I strongly believe the mmorpg market is hurting itself by keeping with a payment model that (atleast in my opinion) the majority of the gaming community sees as taboo.
You know it's funny, I feel that cash shops are a bigger hinderance and even more taboo than subscriptions are.
But whether it's subscriptions or cash shops, developers need to make their money somehow. Personally I'd rather pay a fixed amount and have the developers trying to keep me interested, playing, and paying. Rather than the alternative which is developers trying to figure out how to code new hinderences and limit content from me unless I open up my wallet.
And yes, B2P MMOs will suffer from cash shops. If you think that an MMO can remain profitable in the long run without nickle and diming through cash shops, frequent expansions, or other such DLC, you're delusional.
Although I totally agree with your point of view as far as I'm personally concerned. I think you have to look at the target market. One only has to look at Zynga theyre networth was reported at $5 billion the other day.
Totally discouraging if your share the same point of view as i do.
I strongly believe the mmorpg market is hurting itself by keeping with a payment model that (atleast in my opinion) the majority of the gaming community sees as taboo.
You know it's funny, I feel that cash shops are a bigger hinderance and even more taboo than subscriptions are.
But whether it's subscriptions or cash shops, developers need to make their money somehow. Personally I'd rather pay a fixed amount and have the developers trying to keep me interested, playing, and paying. Rather than the alternative which is developers trying to figure out how to code new hinderences and limit content from me unless I open up my wallet.
And yes, B2P MMOs will suffer from cash shops. If you think that an MMO can remain profitable in the long run without nickle and diming through cash shops, frequent expansions, or other such DLC, you're delusional.
Although I totally agree with your point of view as far as I'm personally concerned. I think you have to look at the target market. One only has to look at Zynga theyre networth was reported at $5 billion the other day.
Totally discouraging if your share the same point of view as i do.
Lets not forget that the future is looking more like P2P + Cash Shop vs B2P + Cash Shop.
I strongly believe the mmorpg market is hurting itself by keeping with a payment model that (atleast in my opinion) the majority of the gaming community sees as taboo.
You know it's funny, I feel that cash shops are a bigger hinderance and even more taboo than subscriptions are.
But whether it's subscriptions or cash shops, developers need to make their money somehow. Personally I'd rather pay a fixed amount and have the developers trying to keep me interested, playing, and paying. Rather than the alternative which is developers trying to figure out how to code new hinderences and limit content from me unless I open up my wallet.
And yes, B2P MMOs will suffer from cash shops. If you think that an MMO can remain profitable in the long run without nickle and diming through cash shops, frequent expansions, or other such DLC, you're delusional.
Although I totally agree with your point of view as far as I'm personally concerned. I think you have to look at the target market. One only has to look at Zynga theyre networth was reported at $5 billion the other day.
Totally discouraging if your share the same point of view as i do.
Heh, Zynga's valuation at $5 billion is systemic of just how broken our current market system is. That valuation is based off an imaginary guesstimate of the company's perceived future value, based almost entirely off of how many people play their games... without taking into consideration that only a tiny fraction of those people actually pay anything, and the bulk of their revenue actually comes from shady "advertiser" deals.
Which is similar to F2P MMOs. For the MMOs that have shifted from P2P to F2P, they report vastly increased user bases, and shortly after the switch they report record profit, which is true for the initial period. As time goes on however, the userbase shrinks back, and revenue also slides back quite a bit as well. There are a growing number of P2P MMOs gone F2P that are starting to shutter and die, proving that it's not the revenue model, but rather the fact that a lot of MMOs just plain suck and aren't deserving of any money, sub or cash shop.
I strongly believe the mmorpg market is hurting itself by keeping with a payment model that (atleast in my opinion) the majority of the gaming community sees as taboo.
You know it's funny, I feel that cash shops are a bigger hinderance and even more taboo than subscriptions are.
But whether it's subscriptions or cash shops, developers need to make their money somehow. Personally I'd rather pay a fixed amount and have the developers trying to keep me interested, playing, and paying. Rather than the alternative which is developers trying to figure out how to code new hinderences and limit content from me unless I open up my wallet.
And yes, B2P MMOs will suffer from cash shops. If you think that an MMO can remain profitable in the long run without nickle and diming through cash shops, frequent expansions, or other such DLC, you're delusional.
Although I totally agree with your point of view as far as I'm personally concerned. I think you have to look at the target market. One only has to look at Zynga theyre networth was reported at $5 billion the other day.
Totally discouraging if your share the same point of view as i do.
Lets not forget that the future is looking more like P2P + Cash Shop vs B2P + Cash Shop.
Kind of makes you sick in your stomach... doesnt it
I love the mmorpg genre but we can't deny that other than WoW the entire market is niche.
Every time I bring up a mmo around friends or gamers i meet its always the same thing.
"I don't want to pay a monthly fee to play a game".
Take a look around the net and you will find many gamers with that same opinion.
What if all of those P2p games went B2p? Its been proven gamers dont mind paying for a game box.
Imagine the untapped market of players that would come flocking too mmos if they only had to buy a game box and nothing else.
I strongly believe the mmorpg market is hurting itself by keeping with a payment model that (atleast in my opinion) the majority of the gaming community sees as taboo.
What do you guys think? Would going completely B2p (like GW) help or hurt the genre?
You do realize that there are far more f2p mmo's than there are p2p ! So why you bagging on a select few p2p games?
Velika: City of Wheels: Among the mortal races, the humans were the only one that never built cities or great empires; a curse laid upon them by their creator, Gidd, forced them to wander as nomads for twenty centuries...
What does this even mean? "Would going completely B2p (like GW) help or hurt the genre?"
That ALL MMORPG games is to become B2P (buy to play), or that any one MMORPG is to become B2P?
The absolutist notion of all MMORPG's going B2P seem pointless.
Gamers don't like the idea of paying a sub to one video game.
Remove the sub and more people would come to the genre.
Yay or Nay?
My op in a nutshell.
Nay, first because most of the mmorpg industry doesn't, in fact, limit itself, to a subscription. There are more free games than pay games out there. Second, not everyone is looking for a free to play game. I prefer having a simple monthly subscription that doesn't fluctuate rather than having to watch how much is being spent at the cash shop or being limited from certain parts of the game. By being free to play with a cash shop most games, by their design are incentivizing the developer to develop a broken game. Not all f2p companies do so, at least not intentially but the incentive is there.
I understand and appreciate that many people prefer f2p games and there are a couple that I enjoy myself. But overall I prefer subscription games.
I strongly believe the mmorpg market is hurting itself by keeping with a payment model that (atleast in my opinion) the majority of the gaming community sees as taboo.
You know it's funny, I feel that cash shops are a bigger hinderance and even more taboo than subscriptions are.
But whether it's subscriptions or cash shops, developers need to make their money somehow. Personally I'd rather pay a fixed amount and have the developers trying to keep me interested, playing, and paying. Rather than the alternative which is developers trying to figure out how to code new hinderences and limit content from me unless I open up my wallet.
And yes, B2P MMOs will suffer from cash shops. If you think that an MMO can remain profitable in the long run without nickle and diming through cash shops, frequent expansions, or other such DLC, you're delusional.
Although I totally agree with your point of view as far as I'm personally concerned. I think you have to look at the target market. One only has to look at Zynga theyre networth was reported at $5 billion the other day.
Totally discouraging if your share the same point of view as i do.
Lets not forget that the future is looking more like P2P + Cash Shop vs B2P + Cash Shop.
More like P4Box + P4Expansion + P2P + Cash Shop
Eve was always the best about this. Before Nex it was just pay for game time. Pure, simple.
I strongly believe the mmorpg market is hurting itself by keeping with a payment model that (atleast in my opinion) the majority of the gaming community sees as taboo.
You know it's funny, I feel that cash shops are a bigger hinderance and even more taboo than subscriptions are.
But whether it's subscriptions or cash shops, developers need to make their money somehow. Personally I'd rather pay a fixed amount and have the developers trying to keep me interested, playing, and paying. Rather than the alternative which is developers trying to figure out how to code new hinderences and limit content from me unless I open up my wallet.
And yes, B2P MMOs will suffer from cash shops. If you think that an MMO can remain profitable in the long run without nickle and diming through cash shops, frequent expansions, or other such DLC, you're delusional.
Although I totally agree with your point of view as far as I'm personally concerned. I think you have to look at the target market. One only has to look at Zynga theyre networth was reported at $5 billion the other day.
Totally discouraging if your share the same point of view as i do.
Lets not forget that the future is looking more like P2P + Cash Shop vs B2P + Cash Shop.
More like P4Box + P4Expansion + P2P + Cash Shop
Eve was always the best about this. Before Nex it was just pay for game time. Pure, simple.
I guess your right. I'd choose B2P + P4Expansion + Cash Shop.
mmos don't need quantity they need quality. and even though i think it's absurd when WoW quotes it's huge sub numbers. it proves the subscription model... with larger expansion based content work just fine.
and the so called "niche" games. even if they have low to mid 100K subs, i'd imagine that's a decent revolving revenue stream.
I mean, nothing stops a game from going F2P or freeium later.
but simply having more people flock to an MMO because it's B2P that won't necessarily do anything to improve the genre. it may even hurt it. as game companies do everything to maximize box sales... a la movie opening weekends.
I find that having a monthly sub thins out the morons ever so slightly. I actually wish a game/dev house would produce a game and try a elite lvl sub. instead of 10-15 sub. go for a 30-50 sub... but deliver a premium experience. this would separate the poors from the serious mmo players.
I strongly believe the mmorpg market is hurting itself by keeping with a payment model that (atleast in my opinion) the majority of the gaming community sees as taboo.
You know it's funny, I feel that cash shops are a bigger hinderance and even more taboo than subscriptions are.
But whether it's subscriptions or cash shops, developers need to make their money somehow. Personally I'd rather pay a fixed amount and have the developers trying to keep me interested, playing, and paying. Rather than the alternative which is developers trying to figure out how to code new hinderences and limit content from me unless I open up my wallet.
And yes, B2P MMOs will suffer from cash shops. If you think that an MMO can remain profitable in the long run without nickle and diming through cash shops, frequent expansions, or other such DLC, you're delusional.
Although I totally agree with your point of view as far as I'm personally concerned. I think you have to look at the target market. One only has to look at Zynga theyre networth was reported at $5 billion the other day.
Totally discouraging if your share the same point of view as i do.
Lets not forget that the future is looking more like P2P + Cash Shop vs B2P + Cash Shop.
More like P4Box + P4Expansion + P2P + Cash Shop
Eve was always the best about this. Before Nex it was just pay for game time. Pure, simple.
I guess your right. I'd choose B2P + P4Expansion + Cash Shop.
Yeah, I can handle the GW model as well. but when I think cash shop I think about something like the marketplace in EQ2. The few extras you can buy on the website for GW is so tame it doesn't even seem like a cash shop. And buying and expansion every half yeah seems more like paying a subscription on a 6 month cycle than anything else. Its just not that bad considering how much you get for it. I will definitly be a long term "subscriber" to GW2.
What does this even mean? "Would going completely B2p (like GW) help or hurt the genre?"
That ALL MMORPG games is to become B2P (buy to play), or that any one MMORPG is to become B2P?
The absolutist notion of all MMORPG's going B2P seem pointless.
Gamers don't like the idea of paying a sub to one video game.
Remove the sub and more people would come to the genre.
Yay or Nay?
My op in a nutshell.
Sorry Z3R01, I just spent a month in City of Hereos where the gamers I was playing with were not only happy to pay a monthly fee to avoid the free to play rabble, but also happy to pay far more for shiny character addons they didn't really need. I'm also currently sitting within spitting distance of three gamers that currently hold multiple MMO subscriptions, two of them for games they haven't actually logged into for more than a month. So I disagree with your blanket statement that gamers don't like paying a sub fee for one, or any, video games.
You may not, you may have friends who don't, but don't transfer your dislike of sub fees onto the whole of the gaming public.
Now onto your idea that essentially Arena Nets price structure would be a boon for the entire industry. Since the only game that has actually tried this so far is Guild Wars 1, which many people argue isn't actually an MMO, or at least not a complete MMO, I'd say your theory is untested and mere speculation. What worked for one game may end up being failure for even GW2, we'll have to wait and see how A-nets full fleged forray into the MMO world pans out before we really know if such a pricing scheme is workable for what is looking to be a massive MMO.
Now based on what we have seen from the growing FTP trend, I have to disagree that a BTP with no subscription method for every MMO would be a good idea. The reason being is that there are already far more MMOs than the market can bare subscription based or not, and the current FTP trend has help keep some totally shyte games on the market when I feel the industry as a whole would have better benefitted from their closure.
If every or even a majority of MMOS went to the BTP method (and could actually be financally successful) I feel we would see even more lackluster titles cluttering up the MMO landscape, and taking players away from the actual good games, that still need people to buy the box and DLCs to survive.
To me it would make about as much sense for all restaurants to change their format to an all you can eat buffet. Sure you would be quite happy with the amount of choices you would have, but there is only so much food you can eat. And in time these busineses would have to start limiting the amount and quality of their products as their customer base is spread to thin for them to make a profit this way. Something I might add they are already doing even in subsciption based MMOs.
To sum up, pricing schemes are not what has made the MMO genre stagant. The true culprit is lack of quality and variety, combined with already too many choices between what is essentially the same game. I fail to see how companies just switching to BTP plus DLC is going to have a positive impact on this issue.
"Gypsies, tramps, and thieves, we were called by the Admin of the site . . . "
It all comes down to who the target market is. I would think that most in my age group would have no problem at all shelling out $15 a month for a product we feel were getting value for. The problem lies in maintaining that value for $. Personaly for the that usually ends not long after I reach cap, I guess it's my age, I just dont find repeating the same content over and over and over again very enjoyable. And I would suspect most people in my age group would feel the same way.
A game that I would stay subbed to would be a game where I could never reach cap, where I could never see it all and never do it all.
Once I've been there done that... I'm done
F2P is targeted for a more compulsive audience. One that worries alot more about keeping up with the Jone's. The people who dont purchase anything are definatley not the target.
GW2's model, well we will just have to see... It will have to be very good for me to buy something from a cash shop.
Nothing turns me off more then a cash shop. Makes me feel like I'm being nickled and dimed and thats where Blizzard has lost a long time fan. Lost my respect for them
It's not even about the amount of money. Whether it's $15 a month, or just $1 a month, a lot of gamers don't like the feel that they're only renting a game, renting thier character, their progress in the game, etc. I think that's one major reason subscriptions are so unpopular. It's not just that people are being cheap - they won't hesitate to shell out $50-60 for a game. They just want to own it, once they do.
That would not change with a B2P game. The company would still own the servers the characters are stored on and their only incentive for maintaining access is to get future income from the players. For P2P that's subscriptions and for B2P it's DLC and expansions. If a B2P company decides that supporting an old game is not profitable anymore, they will pull the plug on your characters.
From a player perspective, it is a big difference - it means that I can forget about the game for a while, and then go back to it a year later, and everything I'd left behind will still be there for me. I don't have to drop another $15 just to access what I've already paid for.
Of course if the game gets shut down, that's another story, but that's true no matter what payment model they use.
When I want a single-player story, I'll play a single-player game. When I play an MMO, I want a massively multiplayer world.
What does this even mean? "Would going completely B2p (like GW) help or hurt the genre?"
That ALL MMORPG games is to become B2P (buy to play), or that any one MMORPG is to become B2P?
The absolutist notion of all MMORPG's going B2P seem pointless.
Gamers don't like the idea of paying a sub to one video game.
Remove the sub and more people would come to the genre.
Yay or Nay?
My op in a nutshell.
My opinion is that more people would come to the genre, based on my resistance to the sub model, one that lasted for several years. I remember watching my roomie playing Evercrack way back when and asking about it, when I found out it cost money to play every month, I was immediately turned off. Not until late 2001 did I finally sub to an MMO.
I cannot wait to find out what, if any, impact GW2 ends up having on the genre.
I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals.
Comments
Although I totally agree with your point of view as far as I'm personally concerned. I think you have to look at the target market. One only has to look at Zynga theyre networth was reported at $5 billion the other day.
Totally discouraging if your share the same point of view as i do.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
Lets not forget that the future is looking more like P2P + Cash Shop vs B2P + Cash Shop.
My theme song.
Heh, Zynga's valuation at $5 billion is systemic of just how broken our current market system is. That valuation is based off an imaginary guesstimate of the company's perceived future value, based almost entirely off of how many people play their games... without taking into consideration that only a tiny fraction of those people actually pay anything, and the bulk of their revenue actually comes from shady "advertiser" deals.
Which is similar to F2P MMOs. For the MMOs that have shifted from P2P to F2P, they report vastly increased user bases, and shortly after the switch they report record profit, which is true for the initial period. As time goes on however, the userbase shrinks back, and revenue also slides back quite a bit as well. There are a growing number of P2P MMOs gone F2P that are starting to shutter and die, proving that it's not the revenue model, but rather the fact that a lot of MMOs just plain suck and aren't deserving of any money, sub or cash shop.
Kind of makes you sick in your stomach... doesnt it
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
You do realize that there are far more f2p mmo's than there are p2p ! So why you bagging on a select few p2p games?
If your friends don't like paying sub fee's then tell them to go here instead : http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm
Enjoy :x
Velika: City of Wheels: Among the mortal races, the humans were the only one that never built cities or great empires; a curse laid upon them by their creator, Gidd, forced them to wander as nomads for twenty centuries...
Nay, first because most of the mmorpg industry doesn't, in fact, limit itself, to a subscription. There are more free games than pay games out there. Second, not everyone is looking for a free to play game. I prefer having a simple monthly subscription that doesn't fluctuate rather than having to watch how much is being spent at the cash shop or being limited from certain parts of the game. By being free to play with a cash shop most games, by their design are incentivizing the developer to develop a broken game. Not all f2p companies do so, at least not intentially but the incentive is there.
I understand and appreciate that many people prefer f2p games and there are a couple that I enjoy myself. But overall I prefer subscription games.
All die, so die well.
More like P4Box + P4Expansion + P2P + Cash Shop
Eve was always the best about this. Before Nex it was just pay for game time. Pure, simple.
All die, so die well.
I guess your right. I'd choose B2P + P4Expansion + Cash Shop.
My theme song.
this is a poor argument.
mmos don't need quantity they need quality. and even though i think it's absurd when WoW quotes it's huge sub numbers. it proves the subscription model... with larger expansion based content work just fine.
and the so called "niche" games. even if they have low to mid 100K subs, i'd imagine that's a decent revolving revenue stream.
I mean, nothing stops a game from going F2P or freeium later.
but simply having more people flock to an MMO because it's B2P that won't necessarily do anything to improve the genre. it may even hurt it. as game companies do everything to maximize box sales... a la movie opening weekends.
I find that having a monthly sub thins out the morons ever so slightly. I actually wish a game/dev house would produce a game and try a elite lvl sub. instead of 10-15 sub. go for a 30-50 sub... but deliver a premium experience. this would separate the poors from the serious mmo players.
Yeah, I can handle the GW model as well. but when I think cash shop I think about something like the marketplace in EQ2. The few extras you can buy on the website for GW is so tame it doesn't even seem like a cash shop. And buying and expansion every half yeah seems more like paying a subscription on a 6 month cycle than anything else. Its just not that bad considering how much you get for it. I will definitly be a long term "subscriber" to GW2.
All die, so die well.
Sorry Z3R01, I just spent a month in City of Hereos where the gamers I was playing with were not only happy to pay a monthly fee to avoid the free to play rabble, but also happy to pay far more for shiny character addons they didn't really need. I'm also currently sitting within spitting distance of three gamers that currently hold multiple MMO subscriptions, two of them for games they haven't actually logged into for more than a month. So I disagree with your blanket statement that gamers don't like paying a sub fee for one, or any, video games.
You may not, you may have friends who don't, but don't transfer your dislike of sub fees onto the whole of the gaming public.
Now onto your idea that essentially Arena Nets price structure would be a boon for the entire industry. Since the only game that has actually tried this so far is Guild Wars 1, which many people argue isn't actually an MMO, or at least not a complete MMO, I'd say your theory is untested and mere speculation. What worked for one game may end up being failure for even GW2, we'll have to wait and see how A-nets full fleged forray into the MMO world pans out before we really know if such a pricing scheme is workable for what is looking to be a massive MMO.
Now based on what we have seen from the growing FTP trend, I have to disagree that a BTP with no subscription method for every MMO would be a good idea. The reason being is that there are already far more MMOs than the market can bare subscription based or not, and the current FTP trend has help keep some totally shyte games on the market when I feel the industry as a whole would have better benefitted from their closure.
If every or even a majority of MMOS went to the BTP method (and could actually be financally successful) I feel we would see even more lackluster titles cluttering up the MMO landscape, and taking players away from the actual good games, that still need people to buy the box and DLCs to survive.
To me it would make about as much sense for all restaurants to change their format to an all you can eat buffet. Sure you would be quite happy with the amount of choices you would have, but there is only so much food you can eat. And in time these busineses would have to start limiting the amount and quality of their products as their customer base is spread to thin for them to make a profit this way. Something I might add they are already doing even in subsciption based MMOs.
To sum up, pricing schemes are not what has made the MMO genre stagant. The true culprit is lack of quality and variety, combined with already too many choices between what is essentially the same game. I fail to see how companies just switching to BTP plus DLC is going to have a positive impact on this issue.
"Gypsies, tramps, and thieves, we were called by the Admin of the site . . . "
It all comes down to who the target market is. I would think that most in my age group would have no problem at all shelling out $15 a month for a product we feel were getting value for. The problem lies in maintaining that value for $. Personaly for the that usually ends not long after I reach cap, I guess it's my age, I just dont find repeating the same content over and over and over again very enjoyable. And I would suspect most people in my age group would feel the same way.
A game that I would stay subbed to would be a game where I could never reach cap, where I could never see it all and never do it all.
Once I've been there done that... I'm done
F2P is targeted for a more compulsive audience. One that worries alot more about keeping up with the Jone's. The people who dont purchase anything are definatley not the target.
GW2's model, well we will just have to see... It will have to be very good for me to buy something from a cash shop.
Nothing turns me off more then a cash shop. Makes me feel like I'm being nickled and dimed and thats where Blizzard has lost a long time fan. Lost my respect for them
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
From a player perspective, it is a big difference - it means that I can forget about the game for a while, and then go back to it a year later, and everything I'd left behind will still be there for me. I don't have to drop another $15 just to access what I've already paid for.
Of course if the game gets shut down, that's another story, but that's true no matter what payment model they use.
When I want a single-player story, I'll play a single-player game. When I play an MMO, I want a massively multiplayer world.
My opinion is that more people would come to the genre, based on my resistance to the sub model, one that lasted for several years. I remember watching my roomie playing Evercrack way back when and asking about it, when I found out it cost money to play every month, I was immediately turned off. Not until late 2001 did I finally sub to an MMO.
I cannot wait to find out what, if any, impact GW2 ends up having on the genre.
I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals.
~Albert Einstein