I wanted to share another episode of "Sicoe Asks" with you guys, the show where we ask you what you think about various topics. In this episode I am asking what you guys think the best business model for TESO is:
As the poster above me said, if it is a good game that can provide constant content then Pay-to-Play is easily the model I prefer. If it is not good enough for a subscription fee then a F2P model is better.
If GW2 was any indication, B2P is a model for "MMO lites" that have zero longevity and almost no end game and are subpar at best. And that is not the type of MMO I am looking for.
Games shouldn't be designed around a business model. ANd F2P and B2P games are designed around the business model.
As the poster above me said, if it is a good game that can provide constant content then Pay-to-Play is easily the model I prefer. If it is not good enough for a subscription fee then a F2P model is better.
If GW2 was any indication, B2P is a model for "MMO lites" that have zero longevity and almost no end game and are subpar at best. And that is not the type of MMO I am looking for.
Games shouldn't be designed around a business model. ANd F2P and B2P games are designed around the business model.
All games are designed around a business model. P2P games are designed around coercing the players in keeping the sub as long as possible by promising shiny loots to them (aka gear-grind). Going by the rest of your post, looks like you are the perfect gullible target for them.
As for your impression of GW2, I think many people most see something in the game that you don't see, because the game population growth rate have increased since Christmas. If it was subpar shouldn't it be dying?
I can't stand cash shops and the need by the developer to drive business there by making the game inconvenient to play in F2P or B2P models. B2P with cash shop is the worst, imo. Not only have you purchased a full game, but now you're expected to pay beyond a box price to unlock features that should have been inluded in the original purchase (lookin' at you GW2...). No thanks.
And how is having a cash shop in a sub-free game worse than the cash shops, box fees, and officially sanctioned rmt in sub-locked games?
I think it's a gouge and a cash grab that publishers charge box fees and then a subscription to rent temporary access to your game account. It's a gouge that they charge a sub and then sell game time tokens so people can buy an advantage in the game. I think it's a gouge and a cash grab that they charge a recurring fee to rent your game and then sell virtual items for extra in their store (Rift and WoW).
Where is it written that P2P games also have to have cash shops? I can name a few that do, but that's not a definition of the model. It seems assinine to base your entire argument against P2P on the games that use a hybrid and not a true P2P model.
What major p2p game doesn't generate additional revenue outside of the subscription? EVE, WoW, Rift, and every other major sub-locked game generates extra revenue outside the sub. Lineage is the only major title I can think of that doesn't have a secondary revenue source.
Not only that but WoW and Rift both directly gate progression behind paying extra beyond the sub. If you don't buy the xpacs you don't get access to the progression. It's the classic definition of pay to win.
Not only that, but since you're just renting temporary access to the servers, any additional money you do spend on the game is locked away once you stop paying them their recurring fees.
You're naming major games that use a hybrid model, not P2P. It's meaningless to argue against one payment model, and then use a completely different payment model as evidence for your argument. I hope you understand that the premise of this thread is a debate betwen P2P and F2P, and not hybrids. Think original WoW, EQ, EQ2, DAoC, UO, etc.
Your second paragraph made me laugh out loud. You're implying that F2P titles don't expand their games? That they don't "lock" (lol) their content behind purchasing an expansion? DDO just had an expansion released that you have to purchase in order to play. That's the nature of the MMO beast, not the direct result of whatever payment model the game uses.
I like Guild Wars 2's setup. They've struck a good balance in their cash shop, better than any other game I've seen. There's some stuff in there you might want, but it isn't particularly important and converting gold to gems (the cash shop currency) to get a few random things in there you like isn't exceptionally expensive.
Also like not having a sub since I don't feel like I have to abandon a game in order to play another. I can afford a sub but I don't have so much money that I'm going to maintain subs for several games.
Comments
If the game is good, P2P... If it is not, F2P. Normally that is how it is work... People work hard to pay to things they like.
As the poster above me said, if it is a good game that can provide constant content then Pay-to-Play is easily the model I prefer. If it is not good enough for a subscription fee then a F2P model is better.
If GW2 was any indication, B2P is a model for "MMO lites" that have zero longevity and almost no end game and are subpar at best. And that is not the type of MMO I am looking for.
Games shouldn't be designed around a business model. ANd F2P and B2P games are designed around the business model.
All games are designed around a business model. P2P games are designed around coercing the players in keeping the sub as long as possible by promising shiny loots to them (aka gear-grind). Going by the rest of your post, looks like you are the perfect gullible target for them.
As for your impression of GW2, I think many people most see something in the game that you don't see, because the game population growth rate have increased since Christmas. If it was subpar shouldn't it be dying?
You're naming major games that use a hybrid model, not P2P. It's meaningless to argue against one payment model, and then use a completely different payment model as evidence for your argument. I hope you understand that the premise of this thread is a debate betwen P2P and F2P, and not hybrids. Think original WoW, EQ, EQ2, DAoC, UO, etc.
Your second paragraph made me laugh out loud. You're implying that F2P titles don't expand their games? That they don't "lock" (lol) their content behind purchasing an expansion? DDO just had an expansion released that you have to purchase in order to play. That's the nature of the MMO beast, not the direct result of whatever payment model the game uses.
B2P
I like Guild Wars 2's setup. They've struck a good balance in their cash shop, better than any other game I've seen. There's some stuff in there you might want, but it isn't particularly important and converting gold to gems (the cash shop currency) to get a few random things in there you like isn't exceptionally expensive.
Also like not having a sub since I don't feel like I have to abandon a game in order to play another. I can afford a sub but I don't have so much money that I'm going to maintain subs for several games.