The Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game (MMORPG) market attracts tens of millions of consumers to many different types to games supported by many different types of payment models. In recent years these different sorts of payment models were developed to better serve differing consumer demands across different segments and different genres. Some games saw enormous growth after switching from a pure subscription – only model to a newer mixed model, with free to play, pay to play, and cash shop options; Lord of the Rings Online stands out as a good example.

The switch doesn’t work out favorably for all games, however. Higher-budget titles such as The Elder Scrolls Online and Star Wars: The Old Republic, developed to directly compete with category leader World Of Warcraft moved away from a standard subscription model in attempts to retain their player base, with limited success. While the standard subscription model is overall the most lucrative, it has become increasingly difficult for developers to retain a large player base with a 10 to 15 dollar a month price tag, on top of retail cost. Some games, like Final Fantasy 14 can make it work, but many (including those mentioned above) cannot. The reasons for success and failure are numerous and lie often in player attitudes towards game design, and player perceptions of developers’ value propositions.

This case study was developed to build a better understanding of player preferences and attitudes regarding MMORPG payment models. Utilizing survey research, programmed and designed using Survey Monkey, the survey was distributed online to a relevant population via popular online video gaming discussion boards. Respondent comments and remarks shared in the threads in which the survey was distributed were collected as additional qualitative data.

Ordinal ranking questions revealed player perceptions of the different available payment models when weighed against one another. Games that charged no fees beyond the retail purchase price (such as Guild Wars) and games that used subscription-only models were the most likely to be ranked #1. Games that used a mixed model; combining optional subscription services in addition to cash shop content (micro transactions) were the most likely to be ranked at the bottom. These findings line up consistently with many of the thread comment responses which consider excessive micro-transactions in MMO’s with subscription fees as exploitative of the consumer, “nickel-and-diming” players.

Other questions queried respondents on their complaints and objections in paying regular subscription fees and their perception of having received a good value. I ran a Regression Analysis to find if there was a predictive relationship between the degree of a player’s objections, issues, and complaints paying a regular subscription and their perceived value of the product. A significant positive correlation was found. From this we can determine that generally fewer issues, complaints, and objections in paying subscription fees correspond with a greater perceived value of the product in the player. This point connects well with some observations found in the thread comments, namely on large, regular content updates as a driving force behind a high perceived value for subscription based MMOs.

Later questions asked respondents how long they regularly play an MMO without dropping the game and how frequently they made cash shop purchases. When considering the subject matter of this survey it is plausible that time played may have an effect on micro-transactions made in either direction. That is to say that, prior to the study, you could suppose that being a long time player of one MMO may increase the likelihood of cash shop purchases, their monetary investment in the game similarly increasing with their growing time investment in the game. On the other hand, you might also predict cash shop purchases be more frequent among shorter-term MMO players, as non-cosmetic cash shop content is often designed to quicken the pace of progression in an MMO, or is otherwise associated with smaller, less complex MMOs.

A Contingency Table Chi-Square Test was used to analyze this portion of the survey. While the output table is not shown here, the results were intriguing. Interestingly, the test determined that the amount of micro-transactions made by the player was independent from the player’s time regularly spent playing an MMO. That is to say that, among the tested sample, there was no relationship between time spent playing an MMO and the amount of money spent on micro transactions. This kind of knowledge would be key to developers planning out micro transaction and revenue projections.

Finally, the last questions in the survey asked respondents which of the following features, if any, would they be willing to pay extra for: Cosmetic Content, Character-Specific Stat Boosts & Improvements, or Access to Exclusive Added Content. Over half of the respondents favored Cosmetic Content while over a quarter showed no interest in any purchasable extra content. These observations line up well with other findings in the survey. Cosmetic Content has little to no impact on player progression in an MMO, meaning that the frequency of its purchase would likely have very little relation to time spent playing an MMO. Further, that not a single respondent chose Character-Specific Stat Boosts & Improvements, alongside the popularity of Cosmetic Content is revealing of general player attitudes towards Cash Shop content. It appears that the Cash Shop content that players find the most desirable is content which has minimal impact on the MMO’s gameplay.

The findings of this survey do not point to a single, specific, favorite payment model for MMOs, but it is revealing of general player attitudes towards payment models and why some features are favored over others. Higher player perceived value of an MMO corresponds with fewer issues and objections to paying subscription fees, while the least popular models and features were those which employ both subscription fees and Cash Shop content, specifically Cash Shop content that directly impacts player progression. The responses indicate that while players are willing to pay subscription fees in exchange for regular content updates, they do not like being “nickel and dimed” by Cash Shops and Micro-transactions. Further, their responses indicate a negative attitude towards Cash Shop exclusive content that directly impacts gameplay and player progression, referred to as “Pay to Win.” Both of these factors can increase the risk of player objections and issues towards paying subscription fees, which can have a negative impact on the perceived value of the product to the consumer.

Here the most important take away here: in the MMO market a balance needs to be struck between a favorable value proposition and a product that lines up with the associations that go along with it. If developers and marketers cannot make good on this promise they run a high risk of player alienation. A plummeting player base, and plummeting revenues are sure to follow. All things considered, it seems that gamers do not operate too differently from standard consumers: they are looking for strong value proposition from a provider that can trusted as fair.

[Technical Summary]

[Survey Platform: Survey Monkey Questions = 10 N = 35 Regression Analysis: Rsq = 0.41 Chi Square Test: DF = 4 Alpha = 0.05 Xob = 0.28 Question 8 Paid Extra Content Frequencies: ‘Cosmetic Content’ = 54.29% ‘Character Specific Stat Boosts’ = 0.00% ‘Access to Exclusive Content’ = 17.14% ‘No Interest’ = 28.57%]