For all those who want another P2P marvel let me remind you of the last one we had, "May the force be with you". Yeah we saw how well that went didn't we, and please please don't insult our intelligence by suggesting it's not due to the payment model.
Let me remind you also that over a million people bought the game, fully knowing it came with a subscription fee. The problem wasn't the sub fee, it was that the game wasn't good enough for an mmorpg to warrant a sub fee. It was a B2P game from the start, only Bioware were too arrogant to realize that til it was too late. People will pay a sub fee if they enjoy playing an mmo and want to conitinue to play it.
Hell, my rich friend bought my copy, and was going to pay my monthly subscription, in order to get me to play it with him. I didn't even think that game was worthy of HIS $15 per month.
For all those who want another P2P marvel let me remind you of the last one we had, "May the force be with you". Yeah we saw how well that went didn't we, and please please don't insult our intelligence by suggesting it's not due to the payment model.
Let me remind you also that over a million people bought the game, fully knowing it came with a subscription fee. The problem wasn't the sub fee, it was that the game wasn't good enough for an mmorpg to warrant a sub fee. It was a B2P game from the start, only Bioware were too arrogant to realize that til it was too late. People will pay a sub fee if they enjoy playing an mmo and want to conitinue to play it.
Hell, my rich friend bought my copy, and was going to pay my monthly subscription, in order to get me to play it with him. I didn't even think that game was worthy of HIS $15 per month.
That isnt the sub fee's fault tho, its the quality of the game
For all those who want another P2P marvel let me remind you of the last one we had, "May the force be with you". Yeah we saw how well that went didn't we, and please please don't insult our intelligence by suggesting it's not due to the payment model.
Let me remind you also that over a million people bought the game, fully knowing it came with a subscription fee. The problem wasn't the sub fee, it was that the game wasn't good enough for an mmorpg to warrant a sub fee. It was a B2P game from the start, only Bioware were too arrogant to realize that til it was too late. People will pay a sub fee if they enjoy playing an mmo and want to conitinue to play it.
Hell, my rich friend bought my copy, and was going to pay my monthly subscription, in order to get me to play it with him. I didn't even think that game was worthy of HIS $15 per month.
That isnt the sub fee's fault tho, its the quality of the game
True. But games aren't perfect at release. Look at how rapidly the subscription count declined because of it. People don't want to hang around, paying a monthly fee for an unestablished game when they can just go back to WoW.
P2P is the only respectable option for AAA games. B2P doesnt pay enough to get a AAA game. Cashshops are crap unless they are cosmetic ONLY. The only real way to make it is have a game that rivals the polish WoW has set as a MMO standard and use the sub model. If you cant rival WoW's polish then they will need to use something other than P2P.
I personally cant stand low cost games because of all the bots and farmers. While its not 100%, P2P games seem to have less botting and immature players. I cant stand being nickel and dimed for the extras. Cashshop for cosmetics is fine, but they way GW2 played their cashshop is the reason i quit playing. When GW2 was in development they kept saying the cashshop was not going to give anyone an edge over other players. when the game was released and the cashshop was functional......i realized they were full of $hit. In GW2 you can literally buy gold and gems and in turn gear up. its not the top tier gear but its close enough to piss me off.
i would prefer a sub model for a high budget AAA mmo like this but i do think they need to prepare for a mass exodus after people inevitably leave the game after a few months.
i have no problem with them switching to a F2P model after that as long as there is still a subscription option.
i will not play a gimped watered down version of a game i want to play.
if its B2P like GW2 without restrictions, fine but other than that i want it to have a sub.
Originally posted by Aeonblades P2P Subscription. It's the best way to avoid 75% of MMO asshats.
Or set it up for failure. It's not viable, the proof is in the amount of failures we've seen. It's an unnecessary barrier to entry.
All that proves is that if your going with a sub you need to have your ducks in a row come launch, these failiers you mention didnt fail because of the pricing model they failed because the games weren't worth the pricing model, if the procing model was to blame those games would have failed right out the gate rather than sell well and not retain
It's the total package of the game that affects the behavior of the customers. There's more to maintaining subscriptions than "having your ducks in a row". A subscription implies a relationship, with a price floor. If a potential customer is already in a commitment with another subscription game, they might not want to leave that. Personally, I wouldn't want to. I certainly don't speak for all consumers, but I'm sure others share my sentiment and those people are also potential customers. If you remove that barrier to the game, consumers would be more comfortable buying a game, trying it out, and moving on. No other genre has such a dilemma with price models.
i look at it this way there's 6 to 8 games coming out this year im interested in if they were all P2P i'd have pick and choose what i want to play since I can't afford to pay for several sub based games(unless they all dropped the sub price to like $5).. But if they all go the GW2 route i can happily get them all and play them as i please.. B2P with CS all the way for me
I angered the clerk in a clothing shop today. She asked me what size I was and I said actual, because I am not to scale. I like vending machines 'cause snacks are better when they fall. If I buy a candy bar at a store, oftentimes, I will drop it... so that it achieves its maximum flavor potential. --Mitch Hedberg
To be honest, I'll go for P2P or B2P. Those models would work best for me. I prefer B2P, however since guild wars 2 showed their real colors, I won't mind P2P.
Originally posted by Vallista To be honest, I'll go for P2P or B2P. Those models would work best for me. I prefer B2P, however since guild wars 2 showed their real colors, I won't mind P2P.
It seems that game companies don't dare to trust in their own ability to bring any entertaining longevity to their games. A lot of so-called "MMO" games are in fact for the most part single player games. And it seems that game companies don't even intend to create a game with a "living and breathing" world anymore. Instead they try to give a player a mostly single player experience with pretty stuff and all and try to get as much cash from them before they quit playing. Cash shops are a far better way to do this than subscriptions. Some of those companies don't even offer a real end-game and are perfectly fine with people buying the game - and quit playing and come back a year later for the next expansion (like GW2).
Some people may be perfectly fine with this. But there's also a lot of players that want to keep playing, form their own fun communities and games should provide them with a lot of fun, challenging things to do. It seems that game companies really have major problems with that. "Endgame" seems to be THE ultimate challenge and most MMO games do it completely wrong - or not at all.
I hope and pray that TESO will have the confidence to make a game with longevity. That they will made an endevour to make a lasting game that people would want to play and enjoy for years. And I'd consider a subscription fee business model a sign of confidence that they indeed intend to do this.
Originally posted by Vallista To be honest, I'll go for P2P or B2P. Those models would work best for me. I prefer B2P, however since guild wars 2 showed their real colors, I won't mind P2P.
It seems that game companies don't dare to trust in their own ability to bring any entertaining longevity to their games. A lot of so-called "MMO" games are in fact for the most part single player games. And it seems that game companies don't even intend to create a game with a "living and breathing" world anymore. Instead they try to give a player a mostly single player experience with pretty stuff and all and try to get as much cash from them before they quit playing. Cash shops are a far better way to do this than subscriptions. Some of those companies don't even offer a real end-game and are perfectly fine with people buying the game - and quit playing and come back a year later for the next expansion (like GW2).
Some people may be perfectly fine with this. But there's also a lot of players that want to keep playing, form their own fun communities and games should provide them with a lot of fun, challenging things to do. It seems that game companies really have major problems with that. "Endgame" seems to be THE ultimate challenge and most MMO games do it completely wrong - or not at all.
I hope and pray that TESO will have the confidence to make a game with longevity. That they will made an endevour to make a lasting game that people would want to play and enjoy for years. And I'd consider a subscription fee business model a sign of confidence that they indeed intend to do this.
While the WoW community eventually got invaded on account of popularity and subsequently turned on it's head, it's a far stretch better than most F2P game communities out there. Let's not forget about the others, EVE is P2P and the community is generally mature... generally. LoTRO and Rift were P2P for a good while as well, and they had/have two of the best MMO communities out there.
Everquest I/II, DAoC, SWG, PS1, CoX, and Vanguard all had P2P structures and are also good community examples. Now that I think about it, almost all of the games with P2P payment options are those I would regard as having the better community. I think the decision is straightforward on this one.
Originally posted by Aeonblades P2P Subscription. It's the best way to avoid 75% of MMO asshats.
Have you played wow?
Yea, At first I was thinking closer to 50%, but my optimism got the best of me. Just can't stand the attitude of most F2P game jumpers.
Would love this methodology explained a bit better. What are "asshats" in your mind that you're avoiding? What do they do that makes them so?
I'd opt for the B2P with a cashshop. Particularly if it's a skill combat game (here I mean skill with controlls and not point-click-spam-gear, which many considor "skill").
GW2 proved that you could do a highly successful, triple A MMO game without a subscription model. Game after game is converting from P2P to F2P just because the model is failing them. If TESO knows what's good for them, they would build their game around a B2P model because it's much easier and profittable to develop the game to be B2P instead of several months after launch converting to F2P from a P2P model which is what is going to happen because WoW is still hungry, despite the plethora of carcasses that are rotting outside of it's cave.
Originally posted by slicknslim88 GW2 proved that you could do a highly successful, triple A MMO game without a subscription model. Game after game is converting from P2P to F2P just because the model is failing them. If TESO knows what's good for them, they would build their game around a B2P model because it's much easier and profittable to develop the game to be B2P instead of several months after launch converting to F2P from a P2P model which is what is going to happen because WoW is still hungry, despite the plethora of carcasses that are rotting outside of it's cave.
Or they build the infrastructure for a f2p cash shop, launch with a sub then if the subs work they can use the cash shop for special items like mounts and have the shop there in case their sub model doesnt work.
Why go B2P from the start when you can make more money from a sub the first few months then benafit from an influx of new players like every other game that has converted to f2p?
For all those who want another P2P marvel let me remind you of the last one we had, "May the force be with you". Yeah we saw how well that went didn't we, and please please don't insult our intelligence by suggesting it's not due to the payment model.
Let me remind you also that over a million people bought the game, fully knowing it came with a subscription fee. The problem wasn't the sub fee, it was that the game wasn't good enough for an mmorpg to warrant a sub fee. It was a B2P game from the start, only Bioware were too arrogant to realize that til it was too late. People will pay a sub fee if they enjoy playing an mmo and want to conitinue to play it.
Hell, my rich friend bought my copy, and was going to pay my monthly subscription, in order to get me to play it with him. I didn't even think that game was worthy of HIS $15 per month.
That isnt the sub fee's fault tho, its the quality of the game
Exactly. The game wasn't good enough to warrant a subscription fee.
Also, rich friend? Seriously? Buying a $60 game and paying a sub fee is considered rich? If that's the case for you, I think you should avoid games until they go into the bargain bin or something. You are the perfect candidate for Buy to Play or Free to Play games, just avoid anything with a subscription, it's not what you're looking for, since you can't afford it.
Best about Subscription is that it keeps the "bad crowd" out of the game.
You didn't play WoW/SWTOR/TERA, did you?
Lol...same thought occured to me.
Here's a radical new idea... how about a $5/month sub...why are they all $15? If Blizzard was only taking in $50,000,000 a month instead of $150,000,000 would the world economy collapse? Just curious...
PS...looking at your picture... was that you kissing Bar Rafaeli in the superbowl add?
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
For all those who want another P2P marvel let me remind you of the last one we had, "May the force be with you". Yeah we saw how well that went didn't we, and please please don't insult our intelligence by suggesting it's not due to the payment model.
Let me remind you also that over a million people bought the game, fully knowing it came with a subscription fee. The problem wasn't the sub fee, it was that the game wasn't good enough for an mmorpg to warrant a sub fee. It was a B2P game from the start, only Bioware were too arrogant to realize that til it was too late. People will pay a sub fee if they enjoy playing an mmo and want to conitinue to play it.
Hell, my rich friend bought my copy, and was going to pay my monthly subscription, in order to get me to play it with him. I didn't even think that game was worthy of HIS $15 per month.
That isnt the sub fee's fault tho, its the quality of the game
Exactly. The game wasn't good enough to warrant a subscription fee.
Also, rich friend? Seriously? Buying a $60 game and paying a sub fee is considered rich? If that's the case for you, I think you should avoid games until they go into the bargain bin or something. You are the perfect candidate for Buy to Play or Free to Play games, just avoid anything with a subscription, it's not what you're looking for, since you can't afford it.
I never said that a $60 game and sub fee is considered rich. I said my friend is rich. A millionaire to be exact. And I told him I was done playing it two weeks into the free month, that I wouldn't play it even with his $15 a month. He ended up going back to WoW when ToR announced F2P, and convinced me to go play with him. I told him WoW wasn't enjoyable enough to pay for it again. He paid for my Pandaria, 8 months of game time, and 3 server/faction changes.
World of Warcraft had its fair share of problems at release too. That's the problem with subscription based games. They release with a lot of problems, and unstable servers. People get tired of it, quickly, and go running back to a stable game. ESO will have a lot of problems at release too. Will people stick around, paying for a bug filled game? Or will most of them jump ship like with ToR?
Comments
Hell, my rich friend bought my copy, and was going to pay my monthly subscription, in order to get me to play it with him. I didn't even think that game was worthy of HIS $15 per month.
1) P2P
2) F2P /w balanced cash shop/sub system
B2P used to sound like a good thing, then GW2 happend.
But the most important is to use the payment model they designed the game with which is P2P.
That isnt the sub fee's fault tho, its the quality of the game
True. But games aren't perfect at release. Look at how rapidly the subscription count declined because of it. People don't want to hang around, paying a monthly fee for an unestablished game when they can just go back to WoW.
P2P is the only respectable option for AAA games. B2P doesnt pay enough to get a AAA game. Cashshops are crap unless they are cosmetic ONLY. The only real way to make it is have a game that rivals the polish WoW has set as a MMO standard and use the sub model. If you cant rival WoW's polish then they will need to use something other than P2P.
I personally cant stand low cost games because of all the bots and farmers. While its not 100%, P2P games seem to have less botting and immature players. I cant stand being nickel and dimed for the extras. Cashshop for cosmetics is fine, but they way GW2 played their cashshop is the reason i quit playing. When GW2 was in development they kept saying the cashshop was not going to give anyone an edge over other players. when the game was released and the cashshop was functional......i realized they were full of $hit. In GW2 you can literally buy gold and gems and in turn gear up. its not the top tier gear but its close enough to piss me off.
i would prefer a sub model for a high budget AAA mmo like this but i do think they need to prepare for a mass exodus after people inevitably leave the game after a few months.
i have no problem with them switching to a F2P model after that as long as there is still a subscription option.
i will not play a gimped watered down version of a game i want to play.
if its B2P like GW2 without restrictions, fine but other than that i want it to have a sub.
It's the total package of the game that affects the behavior of the customers. There's more to maintaining subscriptions than "having your ducks in a row". A subscription implies a relationship, with a price floor. If a potential customer is already in a commitment with another subscription game, they might not want to leave that. Personally, I wouldn't want to. I certainly don't speak for all consumers, but I'm sure others share my sentiment and those people are also potential customers. If you remove that barrier to the game, consumers would be more comfortable buying a game, trying it out, and moving on. No other genre has such a dilemma with price models.
I angered the clerk in a clothing shop today. She asked me what size I was and I said actual, because I am not to scale. I like vending machines 'cause snacks are better when they fall. If I buy a candy bar at a store, oftentimes, I will drop it... so that it achieves its maximum flavor potential. --Mitch Hedberg
Read my blog http://sanmonocobra.blogspot.com/
It seems that game companies don't dare to trust in their own ability to bring any entertaining longevity to their games. A lot of so-called "MMO" games are in fact for the most part single player games. And it seems that game companies don't even intend to create a game with a "living and breathing" world anymore. Instead they try to give a player a mostly single player experience with pretty stuff and all and try to get as much cash from them before they quit playing. Cash shops are a far better way to do this than subscriptions. Some of those companies don't even offer a real end-game and are perfectly fine with people buying the game - and quit playing and come back a year later for the next expansion (like GW2).
Some people may be perfectly fine with this. But there's also a lot of players that want to keep playing, form their own fun communities and games should provide them with a lot of fun, challenging things to do.
It seems that game companies really have major problems with that. "Endgame" seems to be THE ultimate challenge and most MMO games do it completely wrong - or not at all.
I hope and pray that TESO will have the confidence to make a game with longevity. That they will made an endevour to make a lasting game that people would want to play and enjoy for years.
And I'd consider a subscription fee business model a sign of confidence that they indeed intend to do this.
Cast your vote: The importance of character customisation
Yesssssssssssssssssssssssss, best model ever.
for example EverQuest back in 1999-2004 days
Yes. Well, if we get another moronic game with no endgame and a cash shop where you can buy gems or plex to buy gold from other players, I'm out.
I've lost faith in every B2P + cash shop game.
Cast your vote: The importance of character customisation
While the WoW community eventually got invaded on account of popularity and subsequently turned on it's head, it's a far stretch better than most F2P game communities out there. Let's not forget about the others, EVE is P2P and the community is generally mature... generally. LoTRO and Rift were P2P for a good while as well, and they had/have two of the best MMO communities out there.
Everquest I/II, DAoC, SWG, PS1, CoX, and Vanguard all had P2P structures and are also good community examples. Now that I think about it, almost all of the games with P2P payment options are those I would regard as having the better community. I think the decision is straightforward on this one.
Would love this methodology explained a bit better. What are "asshats" in your mind that you're avoiding? What do they do that makes them so?
I'd opt for the B2P with a cashshop. Particularly if it's a skill combat game (here I mean skill with controlls and not point-click-spam-gear, which many considor "skill").
Or they build the infrastructure for a f2p cash shop, launch with a sub then if the subs work they can use the cash shop for special items like mounts and have the shop there in case their sub model doesnt work.
Why go B2P from the start when you can make more money from a sub the first few months then benafit from an influx of new players like every other game that has converted to f2p?
Best about Subscription is that it keeps the "bad crowd" out of the game.
Subscription based.
Subs don't keep all the asshats out, but it helps. I noticed a sharp decline in the quality of the community when LOTRO and SWTOR went freemium.
Exactly. The game wasn't good enough to warrant a subscription fee.
Also, rich friend? Seriously? Buying a $60 game and paying a sub fee is considered rich? If that's the case for you, I think you should avoid games until they go into the bargain bin or something. You are the perfect candidate for Buy to Play or Free to Play games, just avoid anything with a subscription, it's not what you're looking for, since you can't afford it.
What happens when you log off your characters????.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFQhfhnjYMk
Dark Age of Camelot
You didn't play WoW/SWTOR/TERA, did you?
DAoC - Excalibur & Camlann
Lol...same thought occured to me.
Here's a radical new idea... how about a $5/month sub...why are they all $15? If Blizzard was only taking in $50,000,000 a month instead of $150,000,000 would the world economy collapse? Just curious...
PS...looking at your picture... was that you kissing Bar Rafaeli in the superbowl add?
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
I never said that a $60 game and sub fee is considered rich. I said my friend is rich. A millionaire to be exact. And I told him I was done playing it two weeks into the free month, that I wouldn't play it even with his $15 a month. He ended up going back to WoW when ToR announced F2P, and convinced me to go play with him. I told him WoW wasn't enjoyable enough to pay for it again. He paid for my Pandaria, 8 months of game time, and 3 server/faction changes.
World of Warcraft had its fair share of problems at release too. That's the problem with subscription based games. They release with a lot of problems, and unstable servers. People get tired of it, quickly, and go running back to a stable game. ESO will have a lot of problems at release too. Will people stick around, paying for a bug filled game? Or will most of them jump ship like with ToR?