It’s a common trend in games, nowadays, to figure out how to pick up the gamer and shake him for loose change. And I foresee a backlash. Among the recent news:

Now, don’t get me wrong. I’m a developer. I understand the need to make more money. I’m actually on board with trying wacky new ways to increase revenues, even including things like paying for name changes and wedding events run by professional events staff. Hell, I can even be convinced of things like the Station Exchange. But in witnessing most of these changes happening nowadays, one gets the sense that no one is really thinking about these changes from the perspective of the guy devoting part of his paycheck to this hobby.

See, I want each customer to pay me more money, if possible. But it’s crucial to me that the player is happy, or at least satisfied, to pay me this money. This is especially important in a game with a long-term relationship with a player, such as an MMO. The question is a matter ofvalue, which is to say, what does the customer think he’s getting for his dollars?

Value isn’t a reality thing, it’s a perception thing. Even though in theory White Wolf can offer better support if everyone paid up, and Everquest could hire more events staff and CSRs, the perception to the players in all of the above cases is that they’re getting the same game, only at a higher price tag. Which is to say, there’s a loss in the percieved value of a gaming dollar.

Ever since the first guy charged 99 cents instead of a dollar, people selling things have been contemplating the psychology of price and value, but in some ways I feel like our industry just doesn’t get it. As a parable, I kept my Everquest account around for YEARS. It was, quite simply, easy for me to justify a $9.89 expenditure every month mentally. Hey, I might want to get back to that someday! But when I got tired of SWG, I cancelled immediately. There are many reasons, but mostly I couldn’t justify letting the subscription linger at the higher price point. I’ve got a co-worker who used to have 7-10 accounts for games he liked, such as Everquest and Ultima Online. He doesn’t buy more than one anymore. The higher price tag is one reason he cites.

As mentioned in this thread, Guild Wars and Runescape are two games that have reaped great rewards from a marketing position of offering a greater gaming value for the buck. Whether Guild Wars’ billing model will be successful in the long run remains to be seen, but in the short run, it’s sold a ton of boxes and gotten a ton of attention. As mentioned here, Doom’s ‘first episode free’ model also was something that id rode into the halls of gaming immortality.

And I personally reject the notion that ‘cheap’ or ‘free’ automatically connotates something negative to the customer. In fact, I think that, as more people try to shake gamers for loose change, ‘cheap’ and ‘free’ are going to become buzzwords that get more attention. The trick is that customers will always start with the assumption that a ‘cheap’ or ‘free’ game is lower in quality, and therefore not a good value. It does mean that games at a lower price point need to overcompensate in their communications as to explaining why the value proposition is good (i.e. the game is still high quality and/or innovative, even though it’s cheaper). ESPN’s football game last year centered their marketing on the premise that it was almost as good as Madden at half the price. Huge mindshare resulted from the simple stance of greater gameplay value.

Original comments thread is here.