Barriers and Obstacles: Into the Breach of a New Era in Play-By-Mail Gaming

[GrimFinger]

If one wants to conduct an autopsy of the Play-By-Mail industry, in order to try and gain some insight into how to improve the industry, one malignancy to look at is something commonly referred to as the set-up fee or the start-up fee. It is a blight that continues to ail the industry, and it constitutes an obstacle and a barrier to entry into the gaming genre of Play-By-Mail. While technology has brought mankind into the Twenty-First Century, the set-up fee is a throwback to the prehistoric days of the Play-By-Mail industry. This is one Neanderthal that deserves to be slain.

There are enough obstacles and barriers to entry into the genre of Play-By-Mail gaming, without PBM companies erecting additional ones for gamers to overcome. In a day and an age when PDF documents can be generated quickly and easily, and are common place in a society that has embraced computers and the Internet, set-up fees make less and less sense.

As a long time veteran of playing Play-By-Mail games, I balk at the fees that PBM companies continue to charge for being set up into this Play-By-Mail game or that one. If people like me balk at it, then do you really think that people who have no experience with Play-By-Mail games, but who otherwise might find PBM games to have merit, won't be likely to balk at paying them, either?

Certainly, paying ten bucks here or forking over fifteen bucks there is not the end of the world, but how many Play-By-Mail companies do you think that someone completely uninitiated would be willing to go out on a limb with - if they are beset with set-up fees right from the get-go. To get more people re-interested in trying Play-By-Mail games, in order to re-grow the PBM industry, every last obstacle and barrier to entry needs to be eliminated.

It may, indeed, be impossible to reinvigorate the genre of Play-By-Mail. If technology, itself, has slain the great beast, then PBM cannot be made any more dead by analyzing it and by criticizing it. In their pursuit of the Holy Grail of automation, Play-By-Mail companies continue to treat set-up fees as sacred cows. Preserving these archaic barriers to entry only helps to ensure that Play-By-Mail gaming cannot make a comeback. The best thing to do with these sacred cows is to make hamburger out of them!

If given a choice between trying a Play-By-Internet game that is free of charge, and a Play-By-Mail game that carries a legacy of both start-up fees and per-turn fees, all else being equal, which do you think that the average gamer is likely to go with? How many Play-By-Mail games are still thriving that charge a per-order rate, I wonder? The good old days of Play-By-Mail's golden era are not golden because more Play-By-Mail companies charged start-up fees back then, compared to now. There was no e-mail nor World Wide Web back then. Rulebooks for Play-By-Mail games had to take physical form, and had to be physically delivered from Point A to point B - and made all the more expensive because postal rates were part of the nature of this beast of the player getting set up with all that he needed to have, in order to be on par with his fellow gamers in whatever Play-By-Mail game was in question.

In a day and an age where PDF reigns, why were advances in computer technology incapable of empowering PBM companies to tackle the beast of set-up costs? In truth, it did, actually. It's just that PBM companies chose as a matter of personal choice to retain this antiquated fee structure to the consumer's detriment. If there is to ever be a new era of Play-By-Mail gaming, then I just don't think that set-up fees and start-up fees will be a driving force in making such a reality. And, reality being what it is, a new era in Play-By-Mail gaming may simply be unrealistic.

But, the golden era of Play-By-Mail's heyday was not achieved by individuals whose primary driving force was realism. Rather, it was fueled by imagination and innovation. It was a golden era of imperfection, one of bug-plagued games and moderator eccentricities.The genre of Play-By-Mail is waiting to be rediscovered by a new generation of adventurous souls. Who will they be that chart new ground in this field? Or has man become too timid to unleash his imagination once more?

I'm going to go ahead without you. Follow me, . . . but only if you dare!

NOTE: Originally posted in 2010 on the old PlayByMail.Net forums.

[JonO]

Lots of good points here. I think you are right that there's no need for a set up charge if the game can provide the necessary documentation via the net (and sell it separately at cost for someone who, for whatever reasons wants to have a hard-copy without printing it). I have been shocked at some of the setup & rules packages still being hawked.

If given a choice between trying a Play-By-Internet game that is free of charge, and a Play-By-Mail game that carries a legacy of both start-up fees and per-turn fees, all else being equal, which do you think that the average gamer is likely to go with?

Personally I want to use a professional when I game in any genre, except around the kitchen table. Certainly pros can, and have gone belly up but hobbyists feel absolutely OK about saying, "Sorry, I went on a picnic with my family yesterday instead of running turns." Professionals expect to get paid and the concomitant of that is they undertake to go to work even when they'd rather spend the morning in bed. How he gets paid is a different story.

But, the golden era of Play-By-Mail's heyday was not achieved by individuals whose primary driving force was realism. Rather, it was fueled by imagination and innovation. It was a golden era of imperfection, one of bug-plagued games and moderator eccentricities.

I never thought of myself as being part of a golden age before but I am pretty sure you'll agree that the success of BSE or Tribes of Crane or Supernova or Illuminati-PBM was not because of their bug-plagued games. Most moderators (professional or hobbyist) labored hard and long to eliminate second rate code and shoddy workmanship. Those that didn't, died and in their short existence did more harm to the genre than good.

The genre of Play-By-Mail is waiting to be rediscovered by a new generation of adventurous souls.

From your mouth to God's ear! (Even though I think you don't mean play-by-web )

For what its worth, after playing with a lot of pricing models and getting lots of advice, I plan on providing a first (small-hulled) ship for free and guaranteeing free play forever with it. A small ship has some advantages over a large one so its not a matter of giving out a throwaway. However, to add ships, starbases, and planetary colonies to a player's fleet will require a monthly subscription, the amount depending on the number of pieces he-she is running. This model allows me to spell out the prices, and let the player know what he's committing to. The other popular model - free to play, but buy special goodies to succeed - is a turn off to me, though obviously there are lots of people who play that way.

[GrimFinger]

I never thought of myself as being part of a golden age before but I am pretty sure you'll agree that the success of BSE or Tribes of Crane or Supernova or Illuminati-PBM was not because of their bug-plagued games. Most moderators (professional or hobbyist) labored hard and long to eliminate second rate code and shoddy workmanship. Those that didn't, died and in their short existence did more harm to the genre than good.

Well, having never played in BES (Beyond the Stellar Empire), Tribes of Crane, Supernova, or Illuminati-PBM, I am at a disadvantage in my ability to speak about those games, specifically - but, I'll try, anyway.

Or, if I may, I'll use two PBM games that I never played in, Tribes of Crane and StarMaster.

From what I have been able to deduce, thus far, these two games were exceedingly popular, during their respective apex moments in the play by mail gaming sun.

I would and I do agree that the success of these behemoths of the PBM landscape all those many years ago was not due to the fact that they may have been bug-plagued, to use your phraseology of choice.

I think that what made them as popular as they proved to be was that they made effective use of the postal medium to entertain their players. Their code and even their structure considered (I don't know the ratio of automated code and human moderator input of each game in question), what these games apparently delivered, at least for a time, was entertainment on an unprecedented level, on the PBM scale of things.

You probably had a situation where the game moderators were energetically active in the entertainment equations of these two games. People loves the special actions of StarMaster, or so I have heard. Players loved the epic feel of these games. Whether the games were truly epic in proportion and size or not, they felt epic.

There seems to have been a lot of role playing involved, on the player side of these games. Players immersed themselves, a whole bunch of them, in fact, and the entertainment value that these games delivered to their respective player communities was greater than the sum of their individual parts. Personally, and I could be wrong, of course, I don't think that it was the code that should receive credit, but rather, the heavy degree of human involvement and human interaction.

From your mouth to God's ear! (Even though I think you don't mean play-by-web )

Actually, at the time that I wrote that article, last year, I don't think that I was even thinking of play-by-web, when I wrote it.

I'm not an enemy of play-by-web games, at all. Of the ones that I have tried, to date, they have just left me feeling flat - and bored. I just got tired of trying boring web game after boring web game.

[Ramblurr]

Ooh! I was wondering when this discussion would come up here on the forums.

I think we all agree the monetization models PBM employed in the 80s and 90s are no longer viable. Consumers these days simply expect more for free, particularly on the Internet. Game shops that sell a packaged product, with 60+ hours of graphical and audio entertainment have been able to thwart this expectation (though this may be changing), but any service or game that relies on the web will have a very difficult time surviving purely off handouts from fans/customers.

Examples of failed transitions to the web from the traditional monetization model abound in the entertainment/media industry:

• Music industry - 10 years ago you bought albums, today people buy singles. This required a shift in their model. All songs are no longer equal.
  
• TV/Film - rise of TiVo/DVR, streaming, and netflix like services have put brick-mortar stores out of business. TV networks are in a tizzy because their customers are jumping ship for streaming services, or ignore all the commercials with TV on demand.
  
• Newspapers - Perhaps the most like the old PBM. They made the mistake in the web's infancy of giving news away for free online, and now they realize that was a huge mistake.
  
• Books - Publishers are late to the online bandwagon, and are acting much more conservatively then their other industry counterparts. They are attempting to bring the old model directly into the virtual space. E-books costing more than paperbacks? Restrictive DRM: can't share, lend, give away books.
  

Absent from that list is the game industry, and aside from my little blurb about the large game shops above, I think the online games industry has gotten it mostly right. If not right, then way more right than the above industries.

In my limited and brief assessment I think there are three monetization models (w.r.t. online games) that can succeed in today's market where users simply won't cough up big bucks up front.

• Ad supported - The tried and true web model. If you can gather a sizable and loyal following that grows modestly, marketers will eat them up. They love targeting a consistent audience that shares a specific demographic.
  
• Free Tier + Paid Tier - The game is free to play, though the experience is not near as rich or full as intended. This model can be well executed if the free tier is fun and engaging, otherwise it is a thinly veiled attempt to take their money. People don't like pretense, and they tend to get defensive/hostile when confronted with perceived underhandness.
  
• Free to play + micropayments - Probably the most controversial. The source of contention being, if the game is fundamentally a FTP game, but you can get pay for things that significantly enhance your edge over the other players, then those you can pay the most will win. That is generally the argument against FTP+microstransactions.
  However, I think this model shouldn't be dismissed so easily. The wild success of itunes, app stores, and amazon's one-click feature indicate that people are ready and willing to sped money on virtual goods if: 1) the price is perceived to be insignificant and 2) making the purchase is easy. Micropayments is the online equivalent of the candy+magazine display at the checkout stand, that is, a place for impulse buying. It comes down to balance.
  

Of course, the three models aren't mutually exclusive. For example, one could have a free to play add supported tier, and no-ads paid tier. Personally I think the two tiered model with micropayments is a real killer. For those who are dedicated, they will opt straight for the subscription. Those who are more casual or not totally sold on the subscription (or just don't like the idea of committing that much money up front), will impulse buy the cheap little bonuses/items that give them a boost. Both groups are psychologically satisfied.

[GrimFinger]

Ooh! I was wondering when this discussion would come up here on the forums.

Actually, the article that I posted that started this thread was originally posted on this site last year. So, you're a bit behind the times, Ramblurr. Prior to that, back when I had set the Flagship magazine website up with a forum that was working and had finally started gaining some degree of posting activity, this issue was discussed there, we well. That was before that iteration of Flagship's forum imploded.

Examples of failed transitions to the web from the traditional monetization model abound in the entertainment/media industry:

• Music industry - 10 years ago you bought albums, today people buy singles. This required a shift in their model. All songs are no longer equal.

The music industry shot its own self in the foot - time and time and time, again. The whole mass lawsuits episode was a public relations disaster, calamity, and nightmare of the first magnitude. Trying to sue their way out of their own archaic existence, to try and reestablish their discredited model of bringing music to the masses, never had any chance of winning the music war for them.

In the past, people loved the 45s (the record type). They also loved those one song on each side cassette tapes.

For all of the music industry's doom and gloom about pirated music being downloaded and traded for free online, I certainly recall going to local flea markets as a kid, and there were plenty of pirated 8-track tapes for sell, there.

Once they started suing people en masse, I made a point of not buying music - for several years. The music industry had a shitty model that it continually foisted upon the public. The public will buy music. It has always bought music. It will always buy music. Give the public a clumsy, clunky interface to obtain that music, and combine it with an obsolete business model that offers them music packaged, not the way that they want it, but in a way that they don't want it, and you set the stage for mass revolt in the Digital Age. The music industry banked its future on heavy-handed legal tactics, and many would download music for free, just to spite them. Technological advancement brought with it cultural change, and the music industry wanted to preserve its Neanderthal culture. So, it paid the price, it's still paying the price, and both technology and culture will simply create new music industries to replace the dinosaurs that refuse to get their shit together.

Newspapers - Perhaps the most like the old PBM. They made the mistake in the web's infancy of giving news away for free online, and now they realize that was a huge mistake.

For a long while, I used to read the free news offered by The New York Times. Now, I no longer even bother visiting their site. Their new paid model is doomed. They should fire whomever came up with the idea for it.

The New York Times was certainly well-positioned to establish itself as a premier source of news and information to a humongous online audience. Instead of focusing upon making itself increasingly relevant to a changing culture, they opted instead to focus upon preserving the status quo. There is much irony in the fact that The New York Times, an entity which reports on the world, refuses to enter the whole new world that we now live in. The New York Times is doomed to learn the hard way, apparently, that their competitors (both current and future) will ultimately fill the void that The New York Times is carving out for itself to fall through.

[ixnay]

Excellent post. I had started drafting something like this before I lost my window, but you said it much better.

I've said this before - look at Farmville and Mafia Wars, each of which have earned far more money in one year than all PBM games combined. You can play both for free. You have in-game incentives to recruit friends. You can pay for premium content, or to accelerate your position. You can buy gifts for your friends. Or you can just coast for free, floated by the advertising. They had some kind of system where you could take part in sponsor-driven promotions, but that quickly filled up with some fairly shady spam practices, so I believe they are phasing that out.

Let's look at how this could work for a fairly simple computer-moderated game like Far Horizons. Set it up to take inputs from all channels (web, email, facebook, iPhone, etc). Allow players to buy enhancements (new ships or multiple setups in a game). Allow them to charter private games, with customizable rules. Reward them for recruiting friends. Let them accelerate tech research with money. And slap ads on every screen.

Most people will stay on the free side, but a sizable minority will pay for enhanced content or accelerated development. And you will have a FAR bigger player base than if you charged the standard $3-$5/turn that the traditional PBM model demands.

Consider this - as a PBM publisher, you have invested a huge amount into code and hardware. But this investment sits idle 99% of the time! Which would you rather have, 100 dedicated players who pay $5/turn, or 10,000 players who generate an average of .05/turn? Both scenarios generate the same amount of money, but which one has greater promise? Which is going to be more sustainable? Which one more efficiently leverages the investments you have put in?

I am a PBM player from the old days, and was willing to throw money at these games back then. I am just now getting back on the horse. I am very happy to play Far Horizons for free. But I am very tentative about picking which position to play in Hyborian Wars -- $5, $7, or $9 a turn. Yikes! It would be worth it if this game is all its cracked up to be, but as a newbie I don't know that, do I?

[JonO]

I would and I do agree that the success of these behemoths of the PBM landscape all those many years ago was not due to the fact that they may have been bug-plagued, to use your phraseology of choice.

That was your choice of words, not mine. I never played in a game that was noticeably buggy - one of the advantages to paying for playing, I suppose.

Personally, and I could be wrong, of course, I don't think that it was the code that should receive credit, but rather, the heavy degree of human involvement and human interaction.

The size and scope of those games was almost entirely due to the fact that they ran on computers. There is no way that hand-moderation can deal with the complexities of hundreds or thousands of sectors and hundreds of players. The computers freed the GMs from the scut work and allowed them the time to handle special actions.

Illuminati-PBM (GAMA's Best PBM Game of 1988), by the way, was/is entirely computer moderated. As was/is Star Web. It might be argued that that those games are still around because they didn't depend on clever GM-ing.

Rick Loomis's take on this:
"All of Flying Buffalo's games are completely computer-run for accuracy (computers generally do not make mistakes, although admittedly the operators sometimes do), speed (we have over a hundred games running and hundreds of customers and can handle as many as care to sign up), and fairness (you don't have a human referee looking at your turn and deciding what happens - the computer treats everyone exactly equal.)"

I'm not an enemy of play-by-web games, at all. Of the ones that I have tried, to date, they have just left me feeling flat - and bored. I just got tired of trying boring web game after boring web game.

Me, too. in any version of gaming. Remind me to tell you some time about a couple of the stinkers I paid $39.95 to own on CD. One advantage of tutorials we didn't think about is, if they are available before signing up, it's possible to spot a boring game without playing it.

[Ramblurr]

Given my above mini-analysis of the (IMHO) various possible monetization models for games, where does PBM fit into this?

As I alluded to, the days of charging players for rules and "setup packages" is out. The only people who still think that is a viable option in today's market will not attract any gamers under 30. To be frank, these oldtimers are old, and their mindset is entrenched in the traditional pre-digital model. I hope my brief outline of all the other media forms and their struggles over the past decade will convince them that the old model will not survive (if, of course, their goal is to revitalize the PBM-style genre and pull in new players).

I think paying per turn should go as well. A fee per turn made sense in the postal days, because there were legitimate costs per-turn for handling and processing. Now days, the psychology of online consumers is such that there is gut reaction against spending money online. The closet thing to a per-turn fee is a subscription. If you charge 5$ per turn and run a turn every two weeks, charge 10$ a month! Though, I still don't think that would make a terribly successful PBM game.

I keep harping on this, so pardon If I sound like a broken record, but people in many ways are more stingy with their money, and will not part with it unless there is perceived value. This value cannot be obtained by reading rules or a fancy marketing blurb (like ads for old PBMs). They will want to experience the game for themselves and realize the value it holds, only then will they show their appreciation by paying. This stinginess has developed in large part due to the sheer number of online outlets where we could possibly spend our money.

It doesn't pay to go into specifics regarding monetization for general PBM games. Each game needs to be analyzed on a case by case basis, and the correct models applied to. My favorite systems are those where an in-game currency that can be redeemed for perks (better ships, more research, etc). This currency can be bought with real money, but the in game currency can be traded around, so those who don't pay can still receive the perks.

An example of this is EVE online. A player can buy a PLEX (Pilots License EXtension) for ~$15, which can be redeemed in game for a month long subscription. However, the PLEX is a real in game item and can be traded/sold among players. So you have some players who in effect play EVE for free, because their position is such they can trade for PLEX to extend their subscription without paying a dime.

[JonO]

currency for cash has always struck me as being the same as playing poker in a game where you could buy as many cards as you wished at $X per turn. It's theoretically possible to get dealt a royal flush in five cards, but it's rather likely if you buy half the deck.

[Ramblurr]

Currency wasn't really the right word, rather "credits" that can be exchanged for in-game perks: special actions, advertisements, etc, but also traded in game is what I was referring to.

Obviously I advocate limits on use, so, as you put it, players can't buy half the deck.