It's no doubt that of recent years we've dealt with F2P models and people wanting F2P models. Money seems to be a chief motivating factor in this. People don't want to spend money on a game and then sub for it. They would rather buy a game and rely on the next guy that can afford it, spend the money in cash shops to continue funding a game.
Many don't have a lot of extra money to spend right now. Could this be a motivating factor to why so many people want to play TSW, but don't want to pay the sub? They hope it goes F2P, so they'll get a chance to play themselves? Or is this really about GW2?
The "difficult economic conditions" may be a factor as to why 10% of people want the F2P model, but 90% of those that want it simply don't want to pay a single penny to play a MMO.
Most people insisting on the F2P model get more satisfaction from a pint and a pizza than they get from playing a sub-based MMO for a month. Must be, because they'd rather spend the MMO sub on something else, given the chance. And besides, why pay for something if you can get it for free ?
I honestly can't remember what the sub fees for AAA MMO's were 9-10 years ago (EQ, SWG, AO), but I'm willing to bet it was pretty much the same as it is now. No company has dared to raise sub fees beyond the "industry standard", because that would cause a massive backlash. But costs have risen steadily over the last decade, so naturally some way had to be found to increase revenue. Hence the pervasive DLC and Cash Shop phenomenon. We gamers brought it upon ourselves.
If I remember correctly, the original sub fees were around $10. They went up to $15 around the time WoW was released, although I don't remember if WoW was the first to raise them to $15 or another game.
Actually, bandwith and server hardware have become significantly cheaper, to a point where $15 per month per customer is a ripoff. Most companies don't even list server and bandwith costs on their financial reports anymore because the cost percentage is incredibly tiny.
Bandwidth and hardware costs have never been a significant cost factor for MMO's. The largest cost component is salaries for staff. The development time for a AAA MMO is usually 3-5 years, during which time several hundred people have to be paid every month. And a fair number have to still be paid after launch as well, because there needs to be ongoing support, CS and further development.
I certainly doubt that any investor would loan a MMO developer $10M-$20M annually for 3-5 years without charging interest on the loan. That interest is most likely not at prime, given the high risk involved in funding MMO's.
Perhaps nobody in the MMO industry has received any salary increases since 2004 ? That may explain why everyone is complaining about the quality of current MMO's...
Lastly, investors in any company expect increasing annual dividends, otherwise they take their money elsewhere so that they can earn better returns. Any company that earned $50M in 2004 and is STILL earning 50M in 2012 is a dead duck, because in real terms they are not even keeping pace with inflation.
It's no doubt that of recent years we've dealt with F2P models and people wanting F2P models. Money seems to be a chief motivating factor in this. People don't want to spend money on a game and then sub for it. They would rather buy a game and rely on the next guy that can afford it, spend the money in cash shops to continue funding a game.
Many don't have a lot of extra money to spend right now. Could this be a motivating factor to why so many people want to play TSW, but don't want to pay the sub? They hope it goes F2P, so they'll get a chance to play themselves? Or is this really about GW2?
The "difficult economic conditions" may be a factor as to why 10% of people want the F2P model, but 90% of those that want it simply don't want to pay a single penny to play a MMO.
Most people insisting on the F2P model get more satisfaction from a pint and a pizza than they get from playing a sub-based MMO for a month. Must be, because they'd rather spend the MMO sub on something else, given the chance. And besides, why pay for something if you can get it for free ?
I honestly can't remember what the sub fees for AAA MMO's were 9-10 years ago (EQ, SWG, AO), but I'm willing to bet it was pretty much the same as it is now. No company has dared to raise sub fees beyond the "industry standard", because that would cause a massive backlash. But costs have risen steadily over the last decade, so naturally some way had to be found to increase revenue. Hence the pervasive DLC and Cash Shop phenomenon. We gamers brought it upon ourselves.
If I remember correctly, the original sub fees were around $10. They went up to $15 around the time WoW was released, although I don't remember if WoW was the first to raise them to $15 or another game.
Actually, bandwith and server hardware have become significantly cheaper, to a point where $15 per month per customer is a ripoff. Most companies don't even list server and bandwith costs on their financial reports anymore because the cost percentage is incredibly tiny.
Bandwidth and hardware costs have never been a significant cost factor for MMO's. The largest cost component is salaries for staff. The development time for a AAA MMO is usually 3-5 years, during which time several hundred people have to be paid every month. And a fair number have to still be paid after launch as well, because there needs to be ongoing support, CS and further development.
I certainly doubt that any investor would loan a MMO developer $10M-$20M annually for 3-5 years without charging interest on the loan. That interest is most likely not at prime, given the high risk involved in funding MMO's.
Perhaps nobody in the MMO industry has received any salary increases since 2004 ? That may explain why everyone is complaining about the quality of current MMO's...
Lastly, investors in any company expect increasing annual dividends, otherwise they take their money elsewhere so that they can earn better returns. Any company that earned $50M in 2004 and is STILL earning 50M in 2012 is a dead duck, because in real terms they are not even keeping pace with inflation.
Yet somehow ArenaNet has managed it with GW1 and soon GW2.
Whether you prefer one or the other it doesn't matter, the crowd that are on the fence about trying TSW will find it hard to overlook this discrepency ( monthly sub) in light of the quality and extent of gameplay available in GW2 - a game releasing side by side.
And having said this I don't think many people if any believe TSW is a better game than GW2. ( imo gw2 is game of the year )
( swtor doesn't deserve a sub but thats a diff story )
I myself am loving GW2, and although TSW is refreshingly different and thats very good, Its not my cup of tea.
Whether you prefer one or the other it doesn't matter, the crowd that are on the fence about trying TSW will find it hard to overlook this discrepency ( monthly sub) in light of the quality and extent of gameplay available in GW2 - a game releasing side by side.
And having said this I don't think many people if any believe TSW is a better game than GW2. ( imo gw2 is game of the year )
( swtor doesn't deserve a sub but thats a diff story )
I myself am loving GW2, and although TSW is refreshingly different and thats very good, Its not my cup of tea.
You are assumign all of us play only one MMO at a time. I have pre orderd both GW2 and TSW and i will play both. I make decent amount of money and i can afford to keep a sub going while play GW2 casualy when i have time.
I have never ever in my life played one MMO for more than 2 months regularly, no matter how amazing it is.
Also who cares if TSW is better or GW2 is better? both are completely different games, made keeping two very different player base in mind.
Originally posted by SpottyGekko Originally posted by heartless Originally posted by SpottyGekko Originally posted by jdnyc It's no doubt that of recent years we've dealt with F2P models and people wanting F2P models. Money seems to be a chief motivating factor in this. People don't want to spend money on a game and then sub for it. They would rather buy a game and rely on the next guy that can afford it, spend the money in cash shops to continue funding a game.Many don't have a lot of extra money to spend right now. Could this be a motivating factor to why so many people want to play TSW, but don't want to pay the sub? They hope it goes F2P, so they'll get a chance to play themselves? Or is this really about GW2?
The "difficult economic conditions" may be a factor as to why 10% of people want the F2P model, but 90% of those that want it simply don't want to pay a single penny to play a MMO.
Most people insisting on the F2P model get more satisfaction from a pint and a pizza than they get from playing a sub-based MMO for a month. Must be, because they'd rather spend the MMO sub on something else, given the chance. And besides, why pay for something if you can get it for free ?
I honestly can't remember what the sub fees for AAA MMO's were 9-10 years ago (EQ, SWG, AO), but I'm willing to bet it was pretty much the same as it is now. No company has dared to raise sub fees beyond the "industry standard", because that would cause a massive backlash. But costs have risen steadily over the last decade, so naturally some way had to be found to increase revenue. Hence the pervasive DLC and Cash Shop phenomenon. We gamers brought it upon ourselves.
If I remember correctly, the original sub fees were around $10. They went up to $15 around the time WoW was released, although I don't remember if WoW was the first to raise them to $15 or another game.
Actually, bandwith and server hardware have become significantly cheaper, to a point where $15 per month per customer is a ripoff. Most companies don't even list server and bandwith costs on their financial reports anymore because the cost percentage is incredibly tiny.
Bandwidth and hardware costs have never been a significant cost factor for MMO's. The largest cost component is salaries for staff. The development time for a AAA MMO is usually 3-5 years, during which time several hundred people have to be paid every month. And a fair number have to still be paid after launch as well, because there needs to be ongoing support, CS and further development.
I certainly doubt that any investor would loan a MMO developer $10M-$20M annually for 3-5 years without charging interest on the loan. That interest is most likely not at prime, given the high risk involved in funding MMO's.
Perhaps nobody in the MMO industry has received any salary increases since 2004 ? That may explain why everyone is complaining about the quality of current MMO's...
Lastly, investors in any company expect increasing annual dividends, otherwise they take their money elsewhere so that they can earn better returns. Any company that earned $50M in 2004 and is STILL earning 50M in 2012 is a dead duck, because in real terms they are not even keeping pace with inflation.
Yet somehow ArenaNet has managed it with GW1 and soon GW2.
Well, they financed things with the cash shop and expansions, after GW went basically into maintenance mode, the steady trickle of cash shop revenues and game sales (esp when it became clear that GW would be tied to GW2, there were additional sales) was enough to cover the costs. If you don't have to devote significant manpower and resources to follow up expansions, but only to have to keep things running and the occasional update, costs will be pretty low.
It's no doubt that of recent years we've dealt with F2P models and people wanting F2P models. Money seems to be a chief motivating factor in this. People don't want to spend money on a game and then sub for it. They would rather buy a game and rely on the next guy that can afford it, spend the money in cash shops to continue funding a game.
Many don't have a lot of extra money to spend right now. Could this be a motivating factor to why so many people want to play TSW, but don't want to pay the sub? They hope it goes F2P, so they'll get a chance to play themselves? Or is this really about GW2?
The "difficult economic conditions" may be a factor as to why 10% of people want the F2P model, but 90% of those that want it simply don't want to pay a single penny to play a MMO.
Most people insisting on the F2P model get more satisfaction from a pint and a pizza than they get from playing a sub-based MMO for a month. Must be, because they'd rather spend the MMO sub on something else, given the chance. And besides, why pay for something if you can get it for free ?
I honestly can't remember what the sub fees for AAA MMO's were 9-10 years ago (EQ, SWG, AO), but I'm willing to bet it was pretty much the same as it is now. No company has dared to raise sub fees beyond the "industry standard", because that would cause a massive backlash. But costs have risen steadily over the last decade, so naturally some way had to be found to increase revenue. Hence the pervasive DLC and Cash Shop phenomenon. We gamers brought it upon ourselves.
If I remember correctly, the original sub fees were around $10. They went up to $15 around the time WoW was released, although I don't remember if WoW was the first to raise them to $15 or another game.
Actually, bandwith and server hardware have become significantly cheaper, to a point where $15 per month per customer is a ripoff. Most companies don't even list server and bandwith costs on their financial reports anymore because the cost percentage is incredibly tiny.
Bandwidth and hardware costs have never been a significant cost factor for MMO's. The largest cost component is salaries for staff. The development time for a AAA MMO is usually 3-5 years, during which time several hundred people have to be paid every month. And a fair number have to still be paid after launch as well, because there needs to be ongoing support, CS and further development.
I certainly doubt that any investor would loan a MMO developer $10M-$20M annually for 3-5 years without charging interest on the loan. That interest is most likely not at prime, given the high risk involved in funding MMO's.
Perhaps nobody in the MMO industry has received any salary increases since 2004 ? That may explain why everyone is complaining about the quality of current MMO's...
Lastly, investors in any company expect increasing annual dividends, otherwise they take their money elsewhere so that they can earn better returns. Any company that earned $50M in 2004 and is STILL earning 50M in 2012 is a dead duck, because in real terms they are not even keeping pace with inflation.
Yet somehow ArenaNet has managed it with GW1 and soon GW2.
If you honestly believe that ANet are planning on making the same profit that they made in 2005 with GW1 then there is no further discussion neccessary.
the cash shop has been said to only be cosmetic so wtf do people complain about it in a sub game if all your doing is buying shit to make u look different? you dont have to buy anything from it so who cares?
It's no doubt that of recent years we've dealt with F2P models and people wanting F2P models. Money seems to be a chief motivating factor in this. People don't want to spend money on a game and then sub for it. They would rather buy a game and rely on the next guy that can afford it, spend the money in cash shops to continue funding a game.
Many don't have a lot of extra money to spend right now. Could this be a motivating factor to why so many people want to play TSW, but don't want to pay the sub? They hope it goes F2P, so they'll get a chance to play themselves? Or is this really about GW2?
The "difficult economic conditions" may be a factor as to why 10% of people want the F2P model, but 90% of those that want it simply don't want to pay a single penny to play a MMO.
Most people insisting on the F2P model get more satisfaction from a pint and a pizza than they get from playing a sub-based MMO for a month. Must be, because they'd rather spend the MMO sub on something else, given the chance. And besides, why pay for something if you can get it for free ?
I honestly can't remember what the sub fees for AAA MMO's were 9-10 years ago (EQ, SWG, AO), but I'm willing to bet it was pretty much the same as it is now. No company has dared to raise sub fees beyond the "industry standard", because that would cause a massive backlash. But costs have risen steadily over the last decade, so naturally some way had to be found to increase revenue. Hence the pervasive DLC and Cash Shop phenomenon. We gamers brought it upon ourselves.
If I remember correctly, the original sub fees were around $10. They went up to $15 around the time WoW was released, although I don't remember if WoW was the first to raise them to $15 or another game.
Actually, bandwith and server hardware have become significantly cheaper, to a point where $15 per month per customer is a ripoff. Most companies don't even list server and bandwith costs on their financial reports anymore because the cost percentage is incredibly tiny.
Bandwidth and hardware costs have never been a significant cost factor for MMO's. The largest cost component is salaries for staff. The development time for a AAA MMO is usually 3-5 years, during which time several hundred people have to be paid every month. And a fair number have to still be paid after launch as well, because there needs to be ongoing support, CS and further development.
I certainly doubt that any investor would loan a MMO developer $10M-$20M annually for 3-5 years without charging interest on the loan. That interest is most likely not at prime, given the high risk involved in funding MMO's.
Perhaps nobody in the MMO industry has received any salary increases since 2004 ? That may explain why everyone is complaining about the quality of current MMO's...
Lastly, investors in any company expect increasing annual dividends, otherwise they take their money elsewhere so that they can earn better returns. Any company that earned $50M in 2004 and is STILL earning 50M in 2012 is a dead duck, because in real terms they are not even keeping pace with inflation.
Yet somehow ArenaNet has managed it with GW1 and soon GW2.
Well, they financed things with the cash shop and expansions, after GW went basically into maintenance mode, the steady trickle of cash shop revenues and game sales (esp when it became clear that GW would be tied to GW2, there were additional sales) was enough to cover the costs. If you don't have to devote significant manpower and resources to follow up expansions, but only to have to keep things running and the occasional update, costs will be pretty low.
GW did not launch with a cash shop. The cash shop came some time after the Factions campaign launched. In other words, ANet has managed to not only maintain the game without the cash shop but also managed to fund the development of the free Surrow's Furnance update but the Factions campaign as well.
As far as expansions go, games that charge subscription fees usually charge for expansions also.
I honestly can't remember what the sub fees for AAA MMO's were 9-10 years ago (EQ, SWG, AO), but I'm willing to bet it was pretty much the same as it is now. No company has dared to raise sub fees beyond the "industry standard", because that would cause a massive backlash. But costs have risen steadily over the last decade, so naturally some way had to be found to increase revenue. Hence the pervasive DLC and Cash Shop phenomenon. We gamers brought it upon ourselves.
Sorry but your assumptions are dead wrong.
Price of bandwidth: Gone down considerably during the last 10 years.
Cost of running servers (HW/housing/$ pr. cycle etc.): Dropped to a fraction of what it was 10 years ago.
The amount of decent programmers have increased: Guess what = Lower cost/pay...
Dev tools have improved a lot = Lower costs.
It may sound unbelievable but advertising and the greed amongst the suits are the only two things that have really increased during that period.
We dont need casuals in our games!!! Errm... Well we DO need casuals to fund and populate our games - But the games should be all about "hardcore" because: We dont need casuals in our games!!! (repeat ad infinitum)
i had made a pre order on TSW, and i didnt know that it would have a cash shop with a sub.
i dont mind paying a sub for a game, but a sub with cash shop is mostly like pay to win and mostly unfair in many segments. i really liked TSW because how it was made and it looked a bit fresh with it story and its theme, but with a cash shop no thanks, i cancelled my pre order.
It's no doubt that of recent years we've dealt with F2P models and people wanting F2P models. Money seems to be a chief motivating factor in this. People don't want to spend money on a game and then sub for it. They would rather buy a game and rely on the next guy that can afford it, spend the money in cash shops to continue funding a game.
Many don't have a lot of extra money to spend right now. Could this be a motivating factor to why so many people want to play TSW, but don't want to pay the sub? They hope it goes F2P, so they'll get a chance to play themselves? Or is this really about GW2?
The "difficult economic conditions" may be a factor as to why 10% of people want the F2P model, but 90% of those that want it simply don't want to pay a single penny to play a MMO.
Most people insisting on the F2P model get more satisfaction from a pint and a pizza than they get from playing a sub-based MMO for a month. Must be, because they'd rather spend the MMO sub on something else, given the chance. And besides, why pay for something if you can get it for free ?
I honestly can't remember what the sub fees for AAA MMO's were 9-10 years ago (EQ, SWG, AO), but I'm willing to bet it was pretty much the same as it is now. No company has dared to raise sub fees beyond the "industry standard", because that would cause a massive backlash. But costs have risen steadily over the last decade, so naturally some way had to be found to increase revenue. Hence the pervasive DLC and Cash Shop phenomenon. We gamers brought it upon ourselves.
If I remember correctly, the original sub fees were around $10. They went up to $15 around the time WoW was released, although I don't remember if WoW was the first to raise them to $15 or another game.
Actually, bandwith and server hardware have become significantly cheaper, to a point where $15 per month per customer is a ripoff. Most companies don't even list server and bandwith costs on their financial reports anymore because the cost percentage is incredibly tiny.
Bandwidth and hardware costs have never been a significant cost factor for MMO's. The largest cost component is salaries for staff. The development time for a AAA MMO is usually 3-5 years, during which time several hundred people have to be paid every month. And a fair number have to still be paid after launch as well, because there needs to be ongoing support, CS and further development.
I certainly doubt that any investor would loan a MMO developer $10M-$20M annually for 3-5 years without charging interest on the loan. That interest is most likely not at prime, given the high risk involved in funding MMO's.
Perhaps nobody in the MMO industry has received any salary increases since 2004 ? That may explain why everyone is complaining about the quality of current MMO's...
Lastly, investors in any company expect increasing annual dividends, otherwise they take their money elsewhere so that they can earn better returns. Any company that earned $50M in 2004 and is STILL earning 50M in 2012 is a dead duck, because in real terms they are not even keeping pace with inflation.
Yet somehow ArenaNet has managed it with GW1 and soon GW2.
If you honestly believe that ANet are planning on making the same profit that they made in 2005 with GW1 then there is no further discussion neccessary.
Still that's not what is more important for me personally (even though crisis has hit my income as well).
What's bad in TSW is not sub. It is sub AND cash shop. Sorry, but not acceptable for me.
Yes I know WoW also has it. I don't care.
=====================
More general.
I am person who does not play mmorpg's constantly - I do have breaks between them. Now I have longest one in few years.
For me P2P is best thing for me.
Well box fee + expansion & DLC's would be better - but there is no game like that. GW1 was not mmorpg and GW2 does have sizeable cash shop made vith very diffrent philosophy than GW1 shop. . I will still try GW2, to check this model out - but that's not what I would like. Real thing would be just box fee + expansions / DLC's and NO CASH SHOP at all.
------------------------
Since that is not possible - after all companies do more and more mmos / online games to have ON-GOING payment systems via Cash Shops (or RMAH like in D3).
If they would want to sell only box + expansions or DLC's then they would do single player or non-mmo multiplayer game and not bother with higher costs & development time of an mmo.
Still since I don't hop between mmorpg's and I carefully choose what to play and want to play long-term realistically pure P2P is best for me.
Sub option in freemium games is not the same, not even close.
Sub + CS business model is like in freemium games. Just worse.
Anyway most of modern mmorpg's are not worth a sub.
Cause they are so awful?
No.
Cause they don't feel like mmorpg in first place.
Give me unique experience - an virtual world, separate 'microcosmos', separate economy, society, etc and I will pay a sub.
Give me single player heavy story based adventure game or / and co-op in instances - and I will say FU.
I budget 50 bucks a month for video games. Its one of my only hobbies and its dirt cheap next to other activities.
I sit on a man's back, choking him and making him carry me, and yet assure myself and others that I am very sorry for him and wish to ease his lot by all possible means - except by getting off his back.
Funcom knows that cash shop+subscrition works, They tried with Anarchy Online and it worked fine. WHo didn't wanted to run around with a Hoverboard?????
Wasn't AO the first p2p to have a f2p model? and then a Cash shop? FC knows how player mind works, we will all buy our vanity items and they will profit..unfair? Yah! But players wil still buy vanity items.
1. No, it didnt "work fine" with AO, they made very little money off it.
2. No, AO was not the first P2P to have a F2P model, or a cash shop.
3. No, FC does not know how the player mind works, AO was never a subscription success and AoC didnt make a profit for years and right after it did they had a massive player exodus because they were not listening to player complaints and even after going F2P they implimented such a massive fail shop that of the over 600,000 people that created fee accounts, the servers are still low population because only a fool would pay $75 for the content of the last xpac that was originally sold in stores for less than $40.
They are not called Failcom by players without a reason...nor are their two MMOs listed on every major gaming sites list of worst releases in MMO history without reason.
How will gw2 pay mods / csrs. They are going to need more of them than with gw1 as that was a cooprpg really. Sure you have initial box sales, but 6 months down the line, 1 year? You May not pay a sub with gw2 but they will need to get money from players somehow.
The expectation is that GW2 will keep releasing "mini-expansions" every few months which will force players to pay money - thus leading to a stealth subscription fee of sorts. Whether that's true or not remains to be seen.
Its funny how they ephasize that cash shop will have only cosmetics. In a game with no levels and no visible armor, cosmetics will play biggest role..
So how exactly this white T-shirt they are selling in CS will give me an advantage? Or that pair or trousers? Are you just trolling here or you actually do not know what are you taliking about?
I'll not going to pay another sub in my life. P2P means the game has to have "huge content" to keep players playing for months. "Huge content" can't be created by hand, so it's mostly trash mobs in different variations. Gameplay turns into chore, where you are artificially slowed down with boring useless tasks (mostly involving moping up trash mobs) between actually interesting parts. And I can't cope with it; I'm here to enjoy game, not to work as a janitor while paying a sub for the privilege. So thank you, but no more games with subs for me.
1. No, it didnt "work fine" with AO, they made very little money off it.
2. No, AO was not the first P2P to have a F2P model, or a cash shop.
3. No, FC does not know how the player mind works, AO was never a subscription success and AoC didnt make a profit for years and right after it did they had a massive player exodus because they were not listening to player complaints and even after going F2P they implimented such a massive fail shop that of the over 600,000 people that created fee accounts, the servers are still low population because only a fool would pay $75 for the content of the last xpac that was originally sold in stores for less than $40.
They are not called Failcom by players without a reason...nor are their two MMOs listed on every major gaming sites list of worst releases in MMO history without reason.
It sounds like you have a personal vendetta against Funcom. I think it has skewed your point of view.
If things were as dismal as you suggest, Funcom would no longer be in business. Obviously they know how to do something right and have made some money along the way.
Originally posted by ShakyMo How will gw2 pay mods / csrs. They are going to need more of them than with gw1 as that was a cooprpg really. Sure you have initial box sales, but 6 months down the line, 1 year? You May not pay a sub with gw2 but they will need to get money from players somehow.
Funcom knows that cash shop+subscrition works, They tried with Anarchy Online and it worked fine. WHo didn't wanted to run around with a Hoverboard?????
Wasn't AO the first p2p to have a f2p model? and then a Cash shop? FC knows how player mind works, we will all buy our vanity items and they will profit..unfair? Yah! But players wil still buy vanity items.
1. No, it didnt "work fine" with AO, they made very little money off it.
2. No, AO was not the first P2P to have a F2P model, or a cash shop.
3. No, FC does not know how the player mind works, AO was never a subscription success and AoC didnt make a profit for years and right after it did they had a massive player exodus because they were not listening to player complaints and even after going F2P they implimented such a massive fail shop that of the over 600,000 people that created fee accounts, the servers are still low population because only a fool would pay $75 for the content of the last xpac that was originally sold in stores for less than $40.
They are not called Failcom by players without a reason...nor are their two MMOs listed on every major gaming sites list of worst releases in MMO history without reason.
its failcom enough said ive seen them kill off AO with cash shop and high subs and new engine promiss for the last 6 years . ill wait till this game is f2p it will will lose it appeal very soon
and if it dose do well then hats off to failcom 1 out of 3 not bad might even pick it up
Always hated F2P. I'd rather pay sub than face disbalance in PVP (which is the main reason for mmo for me) . And since there's not much reason to buy items for PVE game - PVP is the main thing affected.
It is possible to make F2P work without hurting balance though, like faster leveling, but then it won't be as appealing to "donators". In the end those without skill want to "own"
Always hated F2P. I'd rather pay sub than face disbalance in PVP (which is the main reason for mmo for me) . And since there's not much reason to buy items for PVE game - PVP is the main thing affected.
It is possible to make F2P work without hurting balance though, like faster leveling, but then it won't be as appealing to "donators". In the end those without skill want to "own"
I'm sorry, I just don't see the correlation. What does F2P have to do w/ balanced PvP exactly? There are pleanty of F2P games that have decent balance, just as there are pleanty of sub games that have horrible balance. I'm not sure I follow your reasoning.
Comments
Bandwidth and hardware costs have never been a significant cost factor for MMO's. The largest cost component is salaries for staff. The development time for a AAA MMO is usually 3-5 years, during which time several hundred people have to be paid every month. And a fair number have to still be paid after launch as well, because there needs to be ongoing support, CS and further development.
I certainly doubt that any investor would loan a MMO developer $10M-$20M annually for 3-5 years without charging interest on the loan. That interest is most likely not at prime, given the high risk involved in funding MMO's.
Perhaps nobody in the MMO industry has received any salary increases since 2004 ? That may explain why everyone is complaining about the quality of current MMO's...
Lastly, investors in any company expect increasing annual dividends, otherwise they take their money elsewhere so that they can earn better returns. Any company that earned $50M in 2004 and is STILL earning 50M in 2012 is a dead duck, because in real terms they are not even keeping pace with inflation.
Yet somehow ArenaNet has managed it with GW1 and soon GW2.
Whether you prefer one or the other it doesn't matter, the crowd that are on the fence about trying TSW will find it hard to overlook this discrepency ( monthly sub) in light of the quality and extent of gameplay available in GW2 - a game releasing side by side.
And having said this I don't think many people if any believe TSW is a better game than GW2. ( imo gw2 is game of the year )
( swtor doesn't deserve a sub but thats a diff story )
I myself am loving GW2, and although TSW is refreshingly different and thats very good, Its not my cup of tea.
You are assumign all of us play only one MMO at a time. I have pre orderd both GW2 and TSW and i will play both. I make decent amount of money and i can afford to keep a sub going while play GW2 casualy when i have time.
I have never ever in my life played one MMO for more than 2 months regularly, no matter how amazing it is.
Also who cares if TSW is better or GW2 is better? both are completely different games, made keeping two very different player base in mind.
Its funny how they ephasize that cash shop will have only cosmetics. In a game with no levels and no visible armor, cosmetics will play biggest role..
The "difficult economic conditions" may be a factor as to why 10% of people want the F2P model, but 90% of those that want it simply don't want to pay a single penny to play a MMO.
Most people insisting on the F2P model get more satisfaction from a pint and a pizza than they get from playing a sub-based MMO for a month. Must be, because they'd rather spend the MMO sub on something else, given the chance. And besides, why pay for something if you can get it for free ?
I honestly can't remember what the sub fees for AAA MMO's were 9-10 years ago (EQ, SWG, AO), but I'm willing to bet it was pretty much the same as it is now. No company has dared to raise sub fees beyond the "industry standard", because that would cause a massive backlash. But costs have risen steadily over the last decade, so naturally some way had to be found to increase revenue. Hence the pervasive DLC and Cash Shop phenomenon. We gamers brought it upon ourselves.
If I remember correctly, the original sub fees were around $10. They went up to $15 around the time WoW was released, although I don't remember if WoW was the first to raise them to $15 or another game.
Actually, bandwith and server hardware have become significantly cheaper, to a point where $15 per month per customer is a ripoff. Most companies don't even list server and bandwith costs on their financial reports anymore because the cost percentage is incredibly tiny.
Bandwidth and hardware costs have never been a significant cost factor for MMO's. The largest cost component is salaries for staff. The development time for a AAA MMO is usually 3-5 years, during which time several hundred people have to be paid every month. And a fair number have to still be paid after launch as well, because there needs to be ongoing support, CS and further development.
I certainly doubt that any investor would loan a MMO developer $10M-$20M annually for 3-5 years without charging interest on the loan. That interest is most likely not at prime, given the high risk involved in funding MMO's.
Perhaps nobody in the MMO industry has received any salary increases since 2004 ? That may explain why everyone is complaining about the quality of current MMO's...
Lastly, investors in any company expect increasing annual dividends, otherwise they take their money elsewhere so that they can earn better returns. Any company that earned $50M in 2004 and is STILL earning 50M in 2012 is a dead duck, because in real terms they are not even keeping pace with inflation.
Yet somehow ArenaNet has managed it with GW1 and soon GW2.
Well, they financed things with the cash shop and expansions, after GW went basically into maintenance mode, the steady trickle of cash shop revenues and game sales (esp when it became clear that GW would be tied to GW2, there were additional sales) was enough to cover the costs. If you don't have to devote significant manpower and resources to follow up expansions, but only to have to keep things running and the occasional update, costs will be pretty low.If you honestly believe that ANet are planning on making the same profit that they made in 2005 with GW1 then there is no further discussion neccessary.
the cash shop has been said to only be cosmetic so wtf do people complain about it in a sub game if all your doing is buying shit to make u look different? you dont have to buy anything from it so who cares?
GW did not launch with a cash shop. The cash shop came some time after the Factions campaign launched. In other words, ANet has managed to not only maintain the game without the cash shop but also managed to fund the development of the free Surrow's Furnance update but the Factions campaign as well.
As far as expansions go, games that charge subscription fees usually charge for expansions also.
Sorry but your assumptions are dead wrong.
Price of bandwidth: Gone down considerably during the last 10 years.
Cost of running servers (HW/housing/$ pr. cycle etc.): Dropped to a fraction of what it was 10 years ago.
The amount of decent programmers have increased: Guess what = Lower cost/pay...
Dev tools have improved a lot = Lower costs.
It may sound unbelievable but advertising and the greed amongst the suits are the only two things that have really increased during that period.
We dont need casuals in our games!!! Errm... Well we DO need casuals to fund and populate our games - But the games should be all about "hardcore" because: We dont need casuals in our games!!!
(repeat ad infinitum)
i had made a pre order on TSW, and i didnt know that it would have a cash shop with a sub.
i dont mind paying a sub for a game, but a sub with cash shop is mostly like pay to win and mostly unfair in many segments. i really liked TSW because how it was made and it looked a bit fresh with it story and its theme, but with a cash shop no thanks, i cancelled my pre order.
GW2 will not have a monthly fee.
Will tell you what I think.
Bad economy do have impact. That's kinda obvious.
Still that's not what is more important for me personally (even though crisis has hit my income as well).
What's bad in TSW is not sub. It is sub AND cash shop. Sorry, but not acceptable for me.
Yes I know WoW also has it. I don't care.
=====================
More general.
I am person who does not play mmorpg's constantly - I do have breaks between them. Now I have longest one in few years.
For me P2P is best thing for me.
Well box fee + expansion & DLC's would be better - but there is no game like that. GW1 was not mmorpg and GW2 does have sizeable cash shop made vith very diffrent philosophy than GW1 shop. . I will still try GW2, to check this model out - but that's not what I would like. Real thing would be just box fee + expansions / DLC's and NO CASH SHOP at all.
------------------------
Since that is not possible - after all companies do more and more mmos / online games to have ON-GOING payment systems via Cash Shops (or RMAH like in D3).
If they would want to sell only box + expansions or DLC's then they would do single player or non-mmo multiplayer game and not bother with higher costs & development time of an mmo.
Still since I don't hop between mmorpg's and I carefully choose what to play and want to play long-term realistically pure P2P is best for me.
Sub option in freemium games is not the same, not even close.
Sub + CS business model is like in freemium games. Just worse.
Anyway most of modern mmorpg's are not worth a sub.
Cause they are so awful?
No.
Cause they don't feel like mmorpg in first place.
Give me unique experience - an virtual world, separate 'microcosmos', separate economy, society, etc and I will pay a sub.
Give me single player heavy story based adventure game or / and co-op in instances - and I will say FU.
Even if Swtor / WoW is like that nowadays.
That's not an mmorpg.
I budget 50 bucks a month for video games. Its one of my only hobbies and its dirt cheap next to other activities.
I sit on a man's back, choking him and making him carry me, and yet assure myself and others that I am very sorry for him and wish to ease his lot by all possible means - except by getting off his back.
1. No, it didnt "work fine" with AO, they made very little money off it.
2. No, AO was not the first P2P to have a F2P model, or a cash shop.
3. No, FC does not know how the player mind works, AO was never a subscription success and AoC didnt make a profit for years and right after it did they had a massive player exodus because they were not listening to player complaints and even after going F2P they implimented such a massive fail shop that of the over 600,000 people that created fee accounts, the servers are still low population because only a fool would pay $75 for the content of the last xpac that was originally sold in stores for less than $40.
They are not called Failcom by players without a reason...nor are their two MMOs listed on every major gaming sites list of worst releases in MMO history without reason.
The expectation is that GW2 will keep releasing "mini-expansions" every few months which will force players to pay money - thus leading to a stealth subscription fee of sorts. Whether that's true or not remains to be seen.
This. Every other activity tends to cost way more than playing a video game.
So how exactly this white T-shirt they are selling in CS will give me an advantage? Or that pair or trousers? Are you just trolling here or you actually do not know what are you taliking about?
I'll not going to pay another sub in my life. P2P means the game has to have "huge content" to keep players playing for months. "Huge content" can't be created by hand, so it's mostly trash mobs in different variations. Gameplay turns into chore, where you are artificially slowed down with boring useless tasks (mostly involving moping up trash mobs) between actually interesting parts. And I can't cope with it; I'm here to enjoy game, not to work as a janitor while paying a sub for the privilege. So thank you, but no more games with subs for me.
It sounds like you have a personal vendetta against Funcom. I think it has skewed your point of view.
If things were as dismal as you suggest, Funcom would no longer be in business. Obviously they know how to do something right and have made some money along the way.
They have a cash shop.
its failcom enough said ive seen them kill off AO with cash shop and high subs and new engine promiss for the last 6 years . ill wait till this game is f2p it will will lose it appeal very soon
and if it dose do well then hats off to failcom 1 out of 3 not bad might even pick it up
Always hated F2P. I'd rather pay sub than face disbalance in PVP (which is the main reason for mmo for me) . And since there's not much reason to buy items for PVE game - PVP is the main thing affected.
It is possible to make F2P work without hurting balance though, like faster leveling, but then it won't be as appealing to "donators". In the end those without skill want to "own"
I'm sorry, I just don't see the correlation. What does F2P have to do w/ balanced PvP exactly? There are pleanty of F2P games that have decent balance, just as there are pleanty of sub games that have horrible balance. I'm not sure I follow your reasoning.