I just don't see a game attracting PVE end game players long term F2P or B2P. It would be pretty hard to convince most of them that the developer priorities will be focused towards end game raiding progression long term without at least a sub option.
I never considered raiders because they're such a small group, 40 man raiders even more so. The problem with your thinking is that you've been fed this line so many times, it seems right. How is GW2 able to produce consistent content without having a sub? The mind boggles! It's because you don't NEED a sub to make new content, the only reason these games have raid lockouts and subs is to line their pockets. If you think all the money WoW makes goes to the game, the joke's on you. Subs are a scam, it's easy to see that. In other words, you can make just as high quality a game without a sub.
Unless you think it takes all that extra income to make gear purple and put high stats on it.
What new content has GW2 created that would appeal to people looking for the kinds of challenges and organization requirements that the hardest raids in WoW, EQ/EQ2 or even Rift can offer? Is there anything that's even close because last time I played all the PVE content was very low key "casual" small group stuff at it's hardest and organized PVP was little more than the guild that zergs the best wins.
I'm really not trying to knock these kinds of games as they do have their place I'm just putting it out there that the top 5% raid crowd isn't going to give up their standings in the game they are playing to play a F2P or B2P game that will likely never even bother releasing another raid zone after launch. So if Wildstar really wants to focus on that market like they have mentioned in dev speaks part of that will mean a sub. These developers are well plugged into that 5% raid crowd btw so they know this which is why I would be really surprised if they launched anything except sub.
I honestly believe that the only game left that can sustain itself via a sub is one with a hard core raid end game. And even than it's a tough sell like EQ2 and Rift have discovered. Why TESO and FFXIV both think they can rate a SUB with no real PVE end game to speak off is beyond me.
So you are saying that it is better for a MMO to launch as a P2P model and then go F2P later on? because currently except for WOW no other MMO has been able to stay as a P2P solely on basis of raiders and end game. Unless you are telling us that WOW has the best end game and that is the only reason why it is still P2P?
Because honestly your post makes no bloody sense.
What I am saying is that your average raider is not going to look twice at a F2P or B2P game because of the stigma they still carry about quality and long term content support. IF a game wants to draw top end raiding guilds to their game in large numbers they will need to be a sub.
That's all I am saying, I am not saying catering to raiders is what NCSoft should do or even what they will do just what they need to do if that's their goal.
I am sorry you got no facts to back up what you are saying. Since we are just speculating i would say the only reason why more and more MMOS are going F2P or B2P is because that is what average gamer wants.
If you think a high budget quality MMO can survive as a P2P solely on basis of hardcore raiders..i doubt any company is going to dump their money into such a project because practically it isn't possible atleast not in todays time.
WOW is an exception not a rule here.
Than MMO's are doomed to short lived experiences where the bulk of the community is constantly distracted by the next new shinny game on the horizon rather than sticking around and building a long term community and game developer mark success of a MMO in it's revenue in years 1 and 2 rather than year 10.
Your right in that I don't have any facts to back up what I am saying other than my experiences playing MMO's both casual and hard core over the last decade. And that experience is that MMO's released today are shallow shells of what they once where meant to be consumed and thrown away rather than lived in.
Where do you get those figures? If you mean box sales, oh... well, that sucks that GW2 is not selling as well after the 3 million copies. I guess that's different from most MMO's. Yes, that's sarcasm... well, sort of, a lot of MMOs since WoW haven't sold nearly that many in 6 months, maybe ever. It's been over 6 months, the game is a success, and it won't have to go F2P to support itself like almost all sub games. That was my point.
I don't know what yours was.
That was total revenue from last quarter to this one as per their earnings call. My point, is that "b2p ala Gw2" is rather clearly not sustainable.
Hell, they are dropping the price of the box in an attempt to draw in more of a playerbase even. B2p is not a magical answer.
I did battle with ignorance today, and ignorance won.
To exercise power costs effort and demands courage. That is why so many fail to assert rights to which they are perfectly entitled - because a right is a kind of power but they are too lazy or too cowardly to exercise it. The virtues which cloak these faults are called patience and forbearance.
Where do you get those figures? If you mean box sales, oh... well, that sucks that GW2 is not selling as well after the 3 million copies. I guess that's different from most MMO's. Yes, that's sarcasm... well, sort of, a lot of MMOs since WoW haven't sold nearly that many in 6 months, maybe ever. It's been over 6 months, the game is a success, and it won't have to go F2P to support itself like almost all sub games. That was my point.
I don't know what yours was.
That was total revenue from last quarter to this one as per their earnings call. My point, is that "b2p ala Gw2" is rather clearly not sustainable.
Hell, they are dropping the price of the box in an attempt to draw in more of a playerbase even. B2p is not a magical answer.
Maybe not, but my point was it seems to have done substantially better than the P2P garbage that hasn't been able to rise above its competition. Even the Star Wars IP couldn't save a bad sub game, and paying monthly for crap doesn't make it stink any less.
People who think that a game has to have a sub or it's low quality are just flat out wrong, and hearing it is getting kind of old.
Maybe not, but my point was it seems to have done substantially better than the P2P garbage that hasn't been able to rise above its competition. Even the Star Wars IP couldn't save a bad sub game, and paying monthly for crap doesn't make it stink any less.
People who think that a game has to have a sub or it's low quality are just flat out wrong, and hearing it is getting kind of old.
While I'd agree the pricing structure has nothing to do with the quality of a game in an overall sense. The service method does control the quality of the services rendered. What i mean by that is, when MMO's were largely sub based you were able to get everything you may want by simply playing the game. This isn't the case anymore in a lot of areas. I prefer to get my cosmetics and the like from doing something fun within the game, rather than opening up my wallet.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Maybe not, but my point was it seems to have done substantially better than the P2P garbage that hasn't been able to rise above its competition. Even the Star Wars IP couldn't save a bad sub game, and paying monthly for crap doesn't make it stink any less.
People who think that a game has to have a sub or it's low quality are just flat out wrong, and hearing it is getting kind of old.
While I'd agree the pricing structure has nothing to do with the quality of a game in an overall sense. The service method does control the quality of the services rendered. What i mean by that is, when MMO's were largely sub based you were able to get everything you may want by simply playing the game. This isn't the case anymore in a lot of areas. I prefer to get my cosmetics and the like from doing something fun within the game, rather than opening up my wallet.
That's why I like GW2's gold to gem system. Some people will complain about the "grind", but what MMO offers rare items with no grind? Or offers them for in game currency? I think it's a good system, but I don't know how they make any money from it.
Honestly, I hope WS goes buy-to-play with an optional sub that gives additional perks to people like guild owners, hardcore raiders, etc.
That way the game doesn't launch sub and then go F2P. People nowadays generally see that as a "dying move", even if some devs see it as a valid method. GW2, despite it's MAJOR flaws (which were mostly due to shoddy design and not necessarily the pricing model) is doing pretty well content wise. If It had an optional sub, It would probably do even better.
If you launch w/ just a sub though, the game will die. Sorry, but it's the sad truth. The market's changed. I see no reason for NCSoft, who already owns a pretty major B2P game, to launch with just a sub., except to appeal to "teh hardcorez", who who'll probably prefer niche titles like The Repopulation and Camelot Unchained as opposed to a GW2-ified WoW with better features and harder content.
Rift is the one-word argument against subs. It was billed as the big Triple-A MMO alternative to WoW, was the argument for subs, and it's going free in a month. Look at Angry Joe's GW2 review. He literally gives the game a 10/10 almost solely for being b2p, why would NCSoft give up reviews like that?
Buy to Play or Free to play or GTFO no thanks Pay to play is a loseing model when there are so many good f2p games now its not funny NW you dont need AH i will not use it at all AD glitch doesnt bother me in the slightest if you care about AH or AD you probly pay to win in the first place and well i dont care about you at that point Free to Play i will give you 60$ at most for a F2P seeing as i buy xbox games for 65$ and well thats the same to me as buying another game for my console.
Originally posted by chase17tn Buy to Play or Free to play or GTFO no thanks Pay to play is a loseing model when there are so many good f2p games now its not funny NW you dont need AH i will not use it at all AD glitch doesnt bother me in the slightest if you care about AH or AD you probly pay to win in the first place and well i dont care about you at that point Free to Play i will give you 60$ at most for a F2P seeing as i buy xbox games for 65$ and well thats the same to me as buying another game for my console.
Neverwinter is crap though, sorry to say.
They just took all the delicious D&D cheese and replaced it with a stanky Korean MMO look. (No offense to Korea, just not a fan of your games :P).
It's also heavily instanced, overly greedy, and not deep enough. PvP's terrible, levelling's blergh, and the only redeeming feature is Foundry, which is REALLY cool.
Agree about the subs though. People don't seem to realize it adds up after a while.
Wise people play games for free and invest only in those that meet their standards (goes for P2P and B2P especially for barring entry of players for proper judgement).
Wise developers build free games with good production quality (doesn't have to be bleeding edge graphics or the most revolutionary game out there, what it needs to do is have a unique mix of aesthetics, gameplay elements and player interaction both with other players and the world) and a fair payment system ( cosmetics, bags, character slots and xp pots all of which do not bind on pickup such that people can trade these items freely should they so choose but all money within the game comes from players such that the trade of these items does not incur an unfair balance and thus lead to a pay to win scenario for anyone involved and while you may say "but that means you can convert $$$ into in-game currency indirectly!! it's pay to win!!" I will say that all games from WoW to GW2 to EVE-Online have something like this and none of those is even remotely considered pay to play).
Everyone else can have fun with whatever suits their views but I find it terribly amusing for p2pers to critique f2pers who buy pre-order packs or f2pers who rail against p2p on egotistical/monetary-based reasons (the so called "I want everything free! and all about me!" generation). B2P games are a bit of a grey zone in my view as most allow guest passes for x-amount of days and most of the newbie areas in those games aren't tailored to fool people into buying a sub.
What I am saying is that your average raider is not going to look twice at a F2P or B2P game because of the stigma they still carry about quality and long term content support. IF a game wants to draw top end raiding guilds to their game in large numbers they will need to be a sub.
That's all I am saying, I am not saying catering to raiders is what NCSoft should do or even what they will do just what they need to do if that's their goal.
I dont understand where you are getting this info from. You could easily make a F2P or B2P game that had raiding in it and people would play it. Those games are already out there.
Raiders care about content and gameplay, not payment models. If W* does well with both of those, it won't matter what the payment model is, raiders will play it.
While I'd agree the pricing structure has nothing to do with the quality of a game in an overall sense. The service method does control the quality of the services rendered. What i mean by that is, when MMO's were largely sub based you were able to get everything you may want by simply playing the game. This isn't the case anymore in a lot of areas. I prefer to get my cosmetics and the like from doing something fun within the game, rather than opening up my wallet.
How do you come to that conclusion? WoW and Eq2 both shit all over that idea. Eq2 started with the abysmal quest packs in the store, and then later mounts and such before going f2p, and WoW has sold pets and mounts for quite some time.
I did battle with ignorance today, and ignorance won.
To exercise power costs effort and demands courage. That is why so many fail to assert rights to which they are perfectly entitled - because a right is a kind of power but they are too lazy or too cowardly to exercise it. The virtues which cloak these faults are called patience and forbearance.
While I'd agree the pricing structure has nothing to do with the quality of a game in an overall sense. The service method does control the quality of the services rendered. What i mean by that is, when MMO's were largely sub based you were able to get everything you may want by simply playing the game. This isn't the case anymore in a lot of areas. I prefer to get my cosmetics and the like from doing something fun within the game, rather than opening up my wallet.
How do you come to that conclusion? WoW and Eq2 both shit all over that idea. Eq2 started with the abysmal quest packs in the store, and then later mounts and such before going f2p, and WoW has sold pets and mounts for quite some time.
I didn't play either of those games more than a week or two; coming from SWG they felt extremely limited. I really don't write about things I have no real experience with, so if that's the case there, it had no bearing on where I was coming from or how I came to my conclusion. (if anything their method solidifies my stance here)
AOC launched with no Cash-shop as did TOR, and a few others. While they weren't great MMO experiences, they were made far worse when they decided to start selling "the cool stuff", rather than offering it as something to earn in game.
Also before the F2P transition didn't SOE (EQ2) separate the Cash-shop servers from regular ones? I thought I read an article on that at one point.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
While I'd agree the pricing structure has nothing to do with the quality of a game in an overall sense. The service method does control the quality of the services rendered. What i mean by that is, when MMO's were largely sub based you were able to get everything you may want by simply playing the game. This isn't the case anymore in a lot of areas. I prefer to get my cosmetics and the like from doing something fun within the game, rather than opening up my wallet.
How do you come to that conclusion? WoW and Eq2 both shit all over that idea. Eq2 started with the abysmal quest packs in the store, and then later mounts and such before going f2p, and WoW has sold pets and mounts for quite some time.
I didn't play either of those games more than a week or two; coming from SWG they felt extremely limited. I really don't write about things I have no real experience with, so if that's the case there, it had no bearing on where I was coming from or how I came to my conclusion. (if anything their method solidifies my stance here)
AOC launched with no Cash-shop as did TOR, and a few others. While they weren't great MMO experiences, they were made far worse when they decided to start selling "the cool stuff", rather than offering it as something to earn in game.
Also before the F2P transition didn't SOE (EQ2) separate the Cash-shop servers from regular ones? I thought I read an article on that at one point.
So you're cherry picking the shitty former P2P games who switched to F2P to stave off death? What about Star Trek Online which went from dying under P2P to flourishing under F2P? What about World of Tanks? What about League of Legends? Path of Exile? Entropia Universe? (arguably the balls to the wall hardest game in existence to play completely free but I still managed to do it for a good half year, got pretty far too but once the honeymoon period ended and I didn't find a group of people to play with I just quit) Rift ? Terra? Forsaken World? Dust 514? there are more examples but lets not keep this going all night .
While I'd agree the pricing structure has nothing to do with the quality of a game in an overall sense. The service method does control the quality of the services rendered. What i mean by that is, when MMO's were largely sub based you were able to get everything you may want by simply playing the game. This isn't the case anymore in a lot of areas. I prefer to get my cosmetics and the like from doing something fun within the game, rather than opening up my wallet.
How do you come to that conclusion? WoW and Eq2 both shit all over that idea. Eq2 started with the abysmal quest packs in the store, and then later mounts and such before going f2p, and WoW has sold pets and mounts for quite some time.
I didn't play either of those games more than a week or two; coming from SWG they felt extremely limited. I really don't write about things I have no real experience with, so if that's the case there, it had no bearing on where I was coming from or how I came to my conclusion. (if anything their method solidifies my stance here)
AOC launched with no Cash-shop as did TOR, and a few others. While they weren't great MMO experiences, they were made far worse when they decided to start selling "the cool stuff", rather than offering it as something to earn in game.
Also before the F2P transition didn't SOE (EQ2) separate the Cash-shop servers from regular ones? I thought I read an article on that at one point.
So you're cherry picking the shitty former P2P games who switched to F2P to stave off death? What about Star Trek Online which went from dying under P2P to flourishing under F2P? What about World of Tanks? What about League of Legends? Path of Exile? Entropia Universe? (arguably the balls to the wall hardest game in existence to play completely free but I still managed to do it for a good half year, got pretty far too but once the honeymoon period ended and I didn't find a group of people to play with I just quit) Rift ? Terra? Forsaken World? Dust 514? there are more examples but lets not keep this going all night .
What exactly are you arguing here?
My point was that I prefer a game to offer everything I may want through an in-game means. Some F2P's do this as well.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
I liked the editing job you did on my post. Honestly when I said a I preferred transparency in my transactions, what I meant was that I do not want developers spending money on ways to get me to spend money in your cash shop. Gated content, minimal bag space, lock boxes, and whatever else they design into the game. I want to buy the game and support the development, that is all.
I have read many posts in these forums, one of my favorite is refunds on GW2, I really don't want to discuss ethics now. And to top it off P2P dying, lmfao. do the math 100k subs x 15$/month = 1.5 mil$/month, and 18mil$/year if you can not make that kind of budget work, I don't think you should be in business in the first place. Sure they make more on F2P cash shops, I want a good game to play, not a my game is better than yours epeen contest.
But ya one of the reasons I have a hard time with fantasy games, is I am getting so tired of trolls.
What I am saying is that your average raider is not going to look twice at a F2P or B2P game because of the stigma they still carry about quality and long term content support. IF a game wants to draw top end raiding guilds to their game in large numbers they will need to be a sub.
That's all I am saying, I am not saying catering to raiders is what NCSoft should do or even what they will do just what they need to do if that's their goal.
I dont understand where you are getting this info from. You could easily make a F2P or B2P game that had raiding in it and people would play it. Those games are already out there.
Raiders care about content and gameplay, not payment models. If W* does well with both of those, it won't matter what the payment model is, raiders will play it.
You talk about what F2P and B2P games could do and I talk about what they have done. F2P and B2P games focus new content on getting people to spend money in the cash shop so it tends to be disposable in nature, sub games create new content to add a new level to the treadmill of progression. It's a very subtle difference but a important one.
I know a lot of raiders that have high hopes for Wildstar but very few of them will tolerate a F2P or B2P game. If Wildstar really wants to bring back raiding they are going to have to make the game a sub. If that's really not a primary goal of theirs than it's hard to beat the 1-2 year return on investment that F2P or B2P gives you. I think the jury is still out regrading the long term viability of either of those models over the time span of a classic MMO.
I'll play the game regardless but how I play it will vary greatly on the sub model. If it's F2P or B2P it's a disposable distraction to pass the time until something better comes along. If it's sub I will at least give end game raiding a try as long as I feel that they are serious about supporting it long term and not just release a few raid zones at launch to check a box ala SWTOR.
either i m a fan of p2p or not, i dont think any new mmo can survive or compete f2p or b2p ones anymore.
RIFT-TERA-SWTOR-TSW-NWO-GW2 etc. too many good mmo's are f2p/b2p or even p2w or whatever. too many choices for gamers anymore, too much competition for a p2p game.
imo p2p (even if i like it) is dead
I hear ya there, and really like the mature attitude of your post. I have posted way to much on this topic already. But the best model I see, is start P2P watch the content locusts chew through your game, they will be there because it is new. Watch numbers and subs drop, switch to F2P. If we are just to talk financial gain this is the best possible way, unless you only have one month of content. That is the way most AAA games have been for the last few years. I figure the breaking point is when the profit margin starts making the investors unhappy.
I would never feel ripped off with the conversion, even though some would. But I think those are the ones that would ask for a refund, or just charge back anyhow.
While I'd agree the pricing structure has nothing to do with the quality of a game in an overall sense. The service method does control the quality of the services rendered. What i mean by that is, when MMO's were largely sub based you were able to get everything you may want by simply playing the game. This isn't the case anymore in a lot of areas. I prefer to get my cosmetics and the like from doing something fun within the game, rather than opening up my wallet.
How do you come to that conclusion? WoW and Eq2 both shit all over that idea. Eq2 started with the abysmal quest packs in the store, and then later mounts and such before going f2p, and WoW has sold pets and mounts for quite some time.
I didn't play either of those games more than a week or two; coming from SWG they felt extremely limited. I really don't write about things I have no real experience with, so if that's the case there, it had no bearing on where I was coming from or how I came to my conclusion. (if anything their method solidifies my stance here)
AOC launched with no Cash-shop as did TOR, and a few others. While they weren't great MMO experiences, they were made far worse when they decided to start selling "the cool stuff", rather than offering it as something to earn in game.
Also before the F2P transition didn't SOE (EQ2) separate the Cash-shop servers from regular ones? I thought I read an article on that at one point.
So you're cherry picking the shitty former P2P games who switched to F2P to stave off death? What about Star Trek Online which went from dying under P2P to flourishing under F2P? What about World of Tanks? What about League of Legends? Path of Exile? Entropia Universe? (arguably the balls to the wall hardest game in existence to play completely free but I still managed to do it for a good half year, got pretty far too but once the honeymoon period ended and I didn't find a group of people to play with I just quit) Rift ? Terra? Forsaken World? Dust 514? there are more examples but lets not keep this going all night .
What exactly are you arguing here?
My point was that I prefer a game to offer everything I may want through an in-game means. Some F2P's do this as well.
Correction: Most do, the difference is a majority of those most have a rather steep grinding curve and few of them actually of an interesting nature within the current gaming community, thus your false impression that only some F2P games do offer everything in-game via work.
I don't mind to buy a box if it will not be sold at too expensive price. after all fails, I guess I'll not pay more than 30$ even for top of top games.
about sub: with all arguments about benefit of subs, games or don't have enough or it not last long.
so why not start with sub, after max 1 year it will move to f2p like they all do.
IMO also, may be sub will work, good luck!
I'll sure not sub anything anymore with market filled with A+++ f2p. GW2 was my last lesson...
try before buy, even if it's a game to avoid bad surprises. Worst surprises for me: Aion, GW2
What I am saying is that your average raider is not going to look twice at a F2P or B2P game because of the stigma they still carry about quality and long term content support. IF a game wants to draw top end raiding guilds to their game in large numbers they will need to be a sub.
That's all I am saying, I am not saying catering to raiders is what NCSoft should do or even what they will do just what they need to do if that's their goal.
I dont understand where you are getting this info from. You could easily make a F2P or B2P game that had raiding in it and people would play it. Those games are already out there.
Raiders care about content and gameplay, not payment models. If W* does well with both of those, it won't matter what the payment model is, raiders will play it.
You talk about what F2P and B2P games could do and I talk about what they have done. F2P and B2P games focus new content on getting people to spend money in the cash shop so it tends to be disposable in nature, sub games create new content to add a new level to the treadmill of progression. It's a very subtle difference but a important one.
I know a lot of raiders that have high hopes for Wildstar but very few of them will tolerate a F2P or B2P game. If Wildstar really wants to bring back raiding they are going to have to make the game a sub. If that's really not a primary goal of theirs than it's hard to beat the 1-2 year return on investment that F2P or B2P gives you. I think the jury is still out regrading the long term viability of either of those models over the time span of a classic MMO.
I'll play the game regardless but how I play it will vary greatly on the sub model. If it's F2P or B2P it's a disposable distraction to pass the time until something better comes along. If it's sub I will at least give end game raiding a try as long as I feel that they are serious about supporting it long term and not just release a few raid zones at launch to check a box ala SWTOR.
"You talk about what F2P and B2P games could do and I talk about what they have done. "
Specificallly, no, I talk that W* can do whatever they want, but there are plenty of other F2P games that are F2P that have raiding in it.
Honestly, it just sounds like you are projecting that since you want subs, you are claiming that so does every other raider. IMO, they dont care anymore than anyone else. Anecdotally, I am a raider and I prefer a B2P model and will not tolerate a sub again.
What I am saying is that your average raider is not going to look twice at a F2P or B2P game because of the stigma they still carry about quality and long term content support. IF a game wants to draw top end raiding guilds to their game in large numbers they will need to be a sub.
That's all I am saying, I am not saying catering to raiders is what NCSoft should do or even what they will do just what they need to do if that's their goal.
I dont understand where you are getting this info from. You could easily make a F2P or B2P game that had raiding in it and people would play it. Those games are already out there.
Raiders care about content and gameplay, not payment models. If W* does well with both of those, it won't matter what the payment model is, raiders will play it.
You talk about what F2P and B2P games could do and I talk about what they have done. F2P and B2P games focus new content on getting people to spend money in the cash shop so it tends to be disposable in nature, sub games create new content to add a new level to the treadmill of progression. It's a very subtle difference but a important one.
I know a lot of raiders that have high hopes for Wildstar but very few of them will tolerate a F2P or B2P game. If Wildstar really wants to bring back raiding they are going to have to make the game a sub. If that's really not a primary goal of theirs than it's hard to beat the 1-2 year return on investment that F2P or B2P gives you. I think the jury is still out regrading the long term viability of either of those models over the time span of a classic MMO.
I'll play the game regardless but how I play it will vary greatly on the sub model. If it's F2P or B2P it's a disposable distraction to pass the time until something better comes along. If it's sub I will at least give end game raiding a try as long as I feel that they are serious about supporting it long term and not just release a few raid zones at launch to check a box ala SWTOR.
"You talk about what F2P and B2P games could do and I talk about what they have done. "
Specificallly, no, I talk that W* can do whatever they want, but there are plenty of other F2P games that are F2P that have raiding in it.
Honestly, it just sounds like you are projecting that since you want subs, you are claiming that so does every other raider. IMO, they dont care anymore than anyone else. Anecdotally, I am a raider and I prefer a B2P model and will not tolerate a sub again.
Name one that launched F2P/B2P or doesn't have a sub option?
It blows me away that there are ppl out there that think a cash shop selling ANYTHING in a sub game is ok.
Even blizzard has said the age of subs is probably coming to an end. The market has changed.
I don't like cash shops in any game. All should be buy box, and pay subscription. Been playing MMOs since 1991, a long time before F2P was even around. I've spent more in F2P games than I ever did in P2P games...I don't get why everyone wants F2P, P2P is so much cheaper.
F2P is like socialism, I pay alot more than P2P to make up for someone who probably doesn't have a job and just sits around playing games all day lol.
I guess it could be worse. We could go back to the old AOL model Neverwinter had, where you had to pay by the hour XD
I dont' mind it being box to play but if it is.. I hope it at least costs 150 dollars to keep certain types of players out... ( we all know what type of players those are. ) XD
I don't want Wildstar to be free to play. I want their business model to be exactly like WoW's. Barrier to entry, submission based, almost all perks and fun stuff are part of a monthly sub, other non-game breaking, cosmetic fluff in a cash shop.
I hate F2P games and the AH crash going on right now in Neverwinter is a perfect example of why. 20 bucks a month... sound fair? Please give me back sub based gaming.
What you actually want, is for this game to be good enough to warrant a sub, unlike almost all the other trash that is generated.
Comments
Than MMO's are doomed to short lived experiences where the bulk of the community is constantly distracted by the next new shinny game on the horizon rather than sticking around and building a long term community and game developer mark success of a MMO in it's revenue in years 1 and 2 rather than year 10.
Your right in that I don't have any facts to back up what I am saying other than my experiences playing MMO's both casual and hard core over the last decade. And that experience is that MMO's released today are shallow shells of what they once where meant to be consumed and thrown away rather than lived in.
That was total revenue from last quarter to this one as per their earnings call. My point, is that "b2p ala Gw2" is rather clearly not sustainable.
Hell, they are dropping the price of the box in an attempt to draw in more of a playerbase even. B2p is not a magical answer.
I did battle with ignorance today, and ignorance won.
To exercise power costs effort and demands courage. That is why so many fail to assert rights to which they are perfectly entitled - because a right is a kind of power but they are too lazy or too cowardly to exercise it. The virtues which cloak these faults are called patience and forbearance.
Maybe not, but my point was it seems to have done substantially better than the P2P garbage that hasn't been able to rise above its competition. Even the Star Wars IP couldn't save a bad sub game, and paying monthly for crap doesn't make it stink any less.
People who think that a game has to have a sub or it's low quality are just flat out wrong, and hearing it is getting kind of old.
While I'd agree the pricing structure has nothing to do with the quality of a game in an overall sense. The service method does control the quality of the services rendered. What i mean by that is, when MMO's were largely sub based you were able to get everything you may want by simply playing the game. This isn't the case anymore in a lot of areas. I prefer to get my cosmetics and the like from doing something fun within the game, rather than opening up my wallet.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
That's why I like GW2's gold to gem system. Some people will complain about the "grind", but what MMO offers rare items with no grind? Or offers them for in game currency? I think it's a good system, but I don't know how they make any money from it.
Honestly, I hope WS goes buy-to-play with an optional sub that gives additional perks to people like guild owners, hardcore raiders, etc.
That way the game doesn't launch sub and then go F2P. People nowadays generally see that as a "dying move", even if some devs see it as a valid method. GW2, despite it's MAJOR flaws (which were mostly due to shoddy design and not necessarily the pricing model) is doing pretty well content wise. If It had an optional sub, It would probably do even better.
If you launch w/ just a sub though, the game will die. Sorry, but it's the sad truth. The market's changed. I see no reason for NCSoft, who already owns a pretty major B2P game, to launch with just a sub., except to appeal to "teh hardcorez", who who'll probably prefer niche titles like The Repopulation and Camelot Unchained as opposed to a GW2-ified WoW with better features and harder content.
Rift is the one-word argument against subs. It was billed as the big Triple-A MMO alternative to WoW, was the argument for subs, and it's going free in a month. Look at Angry Joe's GW2 review. He literally gives the game a 10/10 almost solely for being b2p, why would NCSoft give up reviews like that?
made by nonny
and
made by Braggi
thanks both u guys
Neverwinter is crap though, sorry to say.
They just took all the delicious D&D cheese and replaced it with a stanky Korean MMO look. (No offense to Korea, just not a fan of your games :P).
It's also heavily instanced, overly greedy, and not deep enough. PvP's terrible, levelling's blergh, and the only redeeming feature is Foundry, which is REALLY cool.
Agree about the subs though. People don't seem to realize it adds up after a while.
In this day and age the following is true:
Wise people play games for free and invest only in those that meet their standards (goes for P2P and B2P especially for barring entry of players for proper judgement).
Wise developers build free games with good production quality (doesn't have to be bleeding edge graphics or the most revolutionary game out there, what it needs to do is have a unique mix of aesthetics, gameplay elements and player interaction both with other players and the world) and a fair payment system ( cosmetics, bags, character slots and xp pots all of which do not bind on pickup such that people can trade these items freely should they so choose but all money within the game comes from players such that the trade of these items does not incur an unfair balance and thus lead to a pay to win scenario for anyone involved and while you may say "but that means you can convert $$$ into in-game currency indirectly!! it's pay to win!!" I will say that all games from WoW to GW2 to EVE-Online have something like this and none of those is even remotely considered pay to play).
Everyone else can have fun with whatever suits their views but I find it terribly amusing for p2pers to critique f2pers who buy pre-order packs or f2pers who rail against p2p on egotistical/monetary-based reasons (the so called "I want everything free! and all about me!" generation). B2P games are a bit of a grey zone in my view as most allow guest passes for x-amount of days and most of the newbie areas in those games aren't tailored to fool people into buying a sub.
I dont understand where you are getting this info from. You could easily make a F2P or B2P game that had raiding in it and people would play it. Those games are already out there.
Raiders care about content and gameplay, not payment models. If W* does well with both of those, it won't matter what the payment model is, raiders will play it.
Take the Magic: The Gathering 'What Color Are You?' Quiz.
How do you come to that conclusion? WoW and Eq2 both shit all over that idea. Eq2 started with the abysmal quest packs in the store, and then later mounts and such before going f2p, and WoW has sold pets and mounts for quite some time.
I did battle with ignorance today, and ignorance won.
To exercise power costs effort and demands courage. That is why so many fail to assert rights to which they are perfectly entitled - because a right is a kind of power but they are too lazy or too cowardly to exercise it. The virtues which cloak these faults are called patience and forbearance.
I didn't play either of those games more than a week or two; coming from SWG they felt extremely limited. I really don't write about things I have no real experience with, so if that's the case there, it had no bearing on where I was coming from or how I came to my conclusion. (if anything their method solidifies my stance here)
AOC launched with no Cash-shop as did TOR, and a few others. While they weren't great MMO experiences, they were made far worse when they decided to start selling "the cool stuff", rather than offering it as something to earn in game.
Also before the F2P transition didn't SOE (EQ2) separate the Cash-shop servers from regular ones? I thought I read an article on that at one point.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
So you're cherry picking the shitty former P2P games who switched to F2P to stave off death? What about Star Trek Online which went from dying under P2P to flourishing under F2P? What about World of Tanks? What about League of Legends? Path of Exile? Entropia Universe? (arguably the balls to the wall hardest game in existence to play completely free but I still managed to do it for a good half year, got pretty far too but once the honeymoon period ended and I didn't find a group of people to play with I just quit) Rift ? Terra? Forsaken World? Dust 514? there are more examples but lets not keep this going all night
.
What exactly are you arguing here?
My point was that I prefer a game to offer everything I may want through an in-game means. Some F2P's do this as well.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
I liked the editing job you did on my post. Honestly when I said a I preferred transparency in my transactions, what I meant was that I do not want developers spending money on ways to get me to spend money in your cash shop. Gated content, minimal bag space, lock boxes, and whatever else they design into the game. I want to buy the game and support the development, that is all.
I have read many posts in these forums, one of my favorite is refunds on GW2, I really don't want to discuss ethics now. And to top it off P2P dying, lmfao. do the math 100k subs x 15$/month = 1.5 mil$/month, and 18mil$/year if you can not make that kind of budget work, I don't think you should be in business in the first place. Sure they make more on F2P cash shops, I want a good game to play, not a my game is better than yours epeen contest.
But ya one of the reasons I have a hard time with fantasy games, is I am getting so tired of trolls.
You talk about what F2P and B2P games could do and I talk about what they have done. F2P and B2P games focus new content on getting people to spend money in the cash shop so it tends to be disposable in nature, sub games create new content to add a new level to the treadmill of progression. It's a very subtle difference but a important one.
I know a lot of raiders that have high hopes for Wildstar but very few of them will tolerate a F2P or B2P game. If Wildstar really wants to bring back raiding they are going to have to make the game a sub. If that's really not a primary goal of theirs than it's hard to beat the 1-2 year return on investment that F2P or B2P gives you. I think the jury is still out regrading the long term viability of either of those models over the time span of a classic MMO.
I'll play the game regardless but how I play it will vary greatly on the sub model. If it's F2P or B2P it's a disposable distraction to pass the time until something better comes along. If it's sub I will at least give end game raiding a try as long as I feel that they are serious about supporting it long term and not just release a few raid zones at launch to check a box ala SWTOR.
I hear ya there, and really like the mature attitude of your post. I have posted way to much on this topic already. But the best model I see, is start P2P watch the content locusts chew through your game, they will be there because it is new. Watch numbers and subs drop, switch to F2P. If we are just to talk financial gain this is the best possible way, unless you only have one month of content. That is the way most AAA games have been for the last few years. I figure the breaking point is when the profit margin starts making the investors unhappy.
I would never feel ripped off with the conversion, even though some would. But I think those are the ones that would ask for a refund, or just charge back anyhow.
Correction: Most do, the difference is a majority of those most have a rather steep grinding curve and few of them actually of an interesting nature within the current gaming community, thus your false impression that only some F2P games do offer everything in-game via work.
I don't mind to buy a box if it will not be sold at too expensive price.
after all fails, I guess I'll not pay more than 30$ even for top of top games.
about sub: with all arguments about benefit of subs, games or don't have enough or it not last long.
so why not start with sub, after max 1 year it will move to f2p like they all do.
IMO also, may be sub will work, good luck!
I'll sure not sub anything anymore with market filled with A+++ f2p. GW2 was my last lesson...
try before buy, even if it's a game to avoid bad surprises.
Worst surprises for me: Aion, GW2
"You talk about what F2P and B2P games could do and I talk about what they have done. "
Specificallly, no, I talk that W* can do whatever they want, but there are plenty of other F2P games that are F2P that have raiding in it.
Honestly, it just sounds like you are projecting that since you want subs, you are claiming that so does every other raider. IMO, they dont care anymore than anyone else. Anecdotally, I am a raider and I prefer a B2P model and will not tolerate a sub again.
Take the Magic: The Gathering 'What Color Are You?' Quiz.
Name one that launched F2P/B2P or doesn't have a sub option?
I don't like cash shops in any game. All should be buy box, and pay subscription. Been playing MMOs since 1991, a long time before F2P was even around. I've spent more in F2P games than I ever did in P2P games...I don't get why everyone wants F2P, P2P is so much cheaper.
F2P is like socialism, I pay alot more than P2P to make up for someone who probably doesn't have a job and just sits around playing games all day lol.
I guess it could be worse. We could go back to the old AOL model Neverwinter had, where you had to pay by the hour XD
What you actually want, is for this game to be good enough to warrant a sub, unlike almost all the other trash that is generated.