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!

If P2P, B2P, and F2P Were Fast Food Restaurants

2

Comments

  • Agent_JosephAgent_Joseph SarajevoPosts: 1,069Member Uncommon
    yes F2P is too much expensive ,I can pay monthly 15 $ but I am not able to play F2P games no money for it!

    only EVE is real MMO...but I am impressive with TSW

  • DoogiehowserDoogiehowser ParisPosts: 1,873Member
    Originally posted by Warley
    Originally posted by Quirhid
    You trying to make a point that the quality of content is better with P2P? Or you get more with P2P? ... Yeah, no. That's not true.

    Out of all the MMO games I've played WoW, Rift, Warhammer, Eve, AC, AO, EQ 1/2 (before f2p), UO, Vanguard (before f2p)  and many more all feature deeper game play systems, more features, and far more content updates 'EACH' than Guild Wars 1 & 2 combined. 

     

    This paragraph alone show you are have no idea about what you are talkign about. I am not GW2 fan but i have to call BS on this. GW2 has been churning out regular monthly updates since release. One has to just check the event calender on official site to see that you are spreading mis information.

    As fas the games you mentioned..its ironic isn't it that despite all the quality content and regular updates majority of these MMOS are now F2P? image

    Rift released as a tiny game with two starting areas. They only recently added to the land mass with new expansion where as GW2 with its world and content on release made RIft look like a tiny game.. I am not buying a single word of what you wrote.

    Warhammer far more content updates than GW1 and GW2 combined? ahahahah!!!! nice one there bud!!

    "The problem is that the hardcore folks always want the same thing: 'We want exactly what you gave us before, but it has to be completely different.'
    -Jesse Schell

    "Online gamers are the most ludicrously entitled beings since Caligula made his horse a senator, and at least the horse never said anything stupid."
    -Luke McKinney

    image

  • VikingGamerVikingGamer Nowhere, TXPosts: 1,347Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Doogiehowser
    Originally posted by Warley
    Originally posted by Quirhid
    You trying to make a point that the quality of content is better with P2P? Or you get more with P2P? ... Yeah, no. That's not true.

    Out of all the MMO games I've played WoW, Rift, Warhammer, Eve, AC, AO, EQ 1/2 (before f2p), UO, Vanguard (before f2p)  and many more all feature deeper game play systems, more features, and far more content updates 'EACH' than Guild Wars 1 & 2 combined. 

     

    This paragraph alone show you are have no idea about what you are talkign about. I am not GW2 fan but i have to call BS on this. GW2 has been churning out regular monthly updates since release. One has to just check the event calender on official site to see that you are spreading mis information.

    As fas the games you mentioned..its ironic isn't it that despite all the quality content and regular updates majority of these MMOS are now F2P? image

    Rift released as a tiny game with two starting areas. They only recently added to the land mass with new expansion where as GW2 with its world and content on release made RIft look like a tiny game.. I am not buying a single word of what you wrote.

    Warhammer far more content updates than GW1 and GW2 combined? ahahahah!!!! nice one there bud!!

    GW2 updates have had very very very little content and almost none of it permanent. I would put it up against Rift any time over a similar time period.

    All die, so die well.

  • DoogiehowserDoogiehowser ParisPosts: 1,873Member
    Originally posted by VikingGamer
    Originally posted by Doogiehowser
    Originally posted by Warley
    Originally posted by Quirhid
    You trying to make a point that the quality of content is better with P2P? Or you get more with P2P? ... Yeah, no. That's not true.

    Out of all the MMO games I've played WoW, Rift, Warhammer, Eve, AC, AO, EQ 1/2 (before f2p), UO, Vanguard (before f2p)  and many more all feature deeper game play systems, more features, and far more content updates 'EACH' than Guild Wars 1 & 2 combined. 

     

    This paragraph alone show you are have no idea about what you are talkign about. I am not GW2 fan but i have to call BS on this. GW2 has been churning out regular monthly updates since release. One has to just check the event calender on official site to see that you are spreading mis information.

    As fas the games you mentioned..its ironic isn't it that despite all the quality content and regular updates majority of these MMOS are now F2P? image

    Rift released as a tiny game with two starting areas. They only recently added to the land mass with new expansion where as GW2 with its world and content on release made RIft look like a tiny game.. I am not buying a single word of what you wrote.

    Warhammer far more content updates than GW1 and GW2 combined? ahahahah!!!! nice one there bud!!

    GW2 updates have had very very very little content and almost none of it permanent. I would put it up against Rift any time over a similar time period.

    Argument is about regular content updates. Not about permanent or temporary updates. I know people love to hate on GW2 around here but give credit where credit is due. They have new content and new events planned every single month and it has been this way since release.

    One has to be extremely biased  like OP to say that GW2 isn't on par in quality with other P2P games like Rift. (which ironically is now F2P)

    "The problem is that the hardcore folks always want the same thing: 'We want exactly what you gave us before, but it has to be completely different.'
    -Jesse Schell

    "Online gamers are the most ludicrously entitled beings since Caligula made his horse a senator, and at least the horse never said anything stupid."
    -Luke McKinney

    image

  • coretex666coretex666 PraguePosts: 1,934Member Uncommon

    I am glad I can afford not to deal with F2P.

    F2P is just a way how to make money on people without economic education, financial literacy, or just those with low requirements regarding the quality of the product they consume.

    Quality products have price tags on themselves. I enjoy those products and I am gladly paying for them.

    Waiting for L2 EU Classic

  • WarleyWarley Jackson, MIPosts: 376Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by GroovyFlower
    Originally posted by Quirhid
    Originally posted by Warley
    Originally posted by Quirhid
    You trying to make a point that the quality of content is better with P2P? Or you get more with P2P? ... Yeah, no. That's not true.

    Out of all the MMO games I've played WoW, Rift, Warhammer, Eve, AC, AO, EQ 1/2 (before f2p), UO, Vanguard (before f2p)  and many more all feature deeper game play systems, more features, and far more content updates 'EACH' than Guild Wars 1 & 2 combined. 

    I'm not saying the Guild Wars games are bad games, but they're actually more along the lines of online multiplayer games with glorified chat hubs/meet up places than they are MMO's. It's all about the networking and server limitations. Far more advanced servers (the ones needed to run the above mentioned MMO's) requires more resources, and thus, cost more money. 

    It's only ignorant people who think that the subscriptions were just tacked and are pure profits. Far from it. Maintenance, support, bandwidth and so forth all factor in costs. On top of that, subscription MMO's always had a tradition of adding meaningful content updates that were more frequent and content rich than Guild Wars 1 or 2. Those content updates, along with bug fixes, in each patch cost money to create.  This is why you don't see much done for Guild Wars 1 or 2. This is also why ArenaNet dropped support for Guild Wars 1 while a game like Asheron's Call gets a patch every single month and is nearly twice the age that Guild Wars is.

    If anything, subscription costs should have went down due to the fact that bandwidth costs have gone down. The rather ironic thing is, though, that it hasn't happened because programmers don't optimize networking, graphics, and so forth like they use to. It's why you can get a sub par graphical game that runs like complete crap on a newer computer. And, management consisted of intelligent designers & developers back in the 90's more so than today. Today, management in big companies often consists of people who were management in unrelated or semi-related fields.

    So, it ends up being more about spending your time adding sparkles than optimizing and doing the code right.

    Let me educate you on GW1 a bit. GW1 had a very fast update cycle. Balance updates were done once a week if needed which is exceptionally good compared to other MMOs. GW1 has no rival in terms of PvP balance.

    In contrast, some of the ships in Eve Online have been out of balance since they were first implemented, and only recently they've started to address those problems. The game is almost 10 years old! And its P2P.

    GW1 was the foremost competitive PvP game in the genre. It had dozens of e-sport events and tournaments over a 2-2,5 years time with cash prizes. This fact absolutely speaks about the quality of the game. It also sold 7 million copies, which is a tremendous number for any game.

    It had a major update every six months. More than many P2P games can claim! And GW1's support was dropped because the developer resources were turned to GW2.

    GW1 also won multiple technical awards for its execution. It was a very good engine for its time. Yes, the servers were inexpensive which, in part, made the B2P business model possible. But don't think for a second that being instanced or having instances is only a matter of cost and poor programming.

    So your claim that you get less with B2P or that the quality you get with B2P is simply untrue. If you want, we can pick out all the failed P2P games, point at them and say "See how P2P games fail."

    And this is why your original comment about F2P games is also untrue. Yes, there are some very bad F2P games out there, but you cannot judge all F2P games based on that, because there are some very good ones too.

    Your whole point is wrong: It is not based on facts, you haven't done your homework and it is not based on objective reasoning.

    Simply put he never played GW1/GW2 he just wanne discredit games he don't like or made it up.

    I played both. Both awesome the first couple of days, were still good through the rest of the week, and then I had to force myself to log in. They just had no depth to them.

  • QuirhidQuirhid TamperePosts: 5,969Member Common
    Originally posted by Warley
    Originally posted by GroovyFlower
     

    I played both. Both awesome the first couple of days, were still good through the rest of the week, and then I had to force myself to log in. They just had no depth to them.

    Then I am anxious to hear your explanation as to why those games were as popular as they were. And what is your excuse for making such inaccurate comments about those games?

    I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky

  • WarleyWarley Jackson, MIPosts: 376Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Quirhid
    Originally posted by Warley
    Originally posted by GroovyFlower
     

    I played both. Both awesome the first couple of days, were still good through the rest of the week, and then I had to force myself to log in. They just had no depth to them.

    Then I am anxious to hear your explanation as to why those games were as popular as they were. And what is your excuse for making such inaccurate comments about those games?

    Angry Birds has had something like a total of a billion downloads. It's sold like several hundred million copies. It's a great game through your first play. Replayability comes in the form of trying to get three gold stars and a few extra items. In total, the game lasts anywhere from a couple days to -at most- a week or so before people are bored with it. That doesn't mean it wasn't a great game, it was just a game that was meant to be played for up to a week in total and then the player moves on.

    Guild Wars  1 & 2 are  the same way. It was about selling copies of the games; not retaining players for subscriptions. The games are highly linear. MMO's that have a P2P business model are designed to retain players.

    Both versions of Guild Wars needed to be designed where they could make a profit off of sales alone. In contrast, MMO's like Rift, SWTOR, etc all cost far more than what they would have reasonably got in return for the box sales. It's because they have far more content and features meant to retain players, along with tools for community building.

    I'm not just talking out of my butt here. I'm a Web game developer and I've also worked with several professional MMO developers over the years. One of which worked at ArenaNet.

  • WarleyWarley Jackson, MIPosts: 376Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Quirhid
    Originally posted by Warley
    Originally posted by GroovyFlower
     

    I played both. Both awesome the first couple of days, were still good through the rest of the week, and then I had to force myself to log in. They just had no depth to them.

    Then I am anxious to hear your explanation as to why those games were as popular as they were. And what is your excuse for making such inaccurate comments about those games?

    Look, I bought and enjoyed Guild Wars 1 & 2. I enjoyed them for like a week each. I played Rift for a couple months before I forced myself to log in. I've played Asheron's Call since Jan, 2000, and I still play it. I've played UO off and on, having played it for like 2 years the first go. Everquest 2 I played for like 6 months (and only left at the time because I didn't have time for it).

    The key is that these MMO's were designed with more content and a higher budget (relative to when they were developed).

  • VolkonVolkon Sterling, VAPosts: 3,788Member
    Originally posted by Warley

    Angry Birds has had something like a total of a billion downloads. It's sold like several hundred million copies. It's a great game through your first play. Replayability comes in the form of trying to get three gold stars and a few extra items. In total, the game lasts anywhere from a couple days to -at most- a week or so before people are bored with it. That doesn't mean it wasn't a great game, it was just a game that was meant to be played for up to a week in total and then the player moves on.

    Guild Wars  1 & 2 are  the same way. It was about selling copies of the games; not retaining players for subscriptions. The games are highly linear. MMO's that have a P2P business model are designed to retain players.

    Both versions of Guild Wars needed to be designed where they could make a profit off of sales alone. In contrast, MMO's like Rift, SWTOR, etc all cost far more than what they would have reasonably got in return for the box sales. It's because they have far more content and features meant to retain players, along with tools for community building.

    I'm not just talking out of my butt here. I'm a Web game developer and I've also worked with several professional MMO developers over the years. One of which worked at ArenaNet.

     

    Wait wait wait... this is rich... you're calling GW2 linear and expect us to believe you have one shred of knowledge regarding the game? GW2 is probably the least linear MMO not called a sandbox that's out there. 

    Oderint, dum metuant.
    image

  • IselinIselin Vancouver, BCPosts: 5,606Member Uncommon

    Such a naive oversimplification of MMOs based on pay models. It's almost as if you think that MMOs have an intrinsic worth that is accurately reflected by how much it costs you to play it. Here's a news flash for you: things cost whatever you'll pay for it.

    You're trying to equate cost to development complexity and trying to then equate both of those to quality. That is a myth. They'll charge you whatever they can get away with charging you and they will try to charge you the same for a steaming pile of shit.

    And by the way, why don't you spend some time playing GW2 before you declare it a non-AAA MMO... you might learn something about why the rest of the world thinks P2P is dead or dying.

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

    P2P: A meal costs $5.99, with each meal after the first costing $1.49 each visit. The menu options expand over time and you can mix and match.

    B2P: A meal costs $5.99, and never pay again for each visit. The cheese changes once in a while, the burger is actually made from soy, the fries are cooked in hydrogenated oil instead of vegetable oil and are actually synthetic. There's no menu options.

    F2P: You get the bun for free. To add a soy burger it costs $1.99; hamburger costs $2.49; Angus burger costs $3.49. Lettuce, Tomatoes, Cheese and pickles all cost $0.50 each. Ketchup, Mustard and packets of each cost $0.25. Fries cost another $1.99 to add. A pop/soda costs $0.99 to add. You pay this every time. You also have the wonderful option of choosing the Super Duper Deluxe Combo Meal on your first visit that includes all the above once, a lifetime discount of 10% each visit, plus a plastic toy for $39.95; their estimated value (according to the company) is $59.95. Their main marketing consists of the word 'value'.

    Soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo delusional it's not even funny any more. It's damn shame how P2P due to [timing] got people eff'd up, a damn shame hahaha. If only server costs didn't cost so much back then.

     

    P.s I lied it's still amusing and humorous. People love rip offs.

     

    Left and came back in fact, hold up I want people to sit back and literally think about this....So wow deserves P2P, it's "P2p worthy." How come all these other P2P wow clones die? Timing? Your response is "Duh and all these other issues it came." Okay so WoW did come out with issues to right? "Duh but to add on they also [needed] server costs. Oh yea that's fair...cause they [needed] it, not [want] right? "Errrrrrrr derp but every one is on an equal..." Bull shit, now n days due to time people don't have time to be playing hard core, so WoW clones that fail at P2P because they are WoW clons yet somehow WoW is used for an example of great P2P MMORPGs...what else is there? Oh not to mention most P2P games are releasing with mf'ing cash shops lmao oh yea the menu sure does expand over time.

    So again WoW clones fail at P2P due to timing to note even games that aren't wow clones fail at p2p due to timing

    WoW succeeded due to timing

    B2P games I'll get to that in a sec

    Some f2p is I say hyrbids, PLant side 2 payment model wise is good, Guild wars 2(middle finger to you haters who hate the payment model only because you don't wnat GW2 to succeed) payment model is great, and only P2P model that I know that exist right now that is reasonable is EvE, cause you can atleast say 15 dollars is going towards expansions.

    Warley so delusional he discrediting the sheer obvious and seen fact that B2P games expand over time...but let's play the pretend game.

    "Dude take a chill pill." Oh I'm calm just highly amused and needed to sneeze on this tissue cause I'm allergic to b/s lol.

     

    tl/dr - Stop spreading misinformation about P2P model like it's some savior or even the best, in fact unless it's like EVe's p2p option it sucks ass, hardly an opinion anymore considering that all these MMOs are going from P2P to F2P, payment model wise P2P is no where near the best nore logical [these days]. When and before WoW came out I'd understand and most likely agree. NOw? I be damn lol!

     

    Hell I'm still not done, only way p2p would pass is if they did something like what ps4 is gonna do, 50 dollars a year, that is the only way that I will ever believe or agree that p2p is good. 15 dollars for a single game, unless made form the man above himself, is nt worth it, even too those with the money. That's just the truth, and I know it hurts an I know y'all will keep y'all heads in the sand. Time to update yourself from year 2004 to year 2013.

    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.

  • QuirhidQuirhid TamperePosts: 5,969Member Common
    Originally posted by Warley
    Originally posted by Quirhid
     

    Angry Birds has had something like a total of a billion downloads. It's sold like several hundred million copies. It's a great game through your first play. Replayability comes in the form of trying to get three gold stars and a few extra items. In total, the game lasts anywhere from a couple days to -at most- a week or so before people are bored with it. That doesn't mean it wasn't a great game, it was just a game that was meant to be played for up to a week in total and then the player moves on.

    Guild Wars  1 & 2 are  the same way. It was about selling copies of the games; not retaining players for subscriptions. The games are highly linear. MMO's that have a P2P business model are designed to retain players.

    Both versions of Guild Wars needed to be designed where they could make a profit off of sales alone. In contrast, MMO's like Rift, SWTOR, etc all cost far more than what they would have reasonably got in return for the box sales. It's because they have far more content and features meant to retain players, along with tools for community building.

    I'm not just talking out of my butt here. I'm a Web game developer and I've also worked with several professional MMO developers over the years. One of which worked at ArenaNet.

    No. Both GW1 and GW2 are based on the business model of being good enough games that players will want to buy them and their next sequel. They don't need to impose timesinks and grinds the way P2P games often have to. That is part of the attraction of B2P games.

    The time people spend playing a game is a poor measurement of its quality anyway. Any campaign in the Halo series could be finished in one (rather long) sitting yet those games were a massive hit. And I challenge you to say that these games are anything but impressive.

    Finally, I don't care what you do, and who your acquaintances are, I've met and talked with Arenanet employees myself; however, all this is irrelevant because we are not interested in you, we are only interested in your proposition that the payment model is an indication of quality.

    Unless you provide more explanation or better proof to support your argument, I am inclined to agree with Iselin and say a link between payment model and quality is a myth.

    I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky

  • DoogiehowserDoogiehowser ParisPosts: 1,873Member
    Originally posted by Volkon
    Originally posted by Warley

    Angry Birds has had something like a total of a billion downloads. It's sold like several hundred million copies. It's a great game through your first play. Replayability comes in the form of trying to get three gold stars and a few extra items. In total, the game lasts anywhere from a couple days to -at most- a week or so before people are bored with it. That doesn't mean it wasn't a great game, it was just a game that was meant to be played for up to a week in total and then the player moves on.

    Guild Wars  1 & 2 are  the same way. It was about selling copies of the games; not retaining players for subscriptions. The games are highly linear. MMO's that have a P2P business model are designed to retain players.

    Both versions of Guild Wars needed to be designed where they could make a profit off of sales alone. In contrast, MMO's like Rift, SWTOR, etc all cost far more than what they would have reasonably got in return for the box sales. It's because they have far more content and features meant to retain players, along with tools for community building.

    I'm not just talking out of my butt here. I'm a Web game developer and I've also worked with several professional MMO developers over the years. One of which worked at ArenaNet.

     

    Wait wait wait... this is rich... you're calling GW2 linear and expect us to believe you have one shred of knowledge regarding the game? GW2 is probably the least linear MMO not called a sandbox that's out there. 

    That and according to him WARHAMMER ONLINE is of superior quality than GW2 and had more regular updates than GW1 and GW2 combined.

    I mean wtf? lol. seriously!! image

    "The problem is that the hardcore folks always want the same thing: 'We want exactly what you gave us before, but it has to be completely different.'
    -Jesse Schell

    "Online gamers are the most ludicrously entitled beings since Caligula made his horse a senator, and at least the horse never said anything stupid."
    -Luke McKinney

    image

  • evictonevicton Warren, PAPosts: 398Member

    The lumping of all games under their payment model to predetermine their quality is about as flawed as any other stereo type.

     

    Warhammer online is in maintenance mode. Its p2p yet anyone who subs can rest assured any content updates will be small and scarce if it ever does get a content update. And Warhammer players would have been tickled to recieve the kind of content updates gw1 and gw2 recieved.

     

    Warhammer never recieved a full fledged expansion and prolly never will...closest it could really come to was having the choppa and slayer added. Considering those were supposed to be launch classes I don't count them. However a f2p title that launched 16 days before Warhammer has had 5 expansions released and none of those expansions costed anything.  That game is advertising a new content update on this sight right now, its PW.

    My brother played pw for 2 years and spent 50 bucks total on it. I'm pretty sure I payed that much just for the warhammer box. Not to mention the 5 months I subbed to that game. My brother can log on and experience the content of these expansion whenever the mood hits him. I have to spend more money.

     

    STO is another good example back in the day I considered cryptic posting on the forums as new content. Since it converted over to f2p they have added new content regularly including the expansion last month and they just added a summer event to the game.

     

  • FalstaffFalstaff Attica, OHPosts: 72Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by coretex666

    I am glad I can afford not to deal with F2P.

    F2P is just a way how to make money on people without economic education, financial literacy, or just those with low requirements regarding the quality of the product they consume.

    Quality products have price tags on themselves. I enjoy those products and I am gladly paying for them.

    FYI... update your sig..   you list 2 free to play games that you are waiting for..  :)

     

    Waiting for: ArcheAge, The Repopulation, "Titan", EQ Next.   arent they all gonna be free to play??

  • KazuhiroKazuhiro Hampshire, AZPosts: 501Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Warley

    P2P: A meal costs $5.99, with each meal after the first costing $1.49 each visit. The menu options expand over time and you can mix and match.

    B2P: A meal costs $5.99, and never pay again for each visit. The cheese changes once in a while, the burger is actually made from soy, the fries are cooked in hydrogenated oil instead of vegetable oil and are actually synthetic. There's no menu options.

    F2P: You get the bun for free. To add a soy burger it costs $1.99; hamburger costs $2.49; Angus burger costs $3.49. Lettuce, Tomatoes, Cheese and pickles all cost $0.50 each. Ketchup, Mustard and packets of each cost $0.25. Fries cost another $1.99 to add. A pop/soda costs $0.99 to add. You pay this every time. You also have the wonderful option of choosing the Super Duper Deluxe Combo Meal on your first visit that includes all the above once, a lifetime discount of 10% each visit, plus a plastic toy for $39.95; their estimated value (according to the company) is $59.95. Their main marketing consists of the word 'value'.

    Seems about right. Also I'd like to add one to the list.

    BROWSER BASED F2P MMO: You get to look at a picture of a meal for free as long as you want. To purchase the burger you must do so for each piece. The bun costs $49.99; The patty costs $199.99; and the rest of the toppings cost $19.99 each. If you don't buy at least one full meal each day the restraunt forcibly removes you from the premises, or you are eaten by the other customers in line. The restraunt will sometimes sell long term purchases of meals for several thousand dollars, but these restraunts are known to disappear overnight, with a new one exactly like it but with a different colored building built nextdoor that same day.

    To find an intelligent person in a PUG is not that rare, but to find a PUG made up of "all" intelligent people is one of the rarest phenomenons in the known universe.

  • KhinRuniteKhinRunite ManilaPosts: 879Member
    Originally posted by Warley
    Originally posted by Quirhid
    Originally posted by Warley
    Originally posted by GroovyFlower
     

    I played both. Both awesome the first couple of days, were still good through the rest of the week, and then I had to force myself to log in. They just had no depth to them.

    Then I am anxious to hear your explanation as to why those games were as popular as they were. And what is your excuse for making such inaccurate comments about those games?

    Look, I bought and enjoyed Guild Wars 1 & 2. I enjoyed them for like a week each. I played Rift for a couple months before I forced myself to log in. I've played Asheron's Call since Jan, 2000, and I still play it. I've played UO off and on, having played it for like 2 years the first go. Everquest 2 I played for like 6 months (and only left at the time because I didn't have time for it).

    The key is that these MMO's were designed with more content and a higher budget (relative to when they were developed).

    You're still on the wrong. Please stop objectifying your views on Guild Wars. Just man up and admit that you didn't like GW1/2 because of this, and this, and that...in short, features that are PRESENT in your preferred MMOs (aka Raid, gear gating, etc). Guild Wars have features not commonly found on its competitors, but they simply don't interest you. That's all there is to it.

    The more you try to objectify yourself, the more criticism you'll get because your premise that B2P games are inferior to P2P is flat out WRONG.

  • strangiato2112strangiato2112 Richmond, VAPosts: 1,538Member Common

    People love to look at things in absolutes, but the fact is each model is different.

    Guild Wars 2 especially is a unique case, because it had massive sales and a much larger player base than any of the other f2p/b2p games so it can afford its model and still update their game accordingly. 

    But if you want to go with the fast food analogy, you forgot to mention this:

    P2P/B2P: some of the patrons smell, varies from place to place how bad the smell is.  many older establishments its not even noticeable.

    F2P:  The odor tends to overwhelm you the second you walk in the door

  • WarleyWarley Jackson, MIPosts: 376Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by KhinRunite
    Originally posted by Warley
    Originally posted by Quirhid
    Originally posted by Warley
    Originally posted by GroovyFlower
     

    I played both. Both awesome the first couple of days, were still good through the rest of the week, and then I had to force myself to log in. They just had no depth to them.

    Then I am anxious to hear your explanation as to why those games were as popular as they were. And what is your excuse for making such inaccurate comments about those games?

    Look, I bought and enjoyed Guild Wars 1 & 2. I enjoyed them for like a week each. I played Rift for a couple months before I forced myself to log in. I've played Asheron's Call since Jan, 2000, and I still play it. I've played UO off and on, having played it for like 2 years the first go. Everquest 2 I played for like 6 months (and only left at the time because I didn't have time for it).

    The key is that these MMO's were designed with more content and a higher budget (relative to when they were developed).

    You're still on the wrong. Please stop objectifying your views on Guild Wars. Just man up and admit that you didn't like GW1/2 because of this, and this, and that...in short, features that are PRESENT in your preferred MMOs (aka Raid, gear gating, etc). Guild Wars have features not commonly found on its competitors, but they simply don't interest you. That's all there is to it.

    The more you try to objectify yourself, the more criticism you'll get because your premise that B2P games are inferior to P2P is flat out WRONG.

    Actually, I liked both Guild Wars 1 and 2. They just lack the depth and content that P2P MMO's have. Guild Wars 1 and 2 are good games for what they were designed for.

  • RaxeonRaxeon cedar falls, IAPosts: 2,088Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Quirhid
    You trying to make a point that the quality of content is better with P2P? Or you get more with P2P? ... Yeah, no. That's not true.

    it ussly is unless the game just isnt good int he first place

  • AeanderAeander Walker, LAPosts: 522Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by evilastro
    Originally posted by Warley

    P2P: A meal costs $5.99, with each meal after the first costing $1.49 each visit. The menu options expand over time and you can mix and match.

    B2P: A meal costs $5.99, and never pay again for each visit. The cheese changes once in a while, the burger is actually made from soy, the fries are cooked in hydrogenated oil instead of vegetable oil and are actually synthetic. There's no menu options.

    F2P: You get the bun for free. To add a soy burger it costs $1.99; hamburger costs $2.49; Angus burger costs $3.49. Lettuce, Tomatoes, Cheese and pickles all cost $0.50 each. Ketchup, Mustard and packets of each cost $0.25. Fries cost another $1.99 to add. A pop/soda costs $0.99 to add. You pay this every time. You also have the wonderful option of choosing the Super Duper Deluxe Combo Meal on your first visit that includes all the above once, a lifetime discount of 10% each visit, plus a plastic toy for $39.95; their estimated value (according to the company) is $59.95. Their main marketing consists of the word 'value'.

     

    More like:

    P2P: All you can eat buffet.  Entry to the resturant costs $5.99, and you have 5 minutes of allocated time to consume as much as you can.  Each 5 minutes after the first costing $1.49 to give you space at the resturant.

    B2P: A meal costs $5.99, and can take as long as you want to consume the meal. Sides cost an extra 50c.  You have the same menu options as P2P.

    F2PYou get a base meal to try for free (hamburger with just meat and sauce) and can try it as many times as you want.  If you want additional toppings or sides you have to pay an extra $1 per item.

     

    Depending on how much you want to consume, B2P and F2P offer better options. B2P lets you take time to enjoy your product, and still offers some extras for additional cost. F2P will nickel and dime you if you want to consume a large amount, but is better value for the casual consumer. 

    This was the correct answer. 

  • QuirhidQuirhid TamperePosts: 5,969Member Common
    Originally posted by Warley
    Originally posted by KhinRunite
     

    Actually, I liked both Guild Wars 1 and 2. They just lack the depth and content that P2P MMO's have. Guild Wars 1 and 2 are good games for what they were designed for.

    They don't lack either depth nor content. Its just not your bowl of soup. You don't need to justify your preference in any way. We get it.

    I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky

  • NephelaiNephelai SydneyPosts: 182Member Uncommon

    B2P, P2P and F2P are not business models they are payment plans. The business model of MMO's is a volume based business model i.e. they rely on huge volumes of product or service with small margins - this to me is where the problem lies and stops the customer getting increased value. There are two types of customers, one that considers gaming as a genuine hobby for enjoyment and the other that is time syncing their life away in what just happens to be a video game. The volume model suites the time syncers as it's low cost with seeming endless amounts of content (allbeit repeatable).

     

    With all MMO content very similar and the business model the same what I see as the real next big thing is for someone to move to a lower volume customer model with an increased price but with much greater amount/quality of content  that can be purchased as entertainment or enjoyment. For example, I have many MMO's on my PC and I'll chose WoW. I pay $3.75 per week which is a pittance - that's why I get boring repeatable brain dead content. On the other hand I would pay $10 per week if I could get a new dungeon each week. Even more for a new raid every now and then or other forms of content.

     

    Just like I spend a good deal of money on other forms of enjoyment each week like going to the movies, rugby league, out for dinner and solid beer session on a Friday night I'd love to be able to do the same with my video game hobbie. Not to beat things or people but just to get access to new quality content on a timely basis.

     

    I was once a low income time syncer so I understand how games can provide a refuge however for me those days are gone and I just want to be able to play 4-6hrs per week of good quality gaming - I  fear though that the former crowd is still so large that they hound the game makers like a pack of hyenas until they produce rubbish that costs almost nothing just to fullfil their need.

     

     

     

     

     

  • WarleyWarley Jackson, MIPosts: 376Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Quirhid
    Originally posted by Warley
    Originally posted by KhinRunite
     

    Actually, I liked both Guild Wars 1 and 2. They just lack the depth and content that P2P MMO's have. Guild Wars 1 and 2 are good games for what they were designed for.

    They don't lack either depth nor content. Its just not your bowl of soup. You don't need to justify your preference in any way. We get it.

    Actually, they do lack depth. It's not an opinion, it's a fact. If I need to highlight it further by comparing it to a handful of MMO's I'll do that. Just because you're a huge fan of Guild Wars 1 & 2 doesn't change what they are and what they were built to be.

    Btw, I'm not arguing that P2P MMO's are always 'funner' or 'better' than B2P or F2P. I'm arguing that -in general- P2P traditionally have more content and deeper content than B2P and F2P.

    Both Guild Wars 1 & 2 were GREAT GAMES for what they were, but to argue they equal or exceed  the depth and content of AC 1 (or 2), UO, EQ 2, WoW, Vanguard, Warhammer Online, Age of Conan, and so forth is ridiculous. Guild Wars 1, especially, was extremely shallow.

    I'm not just saying this. I've played all of the games above. I didn't care for Warhammer Online or Age of Conan, but it was abundantly clear they had more content and depth than the Guild Wars games. Primarily because Guild Wars 1 & 2 had to scale back on networking and server costs, along with customer support and content creation, since they weren't charging a monthly fee.

    Look, I understand you love Guild Wars 1 & 2. It's obvious from your avatar, and you feel you have to defend it when you think someone is slighting those games. But, they're not even traditional MMO's and the original Guild Wars shouldn't have been labeled an MMO. Their multiplayer online games, not massively multiplayer online games.  Otherwise, you'd have to label Diablo 2 and 3 as MMO's.

2
Sign In or Register to comment.