Slashdot Mirror


Scott McCloud On Micropayments And Gaming

Thanks to Game Girl Advance for its discussion of a lecture by comic creator Scott McCloud at EA's Redwood Shores campus, during which he floated "the idea of using micro-payments for online gaming, which he analogizes to feeding quarters into the arcade machines of yore." The article's author muses: "Would you pay 25 cents for 100 credits of Bejeweled? What about a dollar for six hours on EverQuest? How about a virtual penny arcade that let you play multiplayer Joust or Gauntlet II online with people from around the world? No monthly subscriptions, just pure pay-to-play." We've previously covered McCloud's hands-on interest in micropayments on Slashdot.

9 of 57 comments (clear)

  1. No, I wouldn't by Acidic_Diarrhea · · Score: 4, Insightful
    The problem that I have with micropayments is that if I am going to go to the trouble of handing out a credit card number to an online retailer, I have to see a real benefit or need for it to happen. Micropayments for a game on some website would be a great impulse buy if you had a means to deliver the spare change in your pocket to the retailer. As it stands, the consumer has to give out their credit card data to yet another website in order to make a payment of a quarter? Services like paypal might help allieviate this problem but I still am not convinced that it works well.

    I suppose I need to get a change slot installed in my home so I can send my quarters down the pipe and have them pop out at pop-cap games.

    --
    I hate liberals. If you are a liberal, do not reply.
  2. Raising costs for the consumer. by DamnRogue · · Score: 4, Insightful

    While I'm sure this is a great idea for content providers, the farther the fee structure gets from a flat-rate system the less popular it will be with the customers. Games like EverQuest have conditioned gamers to expect monthly billing (or no billing at all, if you look at Diablo II), so anything more frequent than that will be seen as an irritation. A linear cost per time billing scheme also makes products substantially more expensive for heavy users, who are a primary source of word-of-mouth advertising. They must be kept happy. Furthermore, consumers respond very unfavorably to volatility in the amount they pay from one bill to the next ("My cell phone bill is WHAT??"), and a micropayment system would only exacerbate short-term fluctuations.

    1. Re:Raising costs for the consumer. by roche · · Score: 4, Interesting

      For those of us, like me, that do not have the time to invest in EQ or SWG, this isn't such a bad idea. I only have time to play a hour or two a month these days, and I am not going to pay 15 dollars a month, per game for that. I could see paying a dollar though for one hour when I was in the mood to play for a bit. If they had something like this, I wouldn't have had to cancel my accounts.

      The only way I could see this succeeding though is if it was a alternative method of payment. By having it as a second payment option, it could potentially draw in new customers and keep some of the ones around who do not play as much as they used too. If they completely replaced their payment options with this method, it would do nothing but chase away the hardcore gamers.

      --

      roche
      Bah Humbug!
    2. Re:Raising costs for the consumer. by *weasel · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The number of gamers who don't continue playing persistent online games past the 'free' month is the vast majority of the persistent gaming market. Compare Everquest's box sales ( > 2m) against its peak subscriberbase ( < 400k ).

      imo (given these similar numbers across all persistent worlds) - these monthly fees of $10-15 are the primary barrier for most gamers. Anyone less than wholly-devoted to the product is extremely unlikely to find these monthly fees acceptable. Everquest's fans may well seem to all be obsessive-compulsive primarily because only obsessive fans can justify $13/mo for that one game.

      Lowering the monthly fee won't work very far either. Once you drop past $8/mo or so, the cost of making monthly CC charges (and dealing with card expirations, contested charges, etc) looms large over your profit margin.

      Yearly subscriptions may get around that, but you may lose your posterior at the end of that first subscription year when the bulk of players who had completely forgotten your game contest the charges.

      Imagine the following scenario instead:
      Blizzard creates a 'ledger' for each player of Worlds of Warcraft. After the 'free' month they switch over to their 'micropayment' scheme. With this, they charges $0.25/hr, up to a monthly maximum, against that ledger. Instead of regularly recurring billing, players are able to infuse their WoW ledger 'up-front' in transactions of $20+ as they desire. (the monthly cap is very important, as hardcore gamers are incredibly important to the 'health' of any persistent world).

      Essentially you have implemented pay-as-you-go micropayments in Worlds of Warcraft, but you aren't beholden to a proprietary public key infrastructure of a third party. You also didn't need any technical expertise outside of what you already needed to handle monthly billing. You're bringing you average transaction up, and mitigating the cost risks that come with recurring billing. (Though you would likely want to retain optional monthly billing for the hardcore players' convenience.)

      Publishers with larger online libraries (such as Popcap or SOE) could code the 'player ledger' outside the scope of a particular game, so players could easily switch between pumping virtual quarters into a registered version of Bookworm over to Zuma in the former; or EQ to SWG in the latter.

      Many persistent worlds thrived (back in the day) with hourly charges, and Meridian 59 in particular switched back to it from a monthly fee (they had a monthly cap as well). Its worth noting that M59 did not witness a major player loss when they switched billing styles.

      The key to micropayment acceptance, imo, is that the ledger is loaded with player's money 'up front'. There will be no end-of-cycle bill that shocks the socks off your clients, or run the risk of contested charges.

      The primary 'con' to this type of billingis: Are a large portion of persistent world profits coming from people who pay, but don't play anymore? If you switch to micropayments you would lose the steady cash from these players who can't bear to cancel and risk having their character(s) deleted.

      It's entirely possible that existing publishers see too much easy money in those payers to even attempt such a change in status quo.

      Of course, this would not prohibit a forward-looking developer from stepping in and 'showing them how its done'.

      --
      // "Can't clowns and pirates just -try- to get along?"
  3. Yes you would by fm6 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    The problem that I have with micropayments is that if I am going to go to the trouble of handing out a credit card number to an online retailer...
    No workable micropayment system would work that way. The credit card system just isn't set up to handle small transactions.

    A micropayment system would require some sort of public key infrasturcture. You'd put money in your micropayment account (probably with a credit card, but only when you needed to top it off), and then every time you did something that cost you money, somebody's use your public key to verify that you were who you said you were, and a few pennies would be debited from your account. The whole transaction has to be very simple to work.

    Yeah, I know what you thinking. Big opportunity for ripoffs -- steal one penny from one million people, and you've got a big haul. But that's a problem with any payment system.

    The really big problem is that there's no public key infrastructure to support micropayments. Which, come to think of it, is also why spam is such a problem -- there's no way to identify people so you can say, "I don't know who this bozo is, but I don't want any more email from him." Hmm, I smell a business synergy....

  4. Intrest? by ivan256 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    McCloud's hands-on interest in micropayments

    read:

    McCloud's hands-on obsession with micropayments

    Just what we need. Single player pay-per-play video games. Um, no-thanks. Asside from the lack of a cap on the total price, suddenly your favorite game would stop working when it wasn't profitable to run the billing server anymore.

    While I'm thinking about it, micropayments for online games is a bad idea too. The concept seems fine, but it would turn into a way for publishers to disguise price increases.

    Scott wants to find a pet industry to use as a R&D department to build his micropayment dreams for him. The trouble is, once the infrastructure is there, all sorts of advertisement supported and fixed price media will start costing fractions of a cent per use. Don't think for a second that means the ads or the up front fees will go away either. If he wants micropayments so badly, he's apealing to the wrong crowd. The users aren't going to rally to his side, because from the user's perspective micropayments are a genie best kept in the bottle.

  5. Micropayments done before by Torgo's+Pizza · · Score: 4, Insightful
    The early days of GEnie and AOL had games that were done in a micropayment fashion, only it was mostly by the hour, very similar to the gaming cafes you can find today. It works well for the occasional gamer, but it will nickel and dime you to death for games you really love.

    If you try to apply this to games like Quake or Unreal Tournament where it's $.25 for each match then you quickly lose your casual fan base. Even if it was a fraction of that, I'd still be out $50 on the Unreal Tournament 2K4 demo right now. It gets worse with RPG games. Pay a few extra cents for a fancy hat, a few dollars for that ring of regeneration. Twenty-five cents each time you descent into the Dungeon of Dispair! You'll end up with a situation just like at the arcades when one friend runs out of quarters and can't play.

    "Dude, a bunch of us are going down to attack the Red Dragon in the Dark Dungeon. C'mon!"

    "Sorry, after spending $4.32 in the expansion area to get my Crystal Sword, I can't afford it."

    Those that can afford their gaming habits now have an unfair advantage. Arcade games used to offset this with skill allowing you to continue on one quarter, today's games often have killzones designed to make the player shove in more quarters. Online games would surely go down the same route.

    I also can't think off the top of my head of an instance where a product went from a flat rate back to a hourly/micropayment rate. Even long-distance and cell phones are edging towards a flat-rate with unlimited calling time.

  6. Insert $0.25 into your USB Slot to Read This Post by superultra · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I like McCloud's stuff, but after reading this I feel like he's a creepy guy in a trenchcoat following me around waiting for me drop a coin. Enough with the micropayments already!

    Why? Because if I drop a quarter in an arcade cabinet, the quarter serves as physical proof that I dropped a quarter in there. Now, if I were actually in a real arcade (which is darn near impossible anyway), I can go to the arcade employee and tell him that the machine "ate my quarter," (another modern impossibility since the game would have cost no less than four quarters) but the fact remains that I've dropped a physical quarter in the machine. The machine just can't take a quarter out of my pocket without me looking.

    But online payments reverse this. The power of the transaction is now firmly in the grip of the payee, not the payer. With micropayments, Scott McCloud's dream machine can take quarters from my pocket whenever it feels like making an error. I understand that there are checks and balances with the credit card companies, but what if some 10 year old kid uses his mom's debit card? How do I know that the game didn't charge me for 11 games when I only played 10? Who's going to go over their credit card statement to compare how many times they've played a certain game? Moreover, with a physical arcade, when I place the quarter into the machine it is physically me placing it a machine. Using a credit card for gaming micropayments across the internet is like giving someone all your quarters, telling him to pass to the next guy and so forth until someone is close the machine, have him to put one quarter in and then kindly hand back all the other quarters you didn't use. Repeat 5 times an hour, more if you suck at the game, each time, of course, becoming yet another opportunity for someone you don't trust to interupt that line and snag a quarter.

    It should come as no surprise that McCloud pushes micropayments, and it should come as no surprise that someone at EA Redmond probably has several whiteboards full of micropayment ideas by now. They're content producers so, as I've illustrated, micropayments place power firmly in the grip of the producer.

    Is it just me, or are McCloud's micropayments remeniscient of the old Office Space-a-roo, only legal?

  7. Legally Required Penny Arcade Link by Jeff+Reed · · Score: 5, Funny
    Magic: It's What's For Dinner.

    Check the news post for that strip for more commentary.