Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

[General Article] WildStar: Revenue Model Revealed

145791020

Comments

  • ShaikeShaike Member UncommonPosts: 301
    Originally posted by BillMurphy
    I'm surprised there's so little talk about the 2014 release date delay... :)

    actually as most here either won't be playing the game (Ohh no i have to pay to play this...) or are playing now (or in a week actually) the FF14 ARR - i see no problem here. We will wait till 2014 and see - if FF14 Sub model works then this will as well. Good for customers and Carbin.

    Just my 2 cents...

    image

  • TheLizardbonesTheLizardbones Member CommonPosts: 10,910

    Not all that interested in paying a subscription for any game, but the Commodities Exchange sounds like a really cool idea. Global Agenda did something like this and it worked really well. That idea I really like.

    I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.

  • doodphacedoodphace Member UncommonPosts: 1,858
    Originally posted by Distopia
    Originally posted by doodphace
     

    Buy to play...you know...what GW2 and TSW are?....please dont tell me you frequent this site and didnt know that?

    Let me guess, you are going to imply B2P and F2P are the same thing now in order to save face? lol

    What's the difference? I've always felt they're essentially the same thing because long term sales are garnered through the same avenue, cash shops. There's also no reason to be so damn snarky we're just having a conversation here.

    "saving face",that would mean I've changed my stance which I haven't, it's just a semantics game.

    "I've always felt" doesnt in turn make B2P and F2P the same....Rift, SWTOR and Neverwinter are F2P...you dont have to pay a single cent to play them.....GW2 and TSW are B2P...you have to put money down to play them....see? Just because you incorrectly feel something, doesnt mean they are the same thing.

    And regarding the "saving face".....twisting your logic to imply B2P and F2P are the same thing, is exactly like changing your stance....

  • FlawSGIFlawSGI Member UncommonPosts: 1,379
    Originally posted by THEchad88
    Originally posted by AIMonster

    I don't understand why people think a sub model "keeps the kids out".  I can understand that people are going to be more invested into the game and aren't just going to log on to troll, but the $60 price already takes care of this.  Sub models are dated especially at a $15 price tag when upkeep on the game has been proven to be significantly lower than that.  People seem to consider WoW full of kids and yet that uses a sub model.  How exactly is the sub model keeping kids out anymore than a B2P model? 

    I'm definitely someone who is in favor of a FAIR B2P model (like the one used in MOBAs) over a sub model since subscriptions are basically a needless waste of money to me.  With all the cosmetic possibilities in Wildstar through things like minipets, housing items, cosmetic clothing, and other fun aesthetic items I'm really surprised they went the no cash shop route.

    I'd argue the CREED system benefits Wildstar developers the most as that's a $5 extra premium they get for people who want to benefit off the CREED system in both aspects (which I can only imagine will be the majority of hardcore players and a few whales who want control over the market) and maybe even a way to get revenue indirectly from players who wouldn't normally want to pay for a subscription similarly to how free players are paid for by whales in F2P games.  The only major negative I see the system having is that it gives whale players way too much control over the market so depending on how important the basic currency is in Wildstar this could have a negative impact in the long run over the economy.

     

    It DOESN'T keep the "kids" out. WoW has always been P2P and everyone who ever played it always bumped into "UNDESIREABLES" or kids as you've stated. 

    ^^^ THIS    but it does make those with the mindset that P2P = superiority feel better to make that comment distancing their communities from the riff raff. WoW was and still remains the worst cesspool I have ever dipped my toe in. I know I know, it is because it had that many more people than other games but it doesn't detract that it was a sub game with trolls in droves.

     

    As far as Wildstar goes though, I may pass on principle. Not because they are charging a sub, but because they felt the need to make it the usual $15 a month. I have grown to despise that number seeing as how we know that there is little reason to stamp that arbitrary number to it other than because it is the way it has been. I am weird like that I guess.

    RIP Jimmy "The Rev" Sullivan and Paul Gray.

  • doodphacedoodphace Member UncommonPosts: 1,858
    Originally posted by THEchad88
    Originally posted by doodphace
    Originally posted by Distopia
    Originally posted by doodphace
    Originally posted by Distopia
    Originally posted by doodphace
    Originally posted by Distopia
    Originally posted by BrooksTech
    F2P is a trend that is nearing the end of its run.  I, for one, am very happy about this.

    You're forgetting about the upcoming big-kids on the block, EQn and Titan, both of which are slated for F2P.

    Titan was confirmed as not being sub based, but they mentioned nothing about it being "F2P".

    You were saying?

    http://www.gamebreaker.tv/mmorpg/blizzards-titan-looking-at-a-f2p-model/

    "Blizzard’s Upcoming MMO, Titan, will have a free to play model!"

    You should probably stop reading only headlines and actually read the content of the article you quoted...

    And I quote, "unlikely to be a subscription-based"....which is exactly what I just said...it will not be subscription based, but they havent confirmed F2P.

    That article literally states "Blizzard could go the buy to play route", confirming that the only thing thus far confirmed is no subscription....this is getting too easy....you literally proved yourself wrong :P

    MMORPG.com forum logic strikes again ;)

    Wait what? What is there besides sub or f2p? What are they going to charge by skittles or something?

    Buy to play...you know...what GW2 and TSW are?....please dont tell me you frequent this site and didnt know that?

    Let me guess, you are going to imply B2P and F2P are the same thing now in order to save face? lol

     

    WOAH, easy does it there oh condescending one. Lets not bash folks who may not know everything there is to know out there and educate and increase the community in a positive way. Course that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

    P2P = pay to play (subscription based payment model)

    F2P = free to play (no subscription and no up front cost for the game)

    B2P = buy to play (one time payment up front and nothing after that)

    Did I miss one folks?

    I didnt start out snarky, I only got that way when he threw an article at me with a "You were saying?", when the article in question literally proved me right, and him wrong lol. And now hes trying to say hes still right, because he "feels" B2P and F2P are "basically the same thing"...../sigh

    MMORPG forum posters have me on edge lately :P

     

  • udonudon Member UncommonPosts: 1,803

    This is pretty much exactly what I expected Wildstar to do which was why I was a bit confused when they said a few months ago their model would be "hybrid".  I guess this falls into into that category even if it's not a really new concept.

    Wildstar is planting itself firmly at the raider and old school MMO player.  An audience who has no desire to deal with the downsides of the F2P and B2P market.  Love it or hate it there can be no denying that F2P and B2P games tend to have a much more transient population than sub games do.  When you lower the barrier to entry on a game like that you also end up lowering how bought into the game a person is to making it much easier to leave on a whim. 

    I am a bit put out by the idea of being able to buy time with ingame money though.  While yes it does take the third party gold seller largely out of the equation it also puts the developer into that role which I believe cause conflict of interest issues when developing content.  I also think it can change how people play the game and interact with the world in a often negative manner.

  • DistopiaDistopia Member EpicPosts: 21,182
    Originally posted by GeezerGamer

    SWTOR had 2M people lined up ready willing and able to pay for an ongoing subscription when the game released. Most of those players knew full well, that by purchasing SWTOR, they'd have to pay 15 bucks/month to keep playing it. Still, they bought it. It went F2P because it failed to deliver on a long term investment. Not because it was P2P to start.

     At the time of SWTOR, the craze was all about no monthly fees as GW2 was doing. There were so many calls for them to go B2p as soon as the discussion started. The market has taken another shift recently ( basically since FFXIV) to go back to sub only models. I'm talking collective voices here. It's rather confusing really. People as a whole have been flip-flopping back and forth for quite a while now.

    I mean the big argument against TOR being P2P, was that it was too much like WOW and did little to deviate from that path. Yet FFXIV and now WS have done little to deviate either. Overall quality is subjective and hard to put a measure on.

    For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson


  • MuntzMuntz Member UncommonPosts: 332
    Not interested then. Glad those who really want a P2P model have something they can spend money on. I still say it is just part of tradition and not a necessity at this point in time. The maintanace items like gear and bandwidth have decreased in cost so that this model isn't needed to be successful. Having played P2P games I do not see the quality, responsiveness or the increase in the amount of game play that some say is there. I don't expect to play every MMO on the market and I hope they are successful. 
  • TorvalTorval Member LegendaryPosts: 19,500
    Originally posted by GeezerGamer
    Originally posted by Torvaldr
    Originally posted by doodphace
    Originally posted by Magicabbage

    Well that settles it. I won't be getting it. I have so many quality games that are F2P that there is no reason to pay a monthly fee. That model is old and dated. The typical "13.99" a month? Really? Why not some random arbitrary number like 5.99? It's not the price that makes me shy away. It's the fact that I don't want to pay anything unless I want some "skins" or mounts or housing stuff or bag slots.

    The game looks great and fun and I don't care if the game is a "WoW clone" (I hate that term)

    I am kind of happy this is their model choice. It's one less game I have to worry about getting. With Elder Scrolls Online and EQNext on the horizon I can just now follow them.

    Peace!

    Why do you worry about getting a game? Its literally people like you, who hop form F2P game to F2P game and utterly kill the community, that P2P gamers are hoping to avoide. This isnt Call of Duty or Unreal Tournament....

    P2P people always say this (I guess that was your MMORPG.com logic eh), but then when a game crashes and burns and has to go F2P they always pull out excuses how the devs did this and that to ruin the game or they would still sub.  However, they're very excited for the next game on the horizon which they hope will be P2P so they can dump it 3 months after release.

    If P2P people were so plentiful and committed there wouldn't be a debate over payment models because P2P would have already won.  But they aren't plentiful, and most of all they aren't committed, and their game hopping is just as bad as the F2P players.

    Except there is still a really solid argument to be made for it though.

    SWTOR had 2M people lined up ready willing and able to pay for an ongoing subscription when the game released. Most of those players knew full well, that by purchasing SWTOR, they'd have to pay 15 bucks/month to keep playing it. Still, they bought it. It went F2P because it failed to deliver on a long term investment. Not because it was P2P to start.

    This game will fail to deliver on the long term investment as well. I don't see any game being able to pull this off outside of niche titles (I could see CU doing a sub and it working out for them).  I would need to see some really convincing evidence to the contrary.  When everyone ditches this game, people will say the same thing and will haul out a laundry list of reasons (some good and some bad) why they abandoned the game.

    My bigger point is that "P2P" folks aren't really any more reliable than "F2P" folks so blaming them for the woes of the industry is ludicrous (that's what I responded to).  Not only that, but I think there is a reasonable chunk of people that fit into both categories so there isn't really an "us" and a "them".

    take back the hobby: https://www.reddit.com/r/patientgamers/

    traveller, interloper, anomaly
    ༼ つ ◕◕ ༽つ

  • DistopiaDistopia Member EpicPosts: 21,182
    Originally posted by doodphace
    Originally posted by Distopia
    Originally posted by doodphace
     

    Buy to play...you know...what GW2 and TSW are?....please dont tell me you frequent this site and didnt know that?

    Let me guess, you are going to imply B2P and F2P are the same thing now in order to save face? lol

    What's the difference? I've always felt they're essentially the same thing because long term sales are garnered through the same avenue, cash shops. There's also no reason to be so damn snarky we're just having a conversation here.

    "saving face",that would mean I've changed my stance which I haven't, it's just a semantics game.

    "I've always felt" doesnt in turn make B2P and F2P the same....Rift, SWTOR and Neverwinter are F2P...you dont have to pay a single cent to play them.....GW2 and TSW are B2P...you have to put money down to play them....see? Just because you incorrectly feel something, doesnt mean they are the same thing.

    And regarding the "saving face".....twisting your logic to imply B2P and F2P are the same thing, is exactly like changing your stance....

    If that was the case I would have thought of B2P as an option they could have gone with, did I? No because I feel they're the same thing. Which is what brought us to this point in the conversation, nice try though.

    Anyway I'm done here, as I really don't care about  F2P vs p2p vs B2P etc, not enough to have a back and forth about semantics anyway.

    For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson


  • TorvalTorval Member LegendaryPosts: 19,500
    Originally posted by doodphace
    Originally posted by Distopia
    Originally posted by doodphace
    Originally posted by Distopia
    Originally posted by doodphace
    Originally posted by Distopia
    Originally posted by BrooksTech
    F2P is a trend that is nearing the end of its run.  I, for one, am very happy about this.

    You're forgetting about the upcoming big-kids on the block, EQn and Titan, both of which are slated for F2P.

    Titan was confirmed as not being sub based, but they mentioned nothing about it being "F2P".

    You were saying?

    http://www.gamebreaker.tv/mmorpg/blizzards-titan-looking-at-a-f2p-model/

    "Blizzard’s Upcoming MMO, Titan, will have a free to play model!"

    You should probably stop reading only headlines and actually read the content of the article you quoted...

    And I quote, "unlikely to be a subscription-based"....which is exactly what I just said...it will not be subscription based, but they havent confirmed F2P.

    That article literally states "Blizzard could go the buy to play route", confirming that the only thing thus far confirmed is no subscription....this is getting too easy....you literally proved yourself wrong :P

    MMORPG.com forum logic strikes again ;)

    Wait what? What is there besides sub or f2p? What are they going to charge by skittles or something?

    Buy to play...you know...what GW2 and TSW are?....please dont tell me you frequent this site and didnt know that?

    Let me guess, you are going to imply B2P and F2P are the same thing now in order to save face? lol

    B2P and F2P share a common defining trait in that they are both sub-free where as P2P is sub-locked.  They aren't identical, but share the common paradigm that sub-locked does not.  When a company like Blizzard says it's probably not P2P they can only mean sub-free in one form or another.

    Then again, until I heard Wildstar tryinig to pass of a PLEX system as a hybrid payment model, I would have thought this to be fairly straight forward.

    take back the hobby: https://www.reddit.com/r/patientgamers/

    traveller, interloper, anomaly
    ༼ つ ◕◕ ༽つ

  • Psion33Psion33 Member Posts: 248
    Originally posted by Torvaldr
    B2P and F2P share a common defining trait in that they are both sub-free where as P2P is sub-locked.  They aren't identical, but share the common paradigm that sub-locked does not.  When a company like Blizzard says it's probably not P2P they can only mean sub-free in one form or another.
    Then again, until I heard Wildstar tryinig to pass of a PLEX system as a hybrid payment model, I would have thought this to be fairly straight forward.

     

    It's really sad you had to spell that out. Just shows the depravity level of those that require subsidized gaming.

  • doodphacedoodphace Member UncommonPosts: 1,858
    Originally posted by Distopia
    Originally posted by doodphace
    Originally posted by Distopia
    Originally posted by doodphace
     

    Buy to play...you know...what GW2 and TSW are?....please dont tell me you frequent this site and didnt know that?

    Let me guess, you are going to imply B2P and F2P are the same thing now in order to save face? lol

    What's the difference? I've always felt they're essentially the same thing because long term sales are garnered through the same avenue, cash shops. There's also no reason to be so damn snarky we're just having a conversation here.

    "saving face",that would mean I've changed my stance which I haven't, it's just a semantics game.

    "I've always felt" doesnt in turn make B2P and F2P the same....Rift, SWTOR and Neverwinter are F2P...you dont have to pay a single cent to play them.....GW2 and TSW are B2P...you have to put money down to play them....see? Just because you incorrectly feel something, doesnt mean they are the same thing.

    And regarding the "saving face".....twisting your logic to imply B2P and F2P are the same thing, is exactly like changing your stance....

    If that was the case I would have thought of B2P as an option they could have gone with, did I? No because I feel they're the same thing. Which is what brought us to this point in the conversation, nice try though.

    Anyway I'm done here, as I really don't care about  F2P vs p2p vs B2P etc, not enough to have a back and forth about semantics anyway.

    You see, its not semantics though....the post you quoted me on (which started all of this), I specifically stated titan wouldnt be sub, but blizz didnt confirm if it would be B2P or F2P....you then linked me an article with the headline of "Titan will be F2P", with you actually quoting the headline, but the actual article went on to say exactly what I had just said (you know, the thing you wanted to argue with), that it prob wont have a sub, but its up in the air as to weather it would be F2P or B2P.....when i called you out for only reading the headline and not the article, now all of a sudden we are arguing about semantics? If that were the case, you woulndt have threw that article at me in the first place....

    I hope its clear now.....SIGH lol

  • MuntzMuntz Member UncommonPosts: 332
    Originally posted by Psion33
    Originally posted by Torvaldr
    B2P and F2P share a common defining trait in that they are both sub-free where as P2P is sub-locked.  They aren't identical, but share the common paradigm that sub-locked does not.  When a company like Blizzard says it's probably not P2P they can only mean sub-free in one form or another.
    Then again, until I heard Wildstar tryinig to pass of a PLEX system as a hybrid payment model, I would have thought this to be fairly straight forward.

     

    It's really sad you had to spell that out. Just shows the depravity level of those that require subsidized gaming.

    Doesn't the gold selling part go on whether or not it is provided by the game developer? So does that make a P2P a third-world subsidizing model? I had not thought about how noble it is to be a P2P purist. 

  • LoktofeitLoktofeit Member RarePosts: 14,247

    11 pages of discussion so far on a post that basically said "Wildstar will require a subscription."

     

    I love it. :D

    There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
    "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre

  • Deathgod881Deathgod881 Member UncommonPosts: 104
    Idc what they fking do im still gonna play it

    "Let destruction rain!" from Asbel Tales of Graces f

  • plutosamsplutosams Member UncommonPosts: 50
    As long as they keep without a cash shop I will be subscribing.  Really happy to hear this decision.
  • kastakasta Member Posts: 512
    I'm so happy it's P2P.  I'll never have to game with most of the people in this thread.
  • DistopiaDistopia Member EpicPosts: 21,182
    Originally posted by doodphace

    You see, its not semantics though....the post you quoted me on specifically stated titan wouldnt be sub, but didnt confirm B2P or F2P....you then linked me with an article with the headline of "Titan will be F2P", with you actually quoting the headline, but then the article went on to say exactly what u were "back and foruthing" me on, that it prob wont have a sub, but its TBD weather it would be F2P or B2P.....when i called you out for only reading the headline and not the article, now all of a sudden we are arguing about semantics? If that were the case, you woulndt have threw that article at me....

    SIGH lol

    The only reason this started was because someone said F2P is going away in favor of monthly payments or something like that.I pointed out Blizzard and SOE's approaches as going the f2p route, which when I think of F2P i'm thinking in terms of monthly, not a one time payment or free up front cost. Just to show where my head was at. Not that I expect you to see reason, as it seems your goal is to win; where as I'm not thinking in terms of winning or losing, I'm just trying to explain my mindset.

      Anywho yes /sigh....

    For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson


  • PluppetsPluppets Member Posts: 45

    The graphics...are...awful.  >_>

     

    While on-level in terms of tech, the art assets in TF2 (similar style) are more lovingly detailed and cohesive.  This essentially rips styles from Pixar and TF2, and falls short of both.

    The fact that I'm comparing it to a 6-year old Source Engine title?  That's a problem!

    I don't know many people willing to pay monthly for tech that is so outdated, it makes World of Warcraft look flashy!

     
     
     
     
  • GeezerGamerGeezerGamer Member EpicPosts: 8,735
    Originally posted by Torvaldr
    Originally posted by GeezerGamer
    Originally posted by Torvaldr
    Originally posted by doodphace
    Originally posted by Magicabbage

    Well that settles it. I won't be getting it. I have so many quality games that are F2P that there is no reason to pay a monthly fee. That model is old and dated. The typical "13.99" a month? Really? Why not some random arbitrary number like 5.99? It's not the price that makes me shy away. It's the fact that I don't want to pay anything unless I want some "skins" or mounts or housing stuff or bag slots.

    The game looks great and fun and I don't care if the game is a "WoW clone" (I hate that term)

    I am kind of happy this is their model choice. It's one less game I have to worry about getting. With Elder Scrolls Online and EQNext on the horizon I can just now follow them.

    Peace!

    Why do you worry about getting a game? Its literally people like you, who hop form F2P game to F2P game and utterly kill the community, that P2P gamers are hoping to avoide. This isnt Call of Duty or Unreal Tournament....

    P2P people always say this (I guess that was your MMORPG.com logic eh), but then when a game crashes and burns and has to go F2P they always pull out excuses how the devs did this and that to ruin the game or they would still sub.  However, they're very excited for the next game on the horizon which they hope will be P2P so they can dump it 3 months after release.

    If P2P people were so plentiful and committed there wouldn't be a debate over payment models because P2P would have already won.  But they aren't plentiful, and most of all they aren't committed, and their game hopping is just as bad as the F2P players.

    Except there is still a really solid argument to be made for it though.

    SWTOR had 2M people lined up ready willing and able to pay for an ongoing subscription when the game released. Most of those players knew full well, that by purchasing SWTOR, they'd have to pay 15 bucks/month to keep playing it. Still, they bought it. It went F2P because it failed to deliver on a long term investment. Not because it was P2P to start.

    This game will fail to deliver on the long term investment as well. I don't see any game being able to pull this off outside of niche titles (I could see CU doing a sub and it working out for them).  I would need to see some really convincing evidence to the contrary.  When everyone ditches this game, people will say the same thing and will haul out a laundry list of reasons (some good and some bad) why they abandoned the game.

    My bigger point is that "P2P" folks aren't really any more reliable than "F2P" folks so blaming them for the woes of the industry is ludicrous (that's what I responded to).  Not only that, but I think there is a reasonable chunk of people that fit into both categories so there isn't really an "us" and a "them".

    I can agree with you on this. If this game doesn't deliver a long term experience that is worth paying for, then it doesn't deserve the P2P model.

    As for the reliability factor of the player. I don't really have an opinion on that. If the value is there, players will pay for it. As long as the business model matches the game. SWTOR launched with the wrong model. FF14 (hopefully) has it right. Difference being who has developed their for the long haul? SWTOR was highly developed for the short term.

    But this game is also double dipping from the start. Huge "no-no" in my book and thus will get nothing from me. It's not a hybrid model. It's a subscription with Gold Selling. buh-bye.

    P2P games aren't about dungeons and raids. Rift focused too much on that. They had an excellent dungeon and raid system. What did they lack? Options. TBC was so successful because there were so many different things any player could be doing at any given time in the game. This is something that almost every MMO released since has been missing. 

  • Crazy_StickCrazy_Stick Member Posts: 1,059

    I wish I could write that I thought they were pushing a good idea forward. However, in today's market it is nearly impossible for any game to justify a subscription on top of the digital / box purchase fee. There are simply too many other free to play options just as good in their own way and in a genre where the typical game lasts the average user two to three months tops before they move on to the next big thing there is simply no incentive to subscribe. It is a deterrent. Being a jaded old bast.. er coot I figure they know this and are cashing in on subscriptions for as long as they feel they can get away with it before having a free to play re-launch somewhere in the foreseeable future.

  • DinastyDinasty Member UncommonPosts: 178

    Pathetic.

    With this garbage model they won't even come close to a fraction of GW2's box sales.

  • rush1984rush1984 Member UncommonPosts: 369
    why would any adult play this game lol , fyi kids dont have credit cards lol
  • DistopiaDistopia Member EpicPosts: 21,182
    Originally posted by Dinasty

    Pathetic.

    With this garbage model they won't even come close to a fraction of GW2's box sales.

    I certainly hope they're thinking far past box sales for this games business plan, in the world of MMO's box sales are meaningless. We're talking services that run for years (or at least they are built to). What happens at release in sales means nothing 10 years from now.

    For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson


Sign In or Register to comment.