While I find the B2P model very interesting, I'm unsure as to why you think they should be selling content more than anything else.
Downside P2P: timesinks to keep you p(l)aying. Pay or you're done playing.
Downside F2P: P2W cash shop looms on the horizon, always. Pay for xp scrolls or be bored to death grinding. Pay for that or be owned by mobs. The list goes on.
B2P selling content, not sure really. Why not just a non P2W cash shop? Selling content smells of Freemium like Lotro. Buy the next quest pack or be bored to pieces. I don't like this concept either and I don't see it matching into a B2P model. Extra character slots, cosmetic items, extra bagspace (unless it's almost required to get around). Some DLC could be acceptable, but I'd prefer not to see this as the most important part of the CS.
Honestly, I wouldn't really mind non-P2W stuff. But I wouldn't want the cash shop to entirely live off of it.
Content makes the developers work to actually improve the game. If they make all their money from selling hats, then the game isn't getting any better.
That's why it'd be B2P, you'd buy the actual content and pay extra for the extras.
Not like you buy an empty shell (or a taste of what's coming until you hit the wall) and pay extra for more content until the next wall. We have freemium for that. I'd be weary of a game that forces you to buy a game and then makes you pay more for more content. Sounds like a scam to me.
Edit: or do you mean "game expansions" with "content"? New part of the world, new races, new professions. Not just, new dungeon with new and better shinnies, better drop rates, you see where this could be going.
I basically agree with OP, but I take exception to the limited application of the Skinner model, which honestly transcends payment models, any of which are capable of abusing it to the point of criminal.
Also, I don't think the overall appeal/strengths of the B2P/Content-only cash shop approach is up for debate, only the viability in today's market. Even for those who don't actually give a fig about GW2, I'm sure many will be at least be interested in it's success (or lack thereof).
A Modest Proposal for MMORPGs: That the means of progression would not be mutually exclusive from the means of enjoyment.
While I find the B2P model very interesting, I'm unsure as to why you think they should be selling content more than anything else.
Downside P2P: timesinks to keep you p(l)aying. Pay or you're done playing.
Downside F2P: P2W cash shop looms on the horizon, always. Pay for xp scrolls or be bored to death grinding. Pay for that or be owned by mobs. The list goes on.
B2P selling content, not sure really. Why not just a non P2W cash shop? Selling content smells of Freemium like Lotro. Buy the next quest pack or be bored to pieces. I don't like this concept either and I don't see it matching into a B2P model. Extra character slots, cosmetic items, extra bagspace (unless it's almost required to get around). Some DLC could be acceptable, but I'd prefer not to see this as the most important part of the CS.
Honestly, I wouldn't really mind non-P2W stuff. But I wouldn't want the cash shop to entirely live off of it.
Content makes the developers work to actually improve the game. If they make all their money from selling hats, then the game isn't getting any better.
While I find the B2P model very interesting, I'm unsure as to why you think they should be selling content more than anything else.
Downside P2P: timesinks to keep you p(l)aying. Pay or you're done playing.
Downside F2P: P2W cash shop looms on the horizon, always. Pay for xp scrolls or be bored to death grinding. Pay for that or be owned by mobs. The list goes on.
B2P selling content, not sure really. Why not just a non P2W cash shop? Selling content smells of Freemium like Lotro. Buy the next quest pack or be bored to pieces. I don't like this concept either and I don't see it matching into a B2P model. Extra character slots, cosmetic items, extra bagspace (unless it's almost required to get around). Some DLC could be acceptable, but I'd prefer not to see this as the most important part of the CS.
Honestly, I wouldn't really mind non-P2W stuff. But I wouldn't want the cash shop to entirely live off of it.
Content makes the developers work to actually improve the game. If they make all their money from selling hats, then the game isn't getting any better.
That's what expansions are for.
Same difference. Whether you put the content in expansions on the cash shop...basically the same thing .
I wouldn't mind a cash shop that sold non-P2W stuff, so long as content was sold somehow on a fairly frequent basis.
Whether you put it in a box, or in the cash shop, it's cool with me either way.
I'd like a pay for time played model, i.e. not a monthly sub, I pay an amount and get X hours in game time
APB had something like this. It wasnt very good because you might as well could get a months gametime for the price of 30ish hours of action time.
well it has to be priced at the right level, so say the average gamer pays the same as a monthly sub - not more
but there are advantages, it makes it expensive to be a goldfarmer
there are people scared off subscribing, But might prefer this time payed up front thing, so if they arent a hardcore gamer they don't feel like they are loosing money
theres no reason you can't offer choice of monthly sub or per per hour up front, so that the people playing less hours per week don't feel like they are compelled to grind like hell to get their moneys worth
It lets you take a break without loosing out, or you go on holiday your not paying for time not playing.
Incidentally, this is the way PnP role playing games work - You buy the basic set of rules you can use to make your own adventures and stuff. But there is a gazillion of add-ons you can purchase as well.
Imo, P2P is a dead duck, a relic of the old times and F2P is too shifty.
However, the problem with B2P + content is that mmorpgs are social affairs, by their nature. And while in D&D you could buy one additional module your whole gaming group could use, in mmorpgs ALL the players need to have that add-on. This makes new content less desirable because it is not populated enough.
Hmmm...
Imo there are two ways around this:
1) Large periodic expansions that everyone is pushed to buy (although not "forced" by any means)
2) An idea: What if the content you purchased was available to all the members of your group? So if you buy "Lands of Xyzia" content add-on, you can invite a set number of your friends to explore it with you... as long as you're online that is. This closely follows the original D&D model and imo it could very well work. Though I can't recall anyone trying it in mmos.
Same difference. Whether you put the content in expansions on the cash shop...basically the same thing .
I wouldn't mind a cash shop that sold non-P2W stuff, so long as content was sold somehow on a fairly frequent basis.
Whether you put it in a box, or in the cash shop, it's cool with me either way.
Some people feel the same thing as you do. But it's much easier to put a lot of content in one place where every bit of it is related to the rest of the expansion, than giving little bits in the cash shop that seem to be completelly apart from the rest of the game. Besides, it's much player friendly to give a lot in one single buy, thinking mos of it is worth it, than buying multiple little things and beeing afraid of buying more because the last things you bought weren't worth it.
At least in Expansions is like buying a new game with a lot of great content, even greater if the devs feel the need to make you overwhelmed by most of it because there aren't monthly subs, where you can continue the journey. In cash shop it's translated to "special episodes" where sometimes "they don't make sense" (I'm thinking about anime right now lol).
I completelly agree with B2P model. I never understood the P2P model and I play MMORPGs for 12 years. I play F2P models since then and I know that it has a lot of flaws, most of them because they sell things they shouldn't. B2P is the only option for me. Consoles and Roleplaying games always had a lot of income from B2P models, why wouldn't MMORPG's have too? Because they need maintenance or more client support? Please, There are a lot of online games that work that way with B2P models. Guild Wars 1 was a major success with all it's flaws (because it had it's flaws, as all games have) and because of that Arena-net had the chance that any other MMORPG game developper had untill now (or at least in 5 years), which is even more important if we think the ones who gave them that chance is NCsoft.
Besides, It's much more exciting to see the box and thinking you have it all there than thinking "I just bought it, now I have to pay it each month".
If you dislike the game I don't care, just what the person is saying, because even if it was on a game I didn't like due to the fact it's true I agree.
I might get banned for this. - Rizel Star.
I'm not afraid to tell trolls what they [need] to hear, even if that means for me to have an forced absence afterwards.
P2P LOGIC = If it's P2P it means longevity, overall better game, and THE BEST SUPPORT EVER!!!!!(Which has been rinsed and repeated about a thousand times)
Common Sense Logic = P2P logic is no better than F2P Logic.
However, the problem with B2P + content is that mmorpgs are social affairs, by their nature. And while in D&D you could buy one additional module your whole gaming group could use, in mmorpgs ALL the players need to have that add-on. This makes new content less desirable because it is not populated enough.
Hmmm...
Imo there are two ways around this:
1) Large periodic expansions that everyone is pushed to buy (although not "forced" by any means)
2) An idea: What if the content you purchased was available to all the members of your group? So if you buy "Lands of Xyzia" content add-on, you can invite a set number of your friends to explore it with you... as long as you're online that is. This closely follows the original D&D model and imo it could very well work. Though I can't recall anyone trying it in mmos.
Don't think that would be big problem. First of all : people WANT new content and expansions(I know big exp vs smaller bits in CS but still...) usually sell very well. Secondly usually content mean new things to get for your character, new ways to develop your character (if you tie new f.e. skills with new zone) ,etc
Really for me it would be best if game sold CONTENT but WITHOUT items in cash shop. Ideally without even cosmetic things.
I guess I'm just too old or something... But I detest Cash shops, all these gaming companies made millions and billions with out them.
Kinda of makes me think of the movies where when I was a kid you would watch a Pink Panther cartoon before the show started and now you gotta watch through 15 min of damn commercials.
I dont think B2P with a content cash shop is going to generate the revenue requred to maintain a proper MMO(read: not peer-peer) bandwidth costs for an MMO are huge, and it goes up exponentially the more players they;re supporting, its fine for games on battlenet or arena net or any other sort of net made from the massive creativity of ex blizzard developers. But for a proper MMO i cant see it work, and its likly developers and publishers feel the same way.
best for consumer is a no cash shop game with several payment options.
the most expensive option would be $15 monthly fee for EVERYTHING, that means all content, all expansions.
other options would be week or day payment option, or limited access to content. With cheapest option would be free to play in very limited content.
A game relying on the cash shop will never be best for consumer. It will try to limit your fun in the game in order to force you to buy from cash shop.
I dont think B2P with a content cash shop is going to generate the revenue requred to maintain a proper MMO(read: not peer-peer) bandwidth costs for an MMO are huge, and it goes up exponentially the more players they;re supporting, its fine for games on battlenet or arena net or any other sort of net made from the massive creativity of ex blizzard developers. But for a proper MMO i cant see it work, and its likly developers and publishers feel the same way.
I dont think B2P with a content cash shop is going to generate the revenue requred to maintain a proper MMO(read: not peer-peer) bandwidth costs for an MMO are huge, and it goes up exponentially the more players they;re supporting, its fine for games on battlenet or arena net or any other sort of net made from the massive creativity of ex blizzard developers. But for a proper MMO i cant see it work, and its likly developers and publishers feel the same way.
First, it's no longer true that bandwidth costs are huge. The first Guild Wars earns enough money in residual earnings, despite not having put out paid content since 2007 to pay for the bandwidth for all 5 of NCSoft's games (Lineage 1&2, Aion, GW, CoH). Check out this video someone linked above for proof or look up the quarterly reports yourself. WTF No Subscription Fee
Second, I have no idea why costs would go up exponentially with more people. If anything, they should go up linearly or even decrease per person. In any case, costs due to more people are covered by the fact that you have more people paying. And the fact that these costs are only a small fraction of the costs of developer salaries.
If both the above points you make are true, how could F2P games even exist? Vastly more people play, and the average per person might only be $3 a month instead of $15.
Third, if it is fine for battlenet or arenanet or creative developers, then other developers should step up their game or risk going out of business. Why should we subsidize people who are charging more when other companies can do it and charge less? I mean, yeah, if it's a small indie company with a vision you want to support, sure, but supporting a AAA publisher this way?
Fourth, to quote Jeff Strain, cofounder of ArenaNet... "many people believe that the completely instantiated world was the reason for Guild Wars 1 to not need monthly fees. This is completely wrong! The existence or lack of a persistent world is totally unrelated to the running expenses which are needed to maintain an online roleplaying game."
The reason that B2P hasn't caught on is because developers that are raking in cash (or would love to have their games be a hit so that they can also rake in cash) with P2P games have no reason to educate the public. I would love for GW2 (or any other B2P game) to be a massive hit and make people really question why they're paying a sub. Until then, it's just not going to happen, people will continue to say "it's cheaper than the movies" and continue to pay up.
"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 dont think B2P with a content cash shop is going to generate the revenue requred to maintain a proper MMO(read: not peer-peer) bandwidth costs for an MMO are huge, and it goes up exponentially the more players they;re supporting, its fine for games on battlenet or arena net or any other sort of net made from the massive creativity of ex blizzard developers. But for a proper MMO i cant see it work, and its likly developers and publishers feel the same way.
This was true at one point, but the internet is no longer infantile and things like bandwith are cheap and easy to come by. Someone above posted a link to a stock report that gives more information, but this is actually something that's been known about for a while. This is why companies like Perfect World, Aeria Games and Nexon can host several (even dozens) of games all with thousands if not millions of people playing them, across the globe, all F2P, and still make out like bandits even though the larger majority of people don't spend much (if anything) in the cash shop.
That you need to pay $15 a month to keep a game alive is a myth, and has been for a long time. If you push out quality content, people will buy it, and that's all the revenue you need. B2P models entice people because the lack of sub fee makes them feel like they don't HAVE to play just to get their money's worth, so more people are willing to buy it, thus it can be priced cheaper and still prove profitable. Sort of like, selling twice as much of something because you put it out for half price.
People just can't grasp that a company isn't as concerned with windfall profits as it is making a decent game. Isn't that the way it used to be, back in the day...you know, when we didn't have a new game coming out every five minutes?
"Forums aren't for intelligent discussion; they're for blow-hards with unwavering opinions."
Best for consumer? Perhaps not. Why? Because games are becoming more and more expensive to develop and to maintain. The B2P model easily generates less revenue than the P2P model. This means the developer is more limited budget-wise and therefore more limited on what it can do with the game.
Games with costly IP's and ambitious ideas can't realize their goals without the added revenue. It is simply not possible to develop and maintain a 100+ million dollar project with an extremely costly IP using the B2P model.
lets see... remember the times when we would get game patches for free? with more than a few maps and some new features?
well those times are pretty much over. now if you want a new piece of content you have to buy it.
those short DLCs cost as much as expansions some time ago yet they dont offer even nearly as much content.
hopefully things like battlefield 3 karkand dlc right at goddamn launch wont be inspiration for developers, because its definitely a rip off. 'oh look we sell a full price game with half assed maps so if you want better ones go and buy them trololo'.
some say that content cash shop is great, because you can skip the stuff that you dont want to buy.
whats the solution here exactly? to go and make such shop? or... simply make quality content that people would like to play instead of putting a lot of fillers. look at DDO - you can buy pretty much every dungeon separately. is that good? ofcourse it would be if most of them were good quality content. but they are not.
lets not for get the good old buy 100 coins, get piece of content for 51 coin and youll have 49 useless coins left untill you buy another coin pack. freakin ridiculous and most companies are actually doing this retarded trick.
lets see... remember the times when we would get game patches for free? with more than a few maps and some new features?
well those times are pretty much over. now if you want a new piece of content you have to buy it.
those short DLCs cost as much as expansions some time ago yet they dont offer even nearly as much content.
hopefully things like battlefield 3 karkand dlc right at goddamn launch wont be inspiration for developers, because its definitely a rip off. 'oh look we sell a full price game with half assed maps so if you want better ones go and buy them trololo'.
some say that content cash shop is great, because you can skip the stuff that you dont want to buy.
whats the solution here exactly? to go and make such shop? or... simply make quality content that people would like to play instead of putting a lot of fillers. look at DDO - you can buy pretty much every dungeon separately. is that good? ofcourse it would be if most of them were good quality content. but they are not.
lets not for get the good old buy 100 coins, get piece of content for 51 coin and youll have 49 useless coins left untill you buy another coin pack. freakin ridiculous and most companies are actually doing this retarded trick.
personally i like guild wars model the best.
I'm with you, and then I'm not. I agree that in the era of DLC, developers have started charging expansion-sized prices for content that clears in a couple of hours, which is always a concern for me. Right now the only game I know that's going B2P for certain is Guild Wars 2 (I remember reading that TSW was considering it as well, but don't quote me on it) and their expansions were sooooo worth the price. They were literally their own games. That's the way it should be. I have no problem with throwing $40 at a developer for a full-blooded expansion.
But yeah, the 'DLC' type stuff...that kind of irks me. I dislike having to pay $10 just to buy a class that should already be part of the game. Charge me $20 and throw in its own storyline, starting area, land and quests backed by lore and I dunno...effort, and then we'll talk.
"Forums aren't for intelligent discussion; they're for blow-hards with unwavering opinions."
Best for consumer? Perhaps not. Why? Because games are becoming more and more expensive to develop and to maintain. The B2P model easily generates less revenue than the P2P model. This means the developer is more limited budget-wise and therefore more limited on what it can do with the game.
Games with costly IP's and ambitious ideas can't realize their goals without the added revenue. It is simply not possible to develop and maintain a 100+ million dollar project with an extremely costly IP using the B2P model.
You do know a subsription doesn't add anything to the development budget of a game, right?
P2P means the people who make the game are guaranteed money post-launch, but it doesn't mean they are going to do anything with it.
You do know a subsription doesn't add anything to the development budget of a game, right?
P2P means the people who make the game are guaranteed money post-launch, but it doesn't mean they are going to do anything with it.
... Try and develop a game like SWTOR, more than 100 million dollars in development alone, long term contracts with voice actors, the costly Star Wars IP, maintenance of the entire team post-launch, more than 200 servers, all that with the B2P model. It simply will not happen.
I am very skeptical that the business aspect thinks this deeply in terms of the game.
You have to remember that even among those who keep up with latest technology and trends, if you're not an actual player, have real experience gaming, or understand game design-- there's a big disconnect, especially the more disconnected you are to your product.
Most businessmen seem to be entirely disconnected from their product, relying on others they trust to bring in the product. The depth of thought and instricate knowledge of MMORPG's and their relation to business practice and marketing by game design itself seems too much. I honestly don't believe the out of touch businessmen or financial experts understand, let alone care about this deep of thought.
Most of the tech business world is run on the simplicity/stupidity rule. Where the money makers say, "You nerds make the product go fast and look shiny, and the marketers will peddle the product. If it fails, you're fired. If it succeeds, I get all the money. Since I know nothing about the product and truly don't care about anything but quarterly dividens and profit margins, you better make it look shiny!!!! If they don't like it, then it wasn't shiny enough!!!"
After all, most of success and profit is irrelevant of quality (so they think) and marketing is the real pro. We live in a world where lizards on tv tell the western "civilized" world which insurance company to choose. Why? It doesn't matter, because the commercial looked shiny and made you laugh! If you truly think the civilized person doesn't see a commercial and then go "Hahahahhaa, I like the dinosaur, I'll switch to Geico." you are truly naive to the stupidity of the general populous. Commercials and the media CONTROL society in many ways (or could if they wanted to) by telling people what is popular and liked.
If you wear Levi jeans, you will look like all these supermodels on the commercial. If you don't, you're ugly.
"IF YOU TAN YOU'RE HOT! If you're not you're not!"
It really is as simple as this. Game designers might think this deeply about their game and possibly market it to their overlords this way, but that really doesn't matter compared to how shiny the graphics are, or the other ways people will be tricked into buying the game. I also have severe doubts game designers think much about this either. Game designers are suppose to design the game *somehow* and simply explain to the executives HOW they will exploit those addicted to F2P cash shops (those who spend hundreds, or thousands a month uncontrollably, so they can be the best because they are told, by society or the game, they need these things to be successful).
Subscription models require addicting gameplay? F2P cash shops are less effective than B2P games? Psychological theory, game design specifics, or theory of fun is nonsense. All they care about is "hard evidence" (even if it's a lie or exagerated statistics) proving one method is more profitable than the other. It's all about money, and they pick a model based on past experiences or copies of other's success.
If executives, psychologists, and game designers all worked together to craft a perfect "theory of fun" or "how to addict gamers", then 99% of games wouldn't be a copy of WoW. TRUST ME...they don't think this deeply. Ever.
The largest thought in MMORPG business is always "Is it shinier than WoW or Call of Duty?", and if any game designer ever describes any intelligent gaming feature it will be followed by "Does that mean it's shiny or not??? Shiny....good!!!"
i disagree so much. for one the cash shops usually end up selling not just xp boosts and stuff they usually sell competitive advantages.
For the money a sub based game is still the best bang for your buck. Maybe im biased but i feel sub games are usually much better games and give u content much faster then free 2 play ro buy to play games.
id also say if u are gonna say buy to play with cash shop is better that free 2 play with no initial purchase and a cash shop beats paying 60 dollars then having to use a cash shop any day.
Best for consumer? Perhaps not. Why? Because games are becoming more and more expensive to develop and to maintain. The B2P model easily generates less revenue than the P2P model. This means the developer is more limited budget-wise and therefore more limited on what it can do with the game.
Games with costly IP's and ambitious ideas can't realize their goals without the added revenue. It is simply not possible to develop and maintain a 100+ million dollar project with an extremely costly IP using the B2P model.
B2P generates less revenue than the P2P model per person. And that's actually only true if a person maintains the sub.
People generally won't pay two subscriptions. So if you're the big dog P2P game, then yes, you're making money hand over fist. But if a player buys your game and then only plays to the end of the free month, you're not making any more money than a B2P game.
With a B2P game more people are going to buy it than an equivalent P2P game. Once those additional customers are in, those people might buy expansions or cash shop items. This is money that a P2P game won't see.
You can give a B2P game as a gift. I know I'm planning on buying at least two additional copies of GW2. Got a stubborn friend who doesn't want to try the game you're into? Just buy it for them. Hell, buy it for 3 friends. It would be the same price as subbing to one game for a year by yourself.
Or, buy four games for the price of one game plus a sub. Maybe companies will be more inclined to feel comfortable making nontraditional games if they knew that they didn't have to try to make the #1 most accessible game, but instead could still make a lot of money being people's 2nd or 3rd or 4th choice.
"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
Comments
Honestly, I wouldn't really mind non-P2W stuff. But I wouldn't want the cash shop to entirely live off of it.
Content makes the developers work to actually improve the game. If they make all their money from selling hats, then the game isn't getting any better.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
That's why it'd be B2P, you'd buy the actual content and pay extra for the extras.
Not like you buy an empty shell (or a taste of what's coming until you hit the wall) and pay extra for more content until the next wall. We have freemium for that. I'd be weary of a game that forces you to buy a game and then makes you pay more for more content. Sounds like a scam to me.
Edit: or do you mean "game expansions" with "content"? New part of the world, new races, new professions. Not just, new dungeon with new and better shinnies, better drop rates, you see where this could be going.
I basically agree with OP, but I take exception to the limited application of the Skinner model, which honestly transcends payment models, any of which are capable of abusing it to the point of criminal.
Also, I don't think the overall appeal/strengths of the B2P/Content-only cash shop approach is up for debate, only the viability in today's market. Even for those who don't actually give a fig about GW2, I'm sure many will be at least be interested in it's success (or lack thereof).
A Modest Proposal for MMORPGs:
That the means of progression would not be mutually exclusive from the means of enjoyment.
That's what expansions are for.
Same difference. Whether you put the content in expansions on the cash shop...basically the same thing
.
I wouldn't mind a cash shop that sold non-P2W stuff, so long as content was sold somehow on a fairly frequent basis.
Whether you put it in a box, or in the cash shop, it's cool with me either way.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
well it has to be priced at the right level, so say the average gamer pays the same as a monthly sub - not more
but there are advantages, it makes it expensive to be a goldfarmer
there are people scared off subscribing, But might prefer this time payed up front thing, so if they arent a hardcore gamer they don't feel like they are loosing money
theres no reason you can't offer choice of monthly sub or per per hour up front, so that the people playing less hours per week don't feel like they are compelled to grind like hell to get their moneys worth
It lets you take a break without loosing out, or you go on holiday your not paying for time not playing.
Agree with the OP.
Incidentally, this is the way PnP role playing games work - You buy the basic set of rules you can use to make your own adventures and stuff. But there is a gazillion of add-ons you can purchase as well.
Imo, P2P is a dead duck, a relic of the old times and F2P is too shifty.
However, the problem with B2P + content is that mmorpgs are social affairs, by their nature. And while in D&D you could buy one additional module your whole gaming group could use, in mmorpgs ALL the players need to have that add-on. This makes new content less desirable because it is not populated enough.
Hmmm...
Imo there are two ways around this:
1) Large periodic expansions that everyone is pushed to buy (although not "forced" by any means)
2) An idea: What if the content you purchased was available to all the members of your group? So if you buy "Lands of Xyzia" content add-on, you can invite a set number of your friends to explore it with you... as long as you're online that is. This closely follows the original D&D model and imo it could very well work. Though I can't recall anyone trying it in mmos.
Some people feel the same thing as you do. But it's much easier to put a lot of content in one place where every bit of it is related to the rest of the expansion, than giving little bits in the cash shop that seem to be completelly apart from the rest of the game. Besides, it's much player friendly to give a lot in one single buy, thinking mos of it is worth it, than buying multiple little things and beeing afraid of buying more because the last things you bought weren't worth it.
At least in Expansions is like buying a new game with a lot of great content, even greater if the devs feel the need to make you overwhelmed by most of it because there aren't monthly subs, where you can continue the journey. In cash shop it's translated to "special episodes" where sometimes "they don't make sense" (I'm thinking about anime right now lol).
I completelly agree with B2P model. I never understood the P2P model and I play MMORPGs for 12 years. I play F2P models since then and I know that it has a lot of flaws, most of them because they sell things they shouldn't. B2P is the only option for me. Consoles and Roleplaying games always had a lot of income from B2P models, why wouldn't MMORPG's have too? Because they need maintenance or more client support? Please, There are a lot of online games that work that way with B2P models. Guild Wars 1 was a major success with all it's flaws (because it had it's flaws, as all games have) and because of that Arena-net had the chance that any other MMORPG game developper had untill now (or at least in 5 years), which is even more important if we think the ones who gave them that chance is NCsoft.
Besides, It's much more exciting to see the box and thinking you have it all there than thinking "I just bought it, now I have to pay it each month".
I just like B2P model with stuff in the cash shop that is optional.
I can also live if that B2P has an expansion that cost but that's about it.
Also this sums up my opinion on B2P vs Sub
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ns-IIn-DG-c
If you dislike the game I don't care, just what the person is saying, because even if it was on a game I didn't like due to the fact it's true I agree.
I might get banned for this. - Rizel Star.
I'm not afraid to tell trolls what they [need] to hear, even if that means for me to have an forced absence afterwards.
P2P LOGIC = If it's P2P it means longevity, overall better game, and THE BEST SUPPORT EVER!!!!!(Which has been rinsed and repeated about a thousand times)
Common Sense Logic = P2P logic is no better than F2P Logic.
Don't think that would be big problem. First of all : people WANT new content and expansions(I know big exp vs smaller bits in CS but still...) usually sell very well. Secondly usually content mean new things to get for your character, new ways to develop your character (if you tie new f.e. skills with new zone) ,etc
Really for me it would be best if game sold CONTENT but WITHOUT items in cash shop. Ideally without even cosmetic things.
I guess I'm just too old or something... But I detest Cash shops, all these gaming companies made millions and billions with out them.
Kinda of makes me think of the movies where when I was a kid you would watch a Pink Panther cartoon before the show started and now you gotta watch through 15 min of damn commercials.
B2P + B2Expand would be my preferance.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
I dont think B2P with a content cash shop is going to generate the revenue requred to maintain a proper MMO(read: not peer-peer) bandwidth costs for an MMO are huge, and it goes up exponentially the more players they;re supporting, its fine for games on battlenet or arena net or any other sort of net made from the massive creativity of ex blizzard developers. But for a proper MMO i cant see it work, and its likly developers and publishers feel the same way.
SKYeXile
TRF - GM - GW2, PS2, WAR, AION, Rift, WoW, WOT....etc...
Future Crew - High Council. Planetside 1 & 2.
best for consumer is a no cash shop game with several payment options.
the most expensive option would be $15 monthly fee for EVERYTHING, that means all content, all expansions.
other options would be week or day payment option, or limited access to content. With cheapest option would be free to play in very limited content.
A game relying on the cash shop will never be best for consumer. It will try to limit your fun in the game in order to force you to buy from cash shop.
No. Was disproved years ago.
Here's more proof:
http://www.guildwars2guru.com/forum/showpost.php?p=320523&postcount=61
First, it's no longer true that bandwidth costs are huge. The first Guild Wars earns enough money in residual earnings, despite not having put out paid content since 2007 to pay for the bandwidth for all 5 of NCSoft's games (Lineage 1&2, Aion, GW, CoH). Check out this video someone linked above for proof or look up the quarterly reports yourself. WTF No Subscription Fee
Second, I have no idea why costs would go up exponentially with more people. If anything, they should go up linearly or even decrease per person. In any case, costs due to more people are covered by the fact that you have more people paying. And the fact that these costs are only a small fraction of the costs of developer salaries.
If both the above points you make are true, how could F2P games even exist? Vastly more people play, and the average per person might only be $3 a month instead of $15.
Third, if it is fine for battlenet or arenanet or creative developers, then other developers should step up their game or risk going out of business. Why should we subsidize people who are charging more when other companies can do it and charge less? I mean, yeah, if it's a small indie company with a vision you want to support, sure, but supporting a AAA publisher this way?
Fourth, to quote Jeff Strain, cofounder of ArenaNet... "many people believe that the completely instantiated world was the reason for Guild Wars 1 to not need monthly fees. This is completely wrong! The existence or lack of a persistent world is totally unrelated to the running expenses which are needed to maintain an online roleplaying game."
The reason that B2P hasn't caught on is because developers that are raking in cash (or would love to have their games be a hit so that they can also rake in cash) with P2P games have no reason to educate the public. I would love for GW2 (or any other B2P game) to be a massive hit and make people really question why they're paying a sub. Until then, it's just not going to happen, people will continue to say "it's cheaper than the movies" and continue to pay up.
"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
This was true at one point, but the internet is no longer infantile and things like bandwith are cheap and easy to come by. Someone above posted a link to a stock report that gives more information, but this is actually something that's been known about for a while. This is why companies like Perfect World, Aeria Games and Nexon can host several (even dozens) of games all with thousands if not millions of people playing them, across the globe, all F2P, and still make out like bandits even though the larger majority of people don't spend much (if anything) in the cash shop.
That you need to pay $15 a month to keep a game alive is a myth, and has been for a long time. If you push out quality content, people will buy it, and that's all the revenue you need. B2P models entice people because the lack of sub fee makes them feel like they don't HAVE to play just to get their money's worth, so more people are willing to buy it, thus it can be priced cheaper and still prove profitable. Sort of like, selling twice as much of something because you put it out for half price.
People just can't grasp that a company isn't as concerned with windfall profits as it is making a decent game. Isn't that the way it used to be, back in the day...you know, when we didn't have a new game coming out every five minutes?
"Forums aren't for intelligent discussion; they're for blow-hards with unwavering opinions."
Best for consumer? Perhaps not. Why? Because games are becoming more and more expensive to develop and to maintain. The B2P model easily generates less revenue than the P2P model. This means the developer is more limited budget-wise and therefore more limited on what it can do with the game.
Games with costly IP's and ambitious ideas can't realize their goals without the added revenue. It is simply not possible to develop and maintain a 100+ million dollar project with an extremely costly IP using the B2P model.
b2p with content cash shop is bad.
why?
lets see... remember the times when we would get game patches for free? with more than a few maps and some new features?
well those times are pretty much over. now if you want a new piece of content you have to buy it.
those short DLCs cost as much as expansions some time ago yet they dont offer even nearly as much content.
hopefully things like battlefield 3 karkand dlc right at goddamn launch wont be inspiration for developers, because its definitely a rip off. 'oh look we sell a full price game with half assed maps so if you want better ones go and buy them trololo'.
some say that content cash shop is great, because you can skip the stuff that you dont want to buy.
whats the solution here exactly? to go and make such shop? or... simply make quality content that people would like to play instead of putting a lot of fillers. look at DDO - you can buy pretty much every dungeon separately. is that good? ofcourse it would be if most of them were good quality content. but they are not.
lets not for get the good old buy 100 coins, get piece of content for 51 coin and youll have 49 useless coins left untill you buy another coin pack. freakin ridiculous and most companies are actually doing this retarded trick.
personally i like guild wars model the best.
I'm with you, and then I'm not. I agree that in the era of DLC, developers have started charging expansion-sized prices for content that clears in a couple of hours, which is always a concern for me. Right now the only game I know that's going B2P for certain is Guild Wars 2 (I remember reading that TSW was considering it as well, but don't quote me on it) and their expansions were sooooo worth the price. They were literally their own games. That's the way it should be. I have no problem with throwing $40 at a developer for a full-blooded expansion.
But yeah, the 'DLC' type stuff...that kind of irks me. I dislike having to pay $10 just to buy a class that should already be part of the game. Charge me $20 and throw in its own storyline, starting area, land and quests backed by lore and I dunno...effort, and then we'll talk.
"Forums aren't for intelligent discussion; they're for blow-hards with unwavering opinions."
You do know a subsription doesn't add anything to the development budget of a game, right?
P2P means the people who make the game are guaranteed money post-launch, but it doesn't mean they are going to do anything with it.
Guild Wars is probably the best example of this with the B2P with added in-game shop.
You simply buy the game and each expansion for more content.
Eventually they added an in-game shop to purchase cosmetic items.
The good thing is that you get players more willing to buy items from the store right out the gate.
They can also add things like 50% or 100% more xp gained. (not gold drops though or it will complicate pricing)
Also love the presents for Guild Wars because you get better pets the earlier you joined the game.
Adding the ability to buy certain pets for aesthetics only like more unique pets.
So many things a B2P game can do better than either.
Some games even try all 3 though it is sorta like F2P/P2P
With 3 tiers of players
1. Subscribed
2. Bought the game and/ or expansions
3. Free 2 Play
Watching for Guild Wars 2 to come out as many of us have been waiting for it.
... Try and develop a game like SWTOR, more than 100 million dollars in development alone, long term contracts with voice actors, the costly Star Wars IP, maintenance of the entire team post-launch, more than 200 servers, all that with the B2P model. It simply will not happen.
I am very skeptical that the business aspect thinks this deeply in terms of the game.
You have to remember that even among those who keep up with latest technology and trends, if you're not an actual player, have real experience gaming, or understand game design-- there's a big disconnect, especially the more disconnected you are to your product.
Most businessmen seem to be entirely disconnected from their product, relying on others they trust to bring in the product. The depth of thought and instricate knowledge of MMORPG's and their relation to business practice and marketing by game design itself seems too much. I honestly don't believe the out of touch businessmen or financial experts understand, let alone care about this deep of thought.
Most of the tech business world is run on the simplicity/stupidity rule. Where the money makers say, "You nerds make the product go fast and look shiny, and the marketers will peddle the product. If it fails, you're fired. If it succeeds, I get all the money. Since I know nothing about the product and truly don't care about anything but quarterly dividens and profit margins, you better make it look shiny!!!! If they don't like it, then it wasn't shiny enough!!!"
After all, most of success and profit is irrelevant of quality (so they think) and marketing is the real pro. We live in a world where lizards on tv tell the western "civilized" world which insurance company to choose. Why? It doesn't matter, because the commercial looked shiny and made you laugh! If you truly think the civilized person doesn't see a commercial and then go "Hahahahhaa, I like the dinosaur, I'll switch to Geico." you are truly naive to the stupidity of the general populous. Commercials and the media CONTROL society in many ways (or could if they wanted to) by telling people what is popular and liked.
If you wear Levi jeans, you will look like all these supermodels on the commercial. If you don't, you're ugly.
"IF YOU TAN YOU'RE HOT! If you're not you're not!"
It really is as simple as this. Game designers might think this deeply about their game and possibly market it to their overlords this way, but that really doesn't matter compared to how shiny the graphics are, or the other ways people will be tricked into buying the game. I also have severe doubts game designers think much about this either. Game designers are suppose to design the game *somehow* and simply explain to the executives HOW they will exploit those addicted to F2P cash shops (those who spend hundreds, or thousands a month uncontrollably, so they can be the best because they are told, by society or the game, they need these things to be successful).
Subscription models require addicting gameplay? F2P cash shops are less effective than B2P games? Psychological theory, game design specifics, or theory of fun is nonsense. All they care about is "hard evidence" (even if it's a lie or exagerated statistics) proving one method is more profitable than the other. It's all about money, and they pick a model based on past experiences or copies of other's success.
If executives, psychologists, and game designers all worked together to craft a perfect "theory of fun" or "how to addict gamers", then 99% of games wouldn't be a copy of WoW. TRUST ME...they don't think this deeply. Ever.
The largest thought in MMORPG business is always "Is it shinier than WoW or Call of Duty?", and if any game designer ever describes any intelligent gaming feature it will be followed by "Does that mean it's shiny or not??? Shiny....good!!!"
i disagree so much. for one the cash shops usually end up selling not just xp boosts and stuff they usually sell competitive advantages.
For the money a sub based game is still the best bang for your buck. Maybe im biased but i feel sub games are usually much better games and give u content much faster then free 2 play ro buy to play games.
id also say if u are gonna say buy to play with cash shop is better that free 2 play with no initial purchase and a cash shop beats paying 60 dollars then having to use a cash shop any day.
B2P generates less revenue than the P2P model per person. And that's actually only true if a person maintains the sub.
People generally won't pay two subscriptions. So if you're the big dog P2P game, then yes, you're making money hand over fist. But if a player buys your game and then only plays to the end of the free month, you're not making any more money than a B2P game.
With a B2P game more people are going to buy it than an equivalent P2P game. Once those additional customers are in, those people might buy expansions or cash shop items. This is money that a P2P game won't see.
You can give a B2P game as a gift. I know I'm planning on buying at least two additional copies of GW2. Got a stubborn friend who doesn't want to try the game you're into? Just buy it for them. Hell, buy it for 3 friends. It would be the same price as subbing to one game for a year by yourself.
Or, buy four games for the price of one game plus a sub. Maybe companies will be more inclined to feel comfortable making nontraditional games if they knew that they didn't have to try to make the #1 most accessible game, but instead could still make a lot of money being people's 2nd or 3rd or 4th choice.
"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