Then when you get to the personal story. I hear a lot of GW2 fans saying about other new MMOs that "If I wanted a story I'd read a book." Well that's great, because GW2's personal story is going to be more book-like than other MMOs. You stand there and watch a cutscene of two or three characters half-facing each other and talking, and talking, and talking. In a lot of videos you don't even get to choose any dialogue to say lol. The characters just keep on talking...
You make it sound like the cut scenes in GW2 are like 3 minutes like with your comment that they are talking, talking and talking. When in reality they are very short and then you go off and do stuff that leads you all over the world with the personal story. Please link a video where the dialog is as long as you make it sound! Because I have not seen one instance of a dialog scene that were not short and to the point and they did not just keep talking and talking and talking. You are over exaggerating because you do not like the personal story!
I was gonna make the same comment but you beat me to it Slappy. As someone who has used that line about story and books, i said so only because when discussing the positive aspects of SWTOR (not flaming just stating what I was discussing at the time) the one that came up was basically an excuse for less than creative gameplay across the board. Then saying basically TOR brings it's best aspect in the story side. Well in that case I'd rather a book if that's it's best selling point with lackluster gameplay.
I have played all of the Bioware games so lets not make it sound like having a few choices through a string of dialogue is something to toot a horn about. I played through DA and ME several times as well as KOTOR just to see the endings from the Good and Evil side. that being said the vast majority of the conversations didn't mean squat whether you intimidated, sweet talked, w/e the information out of the NPC. It changed very little.
Saying TOR is gonna have a better story game than GW2 is your opinion. But lets not make it sound like Anets is more like a book just because TOR delivers it differently. like Slappy said, they are short and not a huge part of the game. Lets not fool ourselves into thinking just because you can spend twice as long in NPC interaction that it is that much better because you have meaningless, for the most part, choices. But I conceded that that also is an opinion.
This is funny! Which is it now? Either:
A) The conversations are short, to the point, not a big part fo the game.
or
The personal story is a big feature and brings story to the forefront of this game.
In this clip http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Stfx0Lk0qQ4 there are a couple conversations around 40 seconds and one at a minute long where the player does not make any dialogue choices. You sit and watch it. Now count from 1 to 40 seconds in your head. Really, go head. That is a looooonnnnnnng time to sit and watch a (bad 2D) cutscene without any dialogue choices or interaction. That's a guaranteed *SKIP* for real. Is it better than WoW? Kinda maybe? It's years behind the cinematic camera style and multiplayer interactivity of SWTOR and The Secret World.
Which is why I said story is not one of GW2s real features to me. Combat, guild PvP, dynamic quests, and impressive graphics are the real features. I do think GW2s dynamic quests could be years beyond any upcoming MMO. That is a real feature, not the personal story.
To make pretend that GW2 is going to have a comparable quality of story to SWTOR is not opinion. lol Come on now. Do I really have to put on my flame retardant gear just to state the obvious. Characters rooted in one spot, in front of a 2d background, sort of half facing each other VS an active 3d set with actors moving around a room, moving in body language, emotional facial expresssions, active dramatic camera movement, multiplayer dialogue choices, and gear based on multiplayer dialogue participation? And not only is it good story, it's also gameplay. It's not combat gameplay, but it is gameplay.
In the end I'm not really comparing GW2, SWTOR, and The Secret World for the purpose of saying they have to be equal to each other in every way. Each one will have advantages and disadvantages. But the people trying to promote some minor feature of a game as superior to one of the main features of another game are ridiculous.
I wish people would stop using the word "dynamic". It's such a tag line now. Rift said the rifts would be dynamic - well, I suppose in the most basis sense they are but drilling out a few nested if>thens in your code isn't dynamic.
I wish people would stop using the word "dynamic". It's such a tag line now. Rift said the rifts would be dynamic - well, I suppose in the most basis sense they are but drilling out a few nested if>thens in your code isn't dynamic.
Trion also said Rift was a "next-gen" game. Comparing Rifts to DEs is pointless because they are completely different.
Eh, dynamic is such a general term, I wouldn't get too bent up over it. It's like the term 'organic' used in foods. It really has no meaning, we just assume that it does. It was created as a buzz word, and so it still is. You can still have 'dynamic' events in the technical sense of the world, while still having them be quite linear. WAR did this w/ their PQ system, via phasing.
The dynamic events in GW2 will mean something very different, but they are still based on the ideals of WAR's PQ. They are just way more involved.
Yes, ofc GW2 "dynamic" could mean something that is actually dynamic but that's just the thing, I've been there and done that.
OT:
I'm always exceedingly cautious when it comes to playing F2P games, not because I expect them to charge for everything in the shop - that's their business model. It's that the majority of my experiences with F2P games is that if you don't go to the cash shop you are automatically nerfed when playing the game.
With a P2P game (with sub) you can almost always be assured that everyone will be on equal footing save some cute pet or super-cleavage dress for your female toon.
Then when you get to the personal story. I hear a lot of GW2 fans saying about other new MMOs that "If I wanted a story I'd read a book." Well that's great, because GW2's personal story is going to be more book-like than other MMOs. You stand there and watch a cutscene of two or three characters half-facing each other and talking, and talking, and talking. In a lot of videos you don't even get to choose any dialogue to say lol. The characters just keep on talking...
You make it sound like the cut scenes in GW2 are like 3 minutes like with your comment that they are talking, talking and talking. When in reality they are very short and then you go off and do stuff that leads you all over the world with the personal story. Please link a video where the dialog is as long as you make it sound! Because I have not seen one instance of a dialog scene that were not short and to the point and they did not just keep talking and talking and talking. You are over exaggerating because you do not like the personal story!
I was gonna make the same comment but you beat me to it Slappy. As someone who has used that line about story and books, i said so only because when discussing the positive aspects of SWTOR (not flaming just stating what I was discussing at the time) the one that came up was basically an excuse for less than creative gameplay across the board. Then saying basically TOR brings it's best aspect in the story side. Well in that case I'd rather a book if that's it's best selling point with lackluster gameplay.
I have played all of the Bioware games so lets not make it sound like having a few choices through a string of dialogue is something to toot a horn about. I played through DA and ME several times as well as KOTOR just to see the endings from the Good and Evil side. that being said the vast majority of the conversations didn't mean squat whether you intimidated, sweet talked, w/e the information out of the NPC. It changed very little.
Saying TOR is gonna have a better story game than GW2 is your opinion. But lets not make it sound like Anets is more like a book just because TOR delivers it differently. like Slappy said, they are short and not a huge part of the game. Lets not fool ourselves into thinking just because you can spend twice as long in NPC interaction that it is that much better because you have meaningless, for the most part, choices. But I conceded that that also is an opinion.
This is funny! Which is it now? Either:
A) The conversations are short, to the point, not a big part fo the game.
or
The personal story is a big feature and brings story to the forefront of this game.
In this clip http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Stfx0Lk0qQ4 there are a couple conversations around 40 seconds and one at a minute long where the player does not make any dialogue choices. You sit and watch it. Now count from 1 to 40 seconds in your head. Really, go head. That is a looooonnnnnnng time to sit and watch a (bad 2D) cutscene without any dialogue choices or interaction. That's a guaranteed *SKIP* for real. Is it better than WoW? Kinda maybe? It's years behind the cinematic camera style and multiplayer interactivity of SWTOR and The Secret World.
Which is why I said story is not one of GW2s real features to me. Combat, guild PvP, dynamic quests, and impressive graphics are the real features. I do think GW2s dynamic quests could be years beyond any upcoming MMO. That is a real feature, not the personal story.
To make pretend that GW2 is going to have a comparable quality of story to SWTOR is not opinion. lol Come on now. Do I really have to put on my flame retardant gear just to state the obvious. Characters rooted in one spot, in front of a 2d background, sort of half facing each other VS an active 3d set with actors moving around a room, moving in body language, emotional facial expresssions, active dramatic camera movement, multiplayer dialogue choices, and gear based on multiplayer dialogue participation? And not only is it good story, it's also gameplay. It's not combat gameplay, but it is gameplay.
In the end I'm not really comparing GW2, SWTOR, and The Secret World for the purpose of saying they have to be equal to each other in every way. Each one will have advantages and disadvantages. But the people trying to promote some minor feature of a game as superior to one of the main features of another game are ridiculous.
So just becouse you preffer SW:TOR way of cutscenes, it means SW:TOR will have better story ? Ah, I forgot, Bioware ... But gw2 has it's own aces for story telling - Jeff Grubb and Ree Soesbee - and they are not just some nobodies. For me quality of story has nothing to do with how cut scenes are done, im not of fan of them and i could live without them completly.
So just becouse you preffer SW:TOR way of cutscenes, it means SW:TOR will have better story ? Ah, I forgot, Bioware ... But gw2 has it's own aces for story telling - Jeff Grubb and Ree Soesbee - and they are not just some nobodies. For me quality of story has nothing to do with how cut scenes are done, im not of fan of them and i could live without them completly.
Well Like I said when I posted, it's all about opinion. I have played and listed Biowares titles and what I thought about their conversation choices amounting to squat. If that makes someone feel like they are more involved in the story more power to them. I addressed another comment of his earlier and it was ignored for reasons that he spouted something untrue and got called on it.
Ok so you found a video where the story was being delivered and your complaint is that it's in 2d and it's 40 secs long? It's delivering lore how short does it need to be? TBH it is pointless anyways as GW2's story isn't the only thing they are selling their product on and to be honest it's off topic so I won't make a big deal about it. J
ust because you don't like the way GW2 is delivering their story in 2D doesn't mean others won't. Personally I'll take that over pressing the skip button over conversation choices I did on my first play through. My point was if this is what SWTOR is selling to justify a sub fee I can get a better story for a lot less money because I hope it isn't their gameplay. I am hoping I am wrong about the game because I am bored, but if it's like KOTOR (good game) just in a mmo form then I'll pass. Biowares story content driven by giving the player the feeling that every conversation engaged in has an affect on the game is not enough to warrant my money.
On the GW2 Personal Story, I'd point out that it isn't just 2D voiced cinematics. It is also story related instanced PVE content to which you can invite others to participate and have the content scale. Most of the world is non-instanced, but the Personal Story is. NPCs are voiced in this content, not just in the 2D cutscene elements. It's not just an interactive Graphic Novel, as some seem to assume.
It wouldn't matter how the lore is delivered, if you think about it why would other really matter as long as the lore is given to the player is an engaging way, personally the way some quests in star wars the old republic is really taxing. Since you have to listen to the convoy to.be fully engaged in the story, when i see the videos of gw2 i see a quick convo in a cut scene or i hear the voice over while the player is still running around the game world.
This to me is a much better way to provide the story instead.of stomping the game everytime a quest needs to be turned in or the next step in a story is completed
A) The conversations are short, to the point, not a big part fo the game.
or
The personal story is a big feature and brings story to the forefront of this game.
In this clip http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Stfx0Lk0qQ4 there are a couple conversations around 40 seconds and one at a minute long where the player does not make any dialogue choices. You sit and watch it. Now count from 1 to 40 seconds in your head. Really, go head. That is a looooonnnnnnng time to sit and watch a (bad 2D) cutscene without any dialogue choices or interaction. That's a guaranteed *SKIP* for real. Is it better than WoW? Kinda maybe? It's years behind the cinematic camera style and multiplayer interactivity of SWTOR and The Secret World.
Which is why I said story is not one of GW2s real features to me. Combat, guild PvP, dynamic quests, and impressive graphics are the real features. I do think GW2s dynamic quests could be years beyond any upcoming MMO. That is a real feature, not the personal story.
To make pretend that GW2 is going to have a comparable quality of story to SWTOR is not opinion. lol Come on now. Do I really have to put on my flame retardant gear just to state the obvious. Characters rooted in one spot, in front of a 2d background, sort of half facing each other VS an active 3d set with actors moving around a room, moving in body language, emotional facial expresssions, active dramatic camera movement, multiplayer dialogue choices, and gear based on multiplayer dialogue participation? And not only is it good story, it's also gameplay. It's not combat gameplay, but it is gameplay.
In the end I'm not really comparing GW2, SWTOR, and The Secret World for the purpose of saying they have to be equal to each other in every way. Each one will have advantages and disadvantages. But the people trying to promote some minor feature of a game as superior to one of the main features of another game are ridiculous.
OK let’s take a look at the video you linked and the times that the cut scenes lasted, since apparently they are so long most people will not sit through them.
00:45 to 2:50 introduction cut scene – 2:05 in length
03:25 to 03:57 tutorial story introduction – 32 seconds in length
05:36 to 05:51 Duke Barradin taking over statue cut scene – 15 seconds in length
07:05 to 07:16 End of tutorial cut scene – 11 seconds in length
07:21 to 08:07 opening cut scene for personal story outside of tutorial – 46 seconds in length
08:37 to 09:03 scout dialog to introduce new players to DEs – 26 seconds in length
15:50 to 16:29 dialog with first warband member – 39 seconds in length
17:03 to 17:43 dialog with the Legionnaire – 40 seconds in length
17:59 to 18:36 dialog with legionnaire after fight – 37 seconds in length
20:49 to 21:33 dialog with the flame legion – 44 seconds in length
22:09 to 22:46 dialog with Elexus Shredskin – 37 seconds in length
25:08 to 26:03 dialog with legionnaire – 55 seconds
Oh god I can see how this is too much there are cut scenes here that range from 40 to 55 seconds; what are we to do! /lay on sarcasm heavily
It is not like you have any effect on what happens, oh wait you do with the questions you answer before the introduction cut scene. It is not like your actions could open up more possible choices for you to influence, oh wait you do. Oh man this actual sounds like a story you get to influence not just watch, how dare you ANet for making a game with a story that people can make a choice in!
After all ever game has to be like ME (which is where TOR got its conversation wheel from) in order to have a good story in it now days, there is no way anyone can make a game without it. Because we all like the ME dialog cinematic and any game that does not use it is inferior /shakes fist. It is not like people can like multiple ways to tell stories in games, we all have to like this one and any game that does not do it is inferior and needs to be scoffed at.
How dare any of you that like the personal story in GW2 like it, it is inferior because it does not have a dialog menu or dialog wheel, you all must like your RPGS like the rest of us. How dare you have an independent thought you worthless wretches, you will all need to be flogged now for your insolence. After all we true RPGs know what all RPGs need to play like and anyone that thinks differently is an idiot that likes inferior game mechanics.
Thanks for clearing that up!
Originally posted by Normike
But the hardcore gamer in me wants those increased server traffic systems if they provide interesting gameplay. And I'm willing to pay 1.5 starbucks coffees a week for them. But in the end I think some MMO games do need a subscription to cover those costs, some don't.
Apparently you did not see this so I will repost it:
Originally posted by AKASlaphappy
As for your final theory I would have to say you have never actual looked at a MMO company’s finical reports before have you. If you care to look at NCsoft reports GW1 makes enough to cover the server and bandwidth costs for ever single MMO that NCsoft publishes. Just for the record that covers Aion, Linage 2, City of Heroes, and GW1. So if GW1 alone can cover the cost of all of those games for servers and bandwidth how does that fit in your theory?
According to you games that have a subscription have more server traffic, if that is true why does GW1 make enough money to pay for all of NCsoft server and bandwidth needs? So you are telling me that TOR is going to use more resource than Aion, Linage 2, City of Heroes, and GW1 and that is why they need a subscription?
A) The conversations are short, to the point, not a big part fo the game.
or
The personal story is a big feature and brings story to the forefront of this game.
In this clip http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Stfx0Lk0qQ4 there are a couple conversations around 40 seconds and one at a minute long where the player does not make any dialogue choices. You sit and watch it. Now count from 1 to 40 seconds in your head. Really, go head. That is a looooonnnnnnng time to sit and watch a (bad 2D) cutscene without any dialogue choices or interaction. That's a guaranteed *SKIP* for real. Is it better than WoW? Kinda maybe? It's years behind the cinematic camera style and multiplayer interactivity of SWTOR and The Secret World.
Which is why I said story is not one of GW2s real features to me. Combat, guild PvP, dynamic quests, and impressive graphics are the real features. I do think GW2s dynamic quests could be years beyond any upcoming MMO. That is a real feature, not the personal story.
To make pretend that GW2 is going to have a comparable quality of story to SWTOR is not opinion. lol Come on now. Do I really have to put on my flame retardant gear just to state the obvious. Characters rooted in one spot, in front of a 2d background, sort of half facing each other VS an active 3d set with actors moving around a room, moving in body language, emotional facial expresssions, active dramatic camera movement, multiplayer dialogue choices, and gear based on multiplayer dialogue participation? And not only is it good story, it's also gameplay. It's not combat gameplay, but it is gameplay.
In the end I'm not really comparing GW2, SWTOR, and The Secret World for the purpose of saying they have to be equal to each other in every way. Each one will have advantages and disadvantages. But the people trying to promote some minor feature of a game as superior to one of the main features of another game are ridiculous.
OK let’s take a look at the video you linked and the times that the cut scenes lasted, since apparently they are so long most people will not sit through them.
00:45 to 2:50 introduction cut scene – 2:05 in length
03:25 to 03:57 tutorial story introduction – 32 seconds in length
05:36 to 05:51 Duke Barradin taking over statue cut scene – 15 seconds in length
07:05 to 07:16 End of tutorial cut scene – 11 seconds in length
07:21 to 08:07 opening cut scene for personal story outside of tutorial – 46 seconds in length
08:37 to 09:03 scout dialog to introduce new players to DEs – 26 seconds in length
15:50 to 16:29 dialog with first warband member – 39 seconds in length
17:03 to 17:43 dialog with the Legionnaire – 40 seconds in length
17:59 to 18:36 dialog with legionnaire after fight – 37 seconds in length
20:49 to 21:33 dialog with the flame legion – 44 seconds in length
22:09 to 22:46 dialog with Elexus Shredskin – 37 seconds in length
25:08 to 26:03 dialog with legionnaire – 55 seconds
Oh god I can see how this is too much there are cut scenes here that range from 40 to 55 seconds; what are we to do! /lay on sarcasm heavily
It is not like you have any effect on what happens, oh wait you do with the questions you answer before the introduction cut scene. It is not like your actions could open up more possible choices for you to influence, oh wait you do. Oh man this actual sounds like a story you get to influence not just watch, how dare you ANet for making a game with a story that people can make a choice in!
After all ever game has to be like ME (which is where TOR got its conversation wheel from) in order to have a good story in it now days, there is no way anyone can make a game without it. Because we all like the ME dialog cinematic and any game that does not use it is inferior /shakes fist. It is not like people can like multiple ways to tell stories in games, we all have to like this one and any game that does not do it is inferior and needs to be scoffed at.
How dare any of you that like the personal story in GW2 like it, it is inferior because it does not have a dialog menu or dialog wheel, you all must like your RPGS like the rest of us. How dare you have an independent thought you worthless wretches, you will all need to be flogged now for your insolence. After all we true RPGs know what all RPGs need to play like and anyone that thinks differently is an idiot that likes inferior game mechanics.
Thanks for clearing that up!
Originally posted by Normike
But the hardcore gamer in me wants those increased server traffic systems if they provide interesting gameplay. And I'm willing to pay 1.5 starbucks coffees a week for them. But in the end I think some MMO games do need a subscription to cover those costs, some don't.
Apparently you did not see this so I will repost it:
Originally posted by AKASlaphappy
As for your final theory I would have to say you have never actual looked at a MMO company’s finical reports before have you. If you care to look at NCsoft reports GW1 makes enough to cover the server and bandwidth costs for ever single MMO that NCsoft publishes. Just for the record that covers Aion, Linage 2, City of Heroes, and GW1. So if GW1 alone can cover the cost of all of those games for servers and bandwidth how does that fit in your theory?
According to you games that have a subscription have more server traffic, if that is true why does GW1 make enough money to pay for all of NCsoft server and bandwidth needs? So you are telling me that TOR is going to use more resource than Aion, Linage 2, City of Heroes, and GW1 and that is why they need a subscription?
Um... you forgot to mention the story is delivered in 2D that seems to be a reg compalint about the delivery of said lore........ /crawls back in hole
When I say subscription offers more stability I'm talking about month to month stability for a developer. It allows much easier planning.
A subscription may or may not be more stable. It is if your MMO is successful, especially if your playerbase is large enough that the comings and goings are just going to noise. For games that haven't lived up to the hype or are discovered to have major problems, I'm sure the subscription numbers have shown huge dropoffs from one month to the next. In the case of massive growth, box sales due to B2P will be at least as reliable an indicator as box sales from P2P, because the B2P player has no incentive to stop playing rather than subscribe or maintain a subscription.
The subscription model has been around for centuries for all kinds of things partly because it's more stable. It actually takes effort for the consumer to cancel the subscription because of the automatic nature of a subscription.
Subscriptions have historically been stable, but consider the nature of the subscription. Like if I'm getting Netflix, I'm going to continue paying every month I'm happy with the service. Unlike MMOs, I can't get bored of Netflix's gameplay, or want to join a different service for variety, or see 3 other AAA movie rental services per year with all kinds of new features and updated graphics.
A game will not be good or bad dependent on whether it goes F2P, B2P, or P2P. It will succeed based on it's content, media coverage, community support, and long term developer support. The top percent of games may be able to succeed as B2P when it comes to the last factor, long term developer support. The rest will not.
I don't agree with what you're trying to say about long term developer support and only the top B2P games being successful. If anything, only the top P2P games can be successful since people will only pay one subscription at a time. People still might buy every B2P that comes along (and may or may not continue with expansions, but if the game is any good at all people probably will, even if they wait for a discounted rate). That's money that the mid and lower tier P2P games are never going to see.
GW1 probably did make more money than CoH. But as a game I prefered CoH and CoV because it felt more like an MMO. GW1 was fun but it felt more like a multiplayer rpg. It didn't feel like an MMO community, almost like people saw it as a FPS shooter lobby. And there were sacrifices made to reduce server traffic, for example no jumping. I'm skeptical that GW2 will have other similar sacrifices made to reduce server traffic and that the community will not feel like a stable MMO community, but we'll see. I want to be proven wrong. Nothing would make me happier than to see a fully fledged top quality MMO, with a great cohesive MMO community, and no monthly fee.
I'm sure CoH did feel more like an MMO, being that it actually was an MMO, but I don't think it had anything to do with sacrifices to server traffic. While it's true that GW1 had no z-axis, I can't believe that the inclusion of jumping would have had any significant impact on server traffic. GW2 not only has jumping, it also has all kinds of underwater content and skills that specifically impact the z-axis.
It's not that Arena.net's history made people want to try the game. I mean that being ex-Blizzard core members got them the credibility, media coverage, and initial fan base needed to grow so that they generated a lot of word of mouth and attract players like you. Arena.net is now sufficiently established in their own accomplishments now that being related to Blizzard is insignificant.
Everybody making MMOs has worked for some other MMO company before, otherwise they probably shouldn't be making MMOs. I'm not going to go into the wayback machine and research GW1 hype pre-2005 and the reason for it. It might have initially sold because of the attention it got, but it's no different than all the people hyping Rift's (or any other P2P's) developers for the other things they've done. Whatever the reason for the initial sales, all the subsequent sales came from the game actually being pretty good (and B2P).
I hear you on the no monthly fee and capitalism part. But the hardcore gamer in me wants those increased server traffic systems if they provide interesting gameplay. And I'm willing to pay 1.5 starbucks coffees a week for them. But in the end I think some MMO games do need a subscription to cover those costs, some don't.
Again, B2P is a perfectly viable way of making money, perhaps even more money than if a game was P2P. F2P can also possibly outearn P2P. If that's the case, the server traffic (fairly negligible expense that it even is compared to developer salaries) is totally paid for. If anything, all P2P does (unless you're WoW) is lower the amount of server traffic you have, by keeping people away from your game who would otherwise be playing it.
"Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true you know it, and they know it."-Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007
I love how every time a discussion of GW2's payment model gets started, one side always turns into a comparison between subscription-based games and free-to-play games. GW2 is neither of those. If you want to argue against GW2's payment model, you should probably understand what it is first.
GW2 is not a F2P game. You buy the box and you buy the expansions.
Subscription-based games still require you to buy the box and buy the expansions...it IS NOT just $15 a month for a subscription-based game. People seem to forget this when they are making the "$15 is super cheap" arguments.
GW2's cash shop will have only cosmetic items available which provide no in-game advantage or lift one character above another in any way. This has always been ArenaNet's philosophy, and there's no reason they would change it now.
Based on what I've heard, it appears that most, if not all, of the cash shop items will be available to earn in-game. The only "exclusive" cash shop items will be account services like name changes or extra character slots. This is not unlike many other P2P MMORPGs.
Those who refuse to try a GW2 simply because it has no monthly fee are only hurting themselves. They'll end up playing once their friends and family let them in on the secret...GW2 is actually going to be a better game, with more available content, and with a much better community, than whatever P2P games people have played in many years. The payment model doesn't make the community, the game mechanics, systems, and world do.
It's a B2P game with a cash shop, cosmetitc or not, needed or not it is still a cash shop. Which means it will be more expensive than many F2P games - not that the cost is a lot or even particularly relevant.
GW1 let you buy skills for pvp;
I agree. I love GW but lets not pretend it's business model is anything more then standard 'F2P' with a box cost attached.
I personally have no idea why folks proclaim 'B2P' as mana from heaven and superior to 'F2P'. It is just the same.
A huge difference here is that the F2P games have monetary "walls" in the way... you can't advance to this or that zone or content without forking out cash. This is something GW2 won't have... you'll have full access to all content with the purchase of the game. There's no pay-to-win in GW2 either... no items bought that make you more powerful or advance you. Cosmetic only.
This B2P model is markedly different than the generic F2P model out there.
Considering GW has playable content in it's store I don't think you can say it has no monetary walls.
GW also has skill unlocks in it's store.
It has already been said the CS in GW2 will be 'very similar'.
I do not think you demonstrate the part in red at all in the points you have made.
Big difference in the content, for example. In GW2, like in GW, all the content is available to you when you buy the box, period. Then periodically they'l release either full expansions, such as GW did with Nightfall for example, or mini-content packs... things that aren't big enough to justify a full expansion but add on purely optional content. One big thing with GW/GW2, this added mini-content won't make you more powerful, there's no stealth P2W element in there. You get new skins for weapons, but the stats are the same. Not only that, but if you choose to not pick up the mini-content you can still get the new skins simply by purchasing them in game from other players. That's a marked difference from getting to level 20 in a game, for example, and finding you can only move on to the next content area by "unlocking" it with a sub or fee.
In GW's case, the skill unlocks are also simply a means to quickly get what's available in game... there's no "more powerful because I paid" element involved. I thought I'd read that a skill pack won't be available in the store in GW2, which makes sense because they dramatically changed how you unlock and level up skills.
Things you can expect to see in the cash shop, if the GW model persists... extra character slots, in case five isn't enough. Costumes. T-stones (the idea WoW copied which allows you to transfer stats from one armor to another), which are also available in game for no charge. Things of this nature.
Again, this is a huge difference compared to a F2P model where access to the next level of content, the most powerful weapons, ammo or spaceships all have large coin slots in front of them.
threads like this make me hate humanity. it's like a condensation of everything that is wrong with the world, i.e.: "well i'm right, so you must be wrong. don't you get tired of being wrong so much?" from every side. please try to see past your own point of view, people, and engage in a debate not an argument.
We are paying for contect updates and server upkeep. I am aware Guild Wars does it based off of b2p, but also NCsoft sinks money into the creation of content and server upkeep. This money is from NCsofts other revenues.
The business plan is working out well for them but the game can't support itself based off of the b2p model.
We are paying for contect updates and server upkeep. I am aware Guild Wars does it based off of b2p, but also NCsoft sinks money into the creation of content and server upkeep. This money is from NCsofts other revenues.
The business plan is working out well for them but the game can't support itself based off of the b2p model.
It's B2P + Cash Shop. They will make more than enough to keep their NCSoft overlords happy and fully support their game with content. Also in Sub models your sub fee in most cases does not go to content because you still have to buy the expansion. The sub games also all have cash shops now so the people that are paying subs are really just being taken for a ride now more than ever.
threads like this make me hate humanity. it's like a condensation of everything that is wrong with the world, i.e.: "well i'm right, so you must be wrong. don't you get tired of being wrong so much?" from every side. please try to see past your own point of view, people, and engage in a debate not an argument.
QFT
Funny how off topic this has become too. The OP question: what is your sub paying for?
Granted I came in to the conversation late and started going backwards but it looks like another peeing contest hate-fest with little rationality on any side. I couldn't find one real answer to what you believe you are paying for with a sub. 2 games are made. Both are finished and you buy them. You play for 30 days and you decide to resub. What are you paying for? You already bought the game, so it is not content that came with the game, so what is it? There really is no wrong answer here as I see it, just opinions on what people think they are paying for.
After all, we are asking players not the people who are charging. I would be curious to see an answer from a modern day recent sub MMO like Trion, what they say you are paying for. Although I am equally curious what the players think they are paying for.
*edit - I stand(sit) corrected, after posting this I see a couple people gave their opinion on what they were paying for,
We are paying for contect updates and server upkeep. I am aware Guild Wars does it based off of b2p, but also NCsoft sinks money into the creation of content and server upkeep. This money is from NCsofts other revenues.
The business plan is working out well for them but the game can't support itself based off of the b2p model.
You sure about that? If it was an obvious losing venture I doubt NCSoft would allow it to continue. Anet has told us that they use some crazy cheap server system and GW1 lasted just fine on the B2P model. I think your underestimating their box sales.
I support MMO's w/out cash shops. Sub or no sub. Cosmetic cash shops are gravy, but I don't like the unfair advantage cash shops offer when they sell in-game weapons and such. I don't play them. It greed. Thats all it is.
threads like this make me hate humanity. it's like a condensation of everything that is wrong with the world, i.e.: "well i'm right, so you must be wrong. don't you get tired of being wrong so much?" from every side. please try to see past your own point of view, people, and engage in a debate not an argument.
QFT
Funny how off topic this has become too. The OP question: what is your sub paying for?
Granted I came in to the conversation late and started going backwards but it looks like another peeing contest hate-fest with little rationality on any side. I couldn't find one real answer to what you believe you are paying for with a sub. 2 games are made. Both are finished and you buy them. You play for 30 days and you decide to resub. What are you paying for? You already bought the game, so it is not content that came with the game, so what is it? There really is no wrong answer here as I see it, just opinions on what people think they are paying for.
After all, we are asking players not the people who are charging. I would be curious to see an answer from a modern day recent sub MMO like Trion, what they say you are paying for. Although I am equally curious what the players think they are paying for.
*edit - I stand(sit) corrected, after posting this I see a couple people gave their opinion on what they were paying for,
Well it would be interesting to see what they say I'm sure they would lie. However you might be able to find hard numbers that show how much their operating costs are vs how much they are making from their subs and box sales.
Why does it take 6 years for people to write articles like this. Oh ya, because your all brainwashed.
This stuff was said when GW1 released, why now does it ring true and not before.
People seem to forget or perhaps they don't even know that P2P was a gag and nobody ever thought that players would accually pay. HaHa little did they know, that if they tell people anything, people will believe it just because you said it.
(Brain-lazy people stop thinking if you tell them to)
The reason ArenaNet makes great games is because they are more passionate about gaming than money. And if you make a GREAT game it will make GREAT money.
(so they don't worry about the money as much as the game, after all, if the game sucks who's gonna want to pay anything for it)
They listen to the players because, only the players, can make the program they created, a GREAT GAME!
I know it's lame to quote yourself i just didn't want to type it all out again.
bandwith this bandwith that, it's a just to keep you all confused so you don't fully understand that your being taken advantage of.
it's just like VOIP, now you have to pay for it? (w/e if your brainwashed you can pay for it)
I've been voiping for 20 years and haven't payed for anything more than my interenet connection
(which we all would pay for anyway VOIP or no VOIP)
You pay long distance phone charges because you want to not because you have to.
(proves my point again about brain lazy people)
I'm just glad i had enough common sense to see through all this smoke and mirrors, i feel sorry for the people who can't think for themselves.
ArenaNet is just doing whats RIGHT for the gamers and the industry.
It's funny how much noise is created by doing what's RIGHT.
I support MMO's w/out cash shops. Sub or no sub. Cosmetic cash shops are gravy, but I don't like the unfair advantage cash shops offer when they sell in-game weapons and such. I don't play them. It greed. Thats all it is.
Some truth in that but I'd also say that a game that uses subs also is greed.
With that said, these companies are there to make money. Unless you run a non for profit organization your goal is to make more money than you expend.
You know why subscription fees are tacked on to MMOs nowadays? It makes developers not worry about the release date their publishers give them. Most MMOs are given a set schedule no matter what's done or what's not. The subscription fee is insurance that they make a profit. However, it doesn't give them motivation to actually create something worthwhile playing. It's greed, plain and simple. That's what a sub is. People can stay delusional all they want about subscription fees but it's nevertheless the truth.
The B2P model works. ArenaNet has been out to prove that since they started developing the original Guild Wars. They don't have a cash shop that gives you a power advantage over players. They don't put subs on their games. They are the antithesis of what MMOs and their developers are today. So when GW2 comes out and it works(this time a persistent world, so all those people saying it's different with a persistent game can shut their mouths), if everyone is ignorant after that, then the MMO community has no hope. Because at the end of the day, it's not just the developer's fault with the way MMOs have gone this past decade. It's also the community's fault for accepting garbage games into their gaming life. Who controls the fate of game developers? Us. The community. If we don't buy crappy games, then developers won't make crappy games.
Okay, so here's another angle. It's one that the subscription supporters haven't considered, and I present it in the best way I'm capable of in the hope that it's understood.
A subscription has to be paid if a game has a subscription.
I'm Captain Obvious, I am. Of course a subscription has to be paid, but what's not being said here is this:
A game with a subscription has to make you want to pay for that subscription.
That is a non-trivial consideration. But you still may not yet understand what i'm saying here, so let's move on:
A game with a subscription has to change the nature of the game in order to compell future subscription payments.
Here's where it starts to get interesting. Subscriptions change the nature of a game, they make it different in non-trivial ways. When you bought Portal 2, did you ever think at any point that you had to grind? Grinding means that you spend entirely too much time in one area, and that you're being forced to either repeat content, do repetitive content, or both. There were only two puzzles in Portal 2, they were both simple and it was a tongue-in-cheek joke about how the player solved the simple puzzle so quickly.
A game with a subscription has to be elongated endlessly, where in a single player game you have to spend 10 minutes in an area, in a subscription MMORPG that might be padded out to fifty hours, or in some cases even more than that. The idea is that you're kept in one area with the promise of another just ahead. Perhaps if you pay another month's subscription then you'll be able to see the next area. This is one of th tricks that WoW used to maintain it's subscriber base. (I'll get to the others shortly.)
Take Guild Wars as a prime example. Guild Wars 1. If it had been a subscription game then you could likely have spent hundreds of hours in pre-searing Ascalon just grinding the same critters over and over, running the same quests over and over with only slightly changed scenarios and text. As it is, only the actual amount of content was there, so you progressed into post-searing pretty quickly, due to the lack of grind. There was no forced grind in Guild Wars 1. You could choose to, but in order to complete all the content, not even ten minutes of enforced grind was necessary.
Add a subscription to Guild Wars 1 and it changes the game - in order to support a subscription you have to compel people to pay that subscription. So pre-searing, as I said, becomes hundreds of hours long, with the promise of post-searing being just around that next corner. If you've ever played a subscription-based MMORPG, you know this is true. Hell, when Champions Online went free to play, they actually reduced the amount of time it takes to level vs when the game was subscription only. Go figure. I noticed right away. It was hard not to.
Now onto the other elements that are changed by a subscription.
One of them is end game raiding and a psychological rewards system. It's a case of classical conditioning if you undrestand that. Pavlov's dog and all. If you're not familiar with the concept then I invite you to do a little reading. But the idea is is that they've now hooked you on spending many hours doing something just for a small reward, you work at the grinding and you're rewarded with new surroundings. This then becomes raids. You raid so that you can raid, you raid so that you can raid, you raid so that you can raid.
Yahtzee put it best in his review of one of the WoW expansions:
"Why are you fighting this boss?"
"To get better gear."
"What do you need better gear for?"
"To fight the next boss, of course!"
"What do you get from the next boss?"
"Better gear!"
"What do you use that for?"
"Um, to... fight the next boss!!!!!"
"I see..."
See, the promise of a new raid location with better gear is used as an aspect of psychological conditioning. The player is trained to actually want this, so they get locked into a cycle of raiding. What also happens is that there's no sense of closure for their character, either, so they keep raiding until new content comes along. They'll keep raiding for months even without new content just because new content may be around the corner. The end result? The developer has you paying a subscription for nothing. It's really clever. It's insidiouis, and horrible, on so many levels... I mean, oh gods it is. But it is so clever.
The opposite of this is a game without a subscription. See, if you're playing a free to play game or a buy to play game, they want you to eventually be done with it so that you can move onto the next game and free up slots for someone else. So instead of finding that you're playing a subscription game 24/7, and that you've lost your job, your wife, and all your friends, and that you have a raiding addiction that you can't kick, you actually reach the ending of the game and that's that.
Guild Wars had an ending.
You actually got to a point where you completed all the content and that was that. Your character was this godlike being, and it was time to simply move onto the next game. Between Guild Wars expansions I actually got to play other games, games which were not Guild Wars. Can you imagine? I got to play lots of neat games! But between the WoW expansions, the WoW players kept playing WoW. Over and over. They couldn't stop themselves. Just one moore raid. Just one more raid. Just one more raid. Maybe some new raid content is just around the corner? And Blizzard drip-fed raid content into WoW just to keep this going.
Look at your time playing any subscription game and tell me that this isn't the case. When you get to playing TOR, tell me that that won't be the case there. When you play any game with a subscription, you're going to be coaxed into staying another month, because you're paying for another month. And then another. And then another. And then another. And then another. And then another. And they're going to use whatever clever trickery they can to get you hooked on their game.
It's the carrot and the stick extended to epic proportions, and the subscription game player is the horse. Forever chasing that carrot. Sometimes getting so close, sometimes being fooled into catching it, sometimes getting a bite, and that bite being enough to keep going, to keep going, to gallop a few more miles. A few more miles and you may just catch that carrot. You may actually achieve something. You may get closure.
See, that's what all subscription game players secretly desire, they won't admit it to themselves but it's what they want. And I know this because I had to break a very good friend's addiction. He was my room-mate at the time and he spent entirely too much time playing WoW. When he wasn't raiding he was running public quests to get materials for raiding. He spent so much time in WoW every single day that it actually scared me. I'd walk into the room where he was, and I'd see WoW on his screen. It was never anything else. And all the WoW players I've known that haven't dropped the game after a month or two are like that.
I had to sit him down and gently explain to him as best I could, sometimes even lecturing him like a professor, that he was hoooked on the promise of closure, and this was like a drug addiction, he wanted to reach that imaginary high. That imaginary high that only he believed existed. It was a drug abuser's mentality. I had to explain to him that he would never get closure from a game like that, and he would only ever see closure in games that didn't have subscriptions.
After that, I think something clicked.
He gave up WoW and he's never played it since. The only thing I've ever seen him get nearly that addicted to is Minecraft, but he's better with that because there's no subscription, so there's none of the usual WoW-like trickery. He can put down his building and come back to it whenever he wants, and he can actually build something and call it done, and play it in moderation. In Minecraft you can actually get a sense of closure, it allows you that. But in WoW and subscription games like that? No chance.
This is why subscription games are an inherently insidious and parasitic thing, and why it bothers me that people support them. Because at the end of the day it's just classical conditioning. A bunch of people will go off and play TOR, I'm sure, and they'll get caught up in the old classical conditioning cycle, and their friends will give up on trying to save them, and their lives, friends, job, wife, and whatever else will just go out the window as they keep grinding and grinding, wishing for the holy grail of closure that will never come.
This is why, for me, subscriptionless games are superior. And I've enjoyed many a game that didn't have a subscription and thus hasn't pulled such insipid, manipulative nonsense. I play it, I enjoy the content (without grinding!), and then I reach a point where I feel I have closure and I stop. Just like with any single player game.
And this post absolutely proves the following conclusions beyond the shadow of a doubt, I think:
Subscription games are more greedy in that the purveyors of them are willing to fuck with the heads of their players, get them addicted, and ruin lives in order to make a profit. They have no scruples. You may see the nickel-and-diming of a cash shop as bad, but there's nothing about a cash shop that uses classical conditioning to convince people to part with their money, or to keep playing a game to the detriment of their own life. Cash shops may be a bit greedy, but they're more of the sort of greed that keeps a company afloat, rather than the all encompassing, unethical sort of greed that vendors of various sorts of drug have.
It also proves that a subscription game needs to have more soul-consuming, life-eating grind in order to support its financial model, and that people are going to come up with whatever crazy reasons to support this grind that they can. Some are even going to say that they like the grind, but I've never met a WoW player that truly does, they just view it as something that they have to do. It's a second job, but it's a second job they want and pay for. This is horrible on so many levels.
Speaking of cockamamie reasoning, it's also worth pointing out how subscription players will come up with the most ludicrous excuses for actually paying a subscription. None of which have any grounding in reality. And once you've actually defeated one ridiculous argument, they'll just move onto another.
And that's all the evidence I need.
Argument: "B-bu-but... subscription costs are less greedy than item shops!"
Retort: "An item shop mission pack might cost $5 or $10, whereas you may pay for three months of a $10 or $15 subscription to see less content than that mission pack has. And that's more greedy?"
Argument: "Well... that is... um... I pay a subscription to support server costs!"
Retort: "Subscriptions are only necessary for perhaps niche games alone. In regards to larger games like the one you're likely playing, such as WoW, box sales will more than cover any costs, and then provide a massive amount of profit on top of that."
Argument: "So... so... what about customer service costs?!?"
Retort: "Single player games have support centres too, you know. Those are successful and they don't need a subscription. Valve has a support centre and Steam doesn't have a subscritpion. Once again, box costs will cover the customer support costs unless the game is incredibly niche."
Argument: "Buuut... um... server costs! Yeah! Server costs! Did I say server costs? Lots of server costs! If I don't pay my subscription then I'm going to sink the massive publisher that provides my favourite game!"
Retort: "That publisher is already wallowing in money, and if the game hadn't conditioned you into playing it so much that it becomes the primary concern of your life, then maybe those server costs wouldn't be so ridiculously high."
I'm sure there's a paper in this for someone in the field of psychiatry/psychology.
Comments
This is funny! Which is it now? Either:
A) The conversations are short, to the point, not a big part fo the game.
or
In this clip http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Stfx0Lk0qQ4 there are a couple conversations around 40 seconds and one at a minute long where the player does not make any dialogue choices. You sit and watch it. Now count from 1 to 40 seconds in your head. Really, go head. That is a looooonnnnnnng time to sit and watch a (bad 2D) cutscene without any dialogue choices or interaction. That's a guaranteed *SKIP* for real. Is it better than WoW? Kinda maybe? It's years behind the cinematic camera style and multiplayer interactivity of SWTOR and The Secret World.
Which is why I said story is not one of GW2s real features to me. Combat, guild PvP, dynamic quests, and impressive graphics are the real features. I do think GW2s dynamic quests could be years beyond any upcoming MMO. That is a real feature, not the personal story.
To make pretend that GW2 is going to have a comparable quality of story to SWTOR is not opinion. lol Come on now. Do I really have to put on my flame retardant gear just to state the obvious. Characters rooted in one spot, in front of a 2d background, sort of half facing each other VS an active 3d set with actors moving around a room, moving in body language, emotional facial expresssions, active dramatic camera movement, multiplayer dialogue choices, and gear based on multiplayer dialogue participation? And not only is it good story, it's also gameplay. It's not combat gameplay, but it is gameplay.
In the end I'm not really comparing GW2, SWTOR, and The Secret World for the purpose of saying they have to be equal to each other in every way. Each one will have advantages and disadvantages. But the people trying to promote some minor feature of a game as superior to one of the main features of another game are ridiculous.
I wish people would stop using the word "dynamic". It's such a tag line now. Rift said the rifts would be dynamic - well, I suppose in the most basis sense they are but drilling out a few nested if>thens in your code isn't dynamic.
Trion also said Rift was a "next-gen" game. Comparing Rifts to DEs is pointless because they are completely different.
Eh, dynamic is such a general term, I wouldn't get too bent up over it. It's like the term 'organic' used in foods. It really has no meaning, we just assume that it does. It was created as a buzz word, and so it still is. You can still have 'dynamic' events in the technical sense of the world, while still having them be quite linear. WAR did this w/ their PQ system, via phasing.
The dynamic events in GW2 will mean something very different, but they are still based on the ideals of WAR's PQ. They are just way more involved.
Yes, ofc GW2 "dynamic" could mean something that is actually dynamic but that's just the thing, I've been there and done that.
OT:
I'm always exceedingly cautious when it comes to playing F2P games, not because I expect them to charge for everything in the shop - that's their business model. It's that the majority of my experiences with F2P games is that if you don't go to the cash shop you are automatically nerfed when playing the game.
With a P2P game (with sub) you can almost always be assured that everyone will be on equal footing save some cute pet or super-cleavage dress for your female toon.
So just becouse you preffer SW:TOR way of cutscenes, it means SW:TOR will have better story ? Ah, I forgot, Bioware ... But gw2 has it's own aces for story telling - Jeff Grubb and Ree Soesbee - and they are not just some nobodies. For me quality of story has nothing to do with how cut scenes are done, im not of fan of them and i could live without them completly.
Well Like I said when I posted, it's all about opinion. I have played and listed Biowares titles and what I thought about their conversation choices amounting to squat. If that makes someone feel like they are more involved in the story more power to them. I addressed another comment of his earlier and it was ignored for reasons that he spouted something untrue and got called on it.
Ok so you found a video where the story was being delivered and your complaint is that it's in 2d and it's 40 secs long? It's delivering lore how short does it need to be? TBH it is pointless anyways as GW2's story isn't the only thing they are selling their product on and to be honest it's off topic so I won't make a big deal about it. J
ust because you don't like the way GW2 is delivering their story in 2D doesn't mean others won't. Personally I'll take that over pressing the skip button over conversation choices I did on my first play through. My point was if this is what SWTOR is selling to justify a sub fee I can get a better story for a lot less money because I hope it isn't their gameplay. I am hoping I am wrong about the game because I am bored, but if it's like KOTOR (good game) just in a mmo form then I'll pass. Biowares story content driven by giving the player the feeling that every conversation engaged in has an affect on the game is not enough to warrant my money.
RIP Jimmy "The Rev" Sullivan and Paul Gray.
On the GW2 Personal Story, I'd point out that it isn't just 2D voiced cinematics. It is also story related instanced PVE content to which you can invite others to participate and have the content scale. Most of the world is non-instanced, but the Personal Story is. NPCs are voiced in this content, not just in the 2D cutscene elements. It's not just an interactive Graphic Novel, as some seem to assume.
Want to know more about GW2 and why there is so much buzz? Start here: Guild Wars 2 Mass Info for the Uninitiated
This to me is a much better way to provide the story instead.of stomping the game everytime a quest needs to be turned in or the next step in a story is completed
OK let’s take a look at the video you linked and the times that the cut scenes lasted, since apparently they are so long most people will not sit through them.
00:45 to 2:50 introduction cut scene – 2:05 in length
03:25 to 03:57 tutorial story introduction – 32 seconds in length
05:36 to 05:51 Duke Barradin taking over statue cut scene – 15 seconds in length
07:05 to 07:16 End of tutorial cut scene – 11 seconds in length
07:21 to 08:07 opening cut scene for personal story outside of tutorial – 46 seconds in length
08:37 to 09:03 scout dialog to introduce new players to DEs – 26 seconds in length
15:50 to 16:29 dialog with first warband member – 39 seconds in length
17:03 to 17:43 dialog with the Legionnaire – 40 seconds in length
17:59 to 18:36 dialog with legionnaire after fight – 37 seconds in length
20:49 to 21:33 dialog with the flame legion – 44 seconds in length
22:09 to 22:46 dialog with Elexus Shredskin – 37 seconds in length
25:08 to 26:03 dialog with legionnaire – 55 seconds
Oh god I can see how this is too much there are cut scenes here that range from 40 to 55 seconds; what are we to do! /lay on sarcasm heavily
It is not like you have any effect on what happens, oh wait you do with the questions you answer before the introduction cut scene. It is not like your actions could open up more possible choices for you to influence, oh wait you do. Oh man this actual sounds like a story you get to influence not just watch, how dare you ANet for making a game with a story that people can make a choice in!
After all ever game has to be like ME (which is where TOR got its conversation wheel from) in order to have a good story in it now days, there is no way anyone can make a game without it. Because we all like the ME dialog cinematic and any game that does not use it is inferior /shakes fist. It is not like people can like multiple ways to tell stories in games, we all have to like this one and any game that does not do it is inferior and needs to be scoffed at.
How dare any of you that like the personal story in GW2 like it, it is inferior because it does not have a dialog menu or dialog wheel, you all must like your RPGS like the rest of us. How dare you have an independent thought you worthless wretches, you will all need to be flogged now for your insolence. After all we true RPGs know what all RPGs need to play like and anyone that thinks differently is an idiot that likes inferior game mechanics.
Thanks for clearing that up!
Apparently you did not see this so I will repost it:
According to you games that have a subscription have more server traffic, if that is true why does GW1 make enough money to pay for all of NCsoft server and bandwidth needs? So you are telling me that TOR is going to use more resource than Aion, Linage 2, City of Heroes, and GW1 and that is why they need a subscription?
Um... you forgot to mention the story is delivered in 2D that seems to be a reg compalint about the delivery of said lore........ /crawls back in hole
RIP Jimmy "The Rev" Sullivan and Paul Gray.
"Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true you know it, and they know it." -Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007
Big difference in the content, for example. In GW2, like in GW, all the content is available to you when you buy the box, period. Then periodically they'l release either full expansions, such as GW did with Nightfall for example, or mini-content packs... things that aren't big enough to justify a full expansion but add on purely optional content. One big thing with GW/GW2, this added mini-content won't make you more powerful, there's no stealth P2W element in there. You get new skins for weapons, but the stats are the same. Not only that, but if you choose to not pick up the mini-content you can still get the new skins simply by purchasing them in game from other players. That's a marked difference from getting to level 20 in a game, for example, and finding you can only move on to the next content area by "unlocking" it with a sub or fee.
In GW's case, the skill unlocks are also simply a means to quickly get what's available in game... there's no "more powerful because I paid" element involved. I thought I'd read that a skill pack won't be available in the store in GW2, which makes sense because they dramatically changed how you unlock and level up skills.
Things you can expect to see in the cash shop, if the GW model persists... extra character slots, in case five isn't enough. Costumes. T-stones (the idea WoW copied which allows you to transfer stats from one armor to another), which are also available in game for no charge. Things of this nature.
Again, this is a huge difference compared to a F2P model where access to the next level of content, the most powerful weapons, ammo or spaceships all have large coin slots in front of them.
Oderint, dum metuant.
threads like this make me hate humanity. it's like a condensation of everything that is wrong with the world, i.e.: "well i'm right, so you must be wrong. don't you get tired of being wrong so much?" from every side. please try to see past your own point of view, people, and engage in a debate not an argument.
"MMOs with subscription fees... what are you paying for?"
The CEO and Executives greed and nothing else.
My theme song.
We are paying for contect updates and server upkeep. I am aware Guild Wars does it based off of b2p, but also NCsoft sinks money into the creation of content and server upkeep. This money is from NCsofts other revenues.
The business plan is working out well for them but the game can't support itself based off of the b2p model.
Sub to me on YouTube @ http://www.youtube.com/user/JJJK29isGaming?feature=mhee
It's B2P + Cash Shop. They will make more than enough to keep their NCSoft overlords happy and fully support their game with content. Also in Sub models your sub fee in most cases does not go to content because you still have to buy the expansion. The sub games also all have cash shops now so the people that are paying subs are really just being taken for a ride now more than ever.
My theme song.
QFT
Funny how off topic this has become too. The OP question: what is your sub paying for?
Granted I came in to the conversation late and started going backwards but it looks like another peeing contest hate-fest with little rationality on any side. I couldn't find one real answer to what you believe you are paying for with a sub. 2 games are made. Both are finished and you buy them. You play for 30 days and you decide to resub. What are you paying for? You already bought the game, so it is not content that came with the game, so what is it? There really is no wrong answer here as I see it, just opinions on what people think they are paying for.
After all, we are asking players not the people who are charging. I would be curious to see an answer from a modern day recent sub MMO like Trion, what they say you are paying for. Although I am equally curious what the players think they are paying for.
*edit - I stand(sit) corrected, after posting this I see a couple people gave their opinion on what they were paying for,
You sure about that? If it was an obvious losing venture I doubt NCSoft would allow it to continue. Anet has told us that they use some crazy cheap server system and GW1 lasted just fine on the B2P model. I think your underestimating their box sales.
I support MMO's w/out cash shops. Sub or no sub. Cosmetic cash shops are gravy, but I don't like the unfair advantage cash shops offer when they sell in-game weapons and such. I don't play them. It greed. Thats all it is.
Sub to me on YouTube @ http://www.youtube.com/user/JJJK29isGaming?feature=mhee
Well it would be interesting to see what they say I'm sure they would lie. However you might be able to find hard numbers that show how much their operating costs are vs how much they are making from their subs and box sales.
My theme song.
Some truth in that but I'd also say that a game that uses subs also is greed.
With that said, these companies are there to make money. Unless you run a non for profit organization your goal is to make more money than you expend.
You know why subscription fees are tacked on to MMOs nowadays? It makes developers not worry about the release date their publishers give them. Most MMOs are given a set schedule no matter what's done or what's not. The subscription fee is insurance that they make a profit. However, it doesn't give them motivation to actually create something worthwhile playing. It's greed, plain and simple. That's what a sub is. People can stay delusional all they want about subscription fees but it's nevertheless the truth.
The B2P model works. ArenaNet has been out to prove that since they started developing the original Guild Wars. They don't have a cash shop that gives you a power advantage over players. They don't put subs on their games. They are the antithesis of what MMOs and their developers are today. So when GW2 comes out and it works(this time a persistent world, so all those people saying it's different with a persistent game can shut their mouths), if everyone is ignorant after that, then the MMO community has no hope. Because at the end of the day, it's not just the developer's fault with the way MMOs have gone this past decade. It's also the community's fault for accepting garbage games into their gaming life. Who controls the fate of game developers? Us. The community. If we don't buy crappy games, then developers won't make crappy games.
Okay, so here's another angle. It's one that the subscription supporters haven't considered, and I present it in the best way I'm capable of in the hope that it's understood.
A subscription has to be paid if a game has a subscription.
I'm Captain Obvious, I am. Of course a subscription has to be paid, but what's not being said here is this:
A game with a subscription has to make you want to pay for that subscription.
That is a non-trivial consideration. But you still may not yet understand what i'm saying here, so let's move on:
A game with a subscription has to change the nature of the game in order to compell future subscription payments.
Here's where it starts to get interesting. Subscriptions change the nature of a game, they make it different in non-trivial ways. When you bought Portal 2, did you ever think at any point that you had to grind? Grinding means that you spend entirely too much time in one area, and that you're being forced to either repeat content, do repetitive content, or both. There were only two puzzles in Portal 2, they were both simple and it was a tongue-in-cheek joke about how the player solved the simple puzzle so quickly.
A game with a subscription has to be elongated endlessly, where in a single player game you have to spend 10 minutes in an area, in a subscription MMORPG that might be padded out to fifty hours, or in some cases even more than that. The idea is that you're kept in one area with the promise of another just ahead. Perhaps if you pay another month's subscription then you'll be able to see the next area. This is one of th tricks that WoW used to maintain it's subscriber base. (I'll get to the others shortly.)
Take Guild Wars as a prime example. Guild Wars 1. If it had been a subscription game then you could likely have spent hundreds of hours in pre-searing Ascalon just grinding the same critters over and over, running the same quests over and over with only slightly changed scenarios and text. As it is, only the actual amount of content was there, so you progressed into post-searing pretty quickly, due to the lack of grind. There was no forced grind in Guild Wars 1. You could choose to, but in order to complete all the content, not even ten minutes of enforced grind was necessary.
Add a subscription to Guild Wars 1 and it changes the game - in order to support a subscription you have to compel people to pay that subscription. So pre-searing, as I said, becomes hundreds of hours long, with the promise of post-searing being just around that next corner. If you've ever played a subscription-based MMORPG, you know this is true. Hell, when Champions Online went free to play, they actually reduced the amount of time it takes to level vs when the game was subscription only. Go figure. I noticed right away. It was hard not to.
Now onto the other elements that are changed by a subscription.
One of them is end game raiding and a psychological rewards system. It's a case of classical conditioning if you undrestand that. Pavlov's dog and all. If you're not familiar with the concept then I invite you to do a little reading. But the idea is is that they've now hooked you on spending many hours doing something just for a small reward, you work at the grinding and you're rewarded with new surroundings. This then becomes raids. You raid so that you can raid, you raid so that you can raid, you raid so that you can raid.
Yahtzee put it best in his review of one of the WoW expansions:
"Why are you fighting this boss?"
"To get better gear."
"What do you need better gear for?"
"To fight the next boss, of course!"
"What do you get from the next boss?"
"Better gear!"
"What do you use that for?"
"Um, to... fight the next boss!!!!!"
"I see..."
See, the promise of a new raid location with better gear is used as an aspect of psychological conditioning. The player is trained to actually want this, so they get locked into a cycle of raiding. What also happens is that there's no sense of closure for their character, either, so they keep raiding until new content comes along. They'll keep raiding for months even without new content just because new content may be around the corner. The end result? The developer has you paying a subscription for nothing. It's really clever. It's insidiouis, and horrible, on so many levels... I mean, oh gods it is. But it is so clever.
The opposite of this is a game without a subscription. See, if you're playing a free to play game or a buy to play game, they want you to eventually be done with it so that you can move onto the next game and free up slots for someone else. So instead of finding that you're playing a subscription game 24/7, and that you've lost your job, your wife, and all your friends, and that you have a raiding addiction that you can't kick, you actually reach the ending of the game and that's that.
Guild Wars had an ending.
You actually got to a point where you completed all the content and that was that. Your character was this godlike being, and it was time to simply move onto the next game. Between Guild Wars expansions I actually got to play other games, games which were not Guild Wars. Can you imagine? I got to play lots of neat games! But between the WoW expansions, the WoW players kept playing WoW. Over and over. They couldn't stop themselves. Just one moore raid. Just one more raid. Just one more raid. Maybe some new raid content is just around the corner? And Blizzard drip-fed raid content into WoW just to keep this going.
Look at your time playing any subscription game and tell me that this isn't the case. When you get to playing TOR, tell me that that won't be the case there. When you play any game with a subscription, you're going to be coaxed into staying another month, because you're paying for another month. And then another. And then another. And then another. And then another. And then another. And they're going to use whatever clever trickery they can to get you hooked on their game.
It's the carrot and the stick extended to epic proportions, and the subscription game player is the horse. Forever chasing that carrot. Sometimes getting so close, sometimes being fooled into catching it, sometimes getting a bite, and that bite being enough to keep going, to keep going, to gallop a few more miles. A few more miles and you may just catch that carrot. You may actually achieve something. You may get closure.
See, that's what all subscription game players secretly desire, they won't admit it to themselves but it's what they want. And I know this because I had to break a very good friend's addiction. He was my room-mate at the time and he spent entirely too much time playing WoW. When he wasn't raiding he was running public quests to get materials for raiding. He spent so much time in WoW every single day that it actually scared me. I'd walk into the room where he was, and I'd see WoW on his screen. It was never anything else. And all the WoW players I've known that haven't dropped the game after a month or two are like that.
I had to sit him down and gently explain to him as best I could, sometimes even lecturing him like a professor, that he was hoooked on the promise of closure, and this was like a drug addiction, he wanted to reach that imaginary high. That imaginary high that only he believed existed. It was a drug abuser's mentality. I had to explain to him that he would never get closure from a game like that, and he would only ever see closure in games that didn't have subscriptions.
After that, I think something clicked.
He gave up WoW and he's never played it since. The only thing I've ever seen him get nearly that addicted to is Minecraft, but he's better with that because there's no subscription, so there's none of the usual WoW-like trickery. He can put down his building and come back to it whenever he wants, and he can actually build something and call it done, and play it in moderation. In Minecraft you can actually get a sense of closure, it allows you that. But in WoW and subscription games like that? No chance.
This is why subscription games are an inherently insidious and parasitic thing, and why it bothers me that people support them. Because at the end of the day it's just classical conditioning. A bunch of people will go off and play TOR, I'm sure, and they'll get caught up in the old classical conditioning cycle, and their friends will give up on trying to save them, and their lives, friends, job, wife, and whatever else will just go out the window as they keep grinding and grinding, wishing for the holy grail of closure that will never come.
This is why, for me, subscriptionless games are superior. And I've enjoyed many a game that didn't have a subscription and thus hasn't pulled such insipid, manipulative nonsense. I play it, I enjoy the content (without grinding!), and then I reach a point where I feel I have closure and I stop. Just like with any single player game.
And this post absolutely proves the following conclusions beyond the shadow of a doubt, I think:
Subscription games are more greedy in that the purveyors of them are willing to fuck with the heads of their players, get them addicted, and ruin lives in order to make a profit. They have no scruples. You may see the nickel-and-diming of a cash shop as bad, but there's nothing about a cash shop that uses classical conditioning to convince people to part with their money, or to keep playing a game to the detriment of their own life. Cash shops may be a bit greedy, but they're more of the sort of greed that keeps a company afloat, rather than the all encompassing, unethical sort of greed that vendors of various sorts of drug have.
It also proves that a subscription game needs to have more soul-consuming, life-eating grind in order to support its financial model, and that people are going to come up with whatever crazy reasons to support this grind that they can. Some are even going to say that they like the grind, but I've never met a WoW player that truly does, they just view it as something that they have to do. It's a second job, but it's a second job they want and pay for. This is horrible on so many levels.
Speaking of cockamamie reasoning, it's also worth pointing out how subscription players will come up with the most ludicrous excuses for actually paying a subscription. None of which have any grounding in reality. And once you've actually defeated one ridiculous argument, they'll just move onto another.
And that's all the evidence I need.
Argument: "B-bu-but... subscription costs are less greedy than item shops!"
Retort: "An item shop mission pack might cost $5 or $10, whereas you may pay for three months of a $10 or $15 subscription to see less content than that mission pack has. And that's more greedy?"
Argument: "Well... that is... um... I pay a subscription to support server costs!"
Retort: "Subscriptions are only necessary for perhaps niche games alone. In regards to larger games like the one you're likely playing, such as WoW, box sales will more than cover any costs, and then provide a massive amount of profit on top of that."
Argument: "So... so... what about customer service costs?!?"
Retort: "Single player games have support centres too, you know. Those are successful and they don't need a subscription. Valve has a support centre and Steam doesn't have a subscritpion. Once again, box costs will cover the customer support costs unless the game is incredibly niche."
Argument: "Buuut... um... server costs! Yeah! Server costs! Did I say server costs? Lots of server costs! If I don't pay my subscription then I'm going to sink the massive publisher that provides my favourite game!"
Retort: "That publisher is already wallowing in money, and if the game hadn't conditioned you into playing it so much that it becomes the primary concern of your life, then maybe those server costs wouldn't be so ridiculously high."
I'm sure there's a paper in this for someone in the field of psychiatry/psychology.