Champions Online will feature a subscription-based fee and micro-transactions. ZAM considers the significance of this move, for both Champions Online and upcoming MMOs yet to be released.

Champions Online, developed by Cryptic Studios, is a hotly-anticipated MMO for comic book and superhero fans right now, since DC Universe Online is still pretty far over the horizon. Originally slated to be a Marvel Comics-based MMO, the deal fell through and the game took a direction reminiscent of the Champions pen-and-paper RPG, created by George MacDonald in 1981.

The buzz has grown exponentially since last spring, when executive producer Bill Roper announced the game would be released a few months later than originally scheduled, so that the development team could add more features to the game. The new release date is September 1, and the beta phases have been underway this summer.

Earlier this month, in a "State of the Game" announcement from the developers, Cryptic revealed that Champions Online will feature a micro-transaction revenue model in addition to the traditional subscription-based model. There's been an ongoing debate over this announcement, with MMO fans both supporting and opposing Cryptic's dual-revenue system. Some of the concerns don't even target Champions Online directly; instead, fans are worried that developers in-general might make a habit of the dual revenue model.

Not long after game publishers noticed the market potential of games like Everquest, we began to see MMOs popping up left and right. The traditional revenue model of an MMO was for its publisher to charge a monthly subscription fee, à la World of Warcraft and many other "mainstream" MMOs.

The "free-to-play" model emerged a bit later in the West; inspired by the success of Asian MMOs that used micro-transactions and RMT (real money trading) techniques. Today, you can see this model successfully implemented in games like Free Realms and Neo Steam, although some MMOs like Everquest began adopting elements like RMT much earlier.

Last month ZAM featured an editorial about the clash of these market strategies; specifically, the notion that free-to-play, browser-based MMOs might someday represent the lion's share of the MMO industry. But the idea of MMOs being driven by both subscription fees and micro-transactions/RMT is an entirely different issue. Champions Online isn't the first MMO to utilize this strategy; there are dozens of MMOs that use similar multiple-revenue systems.

But when it comes to what the community usually considers the "big" MMOs, most of them use a flat monthly subscription rate. If anything, Champions Online merely brought this whole issue into the limelight, offering it as food for thought. Will every MMO eventually shift to multiple-revenue models? Is it right for a publisher to charge money for a subscription fee and in-game items?

Some publishers already take advantage of this strategy, whether you've noticed it or not. Blizzard, for example, still doesn't offer any RMT or in-game items, but you can buy premium services for your account, like character transfers and customization. While Blizzard might not be selling its own gold or giving players the chance to buy in-game items for real currency, it is taking advantage of other revenue models aside from just the monthly subscription rate.

In fact, there are very few MMOs left that don't use some form of a multiple-revenue model. There were a few MMOs, like Guild Wars, which originally only charged for the price of the game and expansions, although that kind of practice never truly caught on—at least when it came to MMOs.

It used to be that when you bought a PC game, you could expect all online play to be totally free. Whether it was an RTS like Command and Conquer or a FPS like Unreal Tournament, the publishers always hosted multiplayer servers at their expense. For the most part, it seems that publishers are still following that path for those specific genres. The last thing I heard about StarCraft 2, for example, is that Blizzard wouldn't be allowing LAN play anymore, although online server play will still be free via Battle.net.

If you've been paying attention though, you may have noticed a little trick that publishers have begun using; developing RTS or FPS games and packaging them as MMOs, even if they don't feature persistent worlds or most of the elements that a "real" MMO usually would. By marketing a game as an MMO, a publisher can take advantage of extended revenue beyond a game's initial price. Or, as we've seen with many free-to-play games, the publisher expects the game to make more money in micro-transactions than it would from retail purchases (either direct-download or in brick-and-mortar stores).

Still, many of these games have proved popular among gamers, with subscription or other revenue models that end up being successful enough for the publisher to turn a profit. If people have the money to spend, what's wrong with letting them spend it on virtual items or premium services?

One of the problems we might face is the entire MMO industry gradually following the path of games like Champions Online; charging both a monthly subscription fee and RMTs for things that influence the game world. It then seems as if we're being charged twice (or three times, if you include the box price) to play the game. When have you crossed the line between a publisher offering innovative features and being just plain greedy?

Let's look at what Champions online is offering via RMT. In the July 15 "State of the Game," Cryptic Studios wrote:

Champions Online will support micro-transactions, but contrary to the concerns of some people, the game is not ‘based' on them. There are the basic tenets for our micro-transactions:

• The vast majority are aesthetic items, such as costume pieces, action figures, emblems, etc.
• A very few are account-level management tools, such as being able to rename a character
• Micro-transactions should never limit your ability to enjoy the game or reach the level cap
• Any micro-transaction that has a game effect can also be earned in the game through play

Also, it's important to note that the overwhelming majority of micro-transactions are account-wide. This means if you buy a costume piece or an action figure, every character on your account gets it.

It seems that Cryptic anticipated most player concerns and tried to address them in the announcement. Specifically, the last bullet point stating that "any micro-transaction that has a game effect can also be earned in the game through play" is the most important of them all, because it means that unlike some MMOs, your gameplay won't necessarily be limited by how much money you can afford to spend.

Still, it's easy to see how this announcement can get under many fans' skin; they will have to pay for the game itself, plus a monthly subscription fee—and on top of that, they're being told that, unless they spend more money on micro-transactions, other players will have access to in-game items or features before they will. It does seem greedy; there's no way around that.

On the other hand, you could argue that Cryptic is merely giving players the option of obtaining certain items or features faster than they usually would, if they choose to spend a few bucks here and there. If the MMO wasn't specifically built around the micro-transaction elements of the game, it probably wouldn't have that noticeable of an effect on gameplay. But if micro-transactions or other RMTs are built into a game from the ground-up, it doesn't really matter what a publisher says; they will always encourage envy and allow players with more disposable income the ability to experience different aspects of the game, even if it's only sooner than the rest.