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!

F2P or P2P Mode for TESO? What do you prefer?

13»

Comments

  • Eir_SEir_S Argyle, NYPosts: 4,623Member
    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.

    You don't have to pay anything in GW2, if you have the gold.  Even then, it's much less grinding than you'll do while paying a subscription for a few pieces of gear a month.  Your argument is wonked, but continue to enjoy being forcefully drained of cash instead of when you want to be.

  • rodingorodingo Posts: 2,346Member Uncommon
    Definitely B2P, as long as the cash shop isn't pay to win.  I'm ok with cosmetics only in a cash shop becuase there will always be people who like to buy that stuff.  I think GW2 and TSW have proven that B2P is a successful model.  It may be possible to have a new P2P game turn a nice profit, but I think what happened to SWTOR was a reality check for a lot of devs and players.  If TESO starts as P2P then I will just wait 6 months for it to convert to F2P or B2P before I start playing.  If it stays P2P then I will simply not buy the box and subscribe, no biggie.

    "If I offended you, you needed it" -Corey Taylor

  • rygard49rygard49 Huntington Beach, CAPosts: 975Member
    Originally posted by Eir_S
    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.

    You don't have to pay anything in GW2, if you have the gold.  Even then, it's much less grinding than you'll do while paying a subscription for a few pieces of gear a month.  Your argument is wonked, but continue to enjoy being forcefully drained of cash instead of when you want to be.

    I can see I've committed the cardinal sin of naming GW2 in a negative post about it's payment model.

    What you've written here is exactly the kind of spin that devs are forced to regurgitate over and over about F2P cash shops in order to get players on board. The argument that you can get everything for free is not really true. What you're doing is having someone else pay for your cash shop items for you. There's nothing inherently wrong with that, obviously when they buy your gold you're just trading your time for their real world money just like in any real world job. But it's dishonest to infer that it's free.

    I don't get why you think you only get a few pieces of gear per month in a P2P model. I'm subscribing to a P2P currently, and in the past month I've gotten almost a completely upgraded set of gear. Last night alone I got two pieces. Gearing has nothing to do with the payment model of the game.

    Last, P2P doesn't forcefully drain you of cash. It's completely voluntary whether I pay to play for a month or not. I have no problem with the upfront expectation that I support their game with a monthly subscription, and that's no different really from you having no problem spending money in a cash shop to support your game. As another poster said, both models are totally viable if done the right way. The wrong way, in my opinion, is to lock what would otherwise be standard game features behind the cash shop after you've already payed full price for the game.

     

  • VarthanderVarthander BarcelonaPosts: 471Member
    im taking B2P thanks.

    image

  • TorvalTorval Oregon CountryPosts: 7,204Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by rygard49
    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.

    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).

    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.

    What major p2p game doesn't generate additional revenue outside of the subscription?  EVE, WoW, Rift, and every other major sub-locked game generates extra revenue outside the sub.  Lineage is the only major title I can think of that doesn't have a secondary revenue source.

    Not only that but WoW and Rift both directly gate progression behind paying extra beyond the sub.  If you don't buy the xpacs you don't get access to the progression.  It's the classic definition of pay to win.

    Not only that, but since you're just renting temporary access to the servers, any additional money you do spend on the game is locked away once you stop paying them their recurring fees.

     

  • cybersrscybersrs New York, NYPosts: 153Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Sibcoe

    Hi TESO Fans - 

    I wanted to share another episode of "Sicoe Asks" with you guys, the show where we ask you what you think about various topics.  In this episode I am asking what you guys think the best business model for TESO is:

     

    TESO F2P?

     

    Check it out and let us know what you think.

    Cheers 0/

    If the game is good, P2P... If it is not, F2P.  Normally that is how it is work... People work hard to pay to things they like.

  • SoMuchMassSoMuchMass New York, NYPosts: 548Member

    As the poster above me said, if it is a good game that can provide constant content then Pay-to-Play is easily the model I prefer.  If it is not good enough for a subscription fee then a F2P model is better.

    If GW2 was any indication, B2P is a model for "MMO lites" that have zero longevity and almost no end game and are subpar at best.  And that is not the type of MMO I am looking for.

    Games shouldn't be designed around a business model.  ANd F2P and B2P games are designed around the business model.

  • azarhalazarhal Somewhere, BCPosts: 760Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by SoMuchMass

    As the poster above me said, if it is a good game that can provide constant content then Pay-to-Play is easily the model I prefer.  If it is not good enough for a subscription fee then a F2P model is better.

    If GW2 was any indication, B2P is a model for "MMO lites" that have zero longevity and almost no end game and are subpar at best.  And that is not the type of MMO I am looking for.

    Games shouldn't be designed around a business model.  ANd F2P and B2P games are designed around the business model.

    All games are designed around a business model. P2P games are designed around coercing the players in keeping the sub as long as possible by promising shiny loots to them (aka gear-grind). Going by the rest of your post, looks like you are the perfect gullible target for them.

    As for your impression of GW2, I think many people most see something in the game that you don't see, because the game population growth rate have increased since Christmas. If it was subpar shouldn't it be dying?

  • rygard49rygard49 Huntington Beach, CAPosts: 975Member
    Originally posted by Torvaldr
    Originally posted by rygard49
    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.

    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).

    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.

    What major p2p game doesn't generate additional revenue outside of the subscription?  EVE, WoW, Rift, and every other major sub-locked game generates extra revenue outside the sub.  Lineage is the only major title I can think of that doesn't have a secondary revenue source.

    Not only that but WoW and Rift both directly gate progression behind paying extra beyond the sub.  If you don't buy the xpacs you don't get access to the progression.  It's the classic definition of pay to win.

    Not only that, but since you're just renting temporary access to the servers, any additional money you do spend on the game is locked away once you stop paying them their recurring fees.

    You're naming major games that use a hybrid model, not P2P. It's meaningless to argue against one payment model, and then use a completely different payment model as evidence for your argument. I hope you understand that the premise of this thread is a debate betwen P2P and F2P, and not hybrids. Think original WoW, EQ, EQ2, DAoC, UO, etc.

    Your second paragraph made me laugh out loud. You're implying that F2P titles don't expand their games? That they don't "lock" (lol) their content behind purchasing an expansion? DDO just had an expansion released that you have to purchase in order to play. That's the nature of the MMO beast, not the direct result of whatever payment model the game uses.

     

  • JustsomenoobJustsomenoob lexington, KYPosts: 871Member

    B2P

     

    I like Guild Wars 2's setup.   They've struck a good balance in their cash shop, better than any other game I've seen.   There's some stuff in there you might want, but it isn't particularly important and converting gold to gems (the cash shop currency) to get a few random things in there you like isn't exceptionally expensive. 

     

    Also like not having a sub since I don't feel like I have to abandon a game in order to play another.   I can afford a sub but I don't have so much money that I'm going to maintain subs for several games.

13»
Sign In or Register to comment.