Survey says: Nearly half of MMO gamers bought virtual stuff

No shock...I would kill,l kill I say for Blizzard to start selling virtual items. And it has nothing to do with time I average 96 + hours a week in Azeroth, my wife a little less...but the game is such a huge part of our lives it would be nice if we could legally acquire items like Mounts and such through RMT.

Thanks man :)

The article is a little fuzzy on details. What do they mean by 'virtual item'? Is a costume pack for City of Heroes a virtual item? How about a paid character customization in World of Warcraft? Does a Guild Wars expansion count as a virtual item? Does an extra character slot? Is it just any purchase that would be considered a 'microtransaction', including buying points on xbox live?

It's also pretty fuzzy on where virtual items are being purchased. It notes that 46% of mmo gamers have bought virtual items, but it doesn't state whether those virtual items were in the mmo games they play, or on their iphones or elsewhere. The assumption by the reader of course is that 46% of mmo gamers have engaged in RMT in mmo games, but that's not what the article is saying.

Nevertheless, the overall trend is hardly surprising. More and more companies are pushing more and more virtual items/microtransactions, so it's no great shock that these percentages are on the rise.

What I hate is when they charge for stuff that should be part of the gameplay like changing your characters look should be like an imagine designer profession in WoW instead of charging me for it.

TCG in SWG where all the kool new items are being added as loot cards so hardcore mmorpg players who want to collect everything have no other option but to buy them to get the new stuff. It's like you're paying a subscription and they add hardly any new content and they force you to pay extra for all the good new items. Shouldn't Crafters get them as schematics atleast so they have some use these days?

This seems in line with reality, though I really would like to review the actual study results and methodology.

How do 27% of people not know who they are buying from?

I don't believe for one second these figures hold much water, yet again everyone simply assumes that every player plays the game the exact same way they do, and that's from dawn till dusk and invest more life than is healthy in the pursuit, throwing down a few bucks when this heavily emotionally invested, is nothing.

The data collection method skews the results terribly, after all there is a huge difference these days to people who play MMO's games casually, and those who have a greater interest in computers etc and invest in/or visit a publication as listed in their sample data.

I haven't delved into this study and its methodology, but I'd ask everyone to tone down the cynicism towards any sort of study or use of statistics. There is quite a science of statistics - most of modern particle physics and epidemiology for instance amounts to little more. I'd wager that the sorts of considerations regarding sample size, makeup, questions, etc. that you all can think up in one minute's reflection were all considered during the polling and in its analysis.

As for buying virtual stuff, even given my aversion to doing so I have purchased virtual items once (some event tickets for MtG Online). I'm more of a fan of subscription based payment plans for current generation MMOs. If there was something like a Telltale adventure that delivered substantial content on an episodic schedule, I could see myself buying "episodes" in lieu of a traditional subscription (or on top of a reduced one).

Ive bought in game currency before. I was billing 400 an hour for my work, and bringing home about 60dollars an hour. I was pulling 12-14 hour shifts daily and the 20 bucks for plat was worth less to me then the few hours it would have taken me to grind it out.

That is about as scientific as I get when purchasing things. As of right now, I am taking time off work to take care of the new baby while my wife starts her career and because the money floating around in the house is a bit less then I used to make I decide not to buy stuff for the game I play, but instead will grind for it.

Once I go back to work and start making money again, then I will most likely buy in game money. I don't buy items, I want to get those on my own because that's half the fun but then again I am not one of those losers who complain if someone else does.. I worry about my own playtime not others. But farming hours on end for cash just isn't "fun" so I will buy it if I have the extra cash.

Well that's a broad survey and of course as almost every internet service out there goes to virtual items you are going to see more and more people using it.

If we want to just talk about 3rd party RMT, yes I don't doubt for half a second half the players are fueling all those f&cking gold spammers. Why else would they be there?
3rd party RMT has been making over a billion a year for years now. The average American player DEMANDS their service. It's not even a "dirty little secret" of the genre anymore as many games have introduced the service to the games themselves.

In the near future this sort of survey will become irrelevant as most games with have it as a feature sadly, SOE and Turbine are leading the way. I see NCSoft following close behind. They will be more focused on what "services" players actually want / marketing info rather then "did you know they do it".

Monkey see, monkey do, monkey fling his poo, poo, poo.

By the studies published definition, virtual item would include things like "Microsoft Points", the XBox Live currency. If the study does include interim virtual items (You pay cash for virtual bucks, points, doodads, then trade these items for tangible items like a full console game, a game expansion, or extra songs for your guitar/singing game) which seem to be included in their definition, then it really would skew the results.

The press release reads more like a marketing blurb than serious science... I can't put much credence in this one.

'I'd ask everyone to tone down the cynicism towards any sort of study or use of statistics'

A brief consultation with my statistician partner (specializing in world climate and environmental computer modeling) produced an answer mean of one word before she went back to her laptop. Sounded a little like 'Bollocks' A scientific person might be best able translate what that means. Along the lines of 'gonads' I believe.

But I can believe it when you include face book items, probably much more, but lets not pretend you are talking about the majority of the subs MMO games please, it really is embarrassing. The most pathetic attempt to fix numbers ever, local government bodies would laugh at that.

Figure out WHY people don't want to play those games, stop trying to blame the bloody payment model. Hint for Turbine for example: You make amazing games but if you enforce more group play than the population can handle no one but devs on their dinner breaks, and people who've been playing since day 1 can level the game and from what I've read of DDO sounds the same case again. THINK!

Try some real stats as to why no one is playing your games. Examine the logs of players, find out the trends of players who quit in trial and those who stay. Blizzard DO do this AND act on it (Slashdot had a good article a while back) and guess what, lots and lots of players! Imagine that! What quests do they d before leaving, how long do they play for. What classes do they play, is there a trend in account retention? What areas do players play in before they leave, what areas are players who stay playing play in, maybe copy the succesful ones?

People are waiting for a playable sandbox mmo (more power to EVE though) We'll cough up the money for new original games.

/end rant()

I'm not sure which results I'm supposing to be agreeing with. People who spend a lot of time in "virtual worlds" frequently also buy "virtual goods" - unsurprising, especially if you count Second Life, where you pretty much can't do *anything* without buying a virtual good at some point.

Extrapolating that to "about half of all MMO players buy gold from RMTs"? Um, no.

This "report" reads less like a serious study, and more like a promotional justification for some company churning out RMT games. I wouldn't cite it as a source if you paid me.

Plus, read the language, by their definition of "virtual item" buying Microsoft Points, is a qualifying act for this study. Sure, you pay a few bucks for the MS point, then immediately flip to the XBox Live Marketplace and turn those points into new songs for Guitar Hero, or a screening of an HD movie, or an entire game or expansion. I don't think ANY of us here would equate that act with buying a $5 xp-boosting potion or paying $10 to wear the color purple in a game, yet this so-called study does!

Look, the bottom line is, when a report on a market study uses vague generalities to describe its findings, it almost indicates that smoke is being blown somewhere you don't really want smoke to be.