It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
well i already know it is not free to play, since i already paid for my copy. but i would prefer buy to play as opposed to subcription fees so long as it doesn't turn into pay to win. subsciption fees are annoying and on there way out. you can tell this by games like GW2 which are far suppeior to WoW and are using the B2P model. i can't even recall ANY modern MMORPG that uses P2P. SW:TOR tried it but their game sucked so bad they changed it to F2P.
i have heard a great model for a B2P TESO. since modding has always been a huge part of TES, the shop can consist of player mods like weapons, armor, mounts, and client based mods such as WoWs 'heal bot'. maybe voted on by the players and approved by ZOS to prevent game breakers and op mods. that way ZOS and bethesda would make money and modders would get to see their work come to life.
Your imaginary god can't save you now.
Has to be pay to play for me, my theory about the differences between the two communities will be summed up bellow in a handy matrix I am going to make. You can use this for any mmorpg. That's ok, no need to thank me.
Free to play community
Window-licking, knuckle dragging, uni-brow sporting products of relationships between brother and sister. IQ's and personalities equivalent to common house bricks.
Pay to play community
Exactly the same as free to play communities only with less free loading, self entitled never do wells and hairy backs.
As you can see from the above matrix there is only one logical choice. Please feel free to correct my math if you feel it doesn't add up.
I vote for either B2P or F2P with a Sub option. My biggest issue is that I've got 4 kids. So if they wanted to all play with dad and do dungeon runs together (which would be sweet, but rarely happens) then I'd still have to shell out $60 for the damn game for each of them.
Sub-option games like SWTOR would be good if the F2P wasn't over-cooked. I mean I hear what everyone says about SWTOR and it's true, it might be a bit over the top. I still sub at the moment, because I'd like to play through each storyline, but that doesn't mean I'll sub forever. I'll be right back on the F2P train as soon as I'm done with the stories, as my time with it will decrease. Plus, SWTOR at least gives you free cash shop monies each month, so even if I horded that I could go F2P without much worry about losing funcitonality. So it still is KIND OF a loyalty program Unless you let it burn a hole in your pocket and just spend it.
Now B2P + P2P + Cash Shop games are not my idea of good value *cough* WoW!
Doesn't matter what the model is for TESO I'll still put money into it one way or another.
----------------Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - USTankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US----------------
i dont like P2P model but im not expecting TESO as a F2P mmo. I want it to be Buy to Play (like GW2) with a subscription option for added perks (no limitations for B2P players, instead add extra valuable perks to subscribers to justify their subs).
If its only P2P ill buy it, play the first free month, then uninstall.
P2P is my preference.
I can't stand cash shops and the need by the developer to drive business there by making the game inconvenient to play in F2P or B2P models. B2P with cash shop is the worst, imo. Not only have you purchased a full game, but now you're expected to pay beyond a box price to unlock features that should have been inluded in the original purchase (lookin' at you GW2...). No thanks.
Originally posted by Gravarg P2P There's more advantages for both players and the company when you have a subscription.
What are the advantages? Name one?
There aren't any really. It is a strawman argument.
All the different gaming models are viable with F2P even more viable the P2P - why do I say that? Look at all the games that are F2P with CS now compared to P2P - it shows that the P2P is not valid any more.
"In 50 years, when I talk to my grandchildren about these days, I'll make sure to mention what an accomplished MMO player I was. They are going to be so proud ..."by Naqaj - 7/17/2013 MMORPG.com forum
Originally posted by rygard49 B2P with cash shop is the worst, imo. Not only have you purchased a full game, but now you're expected to pay beyond a box price to unlock features that should have been inluded in the original purchase (lookin' at you GW2...). No thanks.
In GW2 you dont have to pay for content to go beyond anywhere. Now, if i were to blindly answer the same way you are doing it (with hatred towards certain model) then i would say P2P is the worst, not only you have to pay full box price and expansions, but you have to pay every month even to log in.
Just accept that every model is viable when done right. You said P2P is your preference, so you should know that THAT doesnt mean other models are wrong, you just like one. The only wrong model is the P2W used by shady companies that dont care about games and customers, only about money.
You'ld be surprised how many times my scrum team has been taken off new and awesome projects to work on this great new "premium" feature/item for a cash shop.
I work in the industry and I loathe cash shops, but not because of what they could offer or if it becomes P2W or whatnot ... it is mostly because they negatively impact the game. When innovations or features don't get worked on just to sell an item in a cash shop you are left with lesser game. Ultimately the gamers on the design team become less motivated to do what they do best because they are always being forced to work on the next big $$ item. The industry is all about making money, so if a game ever released a borderline P2W item and it starts making lots of money be prepared for the cash grab.
It's ESO not TESO!
Please get this through your heads.
And... FTP if done correctly.
I think B2P would be the fairest option for this game's potential customers. P2P wouldn't be sustainable as the design model they've chosen for this game is way too constrained to provide with any meaningful and filling metagame.
60-80 € box price for a 2-4 month ride and combat-centric PvP; then, subsequent DLCs as they release more canned content: this would be a fair value deal in my view.
Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.
Originally posted by Dinasty It's ESO not TESO! Please get this through your heads. And... FTP if done correctly.
wrong. it is "The Elder Scrolls" and "The Elder Scrolls Online" not simply "Elder scrolls online"
Originally posted by botrytis Originally posted by Gravarg P2P There's more advantages for both players and the company when you have a subscription.
I'll name multiple:
1. Content that is created without any nickel and diming in mind. Everything is made for the enjoyment of the player to keep them subbing, not as a ploy to get them to feel they NEED to open their wallets to enjoy the game properly.
2. More consistent profit = more consistent content development. Sure, this varies from game to game, but I'm hard pressed to think of a F2P mmo that has content added at the same rate of most premium P2P mmos.
3. This one might be subjective, but in my experience of playing these games for over a decade (both P2P and F2P), the community is typically better in a game with a subscription. As another poster said, there's more of a sense of a community investment, and I agree with that. WoW is the exception, not the rule. Besides, when you have a game with millions of players, you're going to get some bad seeds, even when it requires a subsription. That said, there are plenty of great people there too, you just have to weed through the bad to find the good.
4. F2P makes it far easier for bots and spammers to infest the game. Sure, there are bots and spammers anywhere you go, but there will undoubtedly be less of them when players are required to buy a box and sub first - especially if the company is vigilant in banning those that do it (which would then require them to buy and sub again).
I could go on about how the F2P system still has a stigma attached to it that rivals abortion rights in the deep south, but since you only asked for one example, this should suffice.
It's certainly not just a "strawman argument", by any means.
Originally posted by Seilan Originally posted by botrytis Originally posted by Gravarg P2P There's more advantages for both players and the company when you have a subscription.
Every single one of your points is a subjective opinion on why you like the sub-locked model better, not why it is inherently better.
1. Content in any game is created with further revenue generation in mind. In p2p sub-locked games that content is designed with time sinks and time gates in mind. The concept being that time sinks equates to a longer subscription period. Weekly raid locks, dungeon instance locks, limited dungeon rewards (e.g.: gear tokens), and other artificial time locks are total sub-lock p2p cash grabs. The p2p revenue model also supplements that income with one of the following: box fees, micro-transactions, and/or rmt game cash sales.
2. There is no proof that your claim of consistent revenue model equals consistent content updates is true. You caveat your claim with the sweeping vague generalization that it varies from game to game. Guess what? That's true in sub-free games as well.
3. That is totally subjective and again there is no proof of what you claim. You can't exempt the WoW community because it's inconvenient for you and doesn't support your position. Rift, WoW, and EVE don't have any better communities than GW2, TSW, EQ2, LotRO, or STO. I would think the opposite, but that's just my opinion.
4. Not only is this point an outright falsehood on your part, I can't even believe you have the gall to claim that. Rift has had a bot and hacker problem since it launched. Since Storm Legion they have had a horrible bot problem with their fishing system. Lineage, Lineage 2, and Aion have all had bot problems and well before the latter two went sub-free. I can't think of an mmo that doesn't have a bot or hacker problem of some kind. The payment model has nothing to do with this.
You could go on making stuff up, but please don't.
Originally posted by rygard49 P2P is my preference. I can't stand cash shops and the need by the developer to drive business there by making the game inconvenient to play in F2P or B2P models. B2P with cash shop is the worst, imo. Not only have you purchased a full game, but now you're expected to pay beyond a box price to unlock features that should have been inluded in the original purchase (lookin' at you GW2...). No thanks.
And how is having a cash shop in a sub-free game worse than the cash shops, box fees, and officially sanctioned rmt in sub-locked games?
I think it's a gouge and a cash grab that publishers charge box fees and then a subscription to rent temporary access to your game account. It's a gouge that they charge a sub and then sell game time tokens so people can buy an advantage in the game. I think it's a gouge and a cash grab that they charge a recurring fee to rent your game and then sell virtual items for extra in their store (Rift and WoW).
Originally posted by rojo6934 Originally posted by rygard49 B2P with cash shop is the worst, imo. Not only have you purchased a full game, but now you're expected to pay beyond a box price to unlock features that should have been inluded in the original purchase (lookin' at you GW2...). No thanks.
You cash shop guys always like to bring up expansions when talking about p2p, as if you don't have to pay for expansions in every price model.
I do hate the cash shop model, but it's not blind hatred. And it's not even strictly hatred for the model itself. What I hate most about the cash shop is how it turns developers into smarmy salesmen, and they play fast and loose with the truth when they're trying to sell the player on their "free" game. They say things like, "get everything for free just by playing", which is true on it's face, but deeper invesitigation shows that you'd spend years trying to earn those feature or item unlocks.
The cash shop's success is due in large part to capitalizing on (read: abusing) people with no, or very little, self-control. That defines a lot us in the gaming community. The shop is based on the idea that no game is ever going to be hot forever, and in several months many of these players will likely have moved on, so let's give them a reason and an opportunity to spend a years worth of sub money in a day.
I agree with your last statement. Every model is viable when done right. I never said P2P was the only worthwhile model, just the model that I preferred between the two.
Originally posted by Torvaldr Originally posted by Seilan Originally posted by botrytis Originally posted by Gravarg P2P There's more advantages for both players and the company when you have a subscription.
And your points are any different, really? Obviously this is all from my own perspective, but with the experience I've gathered over the years, as well as that of my close friends, I feel I can make a fairly reasonable judgement.
1. So you're saying that a P2P mmo has grinds and time sinks to keep people playing and subbing? Eh, no sh*t. Does that mean I should expect to have nothing to do in a F2P model game for months at a time, as I wait for them to develop content for it, with its less consistent revnue model? If so, that's what I would expect and hence the point I'm making. And you want to talk about locks, let's talk about "gated content" that some of these F2P mmos are known for, where you have to pay specficially for added content that would otherwise be included for everyone on a sub model. That brings us to the walking contradiction that is "Free to Play" - you end up paying more for the things that come standard for 15 dollars a month in a sub game. What a great deal...
2. Proof... gee, let's see, how about some examples - Asheron's Call (a game from '99 that still releases near monthly content updates for only a sub fee), EVE, WoW, EQ1 and 2 (although, to be fair, they use a hybrid P2P/F2P system that I'm not against), Rift, Final Fantasy XI, Istaria, and I'm sure I could think of quite a few more. Each of these games still release, not only small consistent content updates, but near-expansion sized amounts of content on a fairly regular basis. Now tell me, how many F2P mmos, aside from maybe Maplestory or something equally large, can make that claim?
3. Yes, which is why I said it was "subjective" and dependant of my own 10+ years of gaming experience - I take it selective reading is one of your strong suits. As for exempting WoW, I only did so because of the sheer size of it's playerbase compared to pretty much everything else, but then went on to point out that even though its community has some rough patches, you can still just as easily find a niche that suits you - you just have to weed through the bad. So really, I DID include it in my argument. Also, most of the games you listed here aren't even true F2P - they're hybrids of both P2P and F2P, and that's not what I'm arguing against. I actually don't mind hybrid systems, as it allows those of us that want to sub for the full game, the option to do so. Naturally, the communities are going to be better in a hybrid game since in most cases you still have to pony up for a box price. Not to mention, as they didn't start out as F2P (and still offer a sub option) you're most likely going to have a veteran community more reminiscent of that of a P2P mmo. You really only strengthened my point with those examples.
4. Ha, call it whatever you want, but nothing about it was "false". You pick the three Korean-based mmos where bots were known to be rampant, and an indie-developed title, as the basis for your argument? Yeah, that's doesn't really help the case you're trying to make here. I could list many P2P titles that aren't nearly as impacted (at least perceivably) by bots, as opposed to the plethora of F2P mmos that are drowning in them, but it would take awhile. Needless to say, it's more than four of them. Besides, like I clearly stated in my earlier post, I'm well aware you're going to find bots anywhere you go, but you're delusional if you think that having a box price and sub does nothing to act as a deterrent to would-be botters/spammers. But please, elaborate on how it makes no difference at all. That should be interesting.
I could continue pointing out arguments that make no sense, and... I think I will.
I hope we shall crush...in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." ~Thomes Jefferson
Originally posted by Torvaldr Originally posted by rygard49 P2P is my preference. I can't stand cash shops and the need by the developer to drive business there by making the game inconvenient to play in F2P or B2P models. B2P with cash shop is the worst, imo. Not only have you purchased a full game, but now you're expected to pay beyond a box price to unlock features that should have been inluded in the original purchase (lookin' at you GW2...). No thanks.
Where is it written that P2P games also have to have cash shops? I can name a few that do, but that's not a definition of the model. It seems assinine to base your entire argument against P2P on the games that use a hybrid and not a true P2P model.
I would say p2p as long as that gets the company enough money to make a great game and then continue making it a great game.
If I'm just payign a sub and I'm not getting much but connecting to the servers then I might wonder where my money is going. Still, if the game is very enjoyable it might not be that big a deal and the the money is well spent.
f2p is only viable if it doesn't buy "indulgences".
well, then again, the f2p company is going to constantly be shoving their adverts in my face and their specials. makes it feel like I'm being sold to and sold to "hard".
Originally posted by Sovrath I would say p2p as long as that gets the company enough money to make a great game and then continue making it a great game. If I'm just payign a sub and I'm not getting much but connecting to the servers then I might wonder where my money is going. Still, if the game is very enjoyable it might not be that big a deal and the the money is well spent. f2p is only viable if it doesn't buy "indulgences". well, then again, the f2p company is going to constantly be shoving their adverts in my face and their specials. makes it feel like I'm being sold to and sold to "hard".
Exactly. It's also a slippery slope kind of situation. What might start out as a decent, non-instrusive, reasonable F2P system, can quickly devolve into something more "nickel and diming" and restrictive, if certain financial metrics aren't met. A "nature of the beast" kind of thing and all that jazz.
Then again, I suppose it's better than having a decent game shut down completely, due to a lack of funds. That said, I look at F2P as more of a last resort than anything else.
Edit: added/corrected a few things.
I dont want to subsidise the peasants