is the best model u can have as DEV and GAMER. As gamer u get the quality and content that u want for the sub you pay for each month. And the DEV can actually stay at his function get payed and make more content improve the game fix this and that. And all the costs around the GAME can actually be payed then, to continue the lifespan of game in a proper way.
F2P what it means:
DEV's and others that are upholding the game and the cost for the game needs to be payed, Say hello to cash shops. Yup there are needed, if a game goes F2P there is not a chance on earth a MMO can be HOLD up buy the current staff of DEVS and all what surrounds the game within the FIRM. Some one needs to pay ppl working on the game and maintaining the game the cost of it, server costs ect and much more. So F2P will always come with some kind of CASH income. IS it better ? NOT AT ALL.
IF u are a hobby DEV TEAM i would say YES, else NO.
PS: Look at WOW the decay MMO, Do u think if that game Goes for F2P it would be for the better for the GAMERS? It is just an example (nothing against WOW ect), just an example. What would happen to the game could some one tell me?
i won't say it because i don't want to insult anyone here but u all know what would happen. And if don't, then F2P games are totally your type of games, because u like limitations and so on ;-).
They attract the worst members of the MMO community
That's all I need to my opinion to be soundly in favor of P2P. I look forward to the next week or two on ESO because most of the trolls, whiners, etc. Will be gone and we can move on and people can start blindly hating WildStar and ArcheAge.
Currently Playing: ESO and FFXIV Have played: You name it If you mention rose tinted glasses, you better be referring to Mitch Hedberg.
They attract the worst members of the MMO community
That's all I need to my opinion to be soundly in favor of P2P. I look forward to the next week or two on ESO because most of the trolls, whiners, etc. Will be gone and we can move on and people can start blindly hating WildStar and ArcheAge.
Your first point is semi-fair. It really depends on the game, and your ability to control your own spending habits. I've played GW2 off and on since launch, and I still haven't spent an additional $180 in the gem store. For me, GW2 has been far less expensive over the course of time.
Your second point is absolutely laughable. If you believe for a moment that P2P keeps out the dredges of society, then I have some ocean front property for you here in Minnesota. People behaving poorly in the realm of online interactions will happen for as long as anonymity exists. You can easily go out and find videos of people trolling others in P2P games just as easy as F2P/B2P games. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLBHjwCw088 Here's an example for you. Yes, I've read that ZO has corrected the issue, and that's fine. The point stands that plenty of pricks took advantage of the issue, and trolled a number of others, in a P2P game.
The discussion isn't even so much about P2P vs. F2P or B2P, it's more a discussion of value. For most, I dare say, $15 per month isn't going to break the bank, nor will the $180 per year. However, how much of what you pay actually goes directly into the game itself? How many times have subscribers of MMOs been more or less "burned" by developers in terms of sub fee vs. content delivered? Blizzard has been especially bad about their turnaround time between the final major patch of an expansion and the launch of the next expansion. When Blizzard is in the active dev cycle for the current xpack, there's a good amount of value, but what about the 8-10+ months where players receive no new content and have to pay for more content via an expansion pack?
In a reasonable F2P/B2P game, if there is a lapse in content before additional content is created you're not really out any money (as long as you feel the the initial cost was fair for the amount of content received). In a P2P, if there is a lapse in content, then you either need to cancel your sub and not access the game for however long it takes for new content to be available or you're paying for pure access.
Let me ask you this. If ZO didn't produce ANY additional content outside of what's available with the box, how long would you keep paying before you felt like you weren't getting your money's worth? How many hours of content do you feel is reasonable for a box price + sub fee? What if any additional content of substance was locked behind a paywall via expansion pack or DLC, would you feel ripped off?
If you actually sat down and honestly thought about how much a P2P game, over the course of a number of years actually costs you vs. how much content you really received, then maybe you would begin to understand why F2P and B2P has such a fanbase. MMOs aren't just competing with other traditional MMOs anymore. Nearly every game has some form of online play. The value of P2P decreases every year.
They attract the worst members of the MMO community
That's all I need to my opinion to be soundly in favor of P2P. I look forward to the next week or two on ESO because most of the trolls, whiners, etc. Will be gone and we can move on and people can start blindly hating WildStar and ArcheAge.
Your first point is semi-fair. It really depends on the game, and your ability to control your own spending habits. I've played GW2 off and on since launch, and I still haven't spent an additional $180 in the gem store. For me, GW2 has been far less expensive over the course of time.
Your second point is absolutely laughable. If you believe for a moment that P2P keeps out the dredges of society, then I have some ocean front property for you here in Minnesota. People behaving poorly in the realm of online interactions will happen for as long as anonymity exists. You can easily go out and find videos of people trolling others in P2P games just as easy as F2P/B2P games. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLBHjwCw088 Here's an example for you. Yes, I've read that ZO has corrected the issue, and that's fine. The point stands that plenty of pricks took advantage of the issue, and trolled a number of others, in a P2P game.
The discussion isn't even so much about P2P vs. F2P or B2P, it's more a discussion of value. For most, I dare say, $15 per month isn't going to break the bank, nor will the $180 per year. However, how much of what you pay actually goes directly into the game itself? How many times have subscribers of MMOs been more or less "burned" by developers in terms of sub fee vs. content delivered? Blizzard has been especially bad about their turnaround time between the final major patch of an expansion and the launch of the next expansion. When Blizzard is in the active dev cycle for the current xpack, there's a good amount of value, but what about the 8-10+ months where players receive no new content and have to pay for more content via an expansion pack?
In a reasonable F2P/B2P game, if there is a lapse in content before additional content is created you're not really out any money (as long as you feel the the initial cost was fair for the amount of content received). In a P2P, if there is a lapse in content, then you either need to cancel your sub and not access the game for however long it takes for new content to be available or you're paying for pure access.
Let me ask you this. If ZO didn't produce ANY additional content outside of what's available with the box, how long would you keep paying before you felt like you weren't getting your money's worth? How many hours of content do you feel is reasonable for a box price + sub fee? What if any additional content of substance was locked behind a paywall via expansion pack or DLC, would you feel ripped off?
If you actually sat down and honestly thought about how much a P2P game, over the course of a number of years actually costs you vs. how much content you really received, then maybe you would begin to understand why F2P and B2P has such a fanbase. MMOs aren't just competing with other traditional MMOs anymore. Nearly every game has some form of online play. The value of P2P decreases every year.
I respect what you are saying but disagree. P2P generates better communities and a better value.
To answer your question about how long I would pay to play ESO if they didn't do content updates, I would play until I wasn't having fun anymore, the same as any game. If I'm having fun playing, I'll continue to pay and enjoy the services.
You are going way too deep into the equation for me. It's simple in the fact that if I'm having fun playing, it's worth my money. F2P games drive me away because of cash locked content and poor community. To each their own, and as I said I don't begrudge you for enjoying a F2P or B2P game, they just aren't for me for the most part.
Currently Playing: ESO and FFXIV Have played: You name it If you mention rose tinted glasses, you better be referring to Mitch Hedberg.
mod can lock this topic ? we got enough of them, eso curently P2P for the standar they want to keep ,
and yeah that not there yet but that the first months and if people whould stop to be immature and think everything should be right now perfect , the game will get there, the base game realy amazing and fun.
that not B2P or F2P because it not this type of game.
they are no reason talk about it, use you logic.
you need to be the one you talk about how this game should be either B2P or p2p. because that not either of those and that just rude to say people should explain to you why the game p2p.
if you want know, can tell you a litle bit some reason.
- services ( yeah no matter how you bitch or think they are the worst ever, they are way better that b2p or p2p game dev )
- no cash shop ( no the horse not one )
- REAL update and a team working daily on the game ( no f2p and b2p game dont have it )
we pay for these service the total of .50 cents a day something ANYONE can afforts, if you cant, you should not have enough time play mmorpg.
my food last night cost me 4 months subs omg.... i get a damn cofee each day before work and that 4x more that the price daily... when people with stop bitch about how game like mmorpg should be FREE ??
they are not these type of game, they require BIG WORK, TEAM, DEV , working DAILY. accept it or go play your shooter or other single player game who require no update, daily, patch, big team working on it....
SERIOUSLY ??!" IM TIRED OF THIS SHIT.
this is a discussion forum.
Why is it wrong to have a discussion.
I asked for a argument from the other side for once for those against ESO going B2P/F2P.
How is that Rude?
I thought thats the whole point of the First Amendment. TO give people the freedom to speak out against other thoughts.
Well I see a lot of arguments for why its payment model should change,
i would like to read the arguments for the other side of this debate for sake of a civil discussion.
First off, like many people who bring up the First Amendment, you have very little clue as to what it actually covers (little hint: does not apply to a company's forums page). But that's beside the point. Not sure why you are making this an "ESO" F2p thing. Most people (and I'm one of them) don't like the F2P model for any games for various reasons. My reasons are:
Created bad game communities.
Rarely is it really "free". Often they turn into cash-grab/pay-to-win crap fest that end you costing more money than a $15 monthly sub.
Guess I'm old fashion. I like the old and tried sub payment model. Just my personal preference.
But it has very little to do with ESO specifically..
A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true...
The OPs question was: why it should not change its payment model to B2P or F2P.
Having launched with the prospect of a subscription TESO will have had lower sales. Price is a factor as Skyrim demonstrated. So it now has to rely on subscriptions to make up for lower sales. So its a problem.
Mechanically it would be simple e.g.:
announces that it won't have a subscription.
announce a 6 month sub costing $45, payable monthly for existing players, for which people will get the first 2 DLC expansions - a "$50 value"
and a 12 month sub for $75, again payable monthly for existing players, for which people would get the first 5 DLC expansions - a $125 value purchase.
Zenimax would have to decide the revenue from future sales - and with no sub the game would sell in the future + higher retention for the lower price optional sub model vs. the sub income they expect to get.
Trying to switch to F2P has lots of problems - some touched on above e.g. by DMKano. Others include low sales and simply not designed for it.
They attract the worst members of the MMO community
That's all I need to my opinion to be soundly in favor of P2P. I look forward to the next week or two on ESO because most of the trolls, whiners, etc. Will be gone and we can move on and people can start blindly hating WildStar and ArcheAge.
Community? How many times have I heard WoW's community described as childish, immature and so on. Used to happen all the time. A sub does not guarantee a good community. Not having a sub does not guarantee a good community either. With both you learn how to use ignore and how to bond etc. Nothing to do with having a sub.
Why would a B2P model cost more?
A subscription based game is essentially a rental agreement. Looks like you get a lot of game on day 1 but every month you pay more so that over time the cost is far, far higher than a B2P game. Skyrim was a B2P game; Assassin's Creed; Civ5; BF3 and so on. Over time rental agreements are expensive. They make sense - to the purchaser - when the cost of the product is very high. And when the likes of UO, EQ1 and AC came out the online element was very expensive. Computers and software were expensive. You used to have to buy your search engine software. That's right something like Google had to be bought.
F2P games cost more - maybe. Although it is unlikely that a conversion will cost more because they haven't been designed to maximise revenue. Most conversions are not.
However it really comes down to how many people are buying the product. Cheap doesn't mean it costs more - the trick is to sell a lot.
I could talk about music tracks but because charities tend to get supported: anyone who hasn't should check out HUMBLE BUNDLEs. Lots of good games and e-books now that can be had for a few dollars (for several0 with some of th emoney going to charity. The pay what you want system works because they sell a lot.
They attract the worst members of the MMO community
That's all I need to my opinion to be soundly in favor of P2P. I look forward to the next week or two on ESO because most of the trolls, whiners, etc. Will be gone and we can move on and people can start blindly hating WildStar and ArcheAge.
Community? How many times have I heard WoW's community described as childish, immature and so on. Used to happen all the time. A sub does not guarantee a good community. Not having a sub does not guarantee a good community either. With both you learn how to use ignore and how to bond etc. Nothing to do with having a sub.
Why would a B2P model cost more?
A subscription based game is essentially a rental agreement. Looks like you get a lot of game on day 1 but every month you pay more so that over time the cost is far, far higher than a B2P game. Skyrim was a B2P game; Assassin's Creed; Civ5; BF3 and so on. Over time rental agreements are expensive. They make sense - to the purchaser - when the cost of the product is very high. And when the likes of UO, EQ1 and AC came out the online element was very expensive. Computers and software were expensive. You used to have to buy your search engine software. That's right something like Google had to be bought.
F2P games cost more - maybe. Although it is unlikely that a conversion will cost more because they haven't been designed to maximise revenue. Most conversions are not.
However it really comes down to how many people are buying the product. Cheap doesn't mean it costs more - the trick is to sell a lot.
I could talk about music tracks but because charities tend to get supported: anyone who hasn't should check out HUMBLE BUNDLEs. Lots of good games and e-books now that can be had for a few dollars (for several0 with some of th emoney going to charity. The pay what you want system works because they sell a lot.
WoW is sort of anomaly in the regard because of the age group it attracts (hey I play it too, I'm just a big kid!). But RIFT had a noticeable drop in community in general after the F2P transition. The amount of trolls and toxic comments was staggering. The same applies to EQ1 and 2. Both games had great tight knit communities that fell apart after a F2P transition.
No, people can keep their F2P communities for the most part, I'll stick with people who care about each other, at least a little bit I'll continue to play a game like Rift if I'm having fun, but I won't lie and say I don't miss the community pre F2P.
Currently Playing: ESO and FFXIV Have played: You name it If you mention rose tinted glasses, you better be referring to Mitch Hedberg.
They will stay sub model best for development & guarantee income. Why people moan about $15.00 a month is beyond me, prob spend $20.00 for a meal at McDs. Some people are just cheap as hell, prob on a benefit living in parents basement & feel because they buy the box they should get everything else for free.
And yes, I do have to spend money, because someone has to, games are not free. If we all took the attitude of "just play it for free" then the game shuts down.
This is what I always think when I hear "Free to play". Yeah it's free for somebody but there are a whole lot of other people paying or else the game would shut down. More like "Freeload to Play".
My only issue with F2P is what the company is actually doing to make money when it is "free" and how the F2P model effects the further development of the game.
Look at Swtor. They stripped the game down and then try to sell each little part to make the game whole again. The majority of their little "content updates" are new armor sets, mounts, toys, etc that are in the store to buy.
Rift went a different route as far as giving you the entire base game. But then puts everything you can get in the game into their store except current highest tier raid gear. I don't really like this model because it's not technically pay to win but it makes everything you do feel even more meaningless when anyone can just buy your accomplishments.
I don't think changing a game to B2P after launch is a great idea generally. You usually gotten the boxes sold by then.
In ESOs case it might still work since initial box sales weren't that great but the IP have many fans. A similar model to GW2 could work out fine for the game.
F2P is actually a worse idea, you would need to charge for more stuff since you get zero from new players and expansions.Far too many converting F2P games take things a little too far and turn off their old playerbase because of it.
Going F2P isn't entirely bad, really. Even B2P with cash shop (which it would likely HAVE to be since they're going to be launching on consoles too).
You want a reason why not to though? The simplest and most logical reason is scale. The launch of ESO was, arguably, one of the worst ever. If you release as F2P then you get a huge rush at first and when F2P players leave, they won't be likely to come back.
On the other hand, if you release P2P first, even if P2P players get pissed off with your game/release, you have a chance to re-gain them if you go to F2P or, better, a hybrid model. Plus, you'll get an influx of new users who are waiting for F2P.
I'm glad you asked this. I will give you the most scientific answer to date. Content...
Content is the reason a game should have a sub based model. It has been proven in the past that development teams have greater size of update content when they all have to work on content for a game instead of for a cash shop to earn its money. Final Fantasy's director Yoshi talked about this and so has SOE's ceo Smedley.
I think the evidence speaks for itself why a sub gives a game a higher quality level of content. People leave a game after content runs dry and subs ensure that the content does not dry up so fast tthat people leave the game.
I have a game that points to the opposite. Regardless if you like it or not Marvel Heroes adds more to the game in their weekly patches than some companies add in years.
That's a good comparison between what F2P and P2P means to a game really. MH isn't a bad game but the content is very much bite sized. The zones are pretty small compared to ESO and the content expansions are more around things to keep people buying new heroes and costumes than real large content. From what I have seen of the new ESO Adventure zones there isn't a F2P game out there that could even dream of releasing something that big for free and even as a paid DLC pack ala TSW FUNCOM has been really dragging their feet on Tokyo which shows how hard it is to do anything in these games that doesn't drive you to the cash shops.
Look back to all the promises the development team of SWTOR made about ongoing personal story post launch and look at what we are getting in that game today as a result of F2P. They have completely abandoned the separate class stories in favor of bite size content and cash shop fluff. Me personally I want just one game that continues to be a RPG post launch and not just a massive chat room. You all F2P and B2P crowds can have the rest of the industry I'll be happy with a single game.
Simple. When P2P games go F2P. Like DCUO, SWTOR, et., usually we have tiers so to speak. Not as a game function, but a social one. I should not have to be preferred or subscribe to be in a "social hirearchy" of such. Not one should be better than the other in social aspects of MMORPG's. Remember, some of these P2P games that went F2P, still carry the subscription model. Yes it is 100% optional. But there are people in these games who say, "I'll only play with other subscribers because the'll be on all the time". Some preferred players feel some kind of entitlement as well at times. Whether you would admit it or not, I know the majority to have at least seen it happen or had it happen to them. In DCUO, some guilds will not even consider you unless your "Legendary". I guess to me, it takes the MMO out of MMORPG.
Now as far as B2P. I'm somewhat on the fence with B2P. Subscription based games have committed players, due to wanting to make the most of their 15$ a month. I do. But with B2P, you do have the burden of 15$ a month lifted off your shoulders. A big plus.
My opinion only:
I would still play if it went B2P. If it went F2P, i don't know, I would have to judge the community and if there is a greater influx of gold sellers or whatever. As it stands, i'm already paying for a month so i'm gonna play and more than likely re sub for the next month.
And what is the argument of those that want a payment model change?
Other than saving 15$ a month I don't see any gameplay benefit to B2P or F2P.
If you don't have 15$ for your favorite hobby or daddy doesn't feel like paying for another sub, that's not an argument, that's a problem: Your problem.
I'll say it again.. The reason they need a big box fee and a subscription is because the tech is extremely easy to exploit. Bot clients can be written to do all sorts of impossible acts. Without the box fee, there would be an endless sea of bots.
I chose the Xfinity speed test because it does not reveal my ISP.
No argument here, I'd probably pick it up if it were B2P or F2P much earlier than I would if it stays sub (ie: by earlier I mean probably never). B2P is just the best model to me.
Almost all F2P games that have not been supported by a subscription for several years (ie LOTRO / EQ2 having vast content only because of the several years of subscriptions they had) are dismal pieces of crap. They have insane restriction like you must pay to equip decent gear drops you find or walled off content. They make you jump through hoops like having to log on every day to maintain some progress (heaven forbid you don't log in every 24hrs) or have several different currencies (gold, gems, merchant bars etc etc). In the end the few players that do pay anything are paying so a bunch of cheap ass freeloaders that add nothing to the game van play for free. Development changes from going all to new content to going to mostly developing new cash shop items that cheapen the game. If you want TESO F2P please go play the F2P game of your choice. There are plenty out currently.( and you won't see me going to their forums asking the game become P2P. Basically with F2P you get what you pay for, Leave TESO to those of us that would rather pay one basic price monthly and have the new content actually be content instead of $25 dollar shiny cash shop horses
Think B2P is better? Then go play GW2. That game has only proven that with the lack of continued funds you again have cash shop content being king in developments mind, lack of any decent continued content. (living story was poor at best) and limied ability to test or create anything new other then skins (thus the removal of trinity, and horizontal leveling).
Sorry if I seem overly negative but as pointed out there are games for the F2P, and B2P players, please don't try and drag every game down that that level. I really suspect if F2P and B2P games were that good then we wouldn't be having this many threads asking TESO become one as the OP's would be playing in said games instead of trying to turn TESO into one.
In red is a perfect example, I want content to be the main focus not "How can we support our game this month" crap, so in turn developers are forced to use half there team to come up with cash grabs instead of game content.
GW2 proves this 100%, just about all there content up to this point has been half ass temporary content, GW2 sure waste no time time pumping out new backpacks and useless trinkets thought.
You mean make TESO have one real content update/expansion every 2-3 years and a cash shop like GW2? No thanks.
Lets face it GW2 IS the best P2P currently out and even with its wild popularity its content is glacial / lightweight and it HAS to have a cash shop even to keep that poor amount of content coming in.
GW2 is B2P.
Please name a P2P game that adds more content than GW2 then.
Star Trek Online. for a free to play game they sure love to add permanent content out the ass, I think they are up to season 9, I give them that STO has a strong team it seems.
EDIT: I read wrong I thought I saw F2P game.
Now for the real answer:
Here is the thing, GW2 does not add content like you think, it's a illusion, they add temporary crap, so far I can only remember 2 content updates that added to the game, first one was "Fractals of the Mist" and the second one was that new WVW Map, other then that everything added was temporary. (correct me if i'm wrong please)
Comments
Let me tell u one thing:
P2P:
is the best model u can have as DEV and GAMER. As gamer u get the quality and content that u want for the sub you pay for each month. And the DEV can actually stay at his function get payed and make more content improve the game fix this and that. And all the costs around the GAME can actually be payed then, to continue the lifespan of game in a proper way.
F2P what it means:
DEV's and others that are upholding the game and the cost for the game needs to be payed, Say hello to cash shops. Yup there are needed, if a game goes F2P there is not a chance on earth a MMO can be HOLD up buy the current staff of DEVS and all what surrounds the game within the FIRM. Some one needs to pay ppl working on the game and maintaining the game the cost of it, server costs ect and much more. So F2P will always come with some kind of CASH income. IS it better ? NOT AT ALL.
IF u are a hobby DEV TEAM i would say YES, else NO.
PS: Look at WOW the decay MMO, Do u think if that game Goes for F2P it would be for the better for the GAMERS? It is just an example (nothing against WOW ect), just an example. What would happen to the game could some one tell me?
i won't say it because i don't want to insult anyone here but u all know what would happen. And if don't, then F2P games are totally your type of games, because u like limitations and so on ;-).
Donno how you come to this but sure ...
My two major gripes about B2P and F2P games:
They cost more than sub games over time
They attract the worst members of the MMO community
That's all I need to my opinion to be soundly in favor of P2P. I look forward to the next week or two on ESO because most of the trolls, whiners, etc. Will be gone and we can move on and people can start blindly hating WildStar and ArcheAge.
Currently Playing: ESO and FFXIV
Have played: You name it
If you mention rose tinted glasses, you better be referring to Mitch Hedberg.
Your first point is semi-fair. It really depends on the game, and your ability to control your own spending habits. I've played GW2 off and on since launch, and I still haven't spent an additional $180 in the gem store. For me, GW2 has been far less expensive over the course of time.
Your second point is absolutely laughable. If you believe for a moment that P2P keeps out the dredges of society, then I have some ocean front property for you here in Minnesota. People behaving poorly in the realm of online interactions will happen for as long as anonymity exists. You can easily go out and find videos of people trolling others in P2P games just as easy as F2P/B2P games. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLBHjwCw088 Here's an example for you. Yes, I've read that ZO has corrected the issue, and that's fine. The point stands that plenty of pricks took advantage of the issue, and trolled a number of others, in a P2P game.
The discussion isn't even so much about P2P vs. F2P or B2P, it's more a discussion of value. For most, I dare say, $15 per month isn't going to break the bank, nor will the $180 per year. However, how much of what you pay actually goes directly into the game itself? How many times have subscribers of MMOs been more or less "burned" by developers in terms of sub fee vs. content delivered? Blizzard has been especially bad about their turnaround time between the final major patch of an expansion and the launch of the next expansion. When Blizzard is in the active dev cycle for the current xpack, there's a good amount of value, but what about the 8-10+ months where players receive no new content and have to pay for more content via an expansion pack?
In a reasonable F2P/B2P game, if there is a lapse in content before additional content is created you're not really out any money (as long as you feel the the initial cost was fair for the amount of content received). In a P2P, if there is a lapse in content, then you either need to cancel your sub and not access the game for however long it takes for new content to be available or you're paying for pure access.
Let me ask you this. If ZO didn't produce ANY additional content outside of what's available with the box, how long would you keep paying before you felt like you weren't getting your money's worth? How many hours of content do you feel is reasonable for a box price + sub fee? What if any additional content of substance was locked behind a paywall via expansion pack or DLC, would you feel ripped off?
If you actually sat down and honestly thought about how much a P2P game, over the course of a number of years actually costs you vs. how much content you really received, then maybe you would begin to understand why F2P and B2P has such a fanbase. MMOs aren't just competing with other traditional MMOs anymore. Nearly every game has some form of online play. The value of P2P decreases every year.
I respect what you are saying but disagree. P2P generates better communities and a better value.
To answer your question about how long I would pay to play ESO if they didn't do content updates, I would play until I wasn't having fun anymore, the same as any game. If I'm having fun playing, I'll continue to pay and enjoy the services.
You are going way too deep into the equation for me. It's simple in the fact that if I'm having fun playing, it's worth my money. F2P games drive me away because of cash locked content and poor community. To each their own, and as I said I don't begrudge you for enjoying a F2P or B2P game, they just aren't for me for the most part.
Currently Playing: ESO and FFXIV
Have played: You name it
If you mention rose tinted glasses, you better be referring to Mitch Hedberg.
First off, like many people who bring up the First Amendment, you have very little clue as to what it actually covers (little hint: does not apply to a company's forums page). But that's beside the point. Not sure why you are making this an "ESO" F2p thing. Most people (and I'm one of them) don't like the F2P model for any games for various reasons. My reasons are:
A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true...
The OPs question was: why it should not change its payment model to B2P or F2P.
Having launched with the prospect of a subscription TESO will have had lower sales. Price is a factor as Skyrim demonstrated. So it now has to rely on subscriptions to make up for lower sales. So its a problem.
Mechanically it would be simple e.g.:
Community? How many times have I heard WoW's community described as childish, immature and so on. Used to happen all the time. A sub does not guarantee a good community. Not having a sub does not guarantee a good community either. With both you learn how to use ignore and how to bond etc. Nothing to do with having a sub.
Why would a B2P model cost more?
A subscription based game is essentially a rental agreement. Looks like you get a lot of game on day 1 but every month you pay more so that over time the cost is far, far higher than a B2P game. Skyrim was a B2P game; Assassin's Creed; Civ5; BF3 and so on. Over time rental agreements are expensive. They make sense - to the purchaser - when the cost of the product is very high. And when the likes of UO, EQ1 and AC came out the online element was very expensive. Computers and software were expensive. You used to have to buy your search engine software. That's right something like Google had to be bought.
F2P games cost more - maybe. Although it is unlikely that a conversion will cost more because they haven't been designed to maximise revenue. Most conversions are not.
However it really comes down to how many people are buying the product. Cheap doesn't mean it costs more - the trick is to sell a lot.
I could talk about music tracks but because charities tend to get supported: anyone who hasn't should check out HUMBLE BUNDLEs. Lots of good games and e-books now that can be had for a few dollars (for several0 with some of th emoney going to charity. The pay what you want system works because they sell a lot.
WoW is sort of anomaly in the regard because of the age group it attracts (hey I play it too, I'm just a big kid!). But RIFT had a noticeable drop in community in general after the F2P transition. The amount of trolls and toxic comments was staggering. The same applies to EQ1 and 2. Both games had great tight knit communities that fell apart after a F2P transition.
No, people can keep their F2P communities for the most part, I'll stick with people who care about each other, at least a little bit
I'll continue to play a game like Rift if I'm having fun, but I won't lie and say I don't miss the community pre F2P.
Currently Playing: ESO and FFXIV
Have played: You name it
If you mention rose tinted glasses, you better be referring to Mitch Hedberg.
They will stay sub model best for development & guarantee income. Why people moan about $15.00 a month is beyond me, prob spend $20.00 for a meal at McDs. Some people are just cheap as hell, prob on a benefit living in parents basement & feel because they buy the box they should get everything else for free.
Go play Gw2 & stop trying to change another game.
it's simple:
If the games sells as P2P it stays P2P
else it goes F2P or B2P.
This is what I always think when I hear "Free to play". Yeah it's free for somebody but there are a whole lot of other people paying or else the game would shut down. More like "Freeload to Play".
My only issue with F2P is what the company is actually doing to make money when it is "free" and how the F2P model effects the further development of the game.
Look at Swtor. They stripped the game down and then try to sell each little part to make the game whole again. The majority of their little "content updates" are new armor sets, mounts, toys, etc that are in the store to buy.
Rift went a different route as far as giving you the entire base game. But then puts everything you can get in the game into their store except current highest tier raid gear. I don't really like this model because it's not technically pay to win but it makes everything you do feel even more meaningless when anyone can just buy your accomplishments.
I don't think changing a game to B2P after launch is a great idea generally. You usually gotten the boxes sold by then.
In ESOs case it might still work since initial box sales weren't that great but the IP have many fans. A similar model to GW2 could work out fine for the game.
F2P is actually a worse idea, you would need to charge for more stuff since you get zero from new players and expansions.Far too many converting F2P games take things a little too far and turn off their old playerbase because of it.
Going F2P isn't entirely bad, really. Even B2P with cash shop (which it would likely HAVE to be since they're going to be launching on consoles too).
You want a reason why not to though? The simplest and most logical reason is scale. The launch of ESO was, arguably, one of the worst ever. If you release as F2P then you get a huge rush at first and when F2P players leave, they won't be likely to come back.
On the other hand, if you release P2P first, even if P2P players get pissed off with your game/release, you have a chance to re-gain them if you go to F2P or, better, a hybrid model. Plus, you'll get an influx of new users who are waiting for F2P.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
That's a good comparison between what F2P and P2P means to a game really. MH isn't a bad game but the content is very much bite sized. The zones are pretty small compared to ESO and the content expansions are more around things to keep people buying new heroes and costumes than real large content. From what I have seen of the new ESO Adventure zones there isn't a F2P game out there that could even dream of releasing something that big for free and even as a paid DLC pack ala TSW FUNCOM has been really dragging their feet on Tokyo which shows how hard it is to do anything in these games that doesn't drive you to the cash shops.
Look back to all the promises the development team of SWTOR made about ongoing personal story post launch and look at what we are getting in that game today as a result of F2P. They have completely abandoned the separate class stories in favor of bite size content and cash shop fluff. Me personally I want just one game that continues to be a RPG post launch and not just a massive chat room. You all F2P and B2P crowds can have the rest of the industry I'll be happy with a single game.
Simple. When P2P games go F2P. Like DCUO, SWTOR, et., usually we have tiers so to speak. Not as a game function, but a social one. I should not have to be preferred or subscribe to be in a "social hirearchy" of such. Not one should be better than the other in social aspects of MMORPG's. Remember, some of these P2P games that went F2P, still carry the subscription model. Yes it is 100% optional. But there are people in these games who say, "I'll only play with other subscribers because the'll be on all the time". Some preferred players feel some kind of entitlement as well at times. Whether you would admit it or not, I know the majority to have at least seen it happen or had it happen to them. In DCUO, some guilds will not even consider you unless your "Legendary". I guess to me, it takes the MMO out of MMORPG.
Now as far as B2P. I'm somewhat on the fence with B2P. Subscription based games have committed players, due to wanting to make the most of their 15$ a month. I do. But with B2P, you do have the burden of 15$ a month lifted off your shoulders. A big plus.
My opinion only:
I would still play if it went B2P. If it went F2P, i don't know, I would have to judge the community and if there is a greater influx of gold sellers or whatever. As it stands, i'm already paying for a month so i'm gonna play and more than likely re sub for the next month.
Again. Just my opinion.
And what is the argument of those that want a payment model change?
Other than saving 15$ a month I don't see any gameplay benefit to B2P or F2P.
If you don't have 15$ for your favorite hobby or daddy doesn't feel like paying for another sub, that's not an argument, that's a problem: Your problem.
I chose the Xfinity speed test because it does not reveal my ISP.
Any graphical, audio, or gameplay restrictions not seen in other mmos but found in FFXIV can be blamed on one thing.
PS3
In red is a perfect example, I want content to be the main focus not "How can we support our game this month" crap, so in turn developers are forced to use half there team to come up with cash grabs instead of game content.
GW2 proves this 100%, just about all there content up to this point has been half ass temporary content, GW2 sure waste no time time pumping out new backpacks and useless trinkets thought.
Heres my 4 cents.
I love Star Wars ,i played SWTOR in the early days even tho it was not anything amazing,and i left when it went free 2 play and rats came in.
So, did ESO have a successful launch? Yes, yes it did.By Ryan Getchell on April 02, 2014.
**On the radar: http://www.cyberpunk.net/ **
Star Trek Online. for a free to play game they sure love to add permanent content out the ass, I think they are up to season 9, I give them that STO has a strong team it seems.
EDIT: I read wrong I thought I saw F2P game.
Now for the real answer:
Here is the thing, GW2 does not add content like you think, it's a illusion, they add temporary crap, so far I can only remember 2 content updates that added to the game, first one was "Fractals of the Mist" and the second one was that new WVW Map, other then that everything added was temporary. (correct me if i'm wrong please)