Beren Hurin
OMNI Endeavors
249
   |
Posted - 2013.03.13 17:39:00 -
[1] - Quote
So maybe this is getting too much of the weeds of CCP's development practices and tradecraft, but in terms of business models, if the funding for building a game comes from the microproducts that are sold in pieces such as dropsuit BPOs and weapons, or UVTs or skill boosters, how does this affect which team is rewarded for what kind of development?
In other words, when you have a subscription, you have a gateway that you must pass through to get at all of the content, therefore, there must be a business interest to develop and pay equitable attention to progressing all of that content in harmony to maximize an experience that keeps people coming back. In a way, all developers can claim a part in that sale of a subscription.
However, I would feel like the incentives and forces that would drive a sales and marketing team to put pressure on developers would change as a result of how you design microtransactions to fund your development.
Example:
Lets say the dropsuit design team is expected to come out with a new suite of limited offer 'front page' dropsuits each quarter and a few (3-4) individual event items in the same amount of time. Depending on how reliant the company is on funding from these accelerated skill/vanity goods the choices of what to make will be based on the largest possible market that could be sold to.
So if 75% of the community uses assault rifles and assault suits most of the time, how often do you think we would see a some kind of specialized logistics suit akin to the gallente black eagle one? Probably much less often...just a guess.
The other funding source is the 'accelerated skill' source of funding that is found in the skill boosters and advanced meta gear. To me, I feel like I can buy boosters to 'make my time more valuable' Boosters worth it to me because it means that I may not have the same opportunity as others to play as much, but I can get an equal amount of the content out of the game.
I would hope that most funding comes through this kind of transaction source, where it doesn't pander to a game play style as much as a 'sense of value' aspect of the game.
I'm looking for better ways to articulate this concern, but a few different things have gotten me thinking about this. One is the term 'legibility' I've come across in different economics literature. A fundamental principle of taxation (funding models) is that foundations of taxation rely upon certain immutable or very slow changing assumptions about a community. When you have social revolution that alters community 'shapes' your funding is disrupted.
Another way of putting it is...how will the paradigms of the behavioral economy of choosing to play Dust and Eve, their interactive in-game economies, and the real world development economy all be appropriately managed from the design end to create the best possible sandbox for the future? |