The only payment model 'best' for the consumer is subscription. Simply because they cannot give the game for free, they cannot develop the game for free. Those supporting (as anyone would) the notion of the box price paying for the original investment and future development of both supporting the existing game and coming xpacs is living in a dream world.
Subscription puts us all on a level playing field, we all have acess to the same game and the same in game content, the potential for each character created by each gamer is the same and restricted by only ourselves not our paypacket. MMO's are hard enough to get right in the first place why would you even dream of adding another detrimental effect to nearly all other mechanics within the game world.
----- The person who is certain, and who claims divine warrant for his certainty, belongs now to the infancy of our species.
The only payment model 'best' for the consumer is subscription. Simply because they cannot give the game for free, they cannot develop the game for free. Those supporting (as anyone would) the notion of the box price paying for the original investment and future development of both supporting the existing game and coming xpacs is living in a dream world.
Subscription puts us all on a level playing field, we all have acess to the same game and the same in game content, the potential for each character created by each gamer is the same and restricted by only ourselves not our paypacket. MMO's are hard enough to get right in the first place why would you even dream of adding another detrimental effect to nearly all other mechanics within the game world.
Sorry disagree. There are quite a few developers now that have stated that subscription is not needed, that the box price and price of future expansions can recover the original investment and pay for future investments. So IMO you're wrong.
With pre-orders, expansion, and now cs in subscription models - even the illusion that subscriptions create a level playing field is gone.
Venge
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
"Best" depends on the game. You cannot apply a concept of "best revenue model" to every single game, because most of them were developed around a specific model already.
The only payment model 'best' for the consumer is subscription. Simply because they cannot give the game for free, they cannot develop the game for free. Those supporting (as anyone would) the notion of the box price paying for the original investment and future development of both supporting the existing game and coming xpacs is living in a dream world.
Subscription puts us all on a level playing field, we all have acess to the same game and the same in game content, the potential for each character created by each gamer is the same and restricted by only ourselves not our paypacket. MMO's are hard enough to get right in the first place why would you even dream of adding another detrimental effect to nearly all other mechanics within the game world.
Sorry disagree. There are quite a few developers now that have stated that subscription is not needed, that the box price and price of future expansions can recover the original investment and pay for future investments. So IMO you're wrong.
Venge
That's interesting, I have seen the same excerpts and quotes, I have a question though, which ones do not have a cash shop in addition?
I recall reading a faily lengthy interview with a gw2 dev/pr guy, consisting of the moral injustice bestowed upon all those paying subscriptions by the money hungry developers, while metaphorically taking that higher ground as they will not need that subscription to develop their game. Not going into detail however about how he will be implementing a cash shop with access to very many exclusive costume packs, campaigns, mission packs, exclusive weapons and clothing, skill packs, extra storage, extra character slots, makeover packs, name changes, pets and pvp weapons (if GW is anything to go by that is).
I'm guessing you feel this shop is there for fun? An added bonus feature added by the devs for our benefit not for extra income, that's just a pleasant by product on their part, I guess? Please, they are saying on one hand they don't need the extra money, then with the other are rapidly coding their game to include micro-transactions. But yes, sorry not becasue they need the money, but because they have a bit spare time.
----- The person who is certain, and who claims divine warrant for his certainty, belongs now to the infancy of our species.
"Best" depends on the game. You cannot apply a concept of "best revenue model" to every single game, because most of them were developed around a specific model already.
Which is true and leads to the question, which game would you prefer to play, one which descriminates by the amount otime you are able to play the game you purchased or one which discriminates by the spare income you can afford (or not) to cough up.
----- The person who is certain, and who claims divine warrant for his certainty, belongs now to the infancy of our species.
I also don't follow the argument that a B2P game won't sell in Asia due to all the F2P games. This chart shows 3 P2P games that are all but exclusively Asian.
That's the whole idea. Those 3 games + wow + final fantasy is probably the only p2p games in asia. There literally is new asian mmorpg come out every week. I have no idea how they keep pumping out this games. And they are all f2p.
Also in asia you don't buy box for wow or aion. You pay strickly by time.
The history of asian mmorpg starts with Lineage. And lineage is such a big hit in asian, its' probably still in the top 10 most profitable mmorpg today. It's like an asian version of wow.
I have no problem with any payment model. All I say is the market play itself out. Company will adapt to b2p model if that's the most profitable for them.
It's funny when people mention b2p works for single player why not mmorpg. The reason to me is if I as an investor can get away with making lots of money making single player, I dont' need to get the fuzz of making an mmorpg. That's the whole idea.
The only payment model 'best' for the consumer is subscription. Simply because they cannot give the game for free, they cannot develop the game for free. Those supporting (as anyone would) the notion of the box price paying for the original investment and future development of both supporting the existing game and coming xpacs is living in a dream world.
Subscription puts us all on a level playing field, we all have acess to the same game and the same in game content, the potential for each character created by each gamer is the same and restricted by only ourselves not our paypacket. MMO's are hard enough to get right in the first place why would you even dream of adding another detrimental effect to nearly all other mechanics within the game world.
Sorry disagree. There are quite a few developers now that have stated that subscription is not needed, that the box price and price of future expansions can recover the original investment and pay for future investments. So IMO you're wrong.
Venge
That's interesting, I have seen the same excerpts and quotes, I have a question though, which ones do not have a cash shop in addition?
I recall reading a faily lengthy interview with a gw2 dev/pr guy, consisting of the moral injustice bestowed upon all those paying subscriptions by the money hungry developers, while metaphorically taking that higher ground as they will not need that subscription to develop their game. Not going into detail however about how he will be implementing a cash shop with access to very many exclusive costume packs, campaigns, mission packs, exclusive weapons and clothing, skill packs, extra storage, extra character slots, makeover packs, name changes, pets and pvp weapons (if GW is anything to go by that is).
I'm guessing you feel this shop is there for fun? An added bonus feature added by the devs for our benefit not for extra income, that's just a pleasant by product on their part, I guess? Please, they are saying on one hand they don't need the extra money, then with the other are rapidly coding their game to include micro-transactions. But yes, sorry not becasue they need the money, but because they have a bit spare time.
I didn't say anything about not having a cash shop in addition. I stated that p2p is not needed to cover the costs.
I'm perfectly ok with cash shops. Don't really care about them at all, they don't affect me.
Venge
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
STILL have yet to see mentioned another MMO that has the B2P model besides GW. Is that because there are none?
Probably, GW1 is the only one I can think of. But well, for purposes of this thread, it doesn't matter.
This thread is all about what model is best for the consumer. It has nothing to do with what model is the most commercially viable, or what model is the most prolific. There could be zero MMORPGs out that are B2P, and this argument could still be made.
The fact that there is only one B2P (quasi) MMORPG out proves nothing other than that the model has not been very popular, but is in fact viable for a producer.
I don't think the "no transparency" argument flies in the modern era. With the internet, there is an EXTREMELY high level of transparency with games. You can read reviews, talk to other users on forums, watch YouTube videos of gameplay. I typically know exactly what I'm getting into when I buy a game nowadays.
And why would F2P games not need marketing as well? A consumer has to be aware of the game to try it, F2P or not.
1. Hype your game like hell!
2. "Pre-order NOW to gain guaranteed access to beta and exclusive in-game content!"
Think of a product your going to devote money to. For the sake of everyone here let's say you make the next gen gaming console better than XBox 360 and PS3 will ever be. Your product sells roughly for $200, and the features are amazing. Your operational and development cost globally demands that the product must stay over $83 a sale in order for you to pay your expenses. Some group of kids come in and say that because XBOX 360 is now $53 and comes with 60 games, your product needs to be $53 and come with twice as many games. Oh and the catch is, they want you product now to be on sale for 50% off for the rest of the year perhaps.
How do you feel? You think it's fair to demand for "retardation" (as I literally can't describe the one track minds of any of the thoughtless CHIMPS on here advocating that anything profitable for a developer should be outlawed and illegal begin to vemonously post their BILE in my eyes yet again) in terms of what you percieve is good for your wallet. Simple, don't buy the games. Don't support the idea of a cash shop game. Dont support any games, rather sit down and start learning something. Perhaps dig deeper into your own mind and realize that 90% of your argument isn't created by you, but by the words of others. Oh yes, I just went there. You mindless accept the thoughts of the "hate" crowd and anything that even percieves nearly as to offending the thoughts you absorbed from some 90 year pedo in his basement posting about how a game breaks his wallet. Instead you suffer from lack of fun and creativity. I look at some posts and literally want to smash the idiot behind that keyboard in the face with some brass knuckles for being a retard. Of course open oppinion I will not stand against, but to repeat in a parrot like form isn't viable to be classified as humanly intelligent.
On topic: Your suggestion for the Buy To Play model is only relevant if people:
A. Psychologically feel they need the cash shop.
B. Can appease the buyers remorse felt afterward.
C. Sustain the company that runs or holds rights to the game.
D. Is managed and maintained by open community votes.
E. All rejects (low intelligence suggestions) are weeded out and excluded from game changing factors.
Why so harsh? Due to the fact that more than half are parrots I think I am rather soft. One track mind and free thinking has it's place, and I socially accept such forums to be 99% negative. That's like saying everything and everyone who does marketing and advertising is a crook. A blatant lie that was created by jealous people that refuse to accept the fact they are lazy, stupid, and do not wish to help meet other people's needs. Yet despite all this, Bill Gaytes gave more to charity than you will ever give, and some of the "monkey suits" give more to help the poor and in need than you will ever do in your life.
So again I come back to topic, is such a thing viable only for consumers and why should consumers benefit only? Yes, a mmorpg is a attempt to appease pyschological beahaviors and addictions ranging from pron to out right violence. Why should a game (being in origin a pet project for missile targeting software) even appease only to the terms of the consumer? That is why Activision doesn't listen to you, your demands are out right stupid. Perhaps maybe if you thought what would be viable besides cattering to your self concious addiction to power and gambling.
Most of the "parrots" are actually closet gamblers. They are addicted to the hype of power, and demand such to be free. No, and if you think such power comes without a price go outside into the real world and find out there are prices to be paid for everything. To set a psychological thought that everything should have no cost is GREED. As most won't even read this far, I conclude that it is impossible to teach anyone or give them logical truth. Good day to anyone who read this post, and I really don't give a crap about responses as I've stated in my earlier posts. Too many "parrots" to shift through and not enough bags for the bus loads of crap they spew daily.
I struggle not with life, money, emotions, and world, but against old mindsets and selves to be proven obsolete in a age and time of rapid changes. Go create fun, so you can have fun.
Think of a product your going to devote money to. For the sake of everyone here let's say you make the next gen gaming console better than XBox 360 and PS3 will ever be. Your product sells roughly for $200, and the features are amazing. Your operational and development cost globally demands that the product must stay over $83 a sale in order for you to pay your expenses. Some group of kids come in and say that because XBOX 360 is now $53 and comes with 60 games, your product needs to be $53 and come with twice as many games. Oh and the catch is, they want you product now to be on sale for 50% off for the rest of the year perhaps.
How do you feel? You think it's fair to demand for "retardation" (as I literally can't describe the one track minds of any of the thoughtless CHIMPS on here advocating that anything profitable for a developer should be outlawed and illegal begin to vemonously post their BILE in my eyes yet again) in terms of what you percieve is good for your wallet. Simple, don't buy the games. Don't support the idea of a cash shop game. Dont support any games, rather sit down and start learning something. Perhaps dig deeper into your own mind and realize that 90% of your argument isn't created by you, but by the words of others. Oh yes, I just went there. You mindless accept the thoughts of the "hate" crowd and anything that even percieves nearly as to offending the thoughts you absorbed from some 90 year pedo in his basement posting about how a game breaks his wallet. Instead you suffer from lack of fun and creativity. I look at some posts and literally want to smash the idiot behind that keyboard in the face with some brass knuckles for being a retard. Of course open oppinion I will not stand against, but to repeat in a parrot like form isn't viable to be classified as humanly intelligent.
On topic: Your suggestion for the Buy To Play model is only relevant if people:
A. Psychologically feel they need the cash shop.
B. Can appease the buyers remorse felt afterward.
C. Sustain the company that runs or holds rights to the game.
D. Is managed and maintained by open community votes.
E. All rejects (low intelligence suggestions) are weeded out and excluded from game changing factors.
Why so harsh? Due to the fact that more than half are parrots I think I am rather soft. One track mind and free thinking has it's place, and I socially accept such forums to be 99% negative. That's like saying everything and everyone who does marketing and advertising is a crook. A blatant lie that was created by jealous people that refuse to accept the fact they are lazy, stupid, and do not wish to help meet other people's needs. Yet despite all this, Bill Gaytes gave more to charity than you will ever give, and some of the "monkey suits" give more to help the poor and in need than you will ever do in your life.
So again I come back to topic, is such a thing viable only for consumers and why should consumers benefit only? Yes, a mmorpg is a attempt to appease pyschological beahaviors and addictions ranging from pron to out right violence. Why should a game (being in origin a pet project for missile targeting software) even appease only to the terms of the consumer? That is why Activision doesn't listen to you, your demands are out right stupid. Perhaps maybe if you thought what would be viable besides cattering to your self concious addiction to power and gambling.
Most of the "parrots" are actually closet gamblers. They are addicted to the hype of power, and demand such to be free. No, and if you think such power comes without a price go outside into the real world and find out there are prices to be paid for everything. To set a psychological thought that everything should have no cost is GREED. As most won't even read this far, I conclude that it is impossible to teach anyone or give them logical truth. Good day to anyone who read this post, and I really don't give a crap about responses as I've stated in my earlier posts. Too many "parrots" to shift through and not enough bags for the bus loads of crap they spew daily.
Wow, well I got through this entire post, and it's probably one of the most arrogant, self-righteous things I've ever read.
First off, in your example, if your product is really worth a premium price, then you can charge a premium price and stay in business even if you have cheaper competition. Look at Apple, they charge a premium for all of their products and yet there are many competitors that charge much less but offer similar functionality. This is called a differentiation strategy. If you can make consumers believe that your product has unique (read better) qualities when compared to competitive products, then you can charge a premium.
Second, if you are charging a premium price and another product comes out which offers the exact same stuff that your product does but for much less, well then you just got beat by a cost leadership strategy. Look at Walmart for a good example. If a firm can make the same product you make but at much less cost, then they win.
This is just normal free-market competition. It has nothing to do with "retarded" consumers or "parrots."
And as for your lettered list...ummm, I have no clue what you're getting at here with most of your items. Can appease buyer's remorse? Is managed by an open community vote? Huh?
You list a bunch of things that have to be true for a B2P cash shop to be relevant, but you fail to ever mention why they have to be true. Just saying something has to be true does not make it so.
Finally...this whole post is not about what is best for the producer, it is about what is best for the consumer only. I fully realize that what I describe will probably not be best for a producer, and there will have to be some kind of compromise. The point of this post is to argue what is best for the consumer so that we all have a good idea of what model gives us the most value.
Just for a general example of what I mean...if you're talking competitive environments, perfect competition is always best for the consumer but it terrible for the producer. If I say perfect competition is good for the consumers, I don't expect any producer to actually try to create a perfectly competitive environment. But I do expect consumers to at least realize what is the "ideal" situation for them.
STILL have yet to see mentioned another MMO that has the B2P model besides GW. Is that because there are none?
Probably, GW1 is the only one I can think of. But well, for purposes of this thread, it doesn't matter.
This thread is all about what model is best for the consumer. It has nothing to do with what model is the most commercially viable, or what model is the most prolific. There could be zero MMORPGs out that are B2P, and this argument could still be made.
The fact that there is only one B2P (quasi) MMORPG out proves nothing other than that the model has not been very popular, but is in fact viable for a producer.
Exactly, it's not very popular for the game company. The game company have the final say on the price model. The best for the game company is which ever model makes them the most money. The best for the consumer is whatever is the cheapest.
If it's p2p model with 1$ a month and you dont' need to buy the box, I'm sure most player can live with that too.
The only payment model 'best' for the consumer is subscription. Simply because they cannot give the game for free, they cannot develop the game for free. Those supporting (as anyone would) the notion of the box price paying for the original investment and future development of both supporting the existing game and coming xpacs is living in a dream world.
Subscription puts us all on a level playing field, we all have acess to the same game and the same in game content, the potential for each character created by each gamer is the same and restricted by only ourselves not our paypacket. MMO's are hard enough to get right in the first place why would you even dream of adding another detrimental effect to nearly all other mechanics within the game world.
I have a little problem with that. If most AAA non-mmorpgs can be successful with box price then AAA mmos can too. You gonna debate campanies like Bungie, Infinity ward, Squareeqix, EA Sports, Blizzard, Ubi Soft......I could keep going............?
The point here is most and I mean most over buget for their mmo projects.(SWTOR<<<<<) So they are forced to setup an payment structure that requires mass amount of players. In case they set themselves up for failure from the beginning. So P2P isn't the best model.
Game company definately can get by with B2P model. Look at GW. It's making money.
You make a 50million$ game, with 20million budget over the next 2 decade for maintainence, you only need to sell 2 million copy to make a profit. Which isn't too hard.
But still, if you are the ceo of the game company, and you can make 5 times more with monthly subscription, why wouldn't you?
I can bet wow, aion, lineage, all those games could survive as b2p. But obviously, the game company make more money if it use monthly subscription.
The arguement is about wether or not Free2Play game business model will outlast the tried & true pay2play..
Since each game is deszigned with different goals, then their outward business model has t5o include theri goals. Games that were Pay2Play then went Free ...ARE... a failed business model.
Where as games like ArcheAge require too much hardware/server fa+m to function on a stand-alone item mall business model. It is easy to spot the greedy companies vs the ones who are making real adventure games.
Subscribed MMORPG's will never go away because too many people love the premium experience.. that is slowly being pushed aside in favor of the quick-buck WoW refugee bonanza that is going on. Once these kids grow a fewmore years and start working @ McDonals, they will undoubtedly graduate to a premium MMo.
"No they are not charity. That is where the whales come in. (I play for free. Whales pays.) Devs get a business. That is how it works."
The arguement is about wether or not Free2Play game business model will outlast the tried & true pay2play..
Since each game is deszigned with different goals, then their outward business model has t5o include theri goals. Games that were Pay2Play then went Free ...ARE... a failed business model.
Where as games like ArcheAge require too much hardware/server fa+m to function on a stand-alone item mall business model. It is easy to spot the greedy companies vs the ones who are making real adventure games.
Subscribed MMORPG's will never go away because too many people love the premium experience.. that is slowly being pushed aside in favor of the quick-buck WoW refugee bonanza that is going on. Once these kids grow a fewmore years and start working @ McDonals, they will undoubtedly graduate to a premium MMo.
First of all this topic is more about b2p and not f2p or p2p.
Second of all those games that were p2p that went f2p arn't a failed business model. Think of it in terms of money, they already made a huge profit from the box sale, at least most of them. They made decent money in the beginning from subscription too. And when people stop paying them subcription they made it f2p because from that point they think they can make more money.
If you think about it, that model might be the most profit for them. First make it p2p, so they can rack in alot initial money from box sale and subscription the first few month. Then turn it f2p so can bring in more player because the server is dieing from people quiting.
The arguemnt stems from the fact that many believe that one model needs to exist. It doesn't.
But it also is quite overwhelming that the people who don't understand this are also the people who have no idea of what a premium MMo is. All they know is cheap, watered-down mmo and ignorantly think no game is worth a monthy subscription.
Then again... most who don't know, don't care because they would never spend $180 on a Terry Brooks novel series, nor $ for an online- adventure game.
So Free2Play advocets reside in mediocrity, holding the status quo. While telling us that premium games won't, because they would never pay for them.
My question is.. And? (Don't buy, don't play)
I don't think any of the "premium" mmo's were really any better than most of the f2p, or now f2p MMO's. They are all wallowing in various levels of mediocrity.
Venge
Older games were technically limited.. today games are not. You have always viewed "better" as some in-game feature, or function and not based on game mechanics. And again, nobody is speaking about Premium games that once were, or has been..compared to todays. But as oposed to when they were released.
And agvain, ArcheAge & EverQuestNext will bear this out... (premium business model)
"No they are not charity. That is where the whales come in. (I play for free. Whales pays.) Devs get a business. That is how it works."
So much straw man argumentation going on. I have presented my ideas with a conclusion, I get no replies to counter or agree but I read on to see such flawed statements yet nobody chooses review and respond to mine. I don't mind healthy debates but if you disagree stop trying to argue points that we can all agree are either wrong or weak minor detailed points that are NOT a good base argued for or against.
You really want to prove your points try responding your disagreements to somebody with a sound evaluation of topic, or else your arguements are pointless
Details can always change it's the idea that counts.
STILL have yet to see mentioned another MMO that has the B2P model besides GW. Is that because there are none?
Probably, GW1 is the only one I can think of. But well, for purposes of this thread, it doesn't matter.
This thread is all about what model is best for the consumer. It has nothing to do with what model is the most commercially viable, or what model is the most prolific. There could be zero MMORPGs out that are B2P, and this argument could still be made.
The fact that there is only one B2P (quasi) MMORPG out proves nothing other than that the model has not been very popular, but is in fact viable for a producer.
Global Agenda was B2P at one point I think, then it went free to play. Or was it APB?
But if we are counting GW2 as MMO, wouldn't that make Battlefield or Call of Duty MMO as well? They have online Co-Op, PvP, and offline singleplayer.
How much WoW could a WoWhater hate, if a WoWhater could hate WoW? As much WoW as a WoWhater would, if a WoWhater could hate WoW.
I've heard it described that B2P is like F2P except that you have to pay for the box first. The more I think about it, the more I think the model that GW2's version of the B2P model is most similar to is WoW's version of the P2P model.
Both you have to initially buy the box in order to play it.
Both have boxed expansions you need to buy in order to access that content
Both have vanity cash shops
Both continually update their game (WoW with new content every few months, GW2 with adding new DEs right from the start)
The only difference is the subscription. We know from NCSoft's latest quartly report that the combined cost of bandwidth and server rent was 7807 million Korean Won for the quarter. That's 7 million dollars per quarter, or a lousy 2.3 million dollars per month for ALL of NCSoft's games combined. Aion alone has 3 million subscribers or so.
Seems to me that the only difference between GW2's B2P model and WoW's P2P model is that GW2 isn't gouging you for $15 a month for no justifiable reason whatsoever.
"Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true you know it, and they know it."-Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007
Comments
The only payment model 'best' for the consumer is subscription. Simply because they cannot give the game for free, they cannot develop the game for free. Those supporting (as anyone would) the notion of the box price paying for the original investment and future development of both supporting the existing game and coming xpacs is living in a dream world.
Subscription puts us all on a level playing field, we all have acess to the same game and the same in game content, the potential for each character created by each gamer is the same and restricted by only ourselves not our paypacket. MMO's are hard enough to get right in the first place why would you even dream of adding another detrimental effect to nearly all other mechanics within the game world.
-----
The person who is certain, and who claims divine warrant for his certainty, belongs now to the infancy of our species.
Sorry disagree. There are quite a few developers now that have stated that subscription is not needed, that the box price and price of future expansions can recover the original investment and pay for future investments. So IMO you're wrong.
With pre-orders, expansion, and now cs in subscription models - even the illusion that subscriptions create a level playing field is gone.
Venge
"Best" depends on the game. You cannot apply a concept of "best revenue model" to every single game, because most of them were developed around a specific model already.
That's interesting, I have seen the same excerpts and quotes, I have a question though, which ones do not have a cash shop in addition?
I recall reading a faily lengthy interview with a gw2 dev/pr guy, consisting of the moral injustice bestowed upon all those paying subscriptions by the money hungry developers, while metaphorically taking that higher ground as they will not need that subscription to develop their game. Not going into detail however about how he will be implementing a cash shop with access to very many exclusive costume packs, campaigns, mission packs, exclusive weapons and clothing, skill packs, extra storage, extra character slots, makeover packs, name changes, pets and pvp weapons (if GW is anything to go by that is).
I'm guessing you feel this shop is there for fun? An added bonus feature added by the devs for our benefit not for extra income, that's just a pleasant by product on their part, I guess? Please, they are saying on one hand they don't need the extra money, then with the other are rapidly coding their game to include micro-transactions. But yes, sorry not becasue they need the money, but because they have a bit spare time.
-----
The person who is certain, and who claims divine warrant for his certainty, belongs now to the infancy of our species.
Which is true and leads to the question, which game would you prefer to play, one which descriminates by the amount otime you are able to play the game you purchased or one which discriminates by the spare income you can afford (or not) to cough up.
-----
The person who is certain, and who claims divine warrant for his certainty, belongs now to the infancy of our species.
That's the whole idea. Those 3 games + wow + final fantasy is probably the only p2p games in asia. There literally is new asian mmorpg come out every week. I have no idea how they keep pumping out this games. And they are all f2p.
Also in asia you don't buy box for wow or aion. You pay strickly by time.
The history of asian mmorpg starts with Lineage. And lineage is such a big hit in asian, its' probably still in the top 10 most profitable mmorpg today. It's like an asian version of wow.
I have no problem with any payment model. All I say is the market play itself out. Company will adapt to b2p model if that's the most profitable for them.
It's funny when people mention b2p works for single player why not mmorpg. The reason to me is if I as an investor can get away with making lots of money making single player, I dont' need to get the fuzz of making an mmorpg. That's the whole idea.
STILL have yet to see mentioned another MMO that has the B2P model besides GW. Is that because there are none?
Is a man not entitled to the herp of his derp?
Remember, I live in a world where juggalos and yugioh players are real things.
I didn't say anything about not having a cash shop in addition. I stated that p2p is not needed to cover the costs.
I'm perfectly ok with cash shops. Don't really care about them at all, they don't affect me.
Venge
Probably, GW1 is the only one I can think of. But well, for purposes of this thread, it doesn't matter.
This thread is all about what model is best for the consumer. It has nothing to do with what model is the most commercially viable, or what model is the most prolific. There could be zero MMORPGs out that are B2P, and this argument could still be made.
The fact that there is only one B2P (quasi) MMORPG out proves nothing other than that the model has not been very popular, but is in fact viable for a producer.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
1. Hype your game like hell!
2. "Pre-order NOW to gain guaranteed access to beta and exclusive in-game content!"
3. Make first 10h of gameplay extremely fun.
4. ???
5. Profit!
Think of a product your going to devote money to. For the sake of everyone here let's say you make the next gen gaming console better than XBox 360 and PS3 will ever be. Your product sells roughly for $200, and the features are amazing. Your operational and development cost globally demands that the product must stay over $83 a sale in order for you to pay your expenses. Some group of kids come in and say that because XBOX 360 is now $53 and comes with 60 games, your product needs to be $53 and come with twice as many games. Oh and the catch is, they want you product now to be on sale for 50% off for the rest of the year perhaps.
How do you feel? You think it's fair to demand for "retardation" (as I literally can't describe the one track minds of any of the thoughtless CHIMPS on here advocating that anything profitable for a developer should be outlawed and illegal begin to vemonously post their BILE in my eyes yet again) in terms of what you percieve is good for your wallet. Simple, don't buy the games. Don't support the idea of a cash shop game. Dont support any games, rather sit down and start learning something. Perhaps dig deeper into your own mind and realize that 90% of your argument isn't created by you, but by the words of others. Oh yes, I just went there. You mindless accept the thoughts of the "hate" crowd and anything that even percieves nearly as to offending the thoughts you absorbed from some 90 year pedo in his basement posting about how a game breaks his wallet. Instead you suffer from lack of fun and creativity. I look at some posts and literally want to smash the idiot behind that keyboard in the face with some brass knuckles for being a retard. Of course open oppinion I will not stand against, but to repeat in a parrot like form isn't viable to be classified as humanly intelligent.
On topic: Your suggestion for the Buy To Play model is only relevant if people:
A. Psychologically feel they need the cash shop.
B. Can appease the buyers remorse felt afterward.
C. Sustain the company that runs or holds rights to the game.
D. Is managed and maintained by open community votes.
E. All rejects (low intelligence suggestions) are weeded out and excluded from game changing factors.
Why so harsh? Due to the fact that more than half are parrots I think I am rather soft. One track mind and free thinking has it's place, and I socially accept such forums to be 99% negative. That's like saying everything and everyone who does marketing and advertising is a crook. A blatant lie that was created by jealous people that refuse to accept the fact they are lazy, stupid, and do not wish to help meet other people's needs. Yet despite all this, Bill Gaytes gave more to charity than you will ever give, and some of the "monkey suits" give more to help the poor and in need than you will ever do in your life.
So again I come back to topic, is such a thing viable only for consumers and why should consumers benefit only? Yes, a mmorpg is a attempt to appease pyschological beahaviors and addictions ranging from pron to out right violence. Why should a game (being in origin a pet project for missile targeting software) even appease only to the terms of the consumer? That is why Activision doesn't listen to you, your demands are out right stupid. Perhaps maybe if you thought what would be viable besides cattering to your self concious addiction to power and gambling.
Most of the "parrots" are actually closet gamblers. They are addicted to the hype of power, and demand such to be free. No, and if you think such power comes without a price go outside into the real world and find out there are prices to be paid for everything. To set a psychological thought that everything should have no cost is GREED. As most won't even read this far, I conclude that it is impossible to teach anyone or give them logical truth. Good day to anyone who read this post, and I really don't give a crap about responses as I've stated in my earlier posts. Too many "parrots" to shift through and not enough bags for the bus loads of crap they spew daily.
I struggle not with life, money, emotions, and world, but against old mindsets and selves to be proven obsolete in a age and time of rapid changes. Go create fun, so you can have fun.
Wow, well I got through this entire post, and it's probably one of the most arrogant, self-righteous things I've ever read.
First off, in your example, if your product is really worth a premium price, then you can charge a premium price and stay in business even if you have cheaper competition. Look at Apple, they charge a premium for all of their products and yet there are many competitors that charge much less but offer similar functionality. This is called a differentiation strategy. If you can make consumers believe that your product has unique (read better) qualities when compared to competitive products, then you can charge a premium.
Second, if you are charging a premium price and another product comes out which offers the exact same stuff that your product does but for much less, well then you just got beat by a cost leadership strategy. Look at Walmart for a good example. If a firm can make the same product you make but at much less cost, then they win.
This is just normal free-market competition. It has nothing to do with "retarded" consumers or "parrots."
And as for your lettered list...ummm, I have no clue what you're getting at here with most of your items. Can appease buyer's remorse? Is managed by an open community vote? Huh?
You list a bunch of things that have to be true for a B2P cash shop to be relevant, but you fail to ever mention why they have to be true. Just saying something has to be true does not make it so.
Finally...this whole post is not about what is best for the producer, it is about what is best for the consumer only. I fully realize that what I describe will probably not be best for a producer, and there will have to be some kind of compromise. The point of this post is to argue what is best for the consumer so that we all have a good idea of what model gives us the most value.
Just for a general example of what I mean...if you're talking competitive environments, perfect competition is always best for the consumer but it terrible for the producer. If I say perfect competition is good for the consumers, I don't expect any producer to actually try to create a perfectly competitive environment. But I do expect consumers to at least realize what is the "ideal" situation for them.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
Exactly, it's not very popular for the game company. The game company have the final say on the price model. The best for the game company is which ever model makes them the most money. The best for the consumer is whatever is the cheapest.
If it's p2p model with 1$ a month and you dont' need to buy the box, I'm sure most player can live with that too.
I have a little problem with that. If most AAA non-mmorpgs can be successful with box price then AAA mmos can too. You gonna debate campanies like Bungie, Infinity ward, Squareeqix, EA Sports, Blizzard, Ubi Soft......I could keep going............?
The point here is most and I mean most over buget for their mmo projects.(SWTOR<<<<<) So they are forced to setup an payment structure that requires mass amount of players. In case they set themselves up for failure from the beginning. So P2P isn't the best model.
Read my blog http://sanmonocobra.blogspot.com/
Game company definately can get by with B2P model. Look at GW. It's making money.
You make a 50million$ game, with 20million budget over the next 2 decade for maintainence, you only need to sell 2 million copy to make a profit. Which isn't too hard.
But still, if you are the ceo of the game company, and you can make 5 times more with monthly subscription, why wouldn't you?
I can bet wow, aion, lineage, all those games could survive as b2p. But obviously, the game company make more money if it use monthly subscription.
Since each game is deszigned with different goals, then their outward business model has t5o include theri goals. Games that were Pay2Play then went Free ...ARE... a failed business model.
Where as games like ArcheAge require too much hardware/server fa+m to function on a stand-alone item mall business model. It is easy to spot the greedy companies vs the ones who are making real adventure games.
Subscribed MMORPG's will never go away because too many people love the premium experience.. that is slowly being pushed aside in favor of the quick-buck WoW refugee bonanza that is going on. Once these kids grow a fewmore years and start working @ McDonals, they will undoubtedly graduate to a premium MMo.
"No they are not charity. That is where the whales come in. (I play for free. Whales pays.) Devs get a business. That is how it works."
-Nariusseldon
First of all this topic is more about b2p and not f2p or p2p.
Second of all those games that were p2p that went f2p arn't a failed business model. Think of it in terms of money, they already made a huge profit from the box sale, at least most of them. They made decent money in the beginning from subscription too. And when people stop paying them subcription they made it f2p because from that point they think they can make more money.
If you think about it, that model might be the most profit for them. First make it p2p, so they can rack in alot initial money from box sale and subscription the first few month. Then turn it f2p so can bring in more player because the server is dieing from people quiting.
I don't think any of the "premium" mmo's were really any better than most of the f2p, or now f2p MMO's. They are all wallowing in various levels of mediocrity.
Venge
Older games were technically limited.. today games are not.
You have always viewed "better" as some in-game feature, or function and not based on game mechanics. And again, nobody is speaking about Premium games that once were, or has been..compared to todays. But as oposed to when they were released.
And agvain, ArcheAge & EverQuestNext will bear this out... (premium business model)
"No they are not charity. That is where the whales come in. (I play for free. Whales pays.) Devs get a business. That is how it works."
-Nariusseldon
So much straw man argumentation going on. I have presented my ideas with a conclusion, I get no replies to counter or agree but I read on to see such flawed statements yet nobody chooses review and respond to mine. I don't mind healthy debates but if you disagree stop trying to argue points that we can all agree are either wrong or weak minor detailed points that are NOT a good base argued for or against.
You really want to prove your points try responding your disagreements to somebody with a sound evaluation of topic, or else your arguements are pointless
Details can always change it's the idea that counts.
Global Agenda was B2P at one point I think, then it went free to play. Or was it APB?
But if we are counting GW2 as MMO, wouldn't that make Battlefield or Call of Duty MMO as well? They have online Co-Op, PvP, and offline singleplayer.
How much WoW could a WoWhater hate, if a WoWhater could hate WoW?
As much WoW as a WoWhater would, if a WoWhater could hate WoW.
I've heard it described that B2P is like F2P except that you have to pay for the box first. The more I think about it, the more I think the model that GW2's version of the B2P model is most similar to is WoW's version of the P2P model.
Both you have to initially buy the box in order to play it.
Both have boxed expansions you need to buy in order to access that content
Both have vanity cash shops
Both continually update their game (WoW with new content every few months, GW2 with adding new DEs right from the start)
The only difference is the subscription. We know from NCSoft's latest quartly report that the combined cost of bandwidth and server rent was 7807 million Korean Won for the quarter. That's 7 million dollars per quarter, or a lousy 2.3 million dollars per month for ALL of NCSoft's games combined. Aion alone has 3 million subscribers or so.
Seems to me that the only difference between GW2's B2P model and WoW's P2P model is that GW2 isn't gouging you for $15 a month for no justifiable reason whatsoever.
"Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true you know it, and they know it." -Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007