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!

Why will this not be B2P like TSW/Gw2 ?? :((

2

Comments

  • rastapastorrastapastor KnurPosts: 153Member Uncommon

    [mod edit] Guy is asking why this game is not B2P, and ppl talk shit about F2P :)

     

    B2P != F2P ;)

  • ThaneThane berlinPosts: 2,232Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Bad.dog

    Already did the WOW killer with Warhammer ....time to move on to bigger and better things

    yea, and he's been castrated right before launch. that's why he is trying another approach now, kickstarter.

    "I'll never grow up, never grow up, never grow up! Not me!"

  • ZiftylrhavicZiftylrhavic GrenoblePosts: 222Member
    Originally posted by wowclones
    Originally posted by bugmeno

    what is the reason CU is not B2P ??

    Becasue Jacobs wants CU to eventually die like WAR and DAOC due to having a sub fee. WAR would still be kicking today if it went F2P as all the mmos that went F2P from that era are still very active to this day.

    Can you tel me how many players are there on those games please?

     

    Just to have an idea about the minimum number of players needed to keep running a FTP game.

  • SovrathSovrath Boston Area, MAPosts: 18,462Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by rastapastor

    [mod edit] Guy is asking why this game is not B2P, and ppl talk shit about F2P :)

     

    B2P != F2P ;)

    yeah yeah, you have a point. However, the idea of "buy to play" is very similiar to f2p.

    They rely upon people spending money in their cash shop. The only differenceis that b2p does allow for everyone to at least pony up something but the cash shop is there to make money.

    He needs the monthly revenue that a subscription brings as well as the initial payment for the game. As long as he can make the game sub "worth it" each month then the small community that will be in Camelot Unchained should have no problem supporting a game they love.

  • Bad.dogBad.dog Belleville, ONPosts: 1,108Member
    Originally posted by Comaf
    Originally posted by korent1991
    Originally posted by Mkilbride

     

    They were surely smart enough to create an mmorpg (Dark Age of Camelot) that not one F2P game can even compare with in imagination, depth, options such as massive classive differentiation, the fact you get to fight someone different than you because again there's that word, smart...

     

     

    Smart ...took a great RvR game and ruined it with piss poor pve (Dark Age of Camelot)...developed a WOW killer RVR game (Warhammer) and ruined it with piss poor pve and pvp . Anyone else starting to see a trend here ?.....Smart

  • BlueTiger33BlueTiger33 La Crosse, WIPosts: 158Member
    Originally posted by Mkilbride

    Because.

     

    https://camelotunchained.wikispaces.com/Subscription+Model

     

    Q: Why have you chosen a subscription-model? Are you insane? Everything is FTP and should be now and forever!

    a) Because I don’t want to have to support the vast majority of players who never pay for their time in FTP games; b) Maybe, but I think it is the good kind of insane; c) There’s a major shakeout coming down the road (3-5 years max) in the FTP space whether people/publishers want to hear it or not (well, it’s not of course). Besides, we will get a tighter community with fewer people who actually really want to play and stick with our game as opposed to a large number of people who are playing until they have to pay or they find a different FTP that interests them.

     

    • What I mean by Multi-tier Subs is that it is not going to be one size fits all....
    • We did the discount thing too, if you play for 3 months, 6 months, a year... .
    • I think there are better ways to set up sub plans....
    • We'd love to have a family plan.
    • Let be clear about this , we are not looking at raising the sub rates.
    • We want to be lower than the average price.
    • Since we are not going to be a PvE game, we're not going to need as many developers, so we shouldn't charge as much.
     
    I think it's fair. What other sub based game out there are you going to paly?I can't think of sone released now, or in the coming years that I would wanna sub to.
     
    Previously I would have said with pride "FFXIV ARR"
     
    After being in the beta...well...yeah.

    One of the best pro sub pieces I've seen. Down to earth and the point.

    image

    I will never support freeloaders, no more subsidized gaming.
    My Blog
  • rastapastorrastapastor KnurPosts: 153Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Sovrath
    Originally posted by rastapastor

    I think ppl are uneducated nowdays. Guy is asking why this game is not B2P, and ppl talk shit about F2P :)

     

    B2P != F2P ;)

    yeah yeah, you have a point. However, the idea of "buy to play" is very similiar to f2p.

    They rely upon people spending money in their cash shop. The only differenceis that b2p does allow for everyone to at least pony up something but the cash shop is there to make money.

    He needs the monthly revenue that a subscription brings as well as the initial payment for the game. As long as he can make the game sub "worth it" each month then the small community that will be in Camelot Unchained should have no problem supporting a game they love.

     

    Judging on a GW1 and GW2 success and its "Gem shop", subscription is not needed to keep the development and money flow. If it was different ArenaNet wouldn't decide to assemble the same revenue model for GW2. Ofc we can argue about quality and quantity of content between b2p and p2p.

    One thing i'll admit is that subscription games have better support (tickets etc) than f2p or b2p games. But content wise i think it's equal (maybe b2p is little lower :D). 

  • BlueTiger33BlueTiger33 La Crosse, WIPosts: 158Member
    Originally posted by rastapastor

    [mod edit] . Guy is asking why this game is not B2P, and ppl talk shit about F2P :)

     

    B2P != F2P ;)

    There's a reason for it. B2P/F2P still requires online acces and they still need to bring in an income to guarantee their jobs. 

    image

    I will never support freeloaders, no more subsidized gaming.
    My Blog
  • rastapastorrastapastor KnurPosts: 153Member Uncommon

    We are not in 2001 year. It's 2013 servers and bandwith is now very cheap (it isn't even included in the main chart of NCsoft :D).

     

    For instance in 2001 for 256kbps connection my parents payed like 35 dollars. Now for 50Mbits symetric connection (50Mbit up and down) I pay less than 20 dollars every month :).

     

    Most money goes for support and development, thats why P2P games have better support than F2P and B2P ;).

  • RizelStarRizelStar Raleigh, NCPosts: 2,773Member
    Originally posted by rastapastor
    Originally posted by Sovrath
    Originally posted by rastapastor

    [mod edit] Guy is asking why this game is not B2P, and ppl talk shit about F2P :)

     

    B2P != F2P ;)

    yeah yeah, you have a point. However, the idea of "buy to play" is very similiar to f2p.

    They rely upon people spending money in their cash shop. The only differenceis that b2p does allow for everyone to at least pony up something but the cash shop is there to make money.

    He needs the monthly revenue that a subscription brings as well as the initial payment for the game. As long as he can make the game sub "worth it" each month then the small community that will be in Camelot Unchained should have no problem supporting a game they love.

     

    Judging on a GW1 and GW2 success and its "Gem shop", subscription is not needed to keep the development and money flow. If it was different ArenaNet wouldn't decide to assemble the same revenue model for GW2. Ofc we can argue about quality and quantity of content between b2p and p2p.

    One thing i'll admit is that subscription games have better support (tickets etc) than f2p or b2p games. But content wise i think it's equal (maybe b2p is little lower :D). 

    Not only that but they even made it to where you can get cash shop items with in game Gold.

     

    Though I'll start being a bit more fair to P2P, maybe the game type can't support it, cause I stated earlier due to GW2 being the way it is, it's cash shop is anti P2W, but maybe if it was a clone possibly or just had certain mechanics like other MMOS it might be P2W.

    Like if the skins in the boxes gave better stats than just looks then that would be an issue. Though it's just cosmectic skins.

    Or if you never down leveled in PVE or upscale in WvW then the XP bonuses and etc would be terrible IMO. Just depends on how the game is made that makes it not rely on cash shop. They do understand many people don't have patience or time but have money so they will give up cash, and still won't have an advantage over someone playing.

    GW2 has an optional cash shop. I want to say PS2 cash shop is anti P2W as well. So yea, B2P atleast since year 2012 for MMORPGs really is making the P2W arguments seem silly but then again it depends on MMORPG mechanics and etc.

    Maybe Wildstar will be B2P and it's cash shop could function like GW2 but I don't know. Guess we have to wait for a few more MMORPG's to be B2P and have opional cash shop like GW2 before people cease pretending that it's impossible to be anti p2w or pay to have the upper hand while not having a sub(that in itself isn't needed).

    I might get banned for this. - Rizel Star.

    I'm not afraid to tell trolls what they [need] to hear, even if that means for me to have an forced absence afterwards.

    P2P LOGIC = If it's P2P it means longevity, overall better game, and THE BEST SUPPORT EVER!!!!!(Which has been rinsed and repeated about a thousand times)

    Common Sense Logic = P2P logic is no better than F2P Logic.

  • ZiftylrhavicZiftylrhavic GrenoblePosts: 222Member
    Originally posted by rastapastor
    Originally posted by Sovrath
    Originally posted by rastapastor

    I think ppl are uneducated nowdays. Guy is asking why this game is not B2P, and ppl talk shit about F2P :)

     

    B2P != F2P ;)

    yeah yeah, you have a point. However, the idea of "buy to play" is very similiar to f2p.

    They rely upon people spending money in their cash shop. The only differenceis that b2p does allow for everyone to at least pony up something but the cash shop is there to make money.

    He needs the monthly revenue that a subscription brings as well as the initial payment for the game. As long as he can make the game sub "worth it" each month then the small community that will be in Camelot Unchained should have no problem supporting a game they love.

     

    Judging on a GW1 and GW2 success and its "Gem shop", subscription is not needed to keep the development and money flow. If it was different ArenaNet wouldn't decide to assemble the same revenue model for GW2. Ofc we can argue about quality and quantity of content between b2p and p2p.

    One thing i'll admit is that subscription games have better support (tickets etc) than f2p or b2p games. But content wise i think it's equal (maybe b2p is little lower :D). 

    Another difference is than a PTP doesn't need as many players to keep running, whereas FTP/BTP need to attract a lot more as only a small part is paying.

  • rastapastorrastapastor KnurPosts: 153Member Uncommon

    Heh ofc i don't want to discredit P2P model, if the game is worth i will pay with pleasure. The thing is developers should keep an eye on other revenue models.

     

    GW2 prooves that B2P can have it success in the industry but AS YOU SAID it depends  on how the game is built. 

     

    Maybe some of those "big" releases of last years wouldn't fail so miserably if they took the B2P model from the start instead of P2P? 

  • bugmenobugmeno Iowa, IAPosts: 85Member
    Originally posted by BlueTiger33
    Originally posted by rastapastor

    I think ppl are uneducated nowdays. Guy is asking why this game is not B2P, and ppl talk shit about F2P :)

     

    B2P != F2P ;)

    There's a reason for it. B2P/F2P still requires online acces and they still need to bring in an income to guarantee their jobs. 

    can't be much.

    No voiceovers, no cutscenes, no story, no PvE. They could easily live off the money they get with B2P. Maybe they just want people to pay every month on top of the box price so they can buy Ferraris for the dev team...

     

    is it guaranteed that this game will have no cash shop whatsoever?

    image
  • RyowulfRyowulf Greensburg, PAPosts: 668Member Uncommon

    The reason is they don't want a large causal playbase that comes and goes like the tide.  By subbing they will get a small, but loyal group of fans.  Which hopefully will be enough to pay for the cost of running it.

    AAA titles aren't going sub anymore because they spend sooo much money that need to make it back as fast as possible.

  • KarahandrasKarahandras Sible HedinghamPosts: 1,676Member Uncommon

    TSW was p2p when it launched, just weren't enough ppl willing to p2p(just like the others) so it went b2p to try and make more money.

    Guild wars is a game designed to be btp from the beginning and continue to keep the game going by releasing expansions, which isn't likely to be something cu can do(and gw1 is probably a better example than 2 imo).

    Monthly sub is still the best model if the game is good enough to warrant this( which u'll have to wait to find out).

    As to wether or not it wil add a cash shop or go b2p/f2p at some point will probably depend on how it does(despite what the guy says). 

  • ZiftylrhavicZiftylrhavic GrenoblePosts: 222Member
    Originally posted by bugmeno
    Originally posted by BlueTiger33
    Originally posted by rastapastor

    I think ppl are uneducated nowdays. Guy is asking why this game is not B2P, and ppl talk shit about F2P :)

     

    B2P != F2P ;)

    There's a reason for it. B2P/F2P still requires online acces and they still need to bring in an income to guarantee their jobs. 

    can't be much.

    No voiceovers, no cutscenes, no story, no PvE. They could easily live off the money they get with B2P. Maybe they just want people to pay every month on top of the box price so they can buy Ferraris for the dev team...

     

    is it guaranteed that this game will have no cash shop whatsoever?

    It doesn't mean they won't have anything to do once the game is released. Did you hear about something called the balancing of the game? Or about the extensions? Additional classes and races?

     

    Besides they are offering a lot of game copy with KS, so i don't think BTP would be enough to pay up for the investment cost.

     

    EDIT :

    About the cash shop, there may be something for cosmetic items, but nothing else. No exp boost, skills or any other thing with effect on the gameplay.

  • SovrathSovrath Boston Area, MAPosts: 18,462Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by rastapastor
    Originally posted by Sovrath
    Originally posted by rastapastor

    I think ppl are uneducated nowdays. Guy is asking why this game is not B2P, and ppl talk shit about F2P :)

     

    B2P != F2P ;)

    yeah yeah, you have a point. However, the idea of "buy to play" is very similiar to f2p.

    They rely upon people spending money in their cash shop. The only differenceis that b2p does allow for everyone to at least pony up something but the cash shop is there to make money.

    He needs the monthly revenue that a subscription brings as well as the initial payment for the game. As long as he can make the game sub "worth it" each month then the small community that will be in Camelot Unchained should have no problem supporting a game they love.

     

    Judging on a GW1 and GW2 success and its "Gem shop", subscription is not needed to keep the development and money flow. If it was different ArenaNet wouldn't decide to assemble the same revenue model for GW2. Ofc we can argue about quality and quantity of content between b2p and p2p.

    One thing i'll admit is that subscription games have better support (tickets etc) than f2p or b2p games. But content wise i think it's equal (maybe b2p is little lower :D). 

    I think we need to wait on that.

    the game has been out for 8 months? Something like that? I think I'd like to see more actual financial date than 8 months or so worth of data.  It launched in the middle of Q3 and we are moving toward the middle of Q1 the year after. Remember, these games have to "grow" YOY.  At least in a publicly traded company.

    edit: so let's see how it does after the initial excitement has worn off and look at how it does for a solid year at least.

  • vulkanxxvulkanxx streetsboro, OHPosts: 13Member
    I backed CU with 5$. I will never play the game I just like Mark. And I hope CU works out for him. If I am ever it a place in life that I can not pay 15$ a month for a game I like... Then I need to step back and look at my life and figure out where i fed up and fix it.
  • deathangelldeathangell oviedo, FLPosts: 85Member
    the new gamign generation has a sense of entitlement and is extremely rude but sensitive at the same time. I find that p2p weeds a bit of this out because usually u get less kids simply because they cant afford it of course there are other people who cant afford a p2p model and it sucks they wont be able to enjoy the game. F2p models breed a player who thinks they can just get away with whatever they want because they dont really have somethign to lose they can simply reroll or jump servers. But what truly needs to be handled in order to make sure that any game f2p or p2p survives is server hopping and the ability to keep a servers population regulated early. The new generation are bandwagon players meaning if there losing and there is a side that is better they will trade servers or leave servers if its 2 tough. They dont like being underdogs because its not rewarding.
  • rastapastorrastapastor KnurPosts: 153Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Sovrath
    Originally posted by rastapastor
    Originally posted by Sovrath
    Originally posted by rastapastor

    I think ppl are uneducated nowdays. Guy is asking why this game is not B2P, and ppl talk shit about F2P :)

     

    B2P != F2P ;)

    yeah yeah, you have a point. However, the idea of "buy to play" is very similiar to f2p.

    They rely upon people spending money in their cash shop. The only differenceis that b2p does allow for everyone to at least pony up something but the cash shop is there to make money.

    He needs the monthly revenue that a subscription brings as well as the initial payment for the game. As long as he can make the game sub "worth it" each month then the small community that will be in Camelot Unchained should have no problem supporting a game they love.

     

    Judging on a GW1 and GW2 success and its "Gem shop", subscription is not needed to keep the development and money flow. If it was different ArenaNet wouldn't decide to assemble the same revenue model for GW2. Ofc we can argue about quality and quantity of content between b2p and p2p.

    One thing i'll admit is that subscription games have better support (tickets etc) than f2p or b2p games. But content wise i think it's equal (maybe b2p is little lower :D). 

    I think we need to wait on that.

    the game has been out for 8 months? Something like that? I think I'd like to see more actual financial date than 8 months or so worth of data.  It launched in the middle of Q3 and we are moving toward the middle of Q1 the year after. Remember, these games have to "grow" YOY.  At least in a publicly traded company.

    edit: so let's see how it does after the initial excitement has worn off and look at how it does for a solid year at least.

     

    GW1 is with us for over 7 years :). It was the second succesful MMO after WoW. Yes i'm not afraid about GW2 :)

  • ChakulaChakula Sycamore, ILPosts: 12Member

    Then don't play, and don't back it up.

     

    Been said a hundred times, this is a niche game. It will not appeal to everyone. Clearly it does not appeal to you.

  • bugmenobugmeno Iowa, IAPosts: 85Member
    Originally posted by vulkanxx
    I backed CU with 5$. I will never play the game I just like Mark. And I hope CU works out for him. If I am ever it a place in life that I can not pay 15$ a month for a game I like... Then I need to step back and look at my life and figure out where i fed up and fix it.

    I spend around 50$ per month on gaming already, that is enough for a dabbling hobby.

    it adds up with car cost, mobile phone contract, rentals, food, other entertainment and clothing you know.

    another yearly 170€ subscription I can rather spend on Gin Tonics on a vacation island in Greece.

    if you are that rich so you can afford numerous MMOs subs, feel free to donate me some money for a CU lifetime sub...

    image
  • SovrathSovrath Boston Area, MAPosts: 18,462Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by rastapastor
    Originally posted by Sovrath
    Originally posted by rastapastor
    Originally posted by Sovrath
    Originally posted by rastapastor

    I think ppl are uneducated nowdays. Guy is asking why this game is not B2P, and ppl talk shit about F2P :)

     

    B2P != F2P ;)

    yeah yeah, you have a point. However, the idea of "buy to play" is very similiar to f2p.

    They rely upon people spending money in their cash shop. The only differenceis that b2p does allow for everyone to at least pony up something but the cash shop is there to make money.

    He needs the monthly revenue that a subscription brings as well as the initial payment for the game. As long as he can make the game sub "worth it" each month then the small community that will be in Camelot Unchained should have no problem supporting a game they love.

     

    Judging on a GW1 and GW2 success and its "Gem shop", subscription is not needed to keep the development and money flow. If it was different ArenaNet wouldn't decide to assemble the same revenue model for GW2. Ofc we can argue about quality and quantity of content between b2p and p2p.

    One thing i'll admit is that subscription games have better support (tickets etc) than f2p or b2p games. But content wise i think it's equal (maybe b2p is little lower :D). 

    I think we need to wait on that.

    the game has been out for 8 months? Something like that? I think I'd like to see more actual financial date than 8 months or so worth of data.  It launched in the middle of Q3 and we are moving toward the middle of Q1 the year after. Remember, these games have to "grow" YOY.  At least in a publicly traded company.

    edit: so let's see how it does after the initial excitement has worn off and look at how it does for a solid year at least.

     

    GW1 is with us for over 7 years :). It was the second succesful MMO after WoW. Yes i'm not afraid about GW2 :)

    dude... I'm not arguing the success of GW1. And I thought we were talking abouot GW2? right?

    I think people are forgetting that the devs actually said that continuing to develop GW1 the way they had would have been financially prohibitive. That's when they were sitting down and seeing what they needed to do and they realized that from what they learned they could do things differently. Which is why GW2 was born.

    GW1 is different from  GW2 and will be developed differently.

    So again, let's see how their new open world game grows and thrives over at least a year. I'm not trying to troll but I think "some" people have this idea that if a game sells a lot in it's first months then it's a success.

    I want nothign more than GW2 to be successful over the years as clearly people love it. But can we at least look at a year's worthof data?

    Espeically since they have said that no expansions are on the horizon?

  • vulkanxxvulkanxx streetsboro, OHPosts: 13Member
    Originally posted by bugmeno
    Originally posted by vulkanxx
    I backed CU with 5$. I will never play the game I just like Mark. And I hope CU works out for him. If I am ever it a place in life that I can not pay 15$ a month for a game I like... Then I need to step back and look at my life and figure out where i fed up and fix it.

    I spend around 50$ per month on gaming already, that is enough for a dabbling hobby.

    it adds up with car cost, mobile phone contract, rentals, food, other entertainment and clothing you know.

    another yearly 170€ subscription I can rather spend on Gin Tonics on a vacation island in Greece.

    if you are that rich so you can afford numerous MMOs subs, feel free to donate me some money for a CU lifetime sub...

    No thanks this is not Obama Unchained

  • rastapastorrastapastor KnurPosts: 153Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Sovrath
    Originally posted by rastapastor
    Originally posted by Sovrath
    Originally posted by rastapastor
    Originally posted by Sovrath
    Originally posted by rastapastor

    I think ppl are uneducated nowdays. Guy is asking why this game is not B2P, and ppl talk shit about F2P :)

     

    B2P != F2P ;)

    yeah yeah, you have a point. However, the idea of "buy to play" is very similiar to f2p.

    They rely upon people spending money in their cash shop. The only differenceis that b2p does allow for everyone to at least pony up something but the cash shop is there to make money.

    He needs the monthly revenue that a subscription brings as well as the initial payment for the game. As long as he can make the game sub "worth it" each month then the small community that will be in Camelot Unchained should have no problem supporting a game they love.

     

    Judging on a GW1 and GW2 success and its "Gem shop", subscription is not needed to keep the development and money flow. If it was different ArenaNet wouldn't decide to assemble the same revenue model for GW2. Ofc we can argue about quality and quantity of content between b2p and p2p.

    One thing i'll admit is that subscription games have better support (tickets etc) than f2p or b2p games. But content wise i think it's equal (maybe b2p is little lower :D). 

    I think we need to wait on that.

    the game has been out for 8 months? Something like that? I think I'd like to see more actual financial date than 8 months or so worth of data.  It launched in the middle of Q3 and we are moving toward the middle of Q1 the year after. Remember, these games have to "grow" YOY.  At least in a publicly traded company.

    edit: so let's see how it does after the initial excitement has worn off and look at how it does for a solid year at least.

     

    GW1 is with us for over 7 years :). It was the second succesful MMO after WoW. Yes i'm not afraid about GW2 :)

    dude... I'm not arguing the success of GW1. And I thought we were talking abouot GW2? right?

    I think people are forgetting that the devs actually said that continuing to develop GW1 the way they had would have been financially prohibitive. That's when they were sitting down and seeing what they needed to do and they realized that from what they learned they could do things differently. Which is why GW2 was born.

    GW1 is different from  GW2 and will be developed differently.

    So again, let's see how their new open world game grows and thrives over at least a year. I'm not trying to troll but I think "some" people have this idea that if a game sells a lot in it's first months then it's a success.

    I want nothign more than GW2 to be successful over the years as clearly people love it. But can we at least look at a year's worthof data?

    Espeically since they have said that no expansions are on the horizon?

     

    Did You read the first message that u quoted..."Judging on GW1 and..." :).

2
This discussion has been closed.