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!

A Major Concern about the B2P model: Lack of Power in Consumer Voice

2

Comments

  • halflife25halflife25 Toronto, ONPosts: 737Member
    Originally posted by Tardcore

    Yep, the consumers only recourse if they feel disnefranchised by a BTP game company is to essentially just FUCK OFF.

    Pretty much the same way it is with a single player game title.

    I generally agree with you but this time i have to disagree ;)

    Anet wants to keep their player base happy so that they buy their exapnsions and spend money in cash shop. Only because you are not paying 15 bucks  a month doesn't mean Anet wants you to stop playing. They need your money  ;)

  • evolver1972evolver1972 Port Orchard, WAPosts: 1,118Member

    So tell me, how does a single player paying a sub fee have more of a voice?  What, he or she stops giving their $15/month?  In the big picture, that means very little to any company.  So they're not getting your $15/month, it makes no difference to them.  The only thing it does is make you FEEL like you have a bigger voice than you really do.

     

    Either way, both business models feel it when large enough groups of people stop playing their games.  The only difference is the sub-based games feel it a little sooner...or at least notice it a little sooner.  But, please, stop pretending that your paltry $15/month actually gives you a voice.

    image

    You want me to pay to play a game I already paid for???

    Be afraid.....The dragons are HERE!

  • zakiyawowzakiyawow Boston, MAPosts: 626Member Common
    The ANet forum post is just another whiner, nothing much. ANet manage GW1 just fine and I am sure they will treat GW2 the same if not better.
  • MMOExposedMMOExposed lalal land, DCPosts: 6,257Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by zakiyawow
    The ANet forum post is just another whiner, nothing much. ANet manage GW1 just fine and I am sure they will treat GW2 the same if not better.

    but GW2 isnt GW1.

     

    Blizzard did well on Warcraft 1-3

    doesnt mean they did well with Cata for WoW,,,,

    Anet made lots of bad design decisions lately which contradicts their words.

    image

  • nixiumnixium ManchesterPosts: 21Member
    On the other hand if there is no sub why should they care and give customer service if they are giving a game for free *after* purchase? I know I wouldn't except perhaps redirect complaints to starving people in 3rd world country's and ask if they got a fair deal from life.
  • LoLifeLoLife LA, CAPosts: 174Member

    Ahhh B2P I love it, it eliminates trash like the gist of it below, which I've had to put up with since Anarchy Online image

    "If you nerf my OP face-roling class I'll unsub"

    "My class is a three shotter and therefore I'm UP'ed, buff me to one shotter or I'll unsub"

    "Make the game the way I want it, I'm a paying customer and I know whats best from my armchair or I'll unsub and play panda craft"

    "I have L2P issues with my FOTM face-roller, keep being owned by skilled players nerf them plz or I'll unsub" 

    "GIMME instant Alpha class now because working to be the alpha class is not instant self gratification or I'll quit" 

    Yep thank you Anet no more rage quitting QQing, happy days ahead for Guild Wars 2 forums imageimageimage

     

  • SuprGamerXSuprGamerX Montreal, QCPosts: 531Member
    LOL!!  That's the chance you take for buying a game buddy  ,don't you think the 60+ millions that bought Diablo 3 aren't pissed off aT Blizzard for releasing a piece of trash? At least TL2 is releasing tomorrow which will mark the end of D3.  Yes the Devs got your money ,and nobody cares , it's a chance you take by buying MMO's these days.   Crying about it won't bring out any sympatizers to your cause.   I buy a MMO which I think would be decent , don't like it , goes in the back of my closet , and my life goes on.    Consumer voice , that's a good one. The only power you have which is the most effective is to stop playing.
  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAPosts: 22,441Member
    Originally posted by MMOExposed
    Originally posted by zakiyawow
    The ANet forum post is just another whiner, nothing much. ANet manage GW1 just fine and I am sure they will treat GW2 the same if not better.

    but GW2 isnt GW1.

     

    Blizzard did well on Warcraft 1-3

    doesnt mean they did well with Cata for WoW,,,,

    Anet made lots of bad design decisions lately which contradicts their words.

    They don't? Didn't they sell something like 3.4M copies in the first week and was the fastest selling PC game at that time?

    You may not like it ... but it is certainly NOT a commercial failure. Heck, it even reviews well (90% on metacritics).

     

  • Ambros123Ambros123 Neverneverland, TNPosts: 877Member
    Originally posted by Loktofeit

     

     B2P doesn't exist. It's an idiotic label that ArenaNet saw some groups using and let ride so that they could position against subscription games in a way that doesn't freak out the anti-F2P gamers. The marketing was brilliant because by positioning against subscription, avoiding the F2P label and offering a retail box, ArenaNet was able to genuinely pitch a quality game. Had they NOT sold the box up front - just because of how messed up consumer thinking is - the perception would have been a low quality free to play game. Not only did they break the perception of their free to play game, but they made a truckload of money doing it.

    ArenaNet never called the game B2P. To refute that, some pull out the FAQ entry where the words Buy and Play appear in two of the sentences. If an abstract internet 'win' is what they're after then they definitely won because I won't argue with an idiot.

    GW2 was an amazing experiment in consumer rationalization.

    In the end, you should be consoled in knowing the game is a free to play game at its core. Players have more voice than they do with subscription games. There is a higher priority to regularly deliver quality content and not get complacent in their development.

     

     

    Related links:

     

     

    Ummm no...

    GW2 is not at all F2P, it is B2P as you have to buy an account essentially unlike F2P which you can play for free off the bat without a single dollar however limited it might be.  That allone differentiates GW2 from F2P games.  I would consider DDO/LotRO a hybrid of F2P/B2P.

    And yes ANet has more or less called GW2 B2P, they have said that you buy the game and pick it up and and drop it off as you feel like... essentially calling it B2P in indirect terms as they do reference to the purchase the consumer makes.  Sure they didn't say up front "Hey we're B2P" unlike Cryptic with Neverwinter with their F2P marketing tactic, but they still put it out there that once you buy the game it's yours with no mandatory additional costs hence B2P category.

  • LoktofeitLoktofeit Stone Mountain, GAPosts: 13,672Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by evolver1972

    So tell me, how does a single player paying a sub fee have more of a voice?  What, he or she stops giving their $15/month?  In the big picture, that means very little to any company.  So they're not getting your $15/month, it makes no difference to them.  The only thing it does is make you FEEL like you have a bigger voice than you really do.

    Either way, both business models feel it when large enough groups of people stop playing their games.  The only difference is the sub-based games feel it a little sooner...or at least notice it a little sooner.  But, please, stop pretending that your paltry $15/month actually gives you a voice.

    An both an EVE player and a CCP employee, I'd have to say I completely disagree.

    There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
    "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre

  • LoktofeitLoktofeit Stone Mountain, GAPosts: 13,672Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Ambros123
    Originally posted by Loktofeit

     B2P doesn't exist. It's an idiotic label that ArenaNet saw some groups using and let ride so that they could position against subscription games in a way that doesn't freak out the anti-F2P gamers. The marketing was brilliant because by positioning against subscription, avoiding the F2P label and offering a retail box, ArenaNet was able to genuinely pitch a quality game. Had they NOT sold the box up front - just because of how messed up consumer thinking is - the perception would have been a low quality free to play game. Not only did they break the perception of their free to play game, but they made a truckload of money doing it.

    ArenaNet never called the game B2P. To refute that, some pull out the FAQ entry where the words Buy and Play appear in two of the sentences. If an abstract internet 'win' is what they're after then they definitely won because I won't argue with an idiot.

    GW2 was an amazing experiment in consumer rationalization.

    In the end, you should be consoled in knowing the game is a free to play game at its core. Players have more voice than they do with subscription games. There is a higher priority to regularly deliver quality content and not get complacent in their development.

    Related links:

    Ummm no...

    GW2 is not at all F2P, it is B2P as you have to buy an account essentially unlike F2P which you can play for free off the bat without a single dollar however limited it might be.  That allone differentiates GW2 from F2P games.  I would consider DDO/LotRO a hybrid of F2P/B2P.

    And yes ANet has more or less called GW2 B2P, they have said that you buy the game and pick it up and and drop it off as you feel like... essentially calling it B2P in indirect terms as they do reference to the purchase the consumer makes.  Sure they didn't say up front "Hey we're B2P" unlike Cryptic with Neverwinter with their F2P marketing tactic, but they still put it out there that once you buy the game it's yours with no mandatory additional costs hence B2P category.

    I linked to the places they themselves called it F2P. Please link to where they use the terms "Buy to Play" or "B2P". YOU, the anti-F2P audience, put that term together.

    Your one differentiator between GW2 and F2P is that GW2 sold you a box, which is exactly what I explained above. It was BRILLIANT.

    You've got a whole denial thing going on here.

     

    There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
    "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre

  • VirusDancerVirusDancer Brandon, FLPosts: 3,649Member

    You buy and play.  In order to play, you have to buy.  You buy to play.  If you do not buy, you do not play.  I've never understood the argument that buy to play != buy and play.  They state very clearly that you buy the game and you can play the game.  There is no you do not have to buy the game to play it.

    Matt's interview bashed both P2P and P2P.  Wait, that's P2P twice?  What?  Yes, he bashed F2P as P2P... in talking about the microtransactions in GW2 he says, "we don’t want to make this a painful game where you have to pay to play."  There's no discussion that the game is F2P in the least.  All he's said is that they are avoiding a sub model while including microtransactions.  He does not mention the box cost of the game in the least.  So of course he does not mention B2P in that interview, because he does not mention that you have to buy the game at all... okay, perhaps it's unfair to say he bashed the sub model.  He acknowledged the market changed - that's not the same in the least as what he said about the F2P games, which he did bash as painful P2P games.

    Mike's blog on the other hand, does acknowledge that you have to buy to play.  A person that buys a game should be able to play it...and then he goes off bashing F2P and trying to separate the RMT in GW2 from the RMT one might be used to seeing in other games.  So far, Matt 'n Mike are just bashing other F2P games while trying to distance the GW2 RMTs.  One did not mention having to buy the game to play while the other did mention that you have to buy it to play it.

    Sebastian's article starts off pretty silly, since ANet never claimed GW1 to be a MMO - they called it a CORPG.  Mike even mentions that later in regard to what they call GW2.  Then Sebastian dribbles off into the subjective...lol.  But still, Mike talks about the buy and play aspect of the game - you have to buy it to play it.  He does go on to bash the buy to play and pay to continue playing sub model.

    For the life of me, I cannot fathom how anybody would consider this a F2P game.  You have to buy it to play it.  They do not hide that aspect in the least.  They've said that the RMTs will allow for the additional and ongoing development of the game.  What's that?  Yes, unless folks continue to pay through RMTs... oh... wait... hrmm....

    ...yeah, anyway.

    Well, as far as the OP's post - since it's not a strictly B2P game - it's a B2P + P2P game (using Matt's terms - bazinga!).  No, it's not a sub model.  It's a RMT model.  So unlike a game where you buy it and have no recourse other than to rant on the internet... you can actually hit them in their wallet in pretty much the same way that the folks paying a sub can (which is very debatable).  If you suggest folks do not use the RMTs... it'll hit them in their P2P wallets.  Get them to promise to shift things a certain way, and bam - you'll start doing the RMT again.  Thing is, they're in a worse position than the sub folks.  If a person cancels their sub, they're gone - they're no longer using up resources.  With their RMT model - lol - get everybody to stop spending money but get everybody to log in...use up those resources, increase their costs while decreasing their revenue.

    I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?

    Explorer: 87%, Killer: 67%, Achiever: 27%, Socializer: 20%

  • BurntvetBurntvet Baltimore, MDPosts: 2,947Member Uncommon

    Look at it this way: B2P is a $60 lifetime sub.

    Many of us would never buy a lifetime sub to MMOs these days for the same reason, only LTS are in the $200+ range.

    So, at worst, people paid $60 and devs don't listen, better than $200-$300 for STO, DCUO, Hellgate, and whatever else.

    And unlike those others, it won't go "F2P" after you bought the LTS, with B2P, it already has no sub fee.

     

    But to the general arguement, yeah, when you pay all your money up front (for B2p or LTS), the company doesn't care if you are happy or not, that have your money. Quit all you want, doesn't hurt them in the least.

     

  • BurntvetBurntvet Baltimore, MDPosts: 2,947Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Loktofeit
    Originally posted by evolver1972

    So tell me, how does a single player paying a sub fee have more of a voice?  What, he or she stops giving their $15/month?  In the big picture, that means very little to any company.  So they're not getting your $15/month, it makes no difference to them.  The only thing it does is make you FEEL like you have a bigger voice than you really do.

    Either way, both business models feel it when large enough groups of people stop playing their games.  The only difference is the sub-based games feel it a little sooner...or at least notice it a little sooner.  But, please, stop pretending that your paltry $15/month actually gives you a voice.

    An both an EVE player and a CCP employee, I'd have to say I completely disagree.

    Well, one player quits it might be  the "customer's problem".

    When 1000s start quiting, that very much becomes the company's problem.

    And yeah, any subscription based company pays attention to that.

     

     

  • aRtFuLThinGaRtFuLThinG MelbournePosts: 1,134Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by MMOExposed

    A Major Concern about the B2P model: Lack of Power in Consumer Voice or even care about consumer's opinion post launch.
     

    Your point is moot.

    Because with some other sub-based mmos, they are still ignoring customer's opinion regardless. For example, swtor - they have improved none of that things that players asked (such as World pvp) and keep introducing useless changes.

    While on the other hand, some f2p games have actually done a lot and listened to (such as Stronghold Kingdoms and the changes to the rank which is required to join factions and alliances).

    And what is concerning is somehow Anet/GW2 is kept on being used as a point of reference (which from what I see on Facebook and Reddit they seem to be quite attentive and responsive to customers, so there might be some falsehood in your claim), which indicates this is quite likely another veiled attempt on bashing GW2 instead of just talking about the issues of b2p/f2p.

     

  • aRtFuLThinGaRtFuLThinG MelbournePosts: 1,134Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Burntvet

    Well, one player quits it might be  the "customer's problem".

    When 1000s start quiting, that very much becomes the company's problem.

    And yeah, any subscription based company pays attention to that.

    EA/Bioware didn't.

    SOE didn't.

    EA/Mythic didn't.

    Funcom didn't.

    These are my supporting examples. Where are yours?

     

  • BurntvetBurntvet Baltimore, MDPosts: 2,947Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by aRtFuLThinG
    Originally posted by Burntvet

    Well, one player quits it might be  the "customer's problem".

    When 1000s start quiting, that very much becomes the company's problem.

    And yeah, any subscription based company pays attention to that.

    EA/Bioware didn't.

    SOE didn't.

    EA/Mythic didn't.

    Funcom didn't.

    These are my supporting examples. Where are yours?

     

    Pay attention and do something useful about it are two entirely different things.

    EA responded (poorly) by hitting the marketing even harder. And then fired 400 people from TOR. Didn't help.

    SOE, well, SOE flails around... and used this as the excuse to change SWG twice. Flailed with DCUO.  Didn't help.

    Funcom responded by firing half the company.

     

    If there is one thing these companies pay attention to it is falling sub numbers. That they fail to fix the reason for those falling sub numbers is something different entirely.

     

  • ignore_meignore_me Apple Valley, CAPosts: 1,987Member
    The massive disjointed amorphous thing that is player input is routinely ignored by P2P developers. When they do respond it is a process akin to some geological process or evolutionary change. Nothing will change with B2P being the predominant model to come.

    Survivor of the great MMORPG Famine of 2011

  • KhinRuniteKhinRunite ManilaPosts: 879Member

    Just like a P2P MMO, GW2 still relies on continuous patronage in order to be viable. Less people playing means less revenue from cash shop. Afterall, CS replaces subscription in a game like this. There will also be less people who will buy expansions. It's not true at all that we as customers don't have as much voice with this model.

    The difference here is that ANet has somewhat of an unmoving belief with their design. While you're welcome to give out suggestions, you shouldn't be raging on if ANet didn't do as you say. You just paid to play the game, not to control its development. Will they also behave like this if GW2 was a P2P game? I personally think so.

     

  • aRtFuLThinGaRtFuLThinG MelbournePosts: 1,134Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Burntvet

    Pay attention and do something useful about it are two entirely different things.

    EA responded (poorly) by hitting the marketing even harder. And then fired 400 people from TOR. Didn't help.

    SOE, well, SOE flails around... and used this as the excuse to change SWG twice. Flailed with DCUO.  Didn't help.

    Funcom responded by firing half the company.

     

    If there is one thing these companies pay attention to it is falling sub numbers. That they fail to fix the reason for those falling sub numbers is something different entirely.

     

    EA didn't respond poorly. The didn't respond and did the opposite.

    Case 1: Swtor

    What people want: world pvp, make illum better

    What EA did: shutdown illum

     

    SOE again go against what people want.

    Case 2: SWG

    What people want: no changes, pre-NGE was fine

    What SOE (or LucasArts) did: implement NGE, just right after people bought the expansion

     

    Funcom also did the same.

    Case 3: Age of Conan (back when it first came out)

    What people want: balance out crafted weapons power, class balance

    What Funcom did: Just make crafting useless altogether.

     

    On the other hand, you have B2P/F2P game who done right:

    Case 1: Diablo 3, Starcraft 1 & 2

    What's good: Constant patches to fix issues. Did listen to playerbase for balance issues 

     

    Case 2: Team Fortress 2

    What's good: Again, constant rebalance and patches and listen to the playerbase

     

    So as you can see, it has nothing to do with model, but rather the company's attitudes.

  • thinktank001thinktank001 oasisPosts: 2,027Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by MMOExposed


    With Guild Wars 2, being the recent huge example of this model in action, I dont like the limited voice of the consumers in this model.

     

     

    GW2 isn't a B2P business model.    B2P games don't have cash shops.

  • YakkinYakkin irvine, CAPosts: 919Member
    Originally posted by thinktank001
    Originally posted by MMOExposed


    With Guild Wars 2, being the recent huge example of this model in action, I dont like the limited voice of the consumers in this model.

     

     

    GW2 isn't a B2P business model.    B2P games don't have cash shops.

    I went to the store, and paid 60 dollars for it. I installed it on my computer and could play it instantly. That sounds like B2P to me.

  • VirusDancerVirusDancer Brandon, FLPosts: 3,649Member
    Originally posted by Enigmatus
    Originally posted by thinktank001
    Originally posted by MMOExposed


    With Guild Wars 2, being the recent huge example of this model in action, I dont like the limited voice of the consumers in this model.

     

     

    GW2 isn't a B2P business model.    B2P games don't have cash shops.

    I went to the store, and paid 60 dollars for it. I installed it on my computer and could play it instantly. That sounds like B2P to me.

    That's not their model though.  They have not planned to continue developing the game/supporting it strictly off of box sales.  That is dependent upon the microtransactions.  If enough people do not spend money in the cash shop...they'll go down.  That's their business model.  They're avoiding the sub model and the P2P-F2P model...but they still need money.

    /cough

    edit: I edited out the potentially inflammatory bit - since it was uncalled for in regard to the post I was replying to...

    I miss the MMORPG genre. Will a developer ever make one again?

    Explorer: 87%, Killer: 67%, Achiever: 27%, Socializer: 20%

  • YakkinYakkin irvine, CAPosts: 919Member
    Originally posted by VirusDancer
    Originally posted by Enigmatus
    Originally posted by thinktank001

    GW2 isn't a B2P business model.    B2P games don't have cash shops.

    I went to the store, and paid 60 dollars for it. I installed it on my computer and could play it instantly. That sounds like B2P to me.

    That's not their model though.  They have not planned to continue developing the game/supporting it strictly off of box sales.  That is dependent upon the microtransactions.  If enough people do not spend money in the cash shop...they'll go down.  That's their business model. 

    /cough

    Ah...

    So it's a buymium?

  • SlyLoKSlyLoK Sugar Grove, VAPosts: 1,550Member Uncommon
    Ummm..So what happened? I havent logged into GW2 in 2 or 3 weeks.

    image

2
Sign In or Register to comment.