I am torn. I really appreciate games that are pay to play. I feel like I am paying for the entire package, that the game content and world is exclusive and that I do not need to worry about grinding in order to pay my way to upgrades. I am at a quandry because currently our household is a bit strapped and cannot afford multiple subscriptions.
Hopefully in the future we might be able to maintain a subscription but until then we will miss out.
Major IP games with P2P that have been success lately: World of Warcraft
Major IP games with P2P that have failed lately(and changed model): EQ2, SWTOR, Lotro, DDO, Age of Conan...
So how big change is that this P2P model will work, not very good. Problem with major IPs is that they are just so expensive that having less than 1-2 million subs isn't worthy. I just think there isn't market for that.
Major IP games with P2P that have been success lately: World of Warcraft
Major IP games with P2P that have failed lately(and changed model): EQ2, SWTOR, Lotro, DDO, Age of Conan...
So how big change is that this P2P model will work, not very good. Problem with major IPs is that they are just so expensive that having less than 1-2 million subs isn't worthy. I just think there isn't market for that.
Payment model has nothing to do with success of a game. How much fun it is matters.
People will pay a lot for a fun game.
People won't even play a free game if it is boring.
Major IP games with P2P that have been success lately: World of Warcraft
Major IP games with P2P that have failed lately(and changed model): EQ2, SWTOR, Lotro, DDO, Age of Conan...
So how big change is that this P2P model will work, not very good. Problem with major IPs is that they are just so expensive that having less than 1-2 million subs isn't worthy. I just think there isn't market for that.
If they do not get at the very least 1/2 of the players interested, they will have to switch to F2P which will make them worse off then if they had gone B2P to begin with.
It shocks me to see how many player support such a fundamentally retarded payment model and then act shocked when it always seems to fail.
Every single time, they act all excited about a game going P2P, just for them to be pissed they spent money on it just for it to go F2P later. They blame the F2P model, when plenty of MMOs have gone P2P and simply just failed to keep the model going.
Every time they act like, "this time" will be different. Let's touch the electric fence again and again and again. Because 20 times from now .. it might not shock us. X3
Oh YES, this will be the next great AAA title, it's P2P .. it's HERE! It's going to be Awesome! 1 year from now ... ya it failed .. it sucked .. they decided to go free to play, because it failed.
The only way a game can really use this P2P model is if they make something revolutionary that has not been done before and attracts as many players as a B2P game with out losing any of them by switching to a P2P model. For every player you lose, you need another player to spend 4 extra months playing. Which is just a crazy gamble.
I think it was a safer bet for Wildstar, but I'm happy TESO is going P2P, too. In all probability I'll sub to both games. If I get 10 hours a month from each, that's good entertainment money to me.
I know some people compare this to cable TV and the like, but for me it's not even close, probably because I just hate TV, haha. Anyway, if you see an MMO as "killing some time" and not good entertainment, then yeah, a monthly sub is probably going to look pretty pointless. I see it the other way, so to me it makes sense.
I don't think anyone who is able to calculate basic math problems should be happy a game goes P2P. Sure it has it's benefits for the players to some extent, however, if the game doesn't hold enough subs it loses a lot more money in comparison to if they started as a B2P game.
A game that starts as B2P tends to remain B2P. More customers are likely to buy it. P2P lowers your player base which requires you to hold onto subs for long periods of time to make the same amount. Again if it fails, it has to go F2P, which makes a game another victim and repeats the cycle all over again of why people complain about crappy MMOs.
It amazes me to no end, and yes I am using this analogy again, how many times it takes people to learn not to touch an electric fence.
Some people think $15 a month is too steep, when in reality it could very well not be enough. People underestimate the amount you can get simply buy increasing the amount of players itself using a B2P model.
If P2P lowers your player base down to 1/5 or even 1/2 of what it was, your pretty much screwed. All the P2P players that are happy end up being screwed over in the end as well, by the very thing they wanted. -.-
Alright, time to pull out the old debunking-gloves!
Heroes of Newerth started out as a B2P, it went free to play as well.
There haven't been enough B2P to say that "most" of them never go F2P. And even so, their game often goes on sale for barely anything, much like TSW and GW2.
More people are likely to buy it, but less people are likely to stay. Most leveling zones in GW2, TSW and SWTOR are ghost towns. There are barely any active servers.
Almost all games start off with a greater playerbase than what they will be left with after 6 months. WoW being an exception, but WoW slowly made more players by adding more content and keeping their marketing up. And WoW isn't really that great of a game.
TSW went from P2P to B2P. Doesn't have to go straight to F2P.
It is enough. 10% of the Planetside 2 players actually spent money in their cashshop. And they are still adding content and have a healthy community. And Planetside 2 is completely free to play. Not initial cost. I spent above average on PS2, that being €25. And I still have Station Cash to spare. (although I did purchase it during a special offer)
I'll be honest, most of your arguments are based on if the game isn't good. But that goes for every last game in the world. No matter what kind of hype is pulled. Induction isn't a valid assumption in this industry unless it is the same company releasing the games.
If a horse continues to get shocked by an electric fence, chances are that it will be shocked if it touches it again. But if the horse is moved to a wooden pen, it won't think that it will shock it, hence it will try touching it.
Induction would work if ZOS already had released two P2P MMO's and they had failed. But most of those developers were from Mythic and their games are mostly considered successful. Such as Dark Age of Camelot and Warhammer Online (WAR is debatable.) but both of those MMO's are still successfully running with subscriptions.
Anyhow, next time you are trying to make a point, source it. Oh, and speaking of which!
"Almost all games start off with a greater playerbase than what they will be left with after 6 months. WoW being an exception, but WoW slowly made more players by adding more content and keeping their marketing up. And WoW isn't really that great of a game."
Meridian 59, UO, EQ all had more subcribers at 6 months then at release.
Also, you might not like WoW, but you can not objectivly say WoW is not a great game. The success of it proves you wrong.
I think it was a safer bet for Wildstar, but I'm happy TESO is going P2P, too. In all probability I'll sub to both games. If I get 10 hours a month from each, that's good entertainment money to me.
I know some people compare this to cable TV and the like, but for me it's not even close, probably because I just hate TV, haha. Anyway, if you see an MMO as "killing some time" and not good entertainment, then yeah, a monthly sub is probably going to look pretty pointless. I see it the other way, so to me it makes sense.
I don't think anyone who is able to calculate basic math problems should be happy a game goes P2P. Sure it has it's benefits for the players to some extent, however, if the game doesn't hold enough subs it loses a lot more money in comparison to if they started as a B2P game.
A game that starts as B2P tends to remain B2P. More customers are likely to buy it. P2P lowers your player base which requires you to hold onto subs for long periods of time to make the same amount. Again if it fails, it has to go F2P, which makes a game another victim and repeats the cycle all over again of why people complain about crappy MMOs.
It amazes me to no end, and yes I am using this analogy again, how many times it takes people to learn not to touch an electric fence.
Some people think $15 a month is too steep, when in reality it could very well not be enough. People underestimate the amount you can get simply buy increasing the amount of players itself using a B2P model.
If P2P lowers your player base down to 1/5 or even 1/2 of what it was, your pretty much screwed. All the P2P players that are happy end up being screwed over in the end as well, by the very thing they wanted. -.-
Its about more than money, its about how the basic game is designed. F2P and B2P dont come close to allowing the kind of interzone interaction that sub based games can achieve. With the former, each zone basically has to stand on it's own, because the devs cannot assume that any ties to other zones will be usable, making creating a living, breathing world much more difificult. That is the big advantage that sub based games will always have. Lately, there haven't been any sub based games that have taken advantage of it, but blame that on the devs and publishers, not on the need for monthly income. To me, the best would be a sub based game that offers a way to pay the sub in game. That way, both the company and the consumer win. The company gets either money or an avatar that is consistently logged in that can provide game content and help that the company could never afford to pay a dev to create an NPC to replicate; in either case, they get a much needed resource they can use to keep the game going and improve it, and they get it without forcing game designers to completely change how they design the game. Meanwhile, the consumer gets a choice of how to pay for their entertainment; those with time can pay with time, those with money can pay with money. Those with neither aren't the target audience for most developers and publishers in this particular niche anyway, so they can hardly complain when they aren't catered too.
P2P works if you are happy and can make money with 200-250 k players because they are paying every month. F2P needs much more players for their percentage of whales.
"Almost all games start off with a greater playerbase than what they will be left with after 6 months. WoW being an exception, but WoW slowly made more players by adding more content and keeping their marketing up. And WoW isn't really that great of a game."
Meridian 59, UO, EQ all had more subcribers at 6 months then at release.
Also, you might not like WoW, but you can not objectivly say WoW is not a great game. The success of it proves you wrong.
EDIT: Oh, and I was referring to the newer games. WoW pioneering the new era. And I did say "Most". Is EQ really "most of the games"? I could start rambling up others right away. WAR, AION, AOC, City of Heroes/Villians, EVE, Final Fantasy XI, Original Guildwars and most of the newer releases as well.
WoW is a terrible game. It's a great MMO due to its accessibility but it as a very dull combat system (hotkeys) with terrible and repetetive quests and it looks terrible, even when it was released it looked terrible.
Thing is, that a game is fun on your own. Can you honestly say that you enjoyed doing those quests? Or farming crafting materials? Maybe you can. But you wouldn't have if you were all alone. All in all, most MMO's are terrible games. Boring, grindy and full of terrible mechanics. But you play it because of the social element. The sense of accomplishment when other players see what a badass player you are.
So yes. WoW is a terrible game. But no, I did actually like WoW. The classes were diverse and worked well in PvP.
I think it was a safer bet for Wildstar, but I'm happy TESO is going P2P, too. In all probability I'll sub to both games. If I get 10 hours a month from each, that's good entertainment money to me.
I know some people compare this to cable TV and the like, but for me it's not even close, probably because I just hate TV, haha. Anyway, if you see an MMO as "killing some time" and not good entertainment, then yeah, a monthly sub is probably going to look pretty pointless. I see it the other way, so to me it makes sense.
I don't think anyone who is able to calculate basic math problems should be happy a game goes P2P. Sure it has it's benefits for the players to some extent, however, if the game doesn't hold enough subs it loses a lot more money in comparison to if they started as a B2P game.
A game that starts as B2P tends to remain B2P. More customers are likely to buy it. P2P lowers your player base which requires you to hold onto subs for long periods of time to make the same amount. Again if it fails, it has to go F2P, which makes a game another victim and repeats the cycle all over again of why people complain about crappy MMOs.
It amazes me to no end, and yes I am using this analogy again, how many times it takes people to learn not to touch an electric fence.
Some people think $15 a month is too steep, when in reality it could very well not be enough. People underestimate the amount you can get simply buy increasing the amount of players itself using a B2P model.
If P2P lowers your player base down to 1/5 or even 1/2 of what it was, your pretty much screwed. All the P2P players that are happy end up being screwed over in the end as well, by the very thing they wanted. -.-
Alright, time to pull out the old debunking-gloves!
Heroes of Newerth started out as a B2P, it went free to play as well.
There haven't been enough B2P to say that "most" of them never go F2P. And even so, their game often goes on sale for barely anything, much like TSW and GW2.
More people are likely to buy it, but less people are likely to stay. Most leveling zones in GW2, TSW and SWTOR are ghost towns. There are barely any active servers.
Almost all games start off with a greater playerbase than what they will be left with after 6 months. WoW being an exception, but WoW slowly made more players by adding more content and keeping their marketing up. And WoW isn't really that great of a game.
TSW went from P2P to B2P. Doesn't have to go straight to F2P.
It is enough. 10% of the Planetside 2 players actually spent money in their cashshop. And they are still adding content and have a healthy community. And Planetside 2 is completely free to play. Not initial cost. I spent above average on PS2, that being €25. And I still have Station Cash to spare. (although I did purchase it during a special offer)
I'll be honest, most of your arguments are based on if the game isn't good. But that goes for every last game in the world. No matter what kind of hype is pulled. Induction isn't a valid assumption in this industry unless it is the same company releasing the games.
If a horse continues to get shocked by an electric fence, chances are that it will be shocked if it touches it again. But if the horse is moved to a wooden pen, it won't think that it will shock it, hence it will try touching it.
Induction would work if ZOS already had released two P2P MMO's and they had failed. But most of those developers were from Mythic and their games are mostly considered successful. Such as Dark Age of Camelot and Warhammer Online (WAR is debatable.) but both of those MMO's are still successfully running with subscriptions.
Anyhow, next time you are trying to make a point, source it. Oh, and speaking of which!
First I have to point out you didn't really debunk me. I am not talking about the game doing bad, I am talking about basic math.
Skyrim sold somewhere around 9 - 12 million copies of the game. I don't have a source but that's why I chose 9 -12 because I am sure we can all agree it is somewhere around there. The IP alone may have allowed it to get somewhere around that many copies assuming it is the same price, and it's a B2P model.
That is $540,000,000 - $720,000,000 simply by using a B2P model.
Now since they decided to go P2P isntead, they essentially need a player to spend money on an extra 4 months for every player they lose due to this decision. This assumes they do not have a discount on the monthly fee, other wise it will be 5 -6 months instead.
Now let's say they manage to at least get 1/2 of those 9 - 12 million players to sub. Keep in mind that is actually being pretty generous in my opinion. They will initially make $270,000,000 - $360,000,000. Now let us assume they keep all those subs and all of them are paying the full $15 a month. They will need to keep subs for at least 4 months, but again they mentioned discounts and such so it will be more along the lines of 5 - 6 months.
If they manage to get even less then 1/2, they are going to need to keep all those subs for a year or so.
This means if they want to make even more then going B2P, they are going to have to HOPE they achieve higher then 6 million players and subs. Keeping them for over a year.
Now I am sorry, but even a good game will have a hard time doing that. As for sources, who the heck needs sources when the math is right in front of you, and the numbers and amount of games going F2P are staggering? Ya sure you where able to point out a couple games, but you failed to prove me wrong. You only proved that I "could" be wrong, which isn't really proving much.
Edit: I have to point out if you do not make as much money as you could have made by going B2P, I consider that a failure.
Originally posted by cheyane P2P works if you are happy and can make money with 200-250 k players because they are paying every month. F2P needs much more players for their percentage of whales.
That just means that you don't over design the game to need more than that per month. If you have a clear goal of want you want to accomplish, a realistic view of what you can accomplish, and focus on quality over quantity, that's not hard to do.
I think it was a safer bet for Wildstar, but I'm happy TESO is going P2P, too. In all probability I'll sub to both games. If I get 10 hours a month from each, that's good entertainment money to me.
I know some people compare this to cable TV and the like, but for me it's not even close, probably because I just hate TV, haha. Anyway, if you see an MMO as "killing some time" and not good entertainment, then yeah, a monthly sub is probably going to look pretty pointless. I see it the other way, so to me it makes sense.
I don't think anyone who is able to calculate basic math problems should be happy a game goes P2P. Sure it has it's benefits for the players to some extent, however, if the game doesn't hold enough subs it loses a lot more money in comparison to if they started as a B2P game.
A game that starts as B2P tends to remain B2P. More customers are likely to buy it. P2P lowers your player base which requires you to hold onto subs for long periods of time to make the same amount. Again if it fails, it has to go F2P, which makes a game another victim and repeats the cycle all over again of why people complain about crappy MMOs.
It amazes me to no end, and yes I am using this analogy again, how many times it takes people to learn not to touch an electric fence.
Some people think $15 a month is too steep, when in reality it could very well not be enough. People underestimate the amount you can get simply buy increasing the amount of players itself using a B2P model.
If P2P lowers your player base down to 1/5 or even 1/2 of what it was, your pretty much screwed. All the P2P players that are happy end up being screwed over in the end as well, by the very thing they wanted. -.-
Its about more than money, its about how the basic game is designed. F2P and B2P dont come close to allowing the kind of interzone interaction that sub based games can achieve. With the former, each zone basically has to stand on it's own, because the devs cannot assume that any ties to other zones will be usable, making creating a living, breathing world much more difificult. That is the big advantage that sub based games will always have. Lately, there haven't been any sub based games that have taken advantage of it, but blame that on the devs and publishers, not on the need for monthly income. To me, the best would be a sub based game that offers a way to pay the sub in game. That way, both the company and the consumer win. The company gets either money or an avatar that is consistently logged in that can provide game content and help that the company could never afford to pay a dev to create an NPC to replicate; in either case, they get a much needed resource they can use to keep the game going and improve it, and they get it without forcing game designers to completely change how they design the game. Meanwhile, the consumer gets a choice of how to pay for their entertainment; those with time can pay with time, those with money can pay with money. Those with neither aren't the target audience for most developers and publishers in this particular niche anyway, so they can hardly complain when they aren't catered too.
I am not saying P2P is bad for the customers. It is bad from a business stand point though, because you have to make the assumption you are going to make as much money as you would have if you simply went B2P. It's a pretty big gamble since most players do not like monthly fees.
You have to make the assumption your game is good enough to attract those players even after deciding going P2P. If you don't, you have to at least make sure you keep the subs you did get for a very long time. It's just a pretty big gamble to take in my opinion. Which that type of gamble could make the game worse off then if they decided to go B2P to begin with. Lost money is lost money. You don't gain it back once it's lost. You can only make more money to compensate for that loss. Which is why F2P is done if P2P fails.
First I have to point out you didn't really debunk me. I am not talking about the game doing bad, I am talking about basic math.
Skyrim sold somewhere around 9 - 12 million copies of the game. I don't have a source but that's why I chose 9 -12 because I am sure we can all agree it is somewhere around there. The IP alone may have allowed it to get somewhere around that many copies assuming it is the same price, and it's a B2P model.
That is $540,000,000 - $720,000,000 simply by using a B2P model.
Now since they decided to go P2P isntead, they essentially need a player to spend money on an extra 4 months for every player they lose due to this decision. This assumes they do not have a discount on the monthly fee, other wise it will be 5 -6 months instead.
Now let's say they manage to at least get 1/2 of those 9 - 12 million players to sub. Keep in mind that is actually being pretty generous in my opinion. They will initially make $270,000,000 - $360,000,000. Now let us assume they keep all those subs and all of them are paying the full $15 a month. They will need to keep subs for at least 4 months, but again they mentioned discounts and such so it will be more along the lines of 5 - 6 months.
If they manage to get even less then 1/2, they are going to need to keep all those subs for a year or so.
This means if they want to make even more then going B2P, they are going to have to HOPE they achieve higher then 6 million players and subs. Keeping them for over a year.
Now I am sorry, but even a good game will have a hard time doing that. As for sources, who the heck needs sources when the math is right in front of you, and the numbers and amount of games going F2P are staggering? Ya sure you where able to point out a couple games, but you failed to prove me wrong. You only proved that I "could" be wrong, which isn't really proving much.
Edit: I have to point out if you do not make as much money as you could have made by going B2P, I consider that a failure.
So what you're saying is that you have no idea how mathematics works?
Skyrim is a singleplayer game, of which you forgot to include how much it made on its DLCs/Expansions. And your argument requires you to know how much it costs to develope an MMO and keep it running. Provide me with those numbers and I will rest my case.
However, regarding your idea of "failure"; that relies on that the game fail. Yes, TES:O could probably make more the first 6 months if it was B2P. But after that their playerbase would decline and so would their income. MMO's are meant to be long lasting products. If TES:O turns out to be a hit for the next three years, it will make more in subscriptions than it would in the initial purchase and the fraction of people whom might utilize their cashshop.
I am not saying P2P is bad for the customers. It is bad from a business stand point though, because you have to make the assumption you are going to make as much money as you would have if you simply went B2P. It's a pretty big gamble since most players do not like monthly fees.
You have to make the assumption your game is good enough to attract those players even after deciding going P2P. If you don't, you have to at least make sure you keep the subs you did get for a very long time. It's just a pretty big gamble to take in my opinion. Which that type of gamble could make the game worse off then if they decided to go B2P to begin with. Lost money is lost money. You don't gain it back once it's lost. You can only make more money to compensate for that loss. Which is why F2P is done if P2P fails.
I think you are overstating when you say most players do not like monthly fees. I think most players who joined this genre recently do not like P2P. Those are also the players who hardly spend a dime because they have a different mentality from the old school players. Players like me who prefer monthly fees are perhaps older generation players who do not mind the sub.
Also GW 2 has shown recently that their profits are dropping from the last report. Problem with that is once the gem buying slows down so does their profit. They need players to continue to buy gems or else even operating costs are not covered. That is not a very good business model either. A game that can sustain and make money off 250 k loyal P2P is better off in my opinion. The game has a better community simply because it is smaller and there is a feeling of camaraderie that stems from supporting a game that does not resort to a cash shop culture.
I think people have overestimated the success of GW 2's model I myself stopped play after a couple of weeks and that means I am one of those people who has stopped contributing. Their initial sales may be large but with the gem sale dropping they will be in a worse off position should the game's popularity go down . A sub game which can maintain its player base albeit smaller player base will be in a better position.
As the numerous expansions of Everquest 1 and 2 prior to them going F2P have proven a loyal subscribing player base can net you profits and even FFXI whose player base is also loyal will attest to this model where fewer people playing does provide steady profit.
First I have to point out you didn't really debunk me. I am not talking about the game doing bad, I am talking about basic math.
Skyrim sold somewhere around 9 - 12 million copies of the game. I don't have a source but that's why I chose 9 -12 because I am sure we can all agree it is somewhere around there. The IP alone may have allowed it to get somewhere around that many copies assuming it is the same price, and it's a B2P model.
That is $540,000,000 - $720,000,000 simply by using a B2P model.
Now since they decided to go P2P isntead, they essentially need a player to spend money on an extra 4 months for every player they lose due to this decision. This assumes they do not have a discount on the monthly fee, other wise it will be 5 -6 months instead.
Now let's say they manage to at least get 1/2 of those 9 - 12 million players to sub. Keep in mind that is actually being pretty generous in my opinion. They will initially make $270,000,000 - $360,000,000. Now let us assume they keep all those subs and all of them are paying the full $15 a month. They will need to keep subs for at least 4 months, but again they mentioned discounts and such so it will be more along the lines of 5 - 6 months.
If they manage to get even less then 1/2, they are going to need to keep all those subs for a year or so.
This means if they want to make even more then going B2P, they are going to have to HOPE they achieve higher then 6 million players and subs. Keeping them for over a year.
Now I am sorry, but even a good game will have a hard time doing that. As for sources, who the heck needs sources when the math is right in front of you, and the numbers and amount of games going F2P are staggering? Ya sure you where able to point out a couple games, but you failed to prove me wrong. You only proved that I "could" be wrong, which isn't really proving much.
Edit: I have to point out if you do not make as much money as you could have made by going B2P, I consider that a failure.
So what you're saying is that you have no idea how mathematics works?
Skyrim is a singleplayer game, of which you forgot to include how much it made on its DLCs/Expansions. And your argument requires you to know how much it costs to develope an MMO and keep it running. Provide me with those numbers and I will rest my case.
However, regarding your idea of "failure"; that relies on that the game fail. Yes, TES:O could probably make more the first 6 months if it was B2P. But after that their playerbase would decline and so would their income. MMO's are meant to be long lasting products. If TES:O turns out to be a hit for the next three years, it will make more in subscriptions than it would in the initial purchase and the fraction of people whom might utilize their cashshop.
WTF? Where the heck is my math wrong? Please do so to enlighten me where the hell I messed up since you think I don't know how math works.
It cost more to make an MMO since the price of servers are extra, which means you have to make even MORE money then a single player game. I didn't count the DLCs because there have been no DLCs announced for ESO. The only difference it makes for cost of server is they need to keep subs even LONGER then what I stated. Meaning they need to do even BETTER then what I just stated. Which is even HARDER.
I really don't know what the heck your trying to prove here. Are you trying to prove my math correct? Or are you just trolling because you don't want to agree with me even though my math is perfectly fine? I mean it really doesn't take a genius to calculate this. A P2P model is much harder to stick with and succeed with. If you can't see that, then you are blind.
Actually yes, that is a major deal breaker, I couldn't afford it even if I wanted to at this time. I would have happily purchased the game as a B2P game, but paying a monthly fee of $15 is crazy. I really don't even understand how they can expect their console players to pay a monthly fee for console and a game on top of that. They are going to be losing a lot of customers with this model I think.
To those who can afford it, awesome! Hope you all enjoy the game. I will not waste my money, because i know they will end up switching models eventually anyway.
It is 50 cents a day,not too much for entertainment really.
Many people spend 15 bucks just on smokes over 2/3 days.
You know how much bottled water is right?I don't hear too many complain about bottled water yet it is far more expensive than gasoline.It costs 10 bucks for a car wash.You rent a couple movies that is 10 bucks,for 4 hours of entertainment.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
I think it was a safer bet for Wildstar, but I'm happy TESO is going P2P, too. In all probability I'll sub to both games. If I get 10 hours a month from each, that's good entertainment money to me.
I know some people compare this to cable TV and the like, but for me it's not even close, probably because I just hate TV, haha. Anyway, if you see an MMO as "killing some time" and not good entertainment, then yeah, a monthly sub is probably going to look pretty pointless. I see it the other way, so to me it makes sense.
I don't think anyone who is able to calculate basic math problems should be happy a game goes P2P. Sure it has it's benefits for the players to some extent, however, if the game doesn't hold enough subs it loses a lot more money in comparison to if they started as a B2P game.
A game that starts as B2P tends to remain B2P. More customers are likely to buy it. P2P lowers your player base which requires you to hold onto subs for long periods of time to make the same amount. Again if it fails, it has to go F2P, which makes a game another victim and repeats the cycle all over again of why people complain about crappy MMOs.
It amazes me to no end, and yes I am using this analogy again, how many times it takes people to learn not to touch an electric fence.
Some people think $15 a month is too steep, when in reality it could very well not be enough. People underestimate the amount you can get simply buy increasing the amount of players itself using a B2P model.
If P2P lowers your player base down to 1/5 or even 1/2 of what it was, your pretty much screwed. All the P2P players that are happy end up being screwed over in the end as well, by the very thing they wanted. -.-
Its about more than money, its about how the basic game is designed. F2P and B2P dont come close to allowing the kind of interzone interaction that sub based games can achieve. With the former, each zone basically has to stand on it's own, because the devs cannot assume that any ties to other zones will be usable, making creating a living, breathing world much more difificult. That is the big advantage that sub based games will always have. Lately, there haven't been any sub based games that have taken advantage of it, but blame that on the devs and publishers, not on the need for monthly income. To me, the best would be a sub based game that offers a way to pay the sub in game. That way, both the company and the consumer win. The company gets either money or an avatar that is consistently logged in that can provide game content and help that the company could never afford to pay a dev to create an NPC to replicate; in either case, they get a much needed resource they can use to keep the game going and improve it, and they get it without forcing game designers to completely change how they design the game. Meanwhile, the consumer gets a choice of how to pay for their entertainment; those with time can pay with time, those with money can pay with money. Those with neither aren't the target audience for most developers and publishers in this particular niche anyway, so they can hardly complain when they aren't catered too.
I am not saying P2P is bad for the customers. It is bad from a business stand point though, because you have to make the assumption you are going to make as much money as you would have if you simply went B2P. It's a pretty big gamble since most players do not like monthly fees.
You have to make the assumption your game is good enough to attract those players even after deciding going P2P. If you don't, you have to at least make sure you keep the subs you did get for a very long time. It's just a pretty big gamble to take in my opinion. Which that type of gamble could make the game worse off then if they decided to go B2P to begin with. Lost money is lost money. You don't gain it back once it's lost. You can only make more money to compensate for that loss. Which is why F2P is done if P2P fails.
It's not bad from a business stand point unless you insist on chasing unrealistic numbers and ignoring the fact that this niche is fundamentally one of long term sustainment. Get past that, and suddenly the problems with sub based games go away. You don't make an MMO for a quick proft, you make it for a long term, reasonably sustainable income. If you try to treat as immediate profit, you've already lost because you end up getting stuck with two very unpleasant alternatives: paying for the ongoing costs of servers, content, and devs, or risking the wrath of a player base annoyed that you shut down the servers after only 6 months. Over the life of a well done, realistically planned, and well executed sub based MMO, you will make far more money then you can with either of the other models. Just because we haven't seen one that meets those three very critical criteria of late doesn't invalidate the long term math.
First I have to point out you didn't really debunk me. I am not talking about the game doing bad, I am talking about basic math.
Skyrim sold somewhere around 9 - 12 million copies of the game. I don't have a source but that's why I chose 9 -12 because I am sure we can all agree it is somewhere around there. The IP alone may have allowed it to get somewhere around that many copies assuming it is the same price, and it's a B2P model.
That is $540,000,000 - $720,000,000 simply by using a B2P model.
Now since they decided to go P2P isntead, they essentially need a player to spend money on an extra 4 months for every player they lose due to this decision. This assumes they do not have a discount on the monthly fee, other wise it will be 5 -6 months instead.
Now let's say they manage to at least get 1/2 of those 9 - 12 million players to sub. Keep in mind that is actually being pretty generous in my opinion. They will initially make $270,000,000 - $360,000,000. Now let us assume they keep all those subs and all of them are paying the full $15 a month. They will need to keep subs for at least 4 months, but again they mentioned discounts and such so it will be more along the lines of 5 - 6 months.
If they manage to get even less then 1/2, they are going to need to keep all those subs for a year or so.
This means if they want to make even more then going B2P, they are going to have to HOPE they achieve higher then 6 million players and subs. Keeping them for over a year.
Now I am sorry, but even a good game will have a hard time doing that. As for sources, who the heck needs sources when the math is right in front of you, and the numbers and amount of games going F2P are staggering? Ya sure you where able to point out a couple games, but you failed to prove me wrong. You only proved that I "could" be wrong, which isn't really proving much.
Edit: I have to point out if you do not make as much money as you could have made by going B2P, I consider that a failure.
So what you're saying is that you have no idea how mathematics works?
Skyrim is a singleplayer game, of which you forgot to include how much it made on its DLCs/Expansions. And your argument requires you to know how much it costs to develope an MMO and keep it running. Provide me with those numbers and I will rest my case.
However, regarding your idea of "failure"; that relies on that the game fail. Yes, TES:O could probably make more the first 6 months if it was B2P. But after that their playerbase would decline and so would their income. MMO's are meant to be long lasting products. If TES:O turns out to be a hit for the next three years, it will make more in subscriptions than it would in the initial purchase and the fraction of people whom might utilize their cashshop.
WTF? Where the heck is my math wrong? Please do so to enlighten me where the hell I messed up since you think I don't know how math works.
It cost more to make an MMO since the price of servers are extra, which means you have to make even MORE money then a single player game. I didn't count the DLCs because there have been no DLCs announced for ESO. The only difference it makes for cost of server is they need to keep subs even LONGER then what I stated. Meaning they need to do even BETTER then what I just stated. Which is even HARDER.
I really don't know what the heck your trying to prove here. Are you trying to prove my math correct? Or are you just trolling because you don't want to agree with me even though my math is perfectly fine? I mean it really doesn't take a genius to calculate this. A P2P model is much harder to stick with and succeed with. If you can't see that, then you are blind.
Mate. Either accept and admit that you are wrong or bring me the numbers of how much it costs to develope TES:O. Also, I mentioned DLCs because you said "Skyrim".
You are playing with imaginary numbers. You math relies on numbers that you've just made up on the fly. You need to source this if you want to be taken seriously.
I'm happy it's monthly sub, the two MMOs I've played the most have both been monthly subs as well. Everyone starts off equal, all content is available to all players. I simply don't enjoy games that have tiered levels of payment as the lower tiers are too restricted. Having to pay microtransactions to unlock even the simplest things like extra pack slots is anathema to me. Having said all that, IMHO to justify a monthly sub there should be be regular content updates as there's nothing worse than paying money for a game that has stale content.
I am not saying P2P is bad for the customers. It is bad from a business stand point though, because you have to make the assumption you are going to make as much money as you would have if you simply went B2P. It's a pretty big gamble since most players do not like monthly fees.
You have to make the assumption your game is good enough to attract those players even after deciding going P2P. If you don't, you have to at least make sure you keep the subs you did get for a very long time. It's just a pretty big gamble to take in my opinion. Which that type of gamble could make the game worse off then if they decided to go B2P to begin with. Lost money is lost money. You don't gain it back once it's lost. You can only make more money to compensate for that loss. Which is why F2P is done if P2P fails.
I think you are overstating when you say most players do not like monthly fees. I think most players who joined this genre recently do not like P2P. Those are also the players who hardly spend a dime because they have a different mentality from the old school players. Players like me who prefer monthly fees are perhaps older generation players who do not mind the sub.
Also GW 2 has shown recently that their profits are dropping from the last report. Problem with that is once the gem buying slows down so does their profit. They need players to continue to buy gems or else even operating costs are not covered. That is not a very good business model either. A game that can sustain and make money off 250 k loyal P2P is better off in my opinion. The game has a better community simply because it is smaller and there is a feeling of camaraderie that stems from supporting a game that does not resort to a cash shop culture.
I think people have overestimated the success of GW 2's model I myself stopped play after a couple of weeks and that means I am one of those people who has stopped contributing. Their initial sales may be large but with the gem sale dropping they will be in a worse off position should the game's popularity go down . A sub game which can maintain its player base albeit smaller player base will be in a better position
Well, I am in the game industry, and I read a lot of news and based on what i have heard and see. Most players are sick of P2P.
I posted in that topic, ignore the comments. Pay attention to the article. Now go around the web and read all the other articles on this. It isn't just me, it's isn't just a few. A LOT of people are concerned by this move. A LOT of people are skeptical. Majority of responses are that it will be F2P in a few months to a year.
I mean how many times does this need to happen before people realize we are not just talking non sense here. The model just isn't working well anymore. What 500 failures and you may finally admit it? Psh doubt it. You all will keep dreaming probably.
They really need to show something else to this game to justify that sub fee, I don't know maybe when it is fully out the pieces will fit together and the whole will be greater than its parts, but right now....from what I have seen...I think this sub thing will be an early adopters tax and those that wait 6 months will be able to play for free with an optional sub for full content, I am actually starting to think it is better if games start out f2p because it is better integrated when they turn so.
I think the market can support another sub game, I just don't think it is ESO.
Comments
I am torn. I really appreciate games that are pay to play. I feel like I am paying for the entire package, that the game content and world is exclusive and that I do not need to worry about grinding in order to pay my way to upgrades. I am at a quandry because currently our household is a bit strapped and cannot afford multiple subscriptions.
Hopefully in the future we might be able to maintain a subscription but until then we will miss out.
Major IP games with P2P that have been success lately: World of Warcraft
Major IP games with P2P that have failed lately(and changed model): EQ2, SWTOR, Lotro, DDO, Age of Conan...
So how big change is that this P2P model will work, not very good. Problem with major IPs is that they are just so expensive that having less than 1-2 million subs isn't worthy. I just think there isn't market for that.
Payment model has nothing to do with success of a game. How much fun it is matters.
People will pay a lot for a fun game.
People won't even play a free game if it is boring.
If they do not get at the very least 1/2 of the players interested, they will have to switch to F2P which will make them worse off then if they had gone B2P to begin with.
It shocks me to see how many player support such a fundamentally retarded payment model and then act shocked when it always seems to fail.
Every single time, they act all excited about a game going P2P, just for them to be pissed they spent money on it just for it to go F2P later. They blame the F2P model, when plenty of MMOs have gone P2P and simply just failed to keep the model going.
Every time they act like, "this time" will be different. Let's touch the electric fence again and again and again. Because 20 times from now .. it might not shock us. X3
Oh YES, this will be the next great AAA title, it's P2P .. it's HERE! It's going to be Awesome! 1 year from now ... ya it failed .. it sucked .. they decided to go free to play, because it failed.
The only way a game can really use this P2P model is if they make something revolutionary that has not been done before and attracts as many players as a B2P game with out losing any of them by switching to a P2P model. For every player you lose, you need another player to spend 4 extra months playing. Which is just a crazy gamble.
Alright, time to pull out the old debunking-gloves!
Heroes of Newerth started out as a B2P, it went free to play as well.
There haven't been enough B2P to say that "most" of them never go F2P. And even so, their game often goes on sale for barely anything, much like TSW and GW2.
More people are likely to buy it, but less people are likely to stay. Most leveling zones in GW2, TSW and SWTOR are ghost towns. There are barely any active servers.
Almost all games start off with a greater playerbase than what they will be left with after 6 months. WoW being an exception, but WoW slowly made more players by adding more content and keeping their marketing up. And WoW isn't really that great of a game.
TSW went from P2P to B2P. Doesn't have to go straight to F2P.
It is enough. 10% of the Planetside 2 players actually spent money in their cashshop. And they are still adding content and have a healthy community. And Planetside 2 is completely free to play. Not initial cost. I spent above average on PS2, that being €25. And I still have Station Cash to spare. (although I did purchase it during a special offer)
I'll be honest, most of your arguments are based on if the game isn't good. But that goes for every last game in the world. No matter what kind of hype is pulled. Induction isn't a valid assumption in this industry unless it is the same company releasing the games.
If a horse continues to get shocked by an electric fence, chances are that it will be shocked if it touches it again. But if the horse is moved to a wooden pen, it won't think that it will shock it, hence it will try touching it.
Induction would work if ZOS already had released two P2P MMO's and they had failed. But most of those developers were from Mythic and their games are mostly considered successful. Such as Dark Age of Camelot and Warhammer Online (WAR is debatable.) but both of those MMO's are still successfully running with subscriptions.
Anyhow, next time you are trying to make a point, source it. Oh, and speaking of which!
Time for my sources:
http://www.ign.com/articles/2011/07/29/heroes-of-newerth-goes-free-to-play
http://www.thesecretworld.com/news/subscription_no_longer_required
http://www.statista.com/statistics/208146/number-of-subscribers-of-world-of-warcraft/
http://news.softpedia.com/news/10-of-Planetside-2-Players-Are-Paying-to-Access-the-MMO-315668.shtml
"Almost all games start off with a greater playerbase than what they will be left with after 6 months. WoW being an exception, but WoW slowly made more players by adding more content and keeping their marketing up. And WoW isn't really that great of a game."
Meridian 59, UO, EQ all had more subcribers at 6 months then at release.
Also, you might not like WoW, but you can not objectivly say WoW is not a great game. The success of it proves you wrong.
Its about more than money, its about how the basic game is designed. F2P and B2P dont come close to allowing the kind of interzone interaction that sub based games can achieve. With the former, each zone basically has to stand on it's own, because the devs cannot assume that any ties to other zones will be usable, making creating a living, breathing world much more difificult. That is the big advantage that sub based games will always have. Lately, there haven't been any sub based games that have taken advantage of it, but blame that on the devs and publishers, not on the need for monthly income. To me, the best would be a sub based game that offers a way to pay the sub in game. That way, both the company and the consumer win. The company gets either money or an avatar that is consistently logged in that can provide game content and help that the company could never afford to pay a dev to create an NPC to replicate; in either case, they get a much needed resource they can use to keep the game going and improve it, and they get it without forcing game designers to completely change how they design the game. Meanwhile, the consumer gets a choice of how to pay for their entertainment; those with time can pay with time, those with money can pay with money. Those with neither aren't the target audience for most developers and publishers in this particular niche anyway, so they can hardly complain when they aren't catered too.
EDIT: Oh, and I was referring to the newer games. WoW pioneering the new era. And I did say "Most". Is EQ really "most of the games"? I could start rambling up others right away. WAR, AION, AOC, City of Heroes/Villians, EVE, Final Fantasy XI, Original Guildwars and most of the newer releases as well.
WoW is a terrible game. It's a great MMO due to its accessibility but it as a very dull combat system (hotkeys) with terrible and repetetive quests and it looks terrible, even when it was released it looked terrible.
Thing is, that a game is fun on your own. Can you honestly say that you enjoyed doing those quests? Or farming crafting materials? Maybe you can. But you wouldn't have if you were all alone. All in all, most MMO's are terrible games. Boring, grindy and full of terrible mechanics. But you play it because of the social element. The sense of accomplishment when other players see what a badass player you are.
So yes. WoW is a terrible game. But no, I did actually like WoW. The classes were diverse and worked well in PvP.
First I have to point out you didn't really debunk me. I am not talking about the game doing bad, I am talking about basic math.
Skyrim sold somewhere around 9 - 12 million copies of the game. I don't have a source but that's why I chose 9 -12 because I am sure we can all agree it is somewhere around there. The IP alone may have allowed it to get somewhere around that many copies assuming it is the same price, and it's a B2P model.
That is $540,000,000 - $720,000,000 simply by using a B2P model.
Now since they decided to go P2P isntead, they essentially need a player to spend money on an extra 4 months for every player they lose due to this decision. This assumes they do not have a discount on the monthly fee, other wise it will be 5 -6 months instead.
Now let's say they manage to at least get 1/2 of those 9 - 12 million players to sub. Keep in mind that is actually being pretty generous in my opinion. They will initially make $270,000,000 - $360,000,000. Now let us assume they keep all those subs and all of them are paying the full $15 a month. They will need to keep subs for at least 4 months, but again they mentioned discounts and such so it will be more along the lines of 5 - 6 months.
If they manage to get even less then 1/2, they are going to need to keep all those subs for a year or so.
This means if they want to make even more then going B2P, they are going to have to HOPE they achieve higher then 6 million players and subs. Keeping them for over a year.
Now I am sorry, but even a good game will have a hard time doing that. As for sources, who the heck needs sources when the math is right in front of you, and the numbers and amount of games going F2P are staggering? Ya sure you where able to point out a couple games, but you failed to prove me wrong. You only proved that I "could" be wrong, which isn't really proving much.
Edit: I have to point out if you do not make as much money as you could have made by going B2P, I consider that a failure.
That just means that you don't over design the game to need more than that per month. If you have a clear goal of want you want to accomplish, a realistic view of what you can accomplish, and focus on quality over quantity, that's not hard to do.
ledeath
I am not saying P2P is bad for the customers. It is bad from a business stand point though, because you have to make the assumption you are going to make as much money as you would have if you simply went B2P. It's a pretty big gamble since most players do not like monthly fees.
You have to make the assumption your game is good enough to attract those players even after deciding going P2P. If you don't, you have to at least make sure you keep the subs you did get for a very long time. It's just a pretty big gamble to take in my opinion. Which that type of gamble could make the game worse off then if they decided to go B2P to begin with. Lost money is lost money. You don't gain it back once it's lost. You can only make more money to compensate for that loss. Which is why F2P is done if P2P fails.
So what you're saying is that you have no idea how mathematics works?
Skyrim is a singleplayer game, of which you forgot to include how much it made on its DLCs/Expansions. And your argument requires you to know how much it costs to develope an MMO and keep it running. Provide me with those numbers and I will rest my case.
However, regarding your idea of "failure"; that relies on that the game fail. Yes, TES:O could probably make more the first 6 months if it was B2P. But after that their playerbase would decline and so would their income. MMO's are meant to be long lasting products. If TES:O turns out to be a hit for the next three years, it will make more in subscriptions than it would in the initial purchase and the fraction of people whom might utilize their cashshop.
I think you are overstating when you say most players do not like monthly fees. I think most players who joined this genre recently do not like P2P. Those are also the players who hardly spend a dime because they have a different mentality from the old school players. Players like me who prefer monthly fees are perhaps older generation players who do not mind the sub.
Also GW 2 has shown recently that their profits are dropping from the last report. Problem with that is once the gem buying slows down so does their profit. They need players to continue to buy gems or else even operating costs are not covered. That is not a very good business model either. A game that can sustain and make money off 250 k loyal P2P is better off in my opinion. The game has a better community simply because it is smaller and there is a feeling of camaraderie that stems from supporting a game that does not resort to a cash shop culture.
I think people have overestimated the success of GW 2's model I myself stopped play after a couple of weeks and that means I am one of those people who has stopped contributing. Their initial sales may be large but with the gem sale dropping they will be in a worse off position should the game's popularity go down . A sub game which can maintain its player base albeit smaller player base will be in a better position.
As the numerous expansions of Everquest 1 and 2 prior to them going F2P have proven a loyal subscribing player base can net you profits and even FFXI whose player base is also loyal will attest to this model where fewer people playing does provide steady profit.
WTF? Where the heck is my math wrong? Please do so to enlighten me where the hell I messed up since you think I don't know how math works.
It cost more to make an MMO since the price of servers are extra, which means you have to make even MORE money then a single player game. I didn't count the DLCs because there have been no DLCs announced for ESO. The only difference it makes for cost of server is they need to keep subs even LONGER then what I stated. Meaning they need to do even BETTER then what I just stated. Which is even HARDER.
I really don't know what the heck your trying to prove here. Are you trying to prove my math correct? Or are you just trolling because you don't want to agree with me even though my math is perfectly fine? I mean it really doesn't take a genius to calculate this. A P2P model is much harder to stick with and succeed with. If you can't see that, then you are blind.
It is 50 cents a day,not too much for entertainment really.
Many people spend 15 bucks just on smokes over 2/3 days.
You know how much bottled water is right?I don't hear too many complain about bottled water yet it is far more expensive than gasoline.It costs 10 bucks for a car wash.You rent a couple movies that is 10 bucks,for 4 hours of entertainment.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
It's not bad from a business stand point unless you insist on chasing unrealistic numbers and ignoring the fact that this niche is fundamentally one of long term sustainment. Get past that, and suddenly the problems with sub based games go away. You don't make an MMO for a quick proft, you make it for a long term, reasonably sustainable income. If you try to treat as immediate profit, you've already lost because you end up getting stuck with two very unpleasant alternatives: paying for the ongoing costs of servers, content, and devs, or risking the wrath of a player base annoyed that you shut down the servers after only 6 months. Over the life of a well done, realistically planned, and well executed sub based MMO, you will make far more money then you can with either of the other models. Just because we haven't seen one that meets those three very critical criteria of late doesn't invalidate the long term math.
just lol
after few months game go f2p
Mate. Either accept and admit that you are wrong or bring me the numbers of how much it costs to develope TES:O. Also, I mentioned DLCs because you said "Skyrim".
You are playing with imaginary numbers. You math relies on numbers that you've just made up on the fly. You need to source this if you want to be taken seriously.
Well, I am in the game industry, and I read a lot of news and based on what i have heard and see. Most players are sick of P2P.
Heck, http://www.reddit.com/r/elderscrollsonline/duplicates/1ksk8q/eso_will_be_subscription_based/ ...
Read some of the comments. Maybe 1/4 of them are positive. Maybe even less.
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2013-08-21-bethesda-bucks-trend-with-subscription-model-for-the-elder-scrolls-online#justposted
I posted in that topic, ignore the comments. Pay attention to the article. Now go around the web and read all the other articles on this. It isn't just me, it's isn't just a few. A LOT of people are concerned by this move. A LOT of people are skeptical. Majority of responses are that it will be F2P in a few months to a year.
I mean how many times does this need to happen before people realize we are not just talking non sense here. The model just isn't working well anymore. What 500 failures and you may finally admit it? Psh doubt it. You all will keep dreaming probably.
They really need to show something else to this game to justify that sub fee, I don't know maybe when it is fully out the pieces will fit together and the whole will be greater than its parts, but right now....from what I have seen...I think this sub thing will be an early adopters tax and those that wait 6 months will be able to play for free with an optional sub for full content, I am actually starting to think it is better if games start out f2p because it is better integrated when they turn so.
I think the market can support another sub game, I just don't think it is ESO.