soul to chinese farmers. There’s nothing anywhere in the article to even suggest that. However, that is another topic for another day, and is equally as important. Maybe if there were growth measures in place, investing in an online currency money market would be more lucrative than investing in a real currency money market.

The effect of this kind of investment would not only serve to make the online currency more stable, but also legitimize the fact that anything people are willing to trade with is considered currency, as long as both parties believe that others will accept it as such. Again, fiat currency.

I’m interested to see how the Entropia Universe unfolds, and I’m equally curious to find out how the Carnageblender economy is doing as a whole.

I’ve read the article about the valiantly attempted EVE: Online bank and its failure. However, this article is dealing with a bank controlled not by the players but by the game designers. Everyone has stories of guild banks being robbed by those trusted most with the money.

In a very interesting and through-provoking article over at Strangelands, author pixiestyx looks at the double-causation involved in defining an environment with your character versus defining your character through your environment. It reminds me of that quote (and the namesake of this post) from The Departed, when Jack Nicholson says:

I don’t wanna be a product of my environment, I want my environment to be a product of me.

It’s early in the movie and it really puts the rest of the movie into perspective, but I don’t want to talk about The Departed, I want to talk about computer games. Here is where I get to talk about what it means for fantasy in general, and role-playing games in particular. The main question in that post revolves around whether or not there needs to be an explicit declaration of the environment and background of where the game takes place in order for a player to feel comfortable playing a given fantasy-type character.

However, for example and there are many examples out, In the Dreseden files, the setting is the modern world and has fairies, elves and demons bouncing around quite happily in it. Would you be comfortable playing an elf in this environment ? Yes as the background clearly defines who you are and why am I here.

In the case of a MMOG, I think that this might be the case.

From what I know about RPGs in general and from the experience I’ve gained from those which I’ve played, I feel like a strong background is an important point in the development of a character. However, when I think about EverQuest II and the way that particular game started off, I begin to have doubts. Is there really very much character development going on in the beginning of this game?

EverQuest II begins (or, at least nearer release, began) on a boat where the captain asks you to perform some simple tasks for him. Before you leave the boat you achieve level 3, at which point you have no class or any other notion of what you are, other than your race. The races cover the gamut from regular (human) to completely wild (frog). Well, where’s the normality in this? What kind of environment could we possibly be living in where Frogs and Humans are on equal ground? In a world where racism for the smallest differences in human skin run rampant, what kind of ill-founded notions of equality must we shed in order to believe that a Human could possibly consider a Frog his equal?

After this ship experience, the player chooses the kind of adventurer they want to be and begin to perform more tasks on the island in pursuit of a new set of gear and the approval of the captain. At this point, the player begins to interact with the other player characters around them. They learn how to move fluidly, how to fight, how to move the camera, and how to interact with the user interface. Other people around them are busy learning the same things, and this forms a way for them to bond with one another.

There’s really no character development during this portion of the game. You’re on an island, there’s absolutely no lore behind the place, you got there from a boat onto which you were somehow taken by some mysterious force. There’s essentially no backstory to the beginning of this game, but there is something else which is equally important acting on the player: other people.

The story comes later, of course, as the adventurer makes his travels through the myriad cities and towns of post-shattering Norrath, but that’s not what kept people coming back in those vital first moments of the game. Not the story: the people.

Do you think that back-story and the environment is more important for defining your character for who they are, or do you think that the people who surround your character on a continuous basis are a more important foundation for your character?

Anyone who’s ever played a roleplaying game for any amount of time will tell you stories about their money. Maybe it’s how they had to grind 500 sewer rats to pay for their new wooden sword, or maybe they were up for 9 days solid in some obscure part of the world where “no one’s ever been” collecting a rare harvested material to price gouge in the marketplace to fund that new mount. Whatever the details are, it becomes very obvious that people treat their in-game money just as defensively (or even more defensively for the younger age groups who don’t have as much experience with earned “real”-life currency) as they treat the money they earn in their real jobs. Many players don’t even realize that they’re actively contributing to an economy that lives, breaths, and behaves just as one would expect under “real”-world conditions; they just want that new piece of gear, or to repair the gear that they’ve been fighting in for the last 12 hours solid.

Virtual money, just like the currencies used to fund nations in the “real” world, can be explained using extremely rudimentary economic concepts. The models of markets, of supply and demand shocks, of counterfeiters and others can all be used with some accuracy to predict (with varying accuracy) fluctuations in the economic conditions of a game world. However, there are several things which are markedly missing from today’s role-playing environments that any real, sustainable, thriving economy should have, and this does much to undermine the day-to-day reality of the game itself.

The most obvious thing that the roleplaying and other massively multiplayer games are missing are banks and other financial institutions. Banks in today’s games are a joke: most of the time they’re simply a geographically separated version of your wallet. Some games opt to not even offer this wallet service and instead find it O.K. to specialize only in providing a lock-box service for in-game items.

The ironic part of this whole mess is that even in the time periods during which some of these games are taking place (think: medieval, feudal) there were strong banking implements in place. Why is it that we have an auction-house or a broker that will take a certain percentage of your profits, but we don’t have a bank or money market that will pay a nominal rate of interest? Why is there magic, and the ability to have thriving cities and metropolitan areas in some of these worlds, but yet we have no means through which to invest our hard-earned money? Clearly there are people playing these games who have enough time invested such that their banking contributions would be non-negligible; for every workaholic you show me, I can show you a gamer who spends just as much time in front of their character.

Think of these possibilities: Guild, faction, or city banks. Guilds, factions, businesses and individuals within a city or region need natural resources to grow their empire. Buildings need wood, castles need bricks and mortar, and these two things need tools with which to be built. Who will provide this for them? Why not set up a faction banking system? Members of the guild deposit their funds in the short- or long-term to fund the project at a certain interest rate (a fair market rate of return based on what marginal value the newly funded resource will bring), the faction can use the funds in the interim for their benefit, and then will have to pay back the principal and the interest when the term expires. It works every day in real life, why not in the role-playing world? The entire financial infrastructure could be implemented on the server side (meaning that players wouldn’t have to keep track of what it is that they owed) and would have no less chance of failure than today’s modern auctioning systems.

Currently, the primary way to expand one’s own resources is to lend to other players (and collect interest), which may or may not work since online worlds are distinctly lacking legal systems as well (another day, another topic). Another way is to perform arbitrage within regional markets: that is, to buy something from someone low in one area, and sell it to someone else high without adding any value to it somewhere else. This is the meat-and-potatoes of the entire World of Warcraft economy, and it’s no secret. A third way, popular mostly to those with rare patterns, etc, is to buy the materials or required ingredients for a low price, craft them into usable resources (thereby adding value to the items) and reselling them for more than the sum of their parts.

Furthermore, a good financial intermediation system could allow new players to get up and running more quickly. Imagine being able to deposit your funds in a bank as an experienced player. This benefits you, as you’re now earning a nominal amount of interest on your money, rather than just keeping it in your inventory. Now, say Mr. Newbie comes along, and he really wants to buy that horse. He’s just the slightest bit short. So, he takes out a loan from the bank, buys the horse, and pays back the money he borrowed plus a little bit of interested when things are going better for him. Now we have three parties benefiting from this situation: First, the lender is earning interest on his money, so he’s happy. Second, the bank is earning interest on the money they loan out, so they’re happy. Third, Mr. Newbie gets his horse (because he’s willing to pay the bank back), so he’s happy. Without a good financial intermediation system like a bank, this situation would never arise. Simple in-game implementations of this could include taking a percentage of every unit of currency Mr. Newbie makes until his loan is paid off, as well as giving our original lender (the one earning interest by depositing in the bank) a slightly increased amount of money for each kill he makes.

Now, there’s nothing here that says the banks themselves have to be completely controlled by the players; that would leave to extremely ill-founded practices in some instances (praying on new players, among other things). It seems like it would be a safe assumption to say that the game designers, or the controllers of the game itself would have very in-depth knowledge of the inner-workings of their game’s monetary system. Even now, when dupes are found with currency, the problems are retracted relatively quickly. This hints at a monetary system which is at least somewhat secure (or, if not secure, prepared for the worst). Why not expand this?

Consider the scenario where the player above defaults on his loan. Well, in the real world, the bank would be out the money. The original investor would be shielded from this event by the bank and the FDIC, so the bank would take the hit. However, game companies are very good at filling out the details of certain situations. We now have extremely complicated PvP systems, extremely detailed and complicated raid zones for drones of mindless raiders to waste away in at night. Could not some of this energy be applied to creating a strong financial system? If done in a black-box fashion, a defaulted loan could simply result in a lower interest rate for future investors (in the short run), causing the bank to recoup its losses in a relatively quick manner (though there would likely be many defaults and thus many interest rate fluctuations in a given time period).

Of course even then there are downsides to all of this, but: aren’t there downsides to any aspect of any game? A simple implementation of this kind in a future game could set a trend that would make it a norm in online games. Money could grow, and it could encourage new players and the younger masses to not only use it to their advantage, but, in so doing, teach them valuable lessons about money and banking. That way, next time Mr. Newbie’s mom is screaming at him to get off of the computer and go to bed, instead of screaming back he can say “O.K., mom, just let me make this last deposit!”

With an amazing list of games on his record, developer Tetsuya Nomura of Square Enix has certainly come to be a driving force in their productions. Having started there in 1990, with so much history, the games he has produced have certainly changed. So we can only wonder: What will his next project be like?

Having finished his most recent work, Kingdom Hearts 2, Nomura’s new title Final Fantasy XIII Versus is not quite stealing the spotlight for most anticipated games. Perhaps due to it’s brethren being released under the simpler title Final Fantasy XIII, it hasn’t generated too much individualistic excitement. It so far is merely being considered as just another title in the subseries Fabula Nova Crystallis that Square Enix is so hard at work on. So what sets it apart to have been crowned as Versus?

Simply put, Nomura has finally gotten a chance to produce a game with the theme he has always wanted, namely darkness. The game is reputed to be much darker, much more serious, with an outlook attempting to elaborate more on the human aspects of the characters and the realism of the world that is supposedly only linked mythologically with Final Fantasy XIII’s world.

According to Nomura himself,

Nomura: “There’s been times when I’ve wanted to take FF in a completely different direction than the game’s producer has wanted. I’m not saying that his or mine opinions have been right or wrong, just different. One thing I’ve always wanted to explore deeper is human emotions. By going in that direction, you risk to make the target group for the game narrower, and FF is appreciated by a very large audience. But with Versus XIII, it feels like the right time to take that risk. Since the script isn’t done yet, I still don’t know exactly how far I dare to go, but I know I want to squeeze humanity out of these characters. I want Versus to feel in the entire body.”

It’s exciting to see a company willing to put faith in their developer enough to take a risk like Nomura describes it. Both exciting and refreshing.

Nomura has also said,

“When I produced Kingdom Hearts, I was in a world so bright that I almost got blinded. So now I want to do something completely different. Maybe it has something to do with my love for extremes. FFvXIII is about man in the real world. In that sense, the game will contain less fantasy than usual. We’ve created some dark environments and shown them in our trailers. But the entire game won’t look like that; we’ve only just begun.”

Even more evidence that the project will be very unique, and will incorporate very new ideas. For instance, Nomura has been quoted saying the game will even include more “real-world events”. His goal is to create a world the player truly believes in. This time around however, it will be integrated with the real world. Exactly how they will blend this together is a mystery, but an exciting one.

What this all means we have yet to see, but all together it seems Versus will surely stand apart as a next-gen RPG.

Source

According to this article at Bloomberg, Nintendo’s market share rose to 6.57 Trillion Yen today, topping Sony’s struggling , pathetic market value of 6.48 Trillion Yen.

From the article:

Sony, which overtook Nintendo as the world’s biggest console maker after PlayStation 2’s introduction in 2000, suffered production delays and slow sales at its latest player. Wii’s lower price and a wand-like controller that players swing like a sword or tennis racquet helped Nintendo widen its sales lead over the PlayStation 3 in Japan last month.

Reasons cited as the cause of the fluctuation? The increasing popularity domestically (and internationally) of Nintendo’s DS Lite, which is taking PSP by the balls.

Its two-year-old handheld DS player, Nintendo’s best-selling game machine ever, uses a stylus instead of button controls, making it easier for users to play Frisbee with their virtual pets, practice calligraphy and draw pictures. Nintendo is also looking to capture an older audience with a “brain-training” game and tutorials for cooking and languages.

While this doesn’t really actually mean anything, maybe it’s a testament to the fact that sometimes more fun is better than more pixels. Then again, nothing really matters unless it’s in dollars anyway, so we’re right back to square one.

Source

In a time when making a PC game without online capabilities is suicide, having a generous pool of out-of-house testers is an invaluable asset to a company. Any gaming company with enough skill in marketing to create the slightest amount of buzz about their upcoming game is sure to have more than enough hands to make quick work of the network and non-ai testable features of the game. For a given game beta, who knows how many will apply? Certainly more than are needed. So who gets to play, and who gets the shaft? More importantly, why?

Personally, I’ve filled out so many applications for game betas that it doesn’t even phase me any more: I probably won’t win, but at least I can show my support for the game. I know that the person who will win in my stead likely has more hours per day to devote to the game, more background in beta testing games in general, and has probably even played through far more games than me in his lifetime. However, in all likelihood, this person will probably have a smaller social network, and will thus not be able to market the game as effectively as I could if I were chosen. So who is the right person to pick in this (somewhat polar, contrived) situation? Do you want someone to find bugs in the game, someone who will ceaselessly play the game for you so you can log his every move and figure out where the bugs are?

This person basically serves the same purpose as any well-scripted bot that the company can produce themselves; the only difference is that the human can be used to balance more aspects of the game, since it’s terribly difficult to script intelligence in bots to the point where weapons, maps, and other niche aspects can be balanced effectively. They’ll raise their own skill in the game and be better at it when it releases, and maybe even discourage some new players from continuing their patronage. This last scenario doesn’t matter in a one-time-fee game, but for online subscriptions it matters a great deal. Most subscription games, however, don’t allow persistence of your character from beta to release anyway.

On the other hand, there is the semi-hardcore gamer who will spend enough time playing your game to have made it worth your while in ways other than finding bugs. He still might find a bug or two, or at least get himself into a strange situation which will give you a good enough stack trace to figure out where the bug is. But, more importantly, and perhaps more valuably, he will talk with his friends about the game, raise hype, network socially with others online (and in person) and probably do more to promote the game in general than the introvert in the first example. To me, this seems a more valuable person to choose.

I say all of this because of a trend that seems to happen in gaming these days. Too many times, on too many beta applications there are so many small, finicky, nit-picky questions that are clearly there to weed out those who haven’t already beta-tested for 10 games in the past. How many games do you play in a given week? How many of those games are online? If this is an MMO/RPG, how many MMO/RPGs have you played in the past? Which ones have you spend more than 100 days playing? It’s questions like these which make it very obvious exactly what the company is looking for. However, none of these questions will yield anyone like the person from the second example, the socialite. If you want someone to actually test your game, fine. If you think your company is strong enough that it can’t use some free marketing (and really, who is so big that they can say that? if they can say that, then they probably won’t be staying big for very long).

In my opinion, the “beta test” marketing scheme is one of the best, as it gets people excited about your upcoming game. It gets people talking. If it’s a bad game, then bad news and reviews will come out before you’re even done. So what? For those who remember, the upcoming game Tabula Rasa was completely different in it’s first phase than it is now. It was so bad, so bland, so generic that the team actually listened to the people who would be playing the game and re-did it in it’s entirety. Now, that’s what I call useful beta test information. Alternatively, a game getting strongly positive hype in beta (a la, WoW, Halo 3, FFXI, EverQuest, need I go on?) will produce (I predict) a far greater stream of revenue in the beginning of the game’s life cycle than would a game without this same hype.

I’m not saying that game companies shouldn’t try their best to get the best candidates for the job; all I’m saying is that sometimes the best candidate for the job isn’t the introverted, downward-spiral game “g33k” who skips his own wedding for a raid. Sometimes, the best person for the job is the person who will make you the most money. Bugs can be fixed, but a game never releases twice.

EVE Online’s new expansion: Revelations hit gamers today. Literally. Some of the EVE players probably even had to log off for the first time in 4 years to install it.

While it looks like they’ve added a ton of new features, the question remains: Does it matter at all for new players? I’ll admit that I haven’t played EVE very much, but the time I was playing was filled with a sense of hopelessness and intrigue, two feelings very similar to what I’m feeling right now. With all of the skills and abilities simply on timers, how could a new player possibly catch up to some of the mega/mondo players who’ve been online since the game was released?

They’re giving away their signature 14-day trial, and they claim to have some new features to help “rookie” pilots catch up faster, but I’m still not sure that I buy it, unless the attractive feminine voice goading new players through the tutorial has some way to speed up time or send you back to 1999.

For anyone interested, here’s a link to the 14-day trial. I’d suggest firing it up and giving it a shot if you’ve never played. It’s a really fun game, but I’m just not sure that it had what it takes to get me hooked.

EVE Online 14-day Trial Sign-Up

Japan’s premier source for insider gaming information and reviews, Famitsu, has reportedly given the upcoming Zelda game for the Nintendo DS, The Phantom Hourglass, nearly perfect scores. The score is out of 40 points, judged by 4 reviews who each have 10 points to allocate. Three of the judges reportedly gave the game 10/10, while the fourth judge awarded 9/10, resulting in a composite score of 39. According to wikipedia, only 15 other games in the history of the publication have received such a score. More importantly, though, only 7 games have ever gotten 40, and one of them in Ocarina of Time. Everyone knows that Ocarina of Time is the yardstick to which every new Zelda game is measured, but Famitsu’s attempt is still relatively cute.

According to 1up.com:

Famitsu seemed fairly satisfied with the stylus controls. “It is so easy to pick up! There have been many games using the stylus, but this one didn’t feel frustrating for the most part,” said one. However, another was concerned about “parts where you may mistakenly perform a different move.”

The dungeons and puzzles are getting praises, though: “The way it allows players to use the unique features of the DS is quite natural. Particularly puzzles where you draw directly on the map are brilliant. It feels like you really are physically solving the puzzles.”

The Legend of Zelda: The Phantom Hourglass is set to release this weekend in Japan (Saturday, June 23), and is further schedule for a worldwide release during the holiday season 2007 (some sources say mid- to late-november). Personally, I will crushing small children under my bootheel to get this game as soon as it releases, and then playing it continuously until I pass out from sleep deprivation. I fully expect to fail college during the 2007 holday season.

The game is reportedly using near-3D quality graphics, utilizing cel-shading technology, since the DS is capable of supporting it more easily than a true 3D system. It’s also heavily utilizing the DS’s extensive stylus features, making it the first game since the game that came out just before it to do so.

Much like WarioWare: Smooth Moves, Big Brain Academy: Wii Degree (BBA) gives the player an opportunity to test their skill in a variety of minigames. Unlike WarioWare, however, BBA will leave a far better taste in the mouth of the typical player as there is no true “end” to the game, which is designed to keep users coming back for small sessions every day.

continue reading "Big Brain Academy: Wii Degree Review"

All of the current-generation consoles (with the exception of the Wii, but that’s no surprise) are capable of producing an HDTV-quality video signal, helping to promote High-def in all of it’s un-standardized glory. This means bleeding-edge corpse explosions, pixel-by-pixel cleavage, and of course, extremely realistic terrain of a caliber previously unavailable. Or, at least that’s what they hope you’ll think so you go out and buy that $2,000 HDTV you’ve “had your eye on” for the last 7 minutes at Best Buy. Of course the image quality will be better on a High-definition TV; there’s no question that a Blu-Ray or HD-DVD will look better with twice (or higher) the resolution of your standard TV. The question is: With a $600 gaming console, and at 50% or higher prices on these High-definition DVDs, is the amount of extra money you’re paying for those pixels really giving you any advantage or status? Further, how much of the demand for High-definition entertainment equipment comes from “your buds” who need to see those extra pixels with their NFL Sunday-Ticket package versus gamers who want some illustrious “competitive edge” supposedly offered by being able to see an opponent from farther away?

Clearly this is a blog article and not an academic paper, so I don’t have the necessary data to back up my claims, but most people reading this article can likely understand where I’m coming from. We all know people who’ve gone out and dropped ridiculous amounts of money in order to make their games look better, to make their gaming experience more immersive. Everyone has a friend who found a “great deal” on some multiple-thousand dollar piece of equipment which still cost multiple-thousands of dollars. The tech industry must be loving it. If they aren’t already, there are a ton of ways these industries could capitalize off of the fleeting needs of the average gamer.

First: Re-release a High-def TV with one new feature and label it the “ultimate Halo 3 experience”. Mom’s basement would love another one of these, and there must be millions of kids nationwide who’d do anything for that new LCD screen with the 1ms-lower refresh rate.

Second: Re-release all of your old, poorly-rated (are there even any good movies that have been released on Blu-Ray/HDDVD? I think maybe the closest I’ve seen was Blue Crush or X-Men 12) movies with slightly higher quality and charge 50% more for them. This is the perfect match to step number 1, and will be highly complemented by the audio equipment you can get from step number 3.

Third: Take out some features from your $20,000 theater-quality speakers and audio subsystem and sell them in a premium audio store (since they’ve still got the brand name) for a large discount. For some reason, hearing Dolby 5.1 from five-thousand dollar speakers in 2007 sounds better than listening to Dolby 5.1 from five-hundred dollar speakers in 2000 when they introduced it. Has audio recording technology improved much since then?

While it’s hard to be sure what the actual percent of demand for these new technologies is, it’s a safe bet to say that a non-negligible portion of it is coming from today’s up-and-coming gamer generation. As long as you can make someone think that a technology will make them a little bit better playing their video games, or if you can convince them that going way past the marginal optimal spending levels for these technologies is a good then, then, well, I guess there’s no new information here.