Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Fuzzy Avatars Solved! Please re-upload your avatar if it was fuzzy!

SWTOR - B2P?

I dont play it, never did, but im wondering...

Wouldnt that be a better option for everybody?

«1

Comments

  • JoeyMMOJoeyMMO SomewherePosts: 1,326Member
    Originally posted by mbojan75

    I dont play it, never did, but im wondering...

    Wouldnt that be a better option for everybody?

     Not if they want to maximize revenue. They thought the game would rival if not beat WoW in numbers. It didn't. Looking back B2P might have been worse. Lots of people paid subs, some for 2 months, some up to 6 all at once. It's not clear whether they would have made more money as a B2P.

    If the game had been split in 2, or even more, games, let's say a game for Empire and one for Republic and been B2P then it could have been more succesful and people wouldn't be so quick to shoot it down.

    Requiring a sub is turning into a risky proposition.

    imageimage
  • evilastroevilastro EdinburghPosts: 4,270Member
    Originally posted by JoeyMMO
    Originally posted by mbojan75

    I dont play it, never did, but im wondering...

    Wouldnt that be a better option for everybody?

     Not if they want to maximize revenue. They thought the game would rival if not beat WoW in numbers. It didn't. Looking back B2P might have been worse. Lots of people paid subs, some for 2 months, some up to 6 all at once. It's not clear whether they would have made more money as a B2P.

    If the game had been split in 2, or even more, games, let's say a game for Empire and one for Republic and been B2P then it could have been more succesful and people wouldn't be so quick to shoot it down.

    Requiring a sub is turning into a risky proposition.

    From a player perspective? Yep it should have been B2P.

    But the bottom line is that EA / Bioware (and any other MMO company for that matter) will just milk subscriptions from games until it becomes more profitable for them to switch to F2P / B2P.

    SWTOR still has a long way to go before a B2P model would be more profitable than subscription.

  • rdrakkenrdrakken Gotham, FLPosts: 426Member
    Originally posted by JoeyMMO
    Originally posted by mbojan75

    I dont play it, never did, but im wondering...

    Wouldnt that be a better option for everybody?

     Not if they want to maximize revenue.

    Old outdated way of thinking. The game isnt good enough to retain a large amount of players, which is why they already lost around 1 million players even with fluffed numbers being given. With the lack of content variety coming in the next patch and not a single word of it coming at all...more will leave, there isnt enough game to sustain a large playerbase for a long period of time.

    In the mean time, GW2 will come out, sell as many if not more copies, retain nearly every player because there is no sub and will be selling items in thier shop like wildfire...then add games like Runes of Magic which brings in near 30 million a year in profits, or Atlantica Online which brings in near the same amount. 

    A game like SWTOR could easily have 4+ million players if it was free to play and make over 100 mil a year in profits from a good item shop...get with the times. Sub games are dieing, should have years ago...

  • CrunkJuice2CrunkJuice2 asdasd, INPosts: 568Member

    "get with the times. Sub games are dieing, should have years ago..."

    sub games arent dieing

    theres good mmos,and bad mmos.swtor is just another one on the list of bad mmos

    i actually perfer sub fee mmos to free ones.you generally find a better community in a sub fee mmo then a free to play one.oh and i doubt swtor would have 4 mil+ players if it went free to play.it would just make more people relize how bad the game is as an mmo

     

     

  • gervaise1gervaise1 .Posts: 2,068Member Uncommon

    I believed and said pre-launch that B2P would have been a better model; with paid for DLC and - possibly - a small annual charge for the "multi-player" aspect.

    SWKotR was a successful  single player game and Bioware could have built on this for larger initial sales. 2.4M worldwide the last number EA gave for sales, is a decent number but compared to Skyrim, Battlefield, D3, Assassin's Creed etc. it is not that good.

    Years and years ago I saw a 12M sales number for GW1 and it has continued to sell. And then there have been xpacs.

    Now EA come out and say: lots of conpetition, F2P etc. etc. What exactly is different today than at Christmas. Has there been some huge radical change that EA were totally incapable of predicting? I don't think so.

    Bottomline Bioware made a decent single player game but a poor mmo. They then sold it as a subscription mmo. Who failed. The developers or the management?

  • ktanner3ktanner3 lakeland, FLPosts: 4,074Member Common
    Originally posted by mbojan75

    I dont play it, never did, but im wondering...

    Wouldnt that be a better option for everybody?

     No, because many like me that are enjoying it don't touch cash shop games. I prefer a sub with all the options a game has to offer over a game that nickel and dimes me for every thing.The cheapskates will just have to deal with the fact that sub based games aren't going anywhere.

    Currently Playing: Star Wars The Old Republic

  • GruugGruug Chillicothe, ILPosts: 1,311Member Uncommon

    F2P is not the way to go either. Sure, it brings in lots of "freeloaders" that first month or two. People HOPING to play for "free". Thing is, you  can't play any so-called free-to-play game and get any value out of it without spending REAL MONEY. That makes in a PAY-TO-PLAY. Might as well be paying a subscribtion. But, if they ever offer both subs AND so-called f2p, don't bother with the subs. You loose because the item shops are no longer catering to the subber  but PUSHING pixels on EVERYONE to spend that REAL MONEY.  In the end, it is going to become more and more obvious how much a scam those so-called f2p games really are. In fact, I will bet you that it will at some point come out that the so-called f2p model actually LOOSES money rather then gains. Sure, player number may go up, quality will go down and no one will be happy in the end.

     

    Let's party like it is 1863!

  • rdrakkenrdrakken Gotham, FLPosts: 426Member
    Originally posted by CrunkJuice2

    "get with the times. Sub games are dieing, should have years ago..."

    sub games arent dieing

     GW2 = B2P and the biggest MMO coming out this year.

    Neverwinter, F2P and another major title coming.

    LoTRo, EQ2, AoC, DCUo, Champions Online, City of Heroes, RFo,Aika, Aion, Age of Empires, RO, Bloodlines, STO...

    Just some of the many P2Ps that have gone F2P in the last 15ish months...even Bioware is tossing around F2P ideas for SWTOR since so many fled the game like its the pox...then go and look at the "in development" list on this site and compare the NON Sub games being made compared to the F2P games...F2P outnumber the pay games 10 to 1 if not more.

    Sub games are dieing. Deal with it.

  • meddyckmeddyck Athens, GAPosts: 1,140Member Uncommon

    If it were B2P, I and many thousands of others would still be playing it. A monthly subscription forces you to decide whether a game is good enough or you having enough fun to let your subscription roll over for another month. After playing for 2 to 3 months of SWTOR after release, many of us decided negatively on that. The result is the recent massive server mergers, terrible publicity about declines in subs, and the inevitable path to rapid decline following in the footsteps of other recent AAA subscription MMOs (WAR, AOC, STO, etc. etc.). 

    Probably EA can continue to profit from SWTOR as a subscription game for a few more years (somehow WAR is still online so it clearly doesn't take much for a subscription MMO to be in the black if you don't spend much resources developing new content for it), but if they want it to be a major force in the industry as originally intended they need to move to B2P or F2P quickly.

    Camelot Unchained Backer
    DAOC [retired]: R11 Cleric R11 Druid R11 Minstrel R9 Eldritch R6 Sorc R6 Scout R5 Healer

  • najob75najob75 ZagrebPosts: 40Member
    Originally posted by ktanner3
    Originally posted by mbojan75

    I dont play it, never did, but im wondering...

    Wouldnt that be a better option for everybody?

     No, because many like me that are enjoying it don't touch cash shop games. I prefer a sub with all the options a game has to offer over a game that nickel and dimes me for every thing.The cheapskates will just have to deal with the fact that sub based games aren't going anywhere.

    No cash shop is mentioned there. B2P doesnt need to include cash shop. GW1 didnt have one for a long time, and even now, i think its just vanity junk (didnt play it for fer years now though...).

  • DihoruDihoru ConstantaPosts: 2,731Member

    A hybrid F2P model is the future, traditional P2P is going out the door but different versions of P2P could be possible one day depending on certain social and economical conditions.

     

    Gist of it is though: F2P can and usually is better than P2P because it brings in allot more people in the first months and if done right it will pay way more than P2P. End of discussion.

    image
  • Moaky07Moaky07 Flushing, MIPosts: 2,096Member
    Originally posted by najob75
    Originally posted by ktanner3
    Originally posted by mbojan75

    I dont play it, never did, but im wondering...

    Wouldnt that be a better option for everybody?

     No, because many like me that are enjoying it don't touch cash shop games. I prefer a sub with all the options a game has to offer over a game that nickel and dimes me for every thing.The cheapskates will just have to deal with the fact that sub based games aren't going anywhere.

    No cash shop is mentioned there. B2P doesnt need to include cash shop. GW1 didnt have one for a long time, and even now, i think its just vanity junk (didnt play it for fer years now though...).

    GW2 is definitely P2W in the cash shop. EVE is as well with their trading of PLEX.

     

    I would prefer not to deal with that shit. As a matter of fact I wont.

     

    I had no interest in playing another MMO. Would have much prefered  TOR to be SP. It wasnt made that way, and unless it gets down under 700 or 800k, it would seem silly to even entertain the F2P approach. Those arent WoW numbers, but they are "easily put your kids through college" numbers.

    Asking Devs to make AAA sandbox titles is like trying to get fine dining on a McDonalds dollar menu budget.

  • DestaiDestai Detroit, MIPosts: 574Member
    Originally posted by mbojan75

    I dont play it, never did, but im wondering...

    Wouldnt that be a better option for everybody?

    I am a firm believer that's how every MMO should be released. I believe that subscriptions are a barrier to entry for many people and the expectation of subscription numbers only hurts a games release. I don't see enough content to warrant a subscription and this game should have been marketed differently. Unfortunately, the damage is done and the profits are lost. 

  • GTwanderGTwander San Diego, CAPosts: 6,035Member
    Originally posted by JoeyMMO
    Originally posted by mbojan75

    I dont play it, never did, but im wondering...

    Wouldnt that be a better option for everybody?

     Not if they want to maximize revenue.

    ^ True.

    They need to let it stagnate just a lil' bit more before attempting to do that. 

    Writer / Musician / Game Designer

    Now Playing: Skyrim, Wurm Online, Tropico 4
    Waiting On: GW2, TSW, Archeage, The Rapture

  • itgrowlsitgrowls newport news, VAPosts: 2,951Member
    Originally posted by mbojan75

    I dont play it, never did, but im wondering...

    Wouldnt that be a better option for everybody?

    Absolutely! but unfortunately i don't see them going in that direction. I know they will make an engine that will cut off content needed to level characters. cut off bag space and talents and even put in money caps just to make some money initially with each new person. Then they will offer the subscription as an option to unlock everything that every player needs essentially to level a toon to max.

    It's the old lotro model minus the ability to earn points through gameplay. What will happen tho is there will be many many people who hate this model and won't play and won't be well received by the community.

     

    Now if they did a GW2 B2P model that would be awesome. they give you pleanty of everything to start off with so you could actually play to the end without a hiccup with the number of slots of everything they give you just for buying the game. (at least they will for me.)

  • Moaky07Moaky07 Flushing, MIPosts: 2,096Member
    Originally posted by itgrowls
    Originally posted by mbojan75

    I dont play it, never did, but im wondering...

    Wouldnt that be a better option for everybody?

    Absolutely! but unfortunately i don't see them going in that direction. I know they will make an engine that will cut off content needed to level characters. cut off bag space and talents and even put in money caps just to make some money initially with each new person. Then they will offer the subscription as an option to unlock everything that every player needs essentially to level a toon to max.

    It's the old lotro model minus the ability to earn points through gameplay. What will happen tho is there will be many many people who hate this model and won't play and won't be well received by the community.

     

    Now if they did a GW2 B2P model that would be awesome. they give you pleanty of everything to start off with so you could actually play to the end without a hiccup with the number of slots of everything they give you just for buying the game. (at least they will for me.)

    Cmon.....GW2 is already launching as P2W. I sure dont want gems being sold that can be converted to cash.

     

    Matter of fact I dont want any type of shop, and if we end up with one, I want RP/appearance items. Problem is I got the old school frame of mind that believes in game items need to be earned, and alas we are becoming a smaller voice in MMOs.

    Asking Devs to make AAA sandbox titles is like trying to get fine dining on a McDonalds dollar menu budget.

  • rdrakkenrdrakken Gotham, FLPosts: 426Member
    Originally posted by Moaky07

    Problem is I got the old school frame of mind that believes in game items need to be earned, and alas we are becoming a smaller voice in MMOs.

     Because earning money in real life to buy an item in a game so when you log in, you are logging in to have fun and not have a second job...is somehow "not earning" the item.

    Keep your EQ1, have to play the game like its a second job mentality...ill take a game based on fun = reward, not time = reward any day of the week.

  • JoeyMMOJoeyMMO SomewherePosts: 1,326Member
    Originally posted by gervaise1

    *snip*

    Years and years ago I saw a 12M sales number for GW1 and it has continued to sell. And then there have been xpacs.

    *snip*

     Where did you see that? I thought it was around 7M copies sold, including all the Xpacs.

    imageimage
  • MosesZDMosesZD Kirkwood, MOPosts: 1,383Member
    Originally posted by JoeyMMO
    Originally posted by mbojan75

    I dont play it, never did, but im wondering...

    Wouldnt that be a better option for everybody?

     Not if they want to maximize revenue. They thought the game would rival if not beat WoW in numbers. It didn't. Looking back B2P might have been worse. Lots of people paid subs, some for 2 months, some up to 6 all at once. It's not clear whether they would have made more money as a B2P.

    If the game had been split in 2, or even more, games, let's say a game for Empire and one for Republic and been B2P then it could have been more succesful and people wouldn't be so quick to shoot it down.

    Requiring a sub is turning into a risky proposition.

     

    B2P with cash shop would maximize their revenues.   That's NCSoft's business model and they're far more successful, and profitable, than EA or BioWare in this particular gaming niche.  

     

    Let's put it this way...   Last quarter NCSoft took in roughly (after currency conversions to USD) $119 million.  Of which 50% came from Lineage I and Lineage II cash shops.   Tha't s $59.5 million from cash shops.   You can down the financials and do the work from this link:  http://global.ncsoft.com/global/ir/earnings.aspx   (I'm not including revenues from non-game sources.   This is just from their games.)

     

    That's as much revenue as from 1.322 million subs.  

     

    EA/BioWare no longer have 1.3 million subs in this game.   Not at the rate of crash-burn-and-die this game has been going through.    So, they've been eclipsed by two games that are dinosaurs in the MMO world.   Lineage I was released in 1998, Lineage II in 2003.   Both games went F2P in 2008 with sub numbers under 1 million each and were in a clear. albeit slow, death spiral due to being so long in the teeth plus so much new competition.

     

    So NCSoft bailed on subs and, consequently, the games bring in (as a pair) as much revenue as SWTOR brought in at it's peak.   Cash-shops and B2P work and work well.   And, strangly, it's the solution to maximizing revenue.   Not the sub method.

     

    I'm curious to how  Aion will do in this method.   It's still early in the conversion so I'll have to wait six months to a year to really figure it out.   But I suspect it will do well.

     

    And if you don't like NCSoft...   Turbine is more profitable than ever with it's hybrid B2P/Sub/CS model.   I think they take in two to three times more money with this model than they did with 'sub only.'

     

    Honestly, if you like this game.  You should get down on your knees and pray for a Turbine-like solution.    It's the only way EA will loosen up the purse-strings to give this game the extra development it needs to be a long-term game.   As it is now, you do a story on each side and you're back to 80% of the same crap the next play through.   And that's just dull.

     

     

     

     

  • niceguy3978niceguy3978 Gainesville, FLPosts: 2,000Member
    Originally posted by najob75
    Originally posted by ktanner3
    Originally posted by mbojan75

    I dont play it, never did, but im wondering...

    Wouldnt that be a better option for everybody?

     No, because many like me that are enjoying it don't touch cash shop games. I prefer a sub with all the options a game has to offer over a game that nickel and dimes me for every thing.The cheapskates will just have to deal with the fact that sub based games aren't going anywhere.

    No cash shop is mentioned there. B2P doesnt need to include cash shop. GW1 didnt have one for a long time, and even now, i think its just vanity junk (didnt play it for fer years now though...).

    If there's no cash shop then revenue dries up.  There's a reason GW1 switched to a cash shop, there revenues dried up.  There is a chart out there somewhere published for one of NCSOFT's financial quarters that showed how much revenue each online game was making, and Gw1 never did as well as their p2p games like lineage and lineage 2 (or at the time it was published City of Heroes/Villans).  And that game sold almost seven million copies across the 3 campaigns and xpac.  

  • Loke666Loke666 MalmöPosts: 17,975Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by mbojan75

    I dont play it, never did, but im wondering...

    Wouldnt that be a better option for everybody?

    It would have been when they released the game, yes. Now most potential players already own the box so the income from box sales would be small.

    I think they instead will go for the "freemium" model that LOTRO and EQ2 is using, the one where you still can pay monthly fees. That model is usually more expensive for the players that want full access than any other mo9del including the Korean F2p version.

    A game either releases asB2por will never use the model. 

  • AldersAlders Jack Burton'sPosts: 1,857Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Moaky07
    Originally posted by najob75
    Originally posted by ktanner3
    Originally posted by mbojan75

    I dont play it, never did, but im wondering...

    Wouldnt that be a better option for everybody?

     No, because many like me that are enjoying it don't touch cash shop games. I prefer a sub with all the options a game has to offer over a game that nickel and dimes me for every thing.The cheapskates will just have to deal with the fact that sub based games aren't going anywhere.

    No cash shop is mentioned there. B2P doesnt need to include cash shop. GW1 didnt have one for a long time, and even now, i think its just vanity junk (didnt play it for fer years now though...).

    GW2 is definitely P2W in the cash shop.

     

    Knock off this shit, it's getting old.  Almost as old as your crusade against sandbox.

    To answer the OP's question, yes it should have launched as B2P.  That still wouldn't have fixed the fact that the game was mismanaged and built on outdated mechanics, but players would have been more willing to stick with it.  Hell, i know I'd still hop on a few times a week if not for the sub.  I'm willing to support a game by purchasing cosmetic fluff if i see progress, but i am not willing to fork over another $15 in hopes of a miracle patch.

  • MosesZDMosesZD Kirkwood, MOPosts: 1,383Member
    Originally posted by itgrowls
    Originally posted by mbojan75

    I dont play it, never did, but im wondering...

    Wouldnt that be a better option for everybody?

    Absolutely! but unfortunately i don't see them going in that direction. I know they will make an engine that will cut off content needed to level characters. cut off bag space and talents and even put in money caps just to make some money initially with each new person. Then they will offer the subscription as an option to unlock everything that every player needs essentially to level a toon to max.

    It's the old lotro model minus the ability to earn points through gameplay. What will happen tho is there will be many many people who hate this model and won't play and won't be well received by the community.

     

    Now if they did a GW2 B2P model that would be awesome. they give you pleanty of everything to start off with so you could actually play to the end without a hiccup with the number of slots of everything they give you just for buying the game. (at least they will for me.)

     

    GW1 was the same way.   I had all the expansions.   i bought some extra inventory slots (which are less of a need in GW2 because of the way weapons work now plus extra tabs for collectibles, you don't need to store dyes, etc).  

     

    I've played some other cash-shop games  including STO/LOTRO/DDO/EQ2 that you can sub too.   I've played them both ways.   Each is viable and you never really feel compelled.   Which allows me, because I don't feel forced, to buy more than when I feel 'forced' to buy to play beyond a highly rudimentary/semi-disabled way.   Though of the four, EQ2's cash shop/F2P model bothered me the most.   So I quit when I could see they were going more 'Perfect World' with their cash-shop/F2P model. 

  • MosesZDMosesZD Kirkwood, MOPosts: 1,383Member
    Originally posted by Alders
    Originally posted by Moaky07
    Originally posted by najob75
    Originally posted by ktanner3
    Originally posted by mbojan75

    I dont play it, never did, but im wondering...

    Wouldnt that be a better option for everybody?

     No, because many like me that are enjoying it don't touch cash shop games. I prefer a sub with all the options a game has to offer over a game that nickel and dimes me for every thing.The cheapskates will just have to deal with the fact that sub based games aren't going anywhere.

    No cash shop is mentioned there. B2P doesnt need to include cash shop. GW1 didnt have one for a long time, and even now, i think its just vanity junk (didnt play it for fer years now though...).

    GW2 is definitely P2W in the cash shop.

     

    Knock off this shit, it's getting old.  Almost as old as your crusade against sandbox.

    To answer the OP's question, yes it should have launched as B2P.  That still wouldn't have fixed the fact that the game was mismanaged and built on outdated mechanics, but players would have been more willing to stick with it.  Hell, i know I'd still hop on a few times a week if not for the sub.  I'm willing to support a game by purchasing cosmetic fluff if i see progress, but i am not willing to fork over another $15 in hopes of a miracle patch.

     

    That's where I am.   I'm waiting until July then I'll sub for a month and move my characters off Kathol Rift and play for a while until the tedium gets to me again.

     

    I hate the game, but these are my characters and I poured a lot of work into them.  I'm not willing to just let them be deleted.

     

     

  • Ice-QueenIce-Queen USA, GAPosts: 2,451Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Moaky07

    GW2 is definitely P2W in the cash shop. EVE is as well with their trading of PLEX.

     

    I would prefer not to deal with that shit. As a matter of fact I wont.

     

    I had no interest in playing another MMO. Would have much prefered  TOR to be SP. It wasnt made that way, and unless it gets down under 700 or 800k, it would seem silly to even entertain the F2P approach. Those arent WoW numbers, but they are "easily put your kids through college" numbers.

    Have you played GW2?I'm guessing not since you seem to be on the hate train for GW2 without even trying it. Have you seen the item shop? Tell me one thing that you must HAVE in the shop to be able to play the game and compete. Nothing in the shop is absolutely necessary to play the game and anything in the shop you can buy with your ingame gold by trading gold for  gems. If you don't ever want to buy with real money you don't have to, but you can.

    image

    What happens when you log off your characters????.....
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFQhfhnjYMk
    Dark Age of Camelot

«1
Sign In or Register to comment.