It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Originally posted by rastapastor 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 ).
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..." .
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".
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.
Emeryc Eightdrakes - Ranger of DragonMyst Keep - Percival
RED IS DEAD!
Originally posted by deathangell the new gamign generation has a sense of entitlement and is extremely rude but sensitive at the same time.
And complete lack of understanding of the industry itself, as well as game design, costs, and development phases.
To give feedback on moderation, contact firstname.lastname@example.org