Virgin: Betting Big on Head-to-Head Console Gaming for Cash (Q&A)

Shoe_headshot_-_square
Tuesday, June 29, 2010

Virgin is back in the gaming biz, and it's for something a lot more ambitious than a sequel to Cool Spot. They recently did an equity-share deal with World Gaming, which will now be folded and skinned under the Virgin brand...

Wait, what's World Gaming, you ask? We wouldn't be surprised if you haven't heard of these guys before. In fact, that's one of the main reasons why they're now Virgin Gaming -- that virtuous name opens up a lot more doors for them and provides strong brand recognition that gamers are more likely to trust. And that trust is vital, because they're asking their customers to plunk their cash down for no physical product in return.

In short, Virgin Gaming (like World Gaming before it) lets you challenge other members to multiplayer games on the Xbox 360 or PS3 for cash (according to the owners, over $800,000 has exchanged hands so far). It's head-to-head gaming with something more tangible than pride at stake.

While Virgin oversees and regulates everything (for a small commission of the winnings, of course), an online-based cash bet on a match of Halo 3 still seems...iffy. What about the cheaters? The disconnects? The lag? Vice President of Gaming Operations and Cofounder Zachary Zeldin, President and Founder Billy Levy, and public relations representative Matt Schlosberg answer all our questions and concerns....

 

Virgins Zachary Zeldin (left) and Billy Levy.
 

Bitmob: With your additional resources, will you actually change anything about the World Gaming experience?

Zachary Zeldin: Oh, everything's changed. From registration to playing a game, it has all been retooled, reskinned, and rebranded as Virgin, and we’ve made that experience at least tenfold better.

Bitmob: Can you be more specific?

ZZ: Sure. We’re going to be launching with points, which are based upon users engaging the site, so it’s not you winning 15 games in a row, 20 games in a row -- it’s interacting with the service. So play five games, enter five tournaments, add a friend...

Later on in the year we’ll be launching the Virgin Marketplace in which you’ll be able to come and use those points for culturally relevant items: custom Nikes, branded Xboxes, skinned PlayStations.... And then because we are a Virgin company, we have the ability to do really cool things on Virgin America, Virgin Atlantic...like send a gamer to Necker Island -- you name it.

If I’m playing an F-1 game and I’m in this tournament, [maybe] the winning team gets to go to the next F-1 Grand Prix and sit pit row with Virgin Racing. We can do things like that -- prizes that are unprecedented in gaming. Matt had some cool ideas, like we can do mile-high gaming tournaments on Virgin Atlantic or Virgin America.

Bitmob: How does your matchmaking work?

ZZ: What we developed as World Gaming were two major pillars of our community: skill rating and reputation. Skill rating is based off your true skill. It’s going to take into consideration everybody that I've played, all their skill levels, and it’s going to give me a perfect snapshot of where I stand within the Virgin Gaming community.

We also have reputation, modeled after eBay. After Matt and I play a game, I get a pop-up notification on the site asking to leave feedback for Matt. Not how good he is as a gamer, because skill level kind of takes care of that, but did Matt show up an hour late, did he throw Hail Marys every single play, would you recommend him to the rest of the community...and all of that is viewable on Matt’s profile page.

And we’ve seen in our community, gamers do not get games if their rep is below two stars. We do it on a three-star basis.

Bitmob: How do you handle things like in Halo 2 in the past, where people were able to do a router glitch to cause artificial lag for the other players? It’s been really hard to police, because the other player can’t really say for sure if it’s Internet lag or his own connection.

ZZ: When Billy and I came up with this idea, there were other sites out there that were trying to do this, but it was all self-reporting. How do they prove who won? They can’t. So Billy and I always knew we needed a technical solution for this.

That’s why we raised the money and built what we call the game validator. Essentially it's a parsing mechanism. During registration, we capture both players' Gamertags, and we store them in our backend. So when Matt sets up a game of Halo, he sets it up on Slayer, 20 kills, 15-minute time limit...I accept that match, both funds are taken out of the account and held in escrow. We then swivel our chairs, or I throw my laptop off my lap, and I’m on my console gaming.

The second that game’s over, we get that information, and as long as it fits with the criteria that was put inside the challenge card on Virgin Gaming, and it matches how they played, we automatically update the winner and release the funds to his account.

So if it's first to 50 kills, and somebody pulls the plug, due to the level of detail in the information that we get, we see that team one had 48 kills, team two had nine kills, we have built-in processes and procedures in our customer service manual that say this designates an intentional disconnect -- award the win to this player.

But if it’s something along the lines of what you’re talking about, where it’s almost 100% the developer’s fault that this even made it into the game, or it was some stupid glitch, if you have an issue, we tell you in our terms and conditions, quit the game immediately, and contact our customer service.

Customer service will do their internal review. We keep notes on every player: Did they try this before, are they brand new, do they have a perfect standing within the community...whatever it is. That way, we have a history of this player: "Oh, this player has disputed 45 matches in the past month," you know something’s a little off.

We can make very educated decisions based upon case-by-case scenarios.


Continued on page 2...

 
1 2 Nextarrow
Problem? Report this post
BITMOB'S SPONSOR
Adsense-placeholder
Comments (17)
Andrewh
June 29, 2010

I would never, ever, ever participate in something like this. It's this type of gaming that turns me off from online play. I hate super competitive play -- I'm much more casual, just looking for a easy time. Even thinking about people being so serious about it that they are putting money down nearly sends me into a panic attack.

And it seems such a strange thing for Virgin to get involved in. They are a company that has a track record though....

Default_picture
June 29, 2010

A reputation based on player feedback? I have a 100% negative reputation on Xbox Live, largely for trash talking and quitting early, despite the fact that my microphone is set to "friends only" and I never quit. Some of my friends are really, really (really) good at Halo. I'd be willing to bet that my poor reputation is a result of sore losers abusing the feedback system. I can see the same thing happening with this.

Brett_new_profile
June 29, 2010

I can't see myself ever getting into this, either. It'd suck away my favorite part about gaming: fun.

Shoe_headshot_-_square
June 29, 2010

I want to try it, for sure...but I'm scared. I would be willing to put in $20 just to see where that goes....

Headshot
June 29, 2010

I like the idea of this but I don't think I could ever do it myself. They only kind of gambling I do is play Left Right Center with quarters. :) Anything where whole dollars are involved I get chicken.

Picture_002
June 29, 2010

I've no beef with it whatsoever. I'm not into competitive gaming so it isn't for me. But there's an audience there, they know it and they're going after it. I'd say to Brett, it being what it is doesn't make it suck away fun, it just isn't fun to you or I. Trust me, this sort of thing injects fun for a lot of people. Really hate that self-important mindset to which if something isn't tailor to one's experience, suddenly it isn't "fun" or "good" when it's well established that sort of thing are those things for plenty of other people. I respect that even though I have no interest whatsoever in ever participating because I don't have the competitive gamer's skill level nor care to ever have it. I'd rather throw my $20 down on a fantasy football league where I'm a lot more comfortable with my skill set.

I do share Eli's concern about reputation systems. Heck, I've gotten negative feedback fom people mad I wasn't on a headset partaking in their racial slurfest (most of which were directly offensive to me).. Those are easily abused by people that want to use anything to somehow lower a competitor and gain whatever advantages they can. I'm not a designer of any sort, but I'd hope for a more reliable way of determining a reputation

Shoe_headshot_-_square
June 29, 2010

I'm worried about the feedback system, too. I've been pretty lucky on Xbox Live to receive pretty positive feedback (but I don't know what that ultimately means anyways), but I can easily see sore losers leaving negative feedback based purely on...well, them being sore losers.

But the Virgin guys did note to me that the "good rep" they're looking for isn't unreasonable. I had to trim the interview down to a more manageable, readable size...so I left some of this stuff out, but for things like tournaments, you might need a 70% positive rep to enter, which means they give you some room for situations like that. You don't have to have a perfect rep there to participate in a lot of the events.

I'm intrigued by something like this. I hate to admit it, but some of my most thrilling multiplayer games against friends are due to us putting money down on the matches. Sad, I know.

Default_picture
June 29, 2010

I look forward to the day where actual money can be exchanged over a quick Xbox Live match of whatever game (not just Halo 2, WTF?), but these pro tournaments are less intriguing than golf. Videogames are the one "sport" I can actually do better than most, so why would I ever want to watch other people play the same games over and over with Kat Hunter yelling at the back of their heads, "Yeah, do more of THAT!" 

Way to lead the team, Kat...

Bitmob_photo
June 30, 2010

As much as I love video games, I'm not nearly confident enough in my skills to bet on myself.  I can't justify doing it.  I like to think I'm a nasty pool player, and I can beat just about everyone I know on a consistent basis, but the second money gets involved I don't feel as confident.  It's the same way with games, but at the same time, I know plenty of people worse than me that are eager to throw money down on a game, and I'm positive that those people will gravitate to this just fine.

Default_picture
June 30, 2010

No matter how good you are at a game, someone else will always be better than you. Unlike the poker or blackjack table where that adept needs to travel to a specific city and casino and then table for you to be in danger, with online play they can magically appear at any time.

Default_picture
June 30, 2010

I am a huge fan of competitive play.  I play a lot of games online.  Once you start bringing money and betting into it, it is all down hill.  Playing to win prize money in a competition is one thing.  Playing competitively with your own money at stake is something totally different.  I understand the some competitions have entry and registrations fees, but this is different.  You are essentially exchanging money directly to another person win or lose.  There are just to many factors to take in to account with something like this, and really no way to monitor it.  People get killed in real life because of gambling, why would gaming be any different.

Default_picture
June 30, 2010

fighting games would be perfect for this, the best players and the most fun to be had is at the tournament level anyways. 

Shoe_headshot_-_square
June 30, 2010

"they can magically appear at any time"...Pierce, that sounds scary!

Default_picture
June 30, 2010

I was actually registered at WorldGaming.com, but I opted to never use the service.  The main reason was that I didn't feel that I didn't play many of the games that they supported (mainly sports titles).  I am still intrigued by the new VirginGaming.com, and, depending on which titles they end up supporting, I can see myself played a few games for a few bucks.  I've never played games for money, but it would definitely make an online game against an anonymous opponent more exciting.  I usually don't use a headset when I'm not playing with friends, so I almost get the feeling that I'm playing against an less-predictable computer opponent when I'm playing online.  Having something tangible on the line could only enhance the experience.

Dscn0568_-_copy
June 30, 2010

@Omar I don't know about fighters due to lag being more of a factor than they are in other games, though I'm sure a lot of potential players won't care. Also it'll depend on the match structure - $20 on a First-to-10 might be all right, but if Virgin goes with a slot-machine format (One match for only $2 or something) you know someone's going to go broke.  I think with the tournament level you're also forgetting how meeting others and having something to shoot for increases the fun, whereas here you're getting the same anonymous laggy online play except having money on the line will amplify the frustrating parts.

Default_picture
June 30, 2010

I feel like Shoe just owned me gramatically and I don't even know how/why.

Anyway, I would definitely try this if they had a search function for players. I'd type, "S h a n e B e t t e n h a u s e n." I'd be rich.

Default_picture
July 03, 2010

Holy shit. Shoe changed his avatar.

You must log in to post a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.