Talk:Strategy for Information Markets/Multiplayer computer games

need focus
As of this edit, there's some good background on multiplayer computer games. However, it's not clear exactly where you want to go with it. It needs to fit with the class--economics and strategy.
 * The section on "purchase and use" looks like it might be the beginning of focus. One thing to focus on would be different revenue models for multiplayer games: retail sale, subscription fees, combination, and other possibilities (Freemium). If going this way, then particularly interesting would be identifying which kinds of revenue models fit which kinds of games.
 * Otherwise, where do you intend to go?
 * See my earlier notes on Talk:Strategy_for_Information_Markets
 * As an aside, the background looks pretty good, but if you do plan on having this kind of background, you should research a bit more carefully and reference your sources. (see PLATO (computer system), GemStone IV, Ultima Online for instance). TDang (talk) 12:15, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

ECON 452 first midterm class reviews
Please put your reviews for the class assignment here. you may make your review into a sub-section of this section, or just a paragraph. Make sure the reader can identify your review, and make sure to include your signature. TDang (talk) 00:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

You guys have a good start going here. There's a lot of general information and background data making it easy for someone who wouldn't know much about the topic get a good idea of what you are talking about. The only thing I would suggest is incorporating some the things we have learned in class as far as network externalities, lock ins, path dependence, etc. I'm sure it's something the professor would appreciate and like to see in all of our wikibook submission since the point of classes in general is being able to apply what he have learned into all of out assignments. Other than that, I think you guiys have a good sense of where you're going and what you want to do. MSanchez (talk) 21:36, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Review

There is a lot of really good background information here about the different types of games and consoles that are available. I thought that this was a great base for people reading about your topic who do not necessarily know much about it in the first place. My only thoughts on improving it are these. Firstly, there are a few spelling and grammatical errors throughout it. Not a huge deal, but it probably should be corrected. Secondly, there is a lot of general information about online games and the different types that are around, however, there is not a lot of information or ideas relating back to the title of your section, "Strategy for Information Markets/Multiplayer Computer Games". It might be good to see some more writing on particular strategies that are used by different companies in relation to things we have learned in class. Ebag'

Midterm Review

I really like how you begin your wikibook with a good amount of general information throwing you right into the topic. I would suggest maybe a couple extra points in the overview just to make it seem like more of an introduction, summarizing a little more of your topic. There were also a few grammatical structure errors towards the beginning however that is not a huge deal. One suggestion that is not critical but might help certain readers of the wikibook would be a slight description of the games mentioned. For example World of Warcraft is a MMORPG that has millions of participants running around a fictitious world, and a sentence or two on why they charge the monthly fee. (Taken care of with hyperlinks to more comprehensive discussions on what the games are. BJ Crowning 20:16, 20 October 2010 (UTC))

The freemium subscription vs section was nearly perfect. It explained quite thoroughly the difference and I feel that even if I was not a fan of video games, I would understand completely the different situations in gaming. I would suggest possibly expanding the "making a profit" section with some of the more specific information provided in the prior section, but I do like the incorporation of class aspects in this part. The last suggestion I would offer is for the section on advertising to possibly explain a little more thoroughly. In the beginning I was a little confused however once i read the paragraph again I understood most of what you were trying to get across. Overall this was a great start to your project and I enjoyed reviewing it. ARoszkow (talk) 17:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Looks good so far to me, I had no idea that online multiplayer games so as far back as the early 90's. Since this is about multiplayer computer games, maybe touch on the topics that you mentioned at the top of the page in, hotseat, LAN, play-by-email, play-by-post, play-by-internet, and online games. I know online games is the big one but I'm interested in what these other online games are, you wouldn't have to go too in depth just a brief summary. You mentioned Xbox live and PS3 online but maybe go a little more in depth on how Microsoft and Sony have taken the idea of online computer games and translated it to video game systems. Overall I liked the read, good work. --Mschwart (talk) 18:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

1st Midterm Review

This is well done in my opinion. I like the way you can read it from start to finish with good transition, but initially I felt the overview was a little dry for how much rich content proceeded. I like the way the definitions for key terms are exemplified nicely and then defined briefly, but relatively afterward. "This gaming can be pursued either through the web or simply through an application which accesses the internet but which is not hosted directly by a website based on the web." All inclusive sentences like this are good for people who are just learning this information and need things to be distinguished; however, in some spots you clearly defined a company's use of their knowledge of lock-in, but didn't really touch on the reason for making such marketing moves. Other than that, I found the clarification on types of subscriptions and "full-partial games" quite informative. I would worry least about that section. As for expanding your ideas, maybe think about researching new games that are due to be released in the future with new technology being utilized or something of that nature, and then apply that to your knowledge of networks. Toochie (talk) 19:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

TDang review
I'm reviewing this version:

the demand curve out?
 * "...which link individual users, via the internet..." There are, of course, multiplayer computer games which aren't played via the internet. There is a long history of games played via different kinds of networks, although those are mostly obsolete, I believe. There are still many multiplayer computer games which are played via both players on one machine (Mario Kart, for instance). This is a quibble, but maybe you need to think of a different expression. BJ Crowning 19:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "...Users access the application on personal computers..." Similarly, there are multiplayer internet games which are played on consoles like XBox. I'm not yet sure whether you mean to rule these out or not. BJ Crowning 19:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "...such as first-person combat..." Really? First-person shooters which are that old? I need a reference for that. BJ Crowning 19:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "In recent years there has been a significant increase in games that require an upfront purchase as well as a monthly fee." This needs a reference BJ Crowning 19:59, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "The monthly fee is able to fund changes in the online world that the game is based in." This kind of reasoning doesn't make a lot of sense to an economist. It's similar to lines that one hears from drug companies that high drug prices enable them to continue R&D. It's kinda true, but really only in the sense that it provides profits which motivate further development. The initial purchase cost and the monthly fee are both simply revenue.
 * Second Life: you'll need a better source for this, but I'm pretty sure it's out there. An implicit issue with second life subscriptions is that most Second Life subscribers were theser for a brief period out of curiosity and now never log on.
 * "...are able to initiate more demand..." it's not clear what this means, it probably doesn't belong. Does releasing a partial game shift

General comments: This is a beginning, but it needs a lot more substance. It reads mostly as if it were written by people well-informed on gaming, but without enough research behind it. You need to build up either the modeling of what's going on or the data on what's going on (both would be even better). Some things to look at would include network externalities--it looks like there's strong one-sided, potentially some two-sided; look at subscription pricing as "two part tariffs" (can get started with Wikipedia article, find more details after http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-part_tariff); other price discrimination; Facebook games; player retention; some games which have failed; how long a game might stay popular; lock-in.

Comments such as "Instead of investing extensively with the development of new games..."; "Based on the World of Warcraft, it can reasonably be inferred that charging for online subscriptions can be more profitable..." are troubling, because they might be true but look like guesswork. There are subscription-based games which have succeeded and which have failed. Blizzrd likely pours a lot of money into the periodic updates to WoW, so it's not as if it's free for them to sustain their position.

Details like "Low overall development costs, including the avoidance of expensive development packages, allow the break-even quantity for high-quality a computer game produced in 2002 to be around 90,000 units, compared to the 500,000 break-even quantity required for license-laden Nintendo games" are very good. This isn't theory, but it is hard analysis (even if from a third-party source) and so makes a substantial contribution. TDang (talk)

link on social games virtual good sales
fairly random, but possibly relevant, link: TDang (talk) 23:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Areas needing development
•Copy editing throughout

•Comprehensive references

•Platforms

•Ways to play (hotseat, network, etc.)

•Virtual economies

•Externalities

•Develop the benefits/advantages of different economic models and strategies more completely

ECON 452 second midterm class reviews
Please put your reviews for the class assignment here. You may make your review into a sub-section of this section, or just a paragraph. Make sure the reader can identify your review, and make sure to include your signature.TDang (talk) 17:26, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Review
This section of the book offers a nice overview of various aspects of multi-player games. I think it could be expanded in some places, especially the introductory paragraphs on the "origins" of multi-player games and "Common Platforms" for gaming. Also the section "strategy in the PC vs console market" should probably be moved into or after the section "Common Platforms" since thay are closely related. Otherwise everything looks pretty good.

Tomcat122 (talk) 00:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Review
This section is very well developed and I think this is a great addition to the book. It relates to the course in many ways, good job with that. I agree with the person above me about expanding the history part. After reading that section, I wanted to know more about the general development. I think the section "Subscription vs. 'Freemium' models” can be condensed if there is a need to add other information. Overall, everyone did a great job with all of the examples used and the content in each of the sections. When you are finished adding information, I would read over everything to see if any sentences need to be rephrased so they flow better with each paragraph. Cg12 (talk) 00:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Review
I liked the use of links in this subsection and I found little in the way of grammatical and spelling errors. In the "Common Platforms" subsection, I think the use of bullets would help make it easier to read. The "Virtual Economies" section is interesting. I would suggest maybe going into the pros and cons of a virtual economy a little deeper and also looking into the ownership of virtual land and property (Who owns the land/property in a virtual world: The person that created/purchased it or the owner of the game/servers? Could the owners of such a game decide to no longer offer their game without compensating those that owned virtual land/property in the game?). EconLlama (talk) 03:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Review
I’ve noticed a few minor grammatical errors. I think you ought to go through each sentence to be sure that each makes sense, as well as ensuring that the sentences flow well together. For the most part there weren’t problems in this area but there were a few and a closer look couldn’t hurt. Also I’m fairly certain that the Madden NFL football game series has not been producing games for nearly two centuries, correct me if I’m wrong….? I noticed a bit of unnecessary repetition as well (for example: 11.5 million subscribers.) I thought the section “Strategy in the PC market vs. Console market” was difficult to read the way it is formatted; perhaps bullet points would be helpful here as well. Despite these minor issues, this section is overall well written and well structured; it provides a clear look at the subject at hand. Mswanson (talk) 15:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Review
Lots of information about online games and console games. Read over again to clear up the simple errors. For the making a profit section I don't know if "freemium" is a profit title or if it is a spelling mistake. Elaborate if it is. Also I think this would be a great place to talk about two-part tariffs. One of the biggest online PC games ever operates with a two-part tariff, World of Warcraft, and if you could figure out pricing they use for their product, both the flat fee and per-unit price, that would give the reader a great example. I really liked how you gave the reader links to the actual games and also other websites in your writing. Under the Advertisement section I was a little confused on the 3rd party marketing. I understand how that would work as in having a character walk into a store and buy food that is from the real world, but I have yet to see any games they display any real life company stores, food joints, or anything for that matter. If there are games that include real life store companies please include that. The marketing for the Army was a great example for a recruiting process.

Review
Lots of great info provided to the audience, however, there was a eye-popping error referring to NFL Madden. I believe this group meant to say the game has been in existance for a little more than two decades, not two centuries. The section on virtual economies is real insightful about the way to obtain the game, play in the virtual world against competitors and yet use real life strategic concepts. Under the making a profit section, it may be useful to provide recent financial data to show how profitable this market can be, but good examples in explaining the general idea. Another suggestion would be to express how Steam got originated and why is it such a large developer/ distributor.Cats20 (talk) 19:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

TDang review

 * Wow, a first-person combat game on Plato in 1974. Impressive. (A better reference would be good if you can fish it up. It's good that this goes back to the author, but unfortunate that it's an archive.org archive of an old geocities page.)
 * Steam: You have a good paragraph on Steam, but I'm wondering exactly how it fits. I don't think Steam should be considered a multiplayer game platform if the games aren't played through Steam, but only distributed through Steam. That makes it important, but not a game platform. I'd take it out of the "Common Platforms" part, but leave in the paragraph later until a better place in the book can be found for it... OR, if I'm mistaken and it really is a platform to play the games as well as distribute them, make that clear. BJ Crowning (talk) 21:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * "the most popular extreme gaming console today" Is "extreme gaming" a recognized term? BJ Crowning (talk) 21:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hand-helds: Can the DS play multi-player games over the internet (or any other network) or is it limited to other DS's in close proximity? How important is multiplayer gaming for the DS and PSP (what share of games is multiplayer, or any other way you could quantify their importance).
 * Linking to Toys'R'Us on pricing does give it credibility, but it's also subject to change, so it's probably not worthwhile. BJ Crowning (talk) 21:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't tell precisely without digging deeper, but it looks very much like the Black Ops pricing scheme follows the "extremeness aversion* strategy of "goldilocks pricing", where the "Prestige" version actually offers the same game as the "Hardened" version, but with extra non-game goodies. If this is goldilocks pricing, the idea would be to motivate people to buy the Hardedned version, telling themselves, "well, at least I'm not buying the prestige version". You sorta have that in your writing now, but you could check the facts and make it a little more explicit.
 * Your linking to Wikipedia possibly goes against Wikibooks standards, but I think it's very helpful, at least for the time being.
 * Your section on virtual economies is probably the right size. There's certainly a lot more that could be developed for it, but it's not clear how important it is for this kind of course (though it's an interest of mine). You should provide a few more references in that section, though. It seems there's some stuff there which needs justification.
 * Overall, you're using references well. Flesh out the references, providing not just the URL but the author, title, etc.

General comments: This is a good improvement over the earlier version. There's still some stuff from the first review which you haven't addressed, but you're fleshing out materials and references. Continue to do that. Here's two other random thoughts:
 * 1) This isn't specific to multi-player games, and so may not be worthwhile, but developing games, like many popular arts, appears to be a risky business, with a decent chance of a flop. How do game developers deal with that?
 * 2) This is specific to multi-player games. The network effects of multi-player games contribute to a "long tail", where games which might seem completely obsolete live on having formed a community. BJ Crowning (talk) 21:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC) TDang (talk) 18:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

gold farming
In China, there are lots of teenagers and young people who's doing gold farming, selling accounts and power leveling for living. Like W.O.W, there are a lot of them play in U.S.A server for selling items and stuffs to Americans to get a higher price.Szhou (discuss • contribs) 06:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This is an interesting phenomenon, but it needs to be written about carefully in order to be more than "Wow, people are playing games for money!" If you wanted to concentrate on gold-farming, I would suggest breaking it off into its own, smaller page. There you could discuss how the businesses depending on these games see gold farming, strategies they take to encourage or discourage it, etc. TDang (discuss • contribs) 23:27, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Discussion of Strategy for Information Markets/ Multiplayer computer games
First and foremost, I think this paper was exceptionally written and is full of very useful information for consumers who would like to gain knowledge on this topic. Every section, I believe, contains well thought out material. I really thought breaking up the material into sections of progressing order was an effective way to inform the audience of the giant leaps that the multiplayer gaming industry has made over the last 20 years. However, I think certain audiences would like to learn more about the certain strategies that effect the current industry. I was reading through and noticed that some of the data is outdated. I know Modern Warfare 3 has yet to be out for more than 6 months but maybe give the reader some more up to date information. And lastly, a few of the sections near the end of the paper seem to be less effective in getting the topic of the paper across. I would consider a possible cut-off line earlier or combine some of the brief sections at the end. Bobbyb (discuss • contribs) 04:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a book rather than a news site, so some material will always be out-of-date, but making it more up-to-date could be useful if doing so is really about clarifying ideas rather than just updating news. I don't have time now to review the later material-you should feel free to pull it out if you feel it isn't helpful. If I or someone else disagrees, it can always be restored. TDang (discuss • contribs) 23:29, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Team Fortress free-to-play
Here is a discussion of how Valve made Team Fortress 2 free to play with optional purchase of in-game items. (That article is a little fluffy, it could be used as a source, but it might be better to find the original GDC talk or another source.) TDang (discuss • contribs) 17:44, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Audit of the article
After doing a copy-edit audit of the article, I found just a few spots to correct. Some good content in this article, just there was just some repeated info and some not-NPOV stuff going on. Overall nice job though. Cosmopolite (discuss • contribs) 09:56, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

TDang review April 2012
I'm reviewing. I'll likely be more critical than complimentary, because (a) that's the way I am and (b) that's what will help improve things. Please don't take the criticism-over-compliments to mean I have a wholly negative view.

Make sure to check the all-purpose review thoughts as well.

TDang (discuss • contribs) 00:53, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Overall--This page is much too long. There's lots of information here which is tangential, or which refers to games in general and not specifically multiplayer games or which provides unneeded detail on this or that particular game system. The best thing for the page would be to try to impose coherence and cut it down by a good bit.
 * Kinect--This page is about multiplayer computer games. The Kiinect is an interface Microsoft has for their game console, but it's not a gaming network, and I don't think it has any impact on the economics of multiplayer games. It should be clarified or removed.
 * Hand held device--This section could be shrunk down to a small paragraph about a couple handheld devices and how they facilitate multiplayer gaming.
 * Mobile/Cellphone--Similar to above, this can be shrunk a lot.
 * References
 * Wikipedia is not a good reference.
 * "For PC games: because with the technology going so fast."--This paragraph is interesting, but I think should be moved to the Compatibility and Standards section of the book, because it relates more closely to that. The issue isn't that PC's need to be updated more regularly, it's that the PC as a platform has a weaker standard than the PlayStation 3 (for example) as a platform, and so a game developer developing for the PC might make their game work on the newest machines best and thereby not work on a 3-year-old computer. While a game developer for the PlayStation 3 knows a PS3 is a PS3 and that's what they're developing for.
 * Strategy in the PC vs. Console Market--I just moved this whole section over to Strategy for Information Markets/Video Game Development.
 * "Activision has recently acquired..."--rewrite this so it will still be correct 5 years from now.
 * "Industry types" is not a good phrase--who?
 * Getting Started--I suspect this section needs a new title?
 * Versioning, Digital Distribution--These are well-done for games in general, but there's not enough specific connection to multiplayer games.
 * "Today there are over 1500 games avialable to purchase on the Steam website. It is estimated that Steam owns at least 70% of the digital distribution market share. [2]"--That [2] should be tweaked to make it a proper reference, currently it's unclear what reference it should go to.
 * "Contemporarily, we are starting to see this stringent money making strategy..."--not clearly about multiplayer games
 * Making a Profit
 * "Based upon simple economic analysis..."--This is pretty empty analysis and should be removed.
 * "Multi-player games, especially those played on-line, have immense Economies of Scale"--Actually, this isn't clear. If the company provides an online service associated with the online game (as opposed to it being peer-to-peer) then there are costs to the company associated with the game being used and played online. That contrasts with a non-online game in which there is zero cost the the game developer post-sale. Both will have large economies of scale, but it's possible that the non-online games have greater economies of scale than the online games.
 * "By keeping a desirable product this market has been able to successfully generate revenues in a variety of different ways. It has crafted an industry that didn't exist before the mid-nineties."--These sentences can go away.
 * "One reason multi-player games have become so popular is due to network externalities."--This notion should be developed very early on the page, likely in the introduction.
 * "Call of Duty's Modern Warfare 3 took gaming advertising to whole new levels..."--This doesn't fit with the rest. The section on advertising is about how the game companies will sometimes make the games a platform for advertising to get additional revenue. The Call of Duty stuff is about how they advertise the game, and doesn't fit.
 * "Multiple Installments"--This doesn't fit with multiplayer games. It might fit with Compatibility and Standards if it addressed the question of when different versions of a game were compatible with each other. (Or, it could fit here in multiplayer games if it was about the compatibility of people with different iterations of the game playing together.)
 * PC Single System and The Different Multiplayer Modes with Advantages and Disadvantages--These are interesting issues for a computer game designer, but I don't think they help for an economist looking at games. Probably these sections should be removed.
 * "Recently, there has been some abuse of gold farmers in the United States and overseas."--This needs a reference.
 * internet censorship controls--This might be interesting, but needs more elaboration and concrete examples for it to be useful. Are there examples of multiplayer games where playing internationally is a problem because of censorship?
 * References
 * Wikipedia is not a good reference.
 * http://voices.yahoo.com is not a good reference
 * howstuffworks.com is not a good reference.
 * ehow.com is not a good reference.
 * about.com is not a good reference.
 * pinelight.com is not a good reference.