It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Originally posted by SnarlingWolf Originally posted by jacklo Data? Clearly you have no idea about data and how to properly analyse it. How can you assume the same monthly spend, when all that this data shows is that a small percentage of people bought a one-off item early in the game. Moreso, how does this equate to being bad for gamers?
I'm the one that doesn't understand data when you're the one who doesn't get simple math? Interesting.
I took the poll results, went with exact middle of each range as the average a person choosing that range would spend. I then tallied up that money along with a $60 box price for each of those poll users. I then compared that to if the game was $60 and a $15 month for a subscription after the first month free and assumed a 100% retention rate of those same players for a second month. It was a 1.4x increase in average cost per player with the GW2 approach.
It really is the simplest math and datat to understand so there you go.
As for your last point, try reading things since you asked a question I already answered.
You are extrapolating gw2 income without having a clear trend on which to base the extrapolation
Originally posted by Eir_S Originally posted by SnarlingWolf The main money makers in F2P games are more storage/more character slots so I wouldn't call GW2's B2P store "fluff items".
But the question is, how many of those F2P games allow you to get the same bonuses (bag space, character slots) through in game gold? Not any that I can recall.
Actually Vindictus is pretty good in that regard. Most important cash items (as in gameplay affecting) are tradeable via market place (meaning if the item is unwanted regardless of the money spent to acquire it the price wlll go doown....), those that aren't it's perfectly legal to "gift" items, so you can acquire the rest through that means. Also none of the content is gated, and new profs/chars are free on updates come with an extra account slot. Really you have to take it by a game by game basis rather than by payment models.
The elephant in room in this thread is that many p2p mmo's also have cash shops, some with cosmetics, and some with boosts. So the argument is pointless. Look at individual games not payment models, in these sorts of comparisons. All games of a certain payment model don't do the same things...
yeah ive spent about 20 bucks on gems and used rest of in game money for gems...I will spend about 20 bucks am onth in real money to support the game as long as I enjoy it...servers will not pay for themselves as well as having employees.
So if you enjoy it and can afford to even spend a few bucks every contribution helps towards the future of gw2
Originally posted by GrayGhost79 Originally posted by dudeduder45 Originally posted by grimal $10 for bank space. Now that I've played the game for a month, I do think they gimped you on the amount of bank space you are given since it is shared account-wide. And I already know you can alts to hold items, but, really, nearly every other MMO gives plenty of bank space. So I think they intentially limited you to pump their cash shop.
I made a personal guild and am using the influence things you get from the personal story to buy guild storage. Free extra storage
Yeah lol, so far I've unlocked the 50 slot Guild bank, working on the next upgrades to increase it.
I stopped at the 50 slot Guld bank for now myself but I also made a guild for myself just for this reason. Storage for free. Plus I got free guild influence with my prebuy.
Originally posted by GrayGhost79 Originally posted by SnarlingWolf Originally posted by GrayGhost79 Originally posted by SnarlingWolf Originally posted by jacklo Originally posted by SnarlingWolf So with a normal subscription MMO you'd have brought in $3120 from these people. If you assume best case scenario and they've all just subbed up for month 2 at $15 it would be $3900. With GW2 model and this poll and assuming dead center in each choice as the average spent and assuming $300 for the 251+ you end up with: ~$4340 or 1.4x as much money spent over if 100% of the people subbing for a second month in a sub based game. Yes B2P as the future sounds great for gamers...
Seems almost everyone who purchased, bought bag/bank space. Those are really a one-off and I can't see the same spend occuring month after month.
You make some poorly based assumptions.
None of the assumptions are the least bit poorly based. To assume that a company which makes money off a store won't continue to come up with things for people to spend money on would be the poor assumption.
Given how many people I saw running around in game with the ridiculous sunglasses and boxing gloves, I would also say people aren't just spending money on bag/bank space.
You'll also notice in my assumption I helped the B2P model by assuming a 100% continue to play rate which raises how much the subscription type of game costs. In reality you at best end up with a 50% rate on the first month if not lower which further increases the cost difference between the two models.
But be that guy who just says anything anyone says is just wrong if it is at all critical of the game they love.
Heres the issue, optional cosmetics and optional services are not things that are required to enjoy the game. B2P is great for gamers, because it's entirely OPTIONAL.
Yes, they will put stuff on the store that people want. Name one thing on the store that people need.
A monthly fee - forced additional fees
F2P - Gated content and progression that forces you to purchase off of the store
B2P - Access to everything with no additional fees, Optional Fluff and services offered on store.
You really want to sit there and try to claim B2P is bad for gamers?
Additionaly keep in mind you can buy gems with in game gold so you still don't have to spend real money to get the fluff items.
So yes... B2P as the future IS great for gamers.
Paying $60 upfront for access to all content vs getting some content for free and deciding which content to pay money for (often $10-$15 per group/area of content) is better? I don't think so. You will pay less the second way. In the future GW2 will have gated content with the expansion packs anyway.
You also can buy gems with in game gold... please keep this in mind.
The main money makers in F2P games are more storage/more character slots so I wouldn't call GW2's B2P store "fluff items". The difference is that in a true F2P you will have gone into the game and paid NOTHING at all and then if you decided to spend a few bucks to unlock storage or character slots you will have spent a few bucks, where as with GW2 you will have spent a few bucks on top of $60.
Yes, GW2 version of B2P is bad for gamers. True B2P (no store, just a copy of the game and copies of the expansion with no store or subscription) is great for gamers.
The options should be:
Subscription based game
Free to Play game with store
B2P game with no store/no subscription
GW2 takes two of those models which means increased cost to users.
I'm sorry, you're not making any sense.
Yes, in GW2's buy to play model you pay $60 up front and get access to all the content. You pay less with GW2's system.
A F2P forces you to spend money in the store, it intentionally hampers enjoyment to do so. Sure... you can suffer through and say at leasts its free but... I don't see much point in that. I can play a "f2p" that will in the end force me to pay through the nose to be competitive in PvP, to enjoy the game, and in some even use Global chat lol. Things of this nature are why F2P is terrible for gamers.
I think the issue seems to be you don't quite grasp how these models work, if you like I don't have a problem explaining them to you.
I'm making complete sense.
With F2P you pick up the game and start playing - $0. If you run into content you want to unlock later you pay $10-$15. You've now paid $10-15.
GW2 - you pay $60 up front. You have already paid more.
In both F2P and GW2 you can pay to unlock more pack/bank storage and more character slots. You've still paid more in GW2.
GW2 has top level gear that costs lots of gold. It intentional hampers the rate at which you can gain gold (and recently dialed back the gold you could grind out in the more profitable ways to hamper players more). Now a way you do this faster is to buy gems and trade them for gold to unlock that top level stuff.
In a F2P they hamper you and have you buy stuff to get rid of the hampering. Again you have still paid more with GW2.
Most F2P games let you grind out everything that isn't the gated content, just as GW2 let's you grind out gold if you don't want to buy gems and trade. You're playing some truly crappy F2Ps if you're running into gear that you can only get buy buying in the store, and this comes from someone who doesn't like the F2P model to begin with.
In the end, you will have paid more with the GW2 model because you had to pay $60 up front.
Originally posted by wayubb yeah ive spent about 20 bucks on gems and used rest of in game money for gems...I will spend about 20 bucks am onth in real money to support the game as long as I enjoy it...servers will not pay for themselves as well as having employees. So if you enjoy it and can afford to even spend a few bucks every contribution helps towards the future of gw2
It sounds like you're supporting a charity.
Originally posted by dudeduder45 Originally posted by SnarlingWolf Originally posted by jacklo Data? Clearly you have no idea about data and how to properly analyse it. How can you assume the same monthly spend, when all that this data shows is that a small percentage of people bought a one-off item early in the game. Moreso, how does this equate to being bad for gamers?
I am using a group of people who participated in a poll where they've said exactly how much they've spent in GW2 and shown how much that group would have played in a subscription game without a store. The result is that group has spent 1.4x as much as they would have if GW2 was subscription based.
Originally posted by SnarlingWolf Originally posted by dudeduder45 Originally posted by SnarlingWolf Originally posted by jacklo Data? Clearly you have no idea about data and how to properly analyse it. How can you assume the same monthly spend, when all that this data shows is that a small percentage of people bought a one-off item early in the game. Moreso, how does this equate to being bad for gamers?
That is true but a good conclusion cannot be made about the data because there is no reason to assume that people will spend the same amount every month. I'm just saying that more data is needed to make a good conclusion or say that B2P is more expensive.
Originally posted by Warband Originally posted by Eir_S Originally posted by SnarlingWolf The main money makers in F2P games are more storage/more character slots so I wouldn't call GW2's B2P store "fluff items".
Ah, I did not know that about Vindictus.
As for the part in yellow... maybe someone in this thread (not going to say who) should be more concerned about that than GW2's payment plan. I mean, if this mystery poster believes ANet spells DOOM for the future of MMOs, what about the sub model devs who will go (read: are already going) one step further. Everyone wants to believe that if they pay a sub, it makes the bad things go away.
It's not even because I love ANet as a company, I just find it weird that people are worried about the payment future of MMOs and citing GW2 as an example of why things will be horrible. There are more important things to worry about than what is 5 years down the road anyway.
I'm more worried about games like TSW promoting a bad payment model than about GW2.
Buy to play + Subscription + Cash Shop. Yay. Thankfully, the game didn't have a big success.
Or games like LOTRO, which are really "pay to win", since to max out your character and it's gear, you need the cash shop, there's no alternative.
If anything, GW2 shows how a B2P+cash shop game should be done.
If you wonder why I don't answer your posts, it's most likely because you are on my block list - so don't waste your time.
I spent $30 in character slots+bank.
The rest of the character slots and bank slots + some bag slots I bought with in game currency.
Character slots and bank slots is something that makes sense to buy as soon as possible if you know you going to play the game for an extend period of time since it will benefit your experience from the beggining.
I don't think Anet gimped the storage - they have collectible tabs that are able to take stacks of 250.
Currently playing: GW2Going cardboard starter kit: Ticket to ride, Pandemic, Carcassonne, Dominion, 7 Wonders
Bought 1 bag slot and 2 bank slots via ingame cash > gems, haven't spent a dime of RL cash on gems and im doing just fine with space, got roughly 40-60 free bag slots all the time and only 1 of my 3 bank tabs is full.
Don't even intend to spend a dime on gems. I don't see any reason to.
Bought my gems when the ratio was around 1G = 360-380 gems, now it's around 1G = 220-250 gems
Originally posted by The_Korrigan I'm more worried about games like TSW promoting a bad payment model than about GW2. Buy to play + Subscription + Cash Shop. Yay. Thankfully, the game didn't have a big success. Or games like LOTRO, which are really "pay to win", since to max out your character and it's gear, you need the cash shop, there's no alternative. If anything, GW2 shows how a B2P+cash shop game should be done.
What I see most in GW2 model is how one can buy gems with in game currency. Can't think of any games that went that route which all cash shops should follow, at least any B2P/P2P games. F2P games sure you would ned to buy points as they need to make some money somehow. DDO is an aweful grind and pretty much forces players to buy Turbine points cause one does not want to farm for months for crap.
Originally posted by SnarlingWolf Originally posted by GrayGhost79 Originally posted by SnarlingWolf Originally posted by GrayGhost79 Originally posted by SnarlingWolf Originally posted by jacklo Originally posted by SnarlingWolf So with a normal subscription MMO you'd have brought in $3120 from these people. If you assume best case scenario and they've all just subbed up for month 2 at $15 it would be $3900. With GW2 model and this poll and assuming dead center in each choice as the average spent and assuming $300 for the 251+ you end up with: ~$4340 or 1.4x as much money spent over if 100% of the people subbing for a second month in a sub based game. Yes B2P as the future sounds great for gamers...
Yeah, it's pretty apparent you don't know how this stuff works. Thats ok, my advice is to take the advice from those that have been around and actually know whats going on.
F2P's are certainly not in the best interest for gamers. Name a f2p thats on par in quality or quantity of a AAA title like GW2. Figure out how much you are paying for each NEEDED item in that f2p of yours. Figure out how much you are spending to unlock classes, more than 1 inventory slot, additional bank space, Extra zones, Extra quests, items to reduce the grind, items to put you on par with all the others that have purchased "elite" gear, items that allow you to use global chat, items that allow you to create a guild.
I mean sure, free sounds like a sweet deal. If only it were my friend, if only it were. The reality is they intentionally make these f2p's in a fashion that actually forces you or at the very least punishes you for not using the cash shop. Not to mention that many items on the cash shop in these f2p's is game breaking. Community is another issue.
I'm not saying all f2p's are awful, but I'm saying they simply do not and can not stack up to GW2 with its buy to play model.
I get it, you like f2p and think you are saving money and you think everyone should agree with you. At the end of the day we've been around long enough to know the reality of the situation.
FYI - They are actually looking into ways to offer free to play games with commercials built into them now.
Champion f2p all you want, but the fact remains it's simply not what you think it is. If that portion of players that spends a ton in the cash shop in those games quit paying... your game goes away. GW2 isn't in the same boat.
I'll take my $60 up front game that doesn't require me to spend another dime to enjoy ALL of the content. You stick with your f2p's that will require $100's of dollars down the road to unlock a fraction of the content I just paid $60 for....
0 - with gold being so easy at 80 - why spend $?
i already have all the stuff I want unlocked - chat slots bag slots bank space - so there is nothing to spend money on right now. Have a full set of exotics - don't care for legendaries.
I am not sure how Anet plans to make any money from the cash shop - it seems that it is so easy to just convert gold to gems.
I spent 20e on gems...mostly to support the game since i love it.
No real need to do so,but i bought 2 additional char slots for later on ^^
Originally posted by SnarlingWolf Originally posted by Eir_S Originally posted by SnarlingWolf The fact of the matter is average player spending, regardless of individual spending, is higher compared to a subscription model with no store. That is not a good thing for gamers. End of story.
And? It's their money to spend. I bought the game and haven't been able to play the past month. I didn't spend an extra $15 for that time. Gamers can make up their own minds. End of story.
If a game has 1 million players and an average cost of $15 per gamer (aka sub model) it is a cost to all gamers of $15 million for a month of that game.
If the same game has 1 million players and an average cost of $21 per gamer it is a cost to all gamers of $21 million for a month of that game.
That means the company just got to profit more on the same amount of work and that is spread down to the gamers themselves. Some will pay more directly out of pocket, others will have to grind more to compete with those who paid more and in the end everyone does/pays more to be exactly how they would have been in the other model.
It has absolutely nothing to do with 1 gamer spending $200 of his/her own money. In the end when a game cost a collective group more for the same amount of stuff it is bad for that group. Of course the people who don't understand that are the ones who are repeatedly helping that same company rip off customers more.
I won't bother trying to explain it beyond that. I'll come back in 5 years and try to point it out when people wonder why it feels so expensive to play games in the future as the trend continues.
Same ones who are cutting out basic things in their lives to pay the higher and higher cell phone bills as the companies figure out how to exploit people more and more and yet those people never stop paying/downgrade to minimums to send a message. Best part is those phone companies don't even try to hide what they're doing and flat out say they think they can make people pay more for the same service. Pretty some certain game companies will realize they can be upfront about what they're doing because people will just pay anyways.
You're argument about "bad for gamers" is ridiculous and revolves around the part in green.
You DON'T NEED TO GO THAT ROUTE.
Cell phone companies only "exploit" those who can't do without the next new toy and have the money to buy them.
I've paid the same £10 per month contract for the last 3 years because my phone still does what I want it to and I have no desire to polish my ego with an iPhone or whatever the next thing will be.
GW2 only "exploits" those who are willing and able to pay more for vanity items.
If you really must "keep up with the Joneses" and have the best of everything all the time, you'd better have a large wallet because it's everywhere in life. Even then, someone else always has more.
With regards the data, look at the way you do maths lol.
You're seriously counting the highest figure as $300 even when more than have of those options only had a range of $20 and the rest $50 ?
In fact, the poll is so skewed in the higher ranges that it's impossible to gain anything worthwhile from it.
All of the higher ranges, which actually have the lowest percentages, have a range of $50, compared to $20 for the lower and more popular choices. Yet you go half way... well that's obliging of you, NOT.
Your maths is poor, same as your argument.
I simply can't beleive the audacity.
Originally posted by ShakyMo £8.50 Bank space Spent what was left over on a key.
THAT is my problem with purchasing credits/gems/points/etc. It's always the same with these sorts of things... PSN is like that...nothing ever costs as much as I want to pay. Always have to purchase more than you need. It's caused me to never buy credits for any game.
Oh man that gets me riled up!
I could lie and say I spent $20, but I really have spent $60.
Damn late nights, drunk/stoned, sleep deprived and feeling dumb.
Also - too much WvWvW and spending all my money their buying siege and upgrading things...lol
However - I have gems "in the bank" so I probably won't be spending anymore money on the game for quite some time, feel a bit silly for spending $60 already.
I am entitled to my opinions, misspellings, and grammatical errors.