It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Originally posted by Stiler There seems to be so many misconceptions here. a Lot of old school mmo people see "F2p" or GW2's style buy once model and think it means PAy to win, when it doesn't have to, they also think making it free to play means it will attract less mature people, and there's just NO BASIS for that whatsoever. I have met a TON of immature people throughout mmo's, from sub-based games, WoW especially, , etc. I have also met many mature people in free to play games, like League of Legends, Guild wars 2, etc. Having a SUB will have ZERO BEARING on the "mautrity" level of the players. There's a reaso that almost any big AAA mmo is going F2p these days. F2p games attract a larger userbase, it allows people to play the game without committing much to it like traditional mmo's, and it keeps a healthy userbase, even if some people aren't paying for the in-game costmetic items/server changes, etc. Having a sub model, though it worked in the past, turns away many new/potential customers thees days. When the average joe, who isn't a Die hard DAOC fan that played back in the day, he will look at it, compare it to other mmo's (which are mostly going f2p) and decide to buy it or not. WoW will probably be the last "big" sub based mmo, and even they hav ea free to play to lv 20 model.
No misconceptions here. I prefer the P2P model over any other. Frankly I;m tired of playing with players who embrace the idea of "not having to committ". I want to play with people who have the time to invest in an MMO and are committed to playing it. I prefer to be surround by gamers whose first hobby is gaming and that don't game because they have a friend or three that does but they could honestly not care if they played or not.
I'm married and have 2 kids. I do alot of community work through scouting. I have alot of real life/world committments. I take care of them all and still have time to log 25+ hours a week playing MMOs. Those are the folks I want to play with. THose that aren't troubled by committing.
"Many nights, my friend... Many nights I've put a blade to your throat while you were sleeping. Glad I never killed you, Steve. You're alright..."
Kickstarter 2 / Naysayers 0
I would be very surprised if the game is sub based, as this year most p2p games will go the b2p or f2p route.
There is a lot more money to be made with a cash shop model for a developer, so it makes no sense to minimize your profits.
If P2P was more profitable we would be seeing a trend of more games going that route, which is obviously not the case, its the opposite.
Originally posted by PerfArt In this medium, as in any, you get what you pay for. How is this a hard concept to grasp? Does anyone expect a F2P but not pay to win model to work for a niche mmo? There are so many elements of fail in that logic that I don't know where to start. I can understand armchair designers, because we all think we know how to design an awesome game. (Hah) But armchair economics? Let's take it easy, folks. Pay to play ensures support. Anyone who remembers Team Leads in DAoC knows that. Anyone who remembers what it's like to know no one else was paying to win knows that. How is everyone being on a level playing field worse than a f2p model where A) people can pay to win, or the developer makes no money? Sometimes I feel as if people expect an entire team of people to sustain a game over years and years, managing servers and providing content, while being both f2p AND not pay to win. Not to be rude, and all respect due, but that is pretty fucking petulant.
F2p = pay to win, the logic that if a game is free to play it HAS to be pay to win is absurd and holds no water. A game does not have to be "pay to win" in order to generate revenue.
Guild Wars 2 for example, while it's not a straight up f2p game, the in-game store is focused mostly on costmetic items, and the way the system works, you can buy the "gems" (which are worth real money/bought with real money) with the currency you earn in-game, everything you can get on the in-game store can be bought with the in-game currecny by this. There's nothing "locked" out by having the in game shop, which uses gems, that can be traded/bought for.
Guidl wars also boosts one of the more active "updates" for an mmo, the develoeprs constantly (usually each month) have new content/events that are FREE to players, just patch, login, and play it. Moreso then many SUB based mmo's (like WoW).
In all my years playing mmo's, from the early days of UO/EQ/AC/DAOC to the newer games, including WoW, SW:TOR, TSW, etc I remember not very many "sub" based mmo's that offered "new" content. No, most of them(not all) actually had expansions, which you in-turn had to pay 30-40 bucks for to play all the new content.
Asheron's Call was one of the few mmo's that felt like that the sub fee was being used to actually make new thing s(they had monthly updates with new story elements, game content, and other things that constantly changed teh world and made it more dynamic). Some sub-based mmo's it felt like they were taking the sub-money, then using it to develop an expansion which they turned around and sold back to you after using the money from your sub to build it, that was just the impression I got from some games (no AC/UO/DAOC, but others gave that impression, especially with no content updates).
League of Legends, the MOST PLAYED pc game (even more then WoW) is built upon a FULLY free to paly game model and 0 "pay to win" cash shop.
The majority of their money is from skins and cosmetic items. Heroes can be bought with both real moeny or ip (which you earn from playing the game). You do not have to spend a single penny to unlock a hero or anything else.
You say that f2p doesn't make as much money? Then explain why so many "sub-based" mmo's have switched over? I gav ea long list earlier of mmo's that have moved to a f2p model, if it makes less money owhy would they do this???
So your argument that "free to play" games are subpar and can't provide content holds no water with me and my experiences.
I agree with the OP on some points. He makes a valid argument about investing hundreds or thousands of dollars (and hours) building your character... then you stop paying the monthly sub, and you're completely locked out. I've never thought about it like that, and it's undeniably true. That kinda sucks...
I wouldn't mind B2P with a cash shop that only has cosmetic items. I would probably spend money in the cash shop just to help the developers.
I'm surprised how a lot of the posters in this thread insist that it would still be pay to win, even if the shop only contained cosmetic items. Because if it doesn't impact stats or give an advantage, then it's not really "pay to win," it's more like "pay to look a little different, and help fund the game while you're at it." What's the issue with that?
But, whether I agree with the OP or not, doesn't matter because MJ already said there's gonna be a subscription. Either way, if I have a fun time playing the game, then I will continue to do so regardless of the payment model.
Originally posted by gigat I agree with the OP on some points. He makes a valid argument about investing hundreds or thousands of dollars (and hours) building your character... then you stop paying the monthly sub, and you're completely locked out. I've never thought about it like that, and it's undeniably true. That kinda sucks...
Exactly the same way that someone who has paid their rent their whole lives and then doesn't pay for a month and gets kicked out on the curb.
You entitlement mentality kids. Harden the fuck up.
Emeryc Eightdrakes - Ranger of DragonMyst Keep - Percival
RED IS DEAD!
Originally posted by Tumblebutz MJ has stated it will be subscription based... period.
Well at least until it tanks. Then, any port in a storm...
'Sandbox MMO' is a PTSD trigger word for anyone who has the experience to know that anonymous players invariably use a 'sandbox' in the same manner a housecat does.
When your head is stuck in the sand, your ass becomes the only recognizable part of you.
No game is more fun than the one you can't play, and no game is more boring than one which you've become familiar.
How to become a millionaire:Start with a billion dollars and make an MMO.
I guess, the company from World of Tank and LOL don't make a lot of money from F2P?
It is not about what type of payment method, it is all about the gameplay and how talented the devs are.
Pardon my English as it is not my 1st language
Originally posted by h0urg1ass Originally posted by gigat I agree with the OP on some points. He makes a valid argument about investing hundreds or thousands of dollars (and hours) building your character... then you stop paying the monthly sub, and you're completely locked out. I've never thought about it like that, and it's undeniably true. That kinda sucks...
Significant difference between paying rent for shelter, and paying a monthly subscription fee for a video game.
Originally posted by snapfusion I have a solution too. Simply cut back on 4 trips to Taco Bell a month and BAM there you have saved enough money to play CU.
or two chipolte burritos!
Originally posted by xmenty Originally posted by PerfArt In this medium, as in any, you get what you pay for. How is this a hard concept to grasp? Does anyone expect a F2P but not pay to win model to work for a niche mmo? There are so many elements of fail in that logic that I don't know where to start. I can understand armchair designers, because we all think we know how to design an awesome game. (Hah) But armchair economics? Let's take it easy, folks. Pay to play ensures support. Anyone who remembers Team Leads in DAoC knows that. Anyone who remembers what it's like to know no one else was paying to win knows that. How is everyone being on a level playing field worse than a f2p model where A) people can pay to win, or the developer makes no money? Sometimes I feel as if people expect an entire team of people to sustain a game over years and years, managing servers and providing content, while being both f2p AND not pay to win. Not to be rude, and all respect due, but that is pretty fucking petulant.
But if you want to be as good as other you have to have premium ammo which cost so much that you have to buy it and it will cost a lot more to buy it in big quantity. This is just lame. I want to pay static fee per month and have fun.
Blizzard makes a lot of money on WOW with a sub model, and ANET makes a lot of money with it's BTP model.
So what is your point exactly.?
Some payment models are better for one style of game, and another is better for other games. Most of the fans of this title feel sub models are best for PVP centric, persistant game worlds such as CU (see EVE for another example) and therefore favor it over other models.
On hiatus from EVE Online since Dec 2016 - Screw off-grid PVE boosting changes
Pouring on extra "Salt" for 2017
In my day MMORPG's were so hard we fought our way through dungeons in the snow, uphill both ways.
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™ "This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Originally posted by DeanMalinco disagree with OP, subscription model is better for having the dev team constantly update the game.
Guild wars 2 has had a lot more "updates" that actually add CONTENT to the game compared to many "sub" based mmo's i've played over the years.
There were plenty of sub mmo's that didn't have that many content updates (if any at all) and instead released expansions which you had to pay for to get that new content.
In an RvR game you cannot have any monetisation model that in the slightest creates P2w or the players will just disappear and you have shot an own goal.
You may have some middle ground like paying for fluff, or subscribing to take part in the next season of warfare (something like ranked servers would be cool actually - Premier league - first and second division, promotion and relegation). I however doubt that it would make the money required.
To put it bluntly, anyone who is interested in a RvR niche game like CU will have enough experience with MMO's to know that for this type of game a subscription is just the fairest way forward, after all, the people working on the dev team need to pay their mortgage as well.
Originally posted by Stiler Originally posted by DeanMalinco disagree with OP, subscription model is better for having the dev team constantly update the game.
F2P only works for PvE focused games, not PvP or in this case, RvR focused games. So with that being said, F2P did wonders to help LOTRO increase revenues by 400% when they went from SUB to F2P. However anytime you focus on PvP for an MMO, F2P just creates more hassle than it's worth.
Take Planetside, All Points Bulletin, All Points Bulletin: Reloaded, Planetside 2 and so on. All of those games are PvP focused and all of them are F2P. While cheaters will be sure to chime in and say not very many people actually use AIMBOTs or other hacks in those game, the fact is, theres enough that do to make the game pointless.
Sorry, but PvP focused games and F2P should never be in the same sentence, EVER.
No free play, no pay to win. Subscriptions reduce hacking because their are consequences when they lose accounts.
Originally posted by sweetdigs Originally posted by Destai Originally posted by Niix_Ozek He has already stated it will be subscription and doesn't care if he offends a few people. stop posting these ugh
It doesn't matter if it offends people, it matters if it's financially viable. Let's take a look at how many successful games still use that business model.
How many "successful" MMOs do NOT use the subscription model?
I don't consider the games that were subscription and turned to F2P as being successful. It's not like SWTOR or EQ2's subscriptions or profitability got any better when they went F2P. They were already in the tank.
No, those two games were failures because of their mechanices, especially SWTOR. However, DDO, LOTRO, and TERA all reported marked improvements in their player base and revenue since their conversion. I think these companies should save some face and simply avoid the subscription model from the start. I don't think f2p is implemented well in many cases, but it at least keeps the company alive long enough to attempt improvements.
Originally posted by sweetdigs DISAGREE!! Make it a monthly subscription. No cash house. No pay to win. No pay to level past level 20. Just a flat monthly subscription so everybody is on equal footing.
I want my game churning out content like there is no tommorow so I want them to have the resources to do it full time. This is something I am willing to personally pay for. I think that games can be economically successful with a p2p model and moderate and steady subscription base. Gamewise I dont feel driven by the knowledge that 1 million other people are playing this game when even 20 000 makes for a large community.
My 2 c
p.s. It generally goes that most good things in life you have to pay for
Why hasn't this topic died? He has stated many many many times it will be sub based ... period.
Ozek - DAOCNiix - Other games that sucked