Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Why will this not be B2P like TSW/Gw2 ?? :((
This discussion has been closed.
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Comments
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.
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.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
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
One of the best pro sub pieces I've seen. Down to earth and the point.
I will never support freeloaders, no more subsidized gaming.
My Blog
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
).
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.
I will never support freeloaders, no more subsidized gaming.
My Blog
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
).
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
.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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).
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.
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.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
GW1 is with us for over 7 years
. It was the second succesful MMO after WoW. Yes i'm not afraid about GW2 
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.
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...
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?
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
No thanks this is not Obama Unchained
Did You read the first message that u quoted..."Judging on GW1 and..."
.
1, you can't "judge" gw1 and gw2 the same.
2, better way for me to say what I meant was "I don't believe you can judge gw1 and gw2 together and since gw2 is the game that needs to prove itself over time I think that we need to take a wait and see approach. Bringing up gw1 as an example doesn't entirely work as it was developed differently with different goals in mind"
so uh, "mea culpa".
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Personally i like the idea of not having a ingame shop. Lets be frank, when this wave of F2P conversions came over us there where people who feared that it would affect the direction of development.
They where right.
It saved the games, but it also changed them. It created a new focus on attracting new players, often at the expense of endgame. And all these success stories, like LotRO or EQ2, what did it really add for the players? Do you spend actually less money(i actually spend more, didn't have too, but then again people don't have to smoke either and yet they do)?
The thing is, to me the games didn't get better. They got, maybe, cheaper for some. But better? More fun? Faster content cycles? Doesn't look like it for me.
Worst of all are those games that let you exchange real money for ingame money. Damn thats buying gold. We used to despise those gold spammers and those that bought from them. And yeah, not all have controversial items for sale. They start slowly, creeping in one item at a time until the players stop screaming every time.
To me, a company creating a MMO is like a ... newspaper. You have a bunch of people writing away, you have a building and you have people distributing what you produce so your customers can consume it. And you're ideally never done, which means your customers never cease paying either.
Nobody would expect a NYT lifetime abo for 50 bucks or something(B2O), and if they offered it, there would probably some catch(like half the paper only advertisements). Fundamentally its the same, just instead of articles you write code and instead of paper boys you have servers on the internet.
I mean come on, its a honest system. Your paying the wages of actual people doing actual work on the product you consume. Its straightforward and imho honest. None of that ingame coin sales crap or selling of digital items to easily influenced minors. Maybe its not going to get big again, but surely there is a market for it.