P2P is gone

redOrc

In the last year, several good MMO games have failed. You might wonder how is it they fail so fast.

They are not worse than the ones before them, they are better, but they fail all the same.

Just to name 2: AOC and now WAR.

The reason is that they are based on P2P (pay to play). I argue that this concept reached it's peak with WOW, but will not hold for other games and once the game developpers realize it, will end the WOW dominance and the stgnation of MMO.

The reason those game fail, is cause if I continue to pay, I expect to continue to be served with content and fixes and what have you. How ever the development team cannot reaspond that fast and the game fails through high expectations.

Another thing that is problematic is the fact that each month you continue to pay, you perfrm an actual decision, similar to the decision to buy the game. This is why many people stop exploring the game and dont resub. If they were not required to perform such a decision, they would have played more, would have learned the game better and maybe even find new interest in the game, otheriwse dumped. 

We have to get back to the old concept of Pay for Content and not for just playing. Pay once and play the game. You may add "server fee" which is the cost of the time you use the server. This way, people will stay more in the game, explore it beyond the first month, find more interest and recommend it to others.

This way the game community will grow and not shrink. The game maker will gain more money through extentions to the game that provide more content.

So far Guild Wars was the only game that went that way, and they made it big.

I guess we will have to wait till Guild wars II comes out, to see that the concept works, before other companies will addopt it.

 

Abrahmm

Originally posted by redOrc


In the last year, several good MMO games have failed. You might wonder how is it they fail so fast.
They are not worse than the ones before them, they are better, but they fail all the same.
Just to name 2: AOC and now WAR.
The reason is that they are based on P2P (pay to play). I argue that this concept reached it's peak with WOW, but will not hold for other games and once the game developpers realize it, will end the WOW dominance and the stgnation of MMO.
The reason those game fail, is cause if I continue to pay, I expect to continue to be served with content and fixes and what have you. How ever the development team cannot reaspond that fast and the game fails through high expectations.
Another thing that is problematic is the fact that each month you continue to pay, you perfrm an actual decision, similar to the decision to buy the game. This is why many people stop exploring the game and dont resub. If they were not required to perform such a decision, they would have played more, would have learned the game better and maybe even find new interest in the game, otheriwse dumped. 
We have to get back to the old concept of Pay for Content and not for just playing. Pay once and play the game. You may add "server fee" which is the cost of the time you use the server. This way, people will stay more in the game, explore it beyond the first month, find more interest and recommend it to others.
This way the game community will grow and not shrink. The game maker will gain more money through extentions to the game that provide more content.
So far Guild Wars was the only game that went that way, and they made it big.
I guess we will have to wait till Guild wars II comes out, to see that the concept works, before other companies will addopt it.
 

 

You honestly think this is the problem with MMOs? This is why they fail now?

No, the new MMOs aren't better in any way, they are just rehashed buggy versions of the same MMO we have been playing for 4 years. That is why they fail. Most people(at least on this site) prefer the pay to play model, as do I.

The problem isn't that I have to pay each month to pay, but the fact that the games are so boring, dull, and unoriginal that I don't want to pay to play them. It's not the monetary system, its the games themselves.

anastaia

I agree,

I do not beleive that P2P models are the down fall of MMORPGs, i think its the lack of innovation and change that is killing the new ones, There just hasent been a truely new MMO and thats why people quit...

 

AOC is an exeption to the non new remark

it's "Failing" Due to its botchy release and lost promises

 

 

War.. i dont beleive is failing... i dont know where you get that from

 

 

(P.S: not a current player of either

Former tester of both)

Blodpls

They failed because they were released far too early, cut too many corners and were not good games.

If a good mmorpg was released it would easily get enough subscribers.

Personally I would love to be able to pay someone my money to play their mmorpg if they released a fun, original game.

SgtFrog

Guild wars is not an MMORPG

its a corpg ...the devs have said it theselves.

competitive online rpg

Ihmotepp

Name one MMORPG that is free to play (with item shop, whatever) that meets the standard of EQ, EQ2, DAoC, LOtRO, WoW, or WAR.

 

Kyleran

Originally posted by Blodpls


They failed because they were released far too early, cut too many corners and were not good games.
If a good mmorpg was released it would easily get enough subscribers.
Personally I would love to be able to pay someone my money to play their mmorpg if they released a fun, original game.

 

This.

Till then I'll continue to pay for 3 EVE subs.

 

ZodiaEclipse

I think you might be overlooking a few details in why games fail, furthermore you might want to define what you mean by fail since neither of the games you mentioned has closed down their servers. Yes they have both been highly criticized and flamed, but evidentally enough people are still playing that the game companies aren't willing to write them off as total losses yet.

I'll be honest your post doesn't really make sense. I'm not sure how you can blame mmo's having bad launches on the fact that people have to make the decision to pay for them each month. Are you suggesting that if people didn't have to pay anything then they'd suddenly want to play more because they wouldn't have such high expectations in reguards to service or content? Also not sure how you explain it working for WoW (ignoring all the games before and even after WoW that people continue to pay for), but suddenly people don't understand subscription fees?

Personally I see nothing wrong with having expectations of any game I play. There are millions of F2P games available and so far I've yet to find one that holds my interest because aside from a few neat features or styles they are mostly grindfests with no purpose or story. If I'm paying for a game I'm more likely to make sure that one, its a game I really want to play and two, even on busy weeks I find time to play instead of just putting it off indefinatly like I do the free ones.

Since the invention of a little thing I like to call credit cards I don't even have to make a conscience effort to pay each month since its automatically taken out of my account. This kinda kills your theory because it actually takes more effort for me to cancel my account then to just let it continue to bill me.

Better luck next time.

Blodpls

Originally posted by redOrc 
Another thing that is problematic is the fact that each month you continue to pay, you perfrm an actual decision, similar to the decision to buy the game. This is why many people stop exploring the game and dont resub. If they were not required to perform such a decision, they would have played more, would have learned the game better and maybe even find new interest in the game, otheriwse dumped. 

For anyone like me this isn't an issue, which is most people I think, you just subscribe and that's it. 

There is no conscious decision involved afterwords.

Money comes out the bank every month.

One day you think "why am I paying for this? I don't play it" and then cancel.

Most gamers are 20-35 so probably do the same thing.

NotNiceDino

A: There is a lot wrong with AoC and WAR besides there subscription models. A lot of people started to play either or both with the full intention of paying a subscription fee and ended up not because they wheren't interested in continuing the game. if players wheren't willing to play a subscription based game they never would have started in the first place. If AoC and WAR delivered, players would subscribe, they don't.

B: Guild Wars is a diffrent kind of game. With far more limited content, and no open world, the infrastructure requirements are far lower so the subscription revenue isn't needed to sustain it. By comparison, DDO's great error was to offer a similer amount of content but charge a subscription fee for it.

C: "We have to get back to the old concept of Pay for Content and not for just playing. Pay once and play the game. You may add "server fee" which is the cost of the time you use the server. This way, people will stay more in the game, explore it beyond the first month, find more interest and recommend it to others." is essentially the point of subscription fees, so what are you suggesting? Micro-Transaction models? Micro-Tranaction models are 100% pure scam. When I pay a subscription I am paying a set fee for a set service, which is access to a gaming netowrk for one month.

 

Bottum line: Players don't mind paying subscription fees and long as they get value for the cost. To suggest the the subscription model is pure fail on it's face in nonsence.

paulscott

Any game you don't play will seem like a failure to you.

talismen351

I don't think the monthly fees have anything to do with many P2P games not doing so well. As others have stated, simply the lack of anything new. The games that are buggy and in some cases unplayable. I don't think in any way are the games better. Sure they may look better, and require a better PC to run them. But I don't see them as being anything but the same ol same ol...redone.

Kinda like buying another car that is the exact same as your old car but painted a different color n has more mechanical problems. You would prolly keep driving your old car cause you know it runs decent.

I am curious tho with your statement "we have to get back to the old concept of pay for content" . Now is this something I have completely missed with MMOs? Been playin since '98 and have always payed a monthly fee for MMOs. With the exeption of GuildWars. I don't think there has been much of a concept of pay for content.

strategy

OP: I agree. Look at xfire.

Just a couple of 150 K random PC players... and what do they play? Free to play games. COD4, COD2, WC3 ....GOOD games and free to play.

The only exception is Wow. So that's the one exception to the rule.

Warhammer is just in its first 6 weeks, but with a very downward spiral. It will only be a matter of weeks (days perhaps), before it stumbles out of the top 10. GW is free ... and is in the top 10.

So OP is right: free to play is the only thing to go for OR a very low fee like 10 dollars per 6 months.

 

Devildog1

 The two posters above me I think are correct in what they say it's not the pay system but the games themselves. The players of today are finally making the developers put their games where thier mouths are in that we are tired of the level based grind games, crappy launches, and broken promises! Simply put the devs need to follow through with what they tell us or be up front went something doesn't work out how they planned!

The main problem I see wih the OP's suggestion about paying to buy more content is that if the new content is rushed out we'll have the same problems we have now with buggy and half finished content in games.

 

neodavie

This interests me, So I'll post inside your post and pose questions to your views.

Originally posted by redOrc

In the last year, several good MMO games have failed. You might wonder how is it they fail so fast.

They are not worse than the ones before them, they are better, but they fail all the same.

Just to name 2: AOC and now WAR.

I'm interested to see why you say WAR has failed

The reason is that they are based on P2P (pay to play). I argue that this concept reached it's peak with WOW, but will not hold for other games and once the game developpers realize it, will end the WOW dominance and the stgnation of MMO.

You make a fair point, WoW has been wildly successful, as a result companies think they must follow this in order to reach the same heights, only to be deemed a "WoW clone".

The reason those game fail, is cause if I continue to pay, I expect to continue to be served with content and fixes and what have you. How ever the development team cannot reaspond that fast and the game fails through high expectations.

Ah I see, so what you're saying is that not only can you reach endgame and attain all the gear from it before devs can make new instances; but you are also able to explore the entirety of the world in an MMO and find all the quarky little things that devs put in them. I would say that's unlikely.

Another thing that is problematic is the fact that each month you continue to pay, you perfrm an actual decision, similar to the decision to buy the game. This is why many people stop exploring the game and dont resub. If they were not required to perform such a decision, they would have played more, would have learned the game better and maybe even find new interest in the game, otheriwse dumped. 

I have to say this argument confuses me, so what you're saying is that I can either decide to re-sub, or not? Yes I do have that choice. Are you meaning this by saying that if a game was F2P I wouldn't have to make this decision, hence I could come back whenever I wanted without worrying aboput whether or not I could still play or not? Because the question I would pose to you would be, how long has it been since you came back to FF7? If we're going to assume that devs aren't fast enough to make new content then essentially going back to an MMO that you yourself said you could explore the entirety of in a few days/months(?) then wouldn't it be F2P make little difference in whether you found fun in it or not?

We have to get back to the old concept of Pay for Content and not for just playing. Pay once and play the game. You may add "server fee" which is the cost of the time you use the server. This way, people will stay more in the game, explore it beyond the first month, find more interest and recommend it to others.

Ah here we go, a resolution to the problem. Oh but server fee? OK I can see that, lets just say that the server fee could be rolled all in at once and say they give me a bill at the end of the month, but then we also have to consider that my character is using up space on their server even when I'm not playing, and there's a team constantly working to fix bugs in the game I can choose to come back to whenever I want; so I guess in reality we should make a base charge for every month regardless of whether or not I play. Wait, that sounds framiliar don't you think?

This way the game community will grow and not shrink. The game maker will gain more money through extentions to the game that provide more content.

Unless the content isn't good, then the community will shrink regardless. If that's true I guess if the content is good then it wouldn't matter whether or not we were charged.

So far Guild Wars was the only game that went that way, and they made it big.

Hmm, obvious slams against AOC and WAR vs. obvious praise for Guild Wars. I wonder which games you play.

I guess we will have to wait till Guild wars II comes out, to see that the concept works, before other companies will addopt it.

 I guess you can tell us how that goes.

 

redOrc

Or you may get less content on release, but more perfection and highyer interest.

You will get more content as time progresses, you will pay for it, and it will be of higher qualitiy, casue the dev had time to work on it, didnt need to rush all on start, and they got the money to work on it, since they got payed for the first episode.

Lets take an example from another field. Suppose all of Harry potter books had to be written up front, do you think they would be as good as they are now (I didnt bother ot read all of them, but Im no example) ? 

If you dont like Harry Potter, take any books that were written during several years, and you'll get the point.

Sure they release it unpolished, sure it got rough edges, sure there are many holes in it. Cause they didnt have the time to develop it properly' cause they had to release everything, every last promise up front.

Now lets look at Guild wars. They released first 6 classes, while they had 10 in the end.

They released 400 (or so) skills, while they had 1000 (or so) in the end.

They release 1 pve continent while they had 4 in the end.

They release 4 pvp different arena, with several variants for each, while they had 2 times the arena and 3 times the variants in the end.

Sure they got the balance right (6 races with 400 skilles Vs 10 races and 1000 skills).

Sure they got interesting PVE with no holes in it (1/4 of the area and quests).

and so on....

 

Gameloading

Originally posted by Ihmotepp


Name one MMORPG that is free to play (with item shop, whatever) that meets the standard of EQ, EQ2, DAoC, LOtRO, WoW, or WAR.
 

 

www.g4tv.com/xplay/reviews/1607/Sword_of_the_New_World_Granado_Espada.html

 

The review is outdated though, as the game is now fully free to play.

redOrc

Originally posted by neodavie


This interests me, So I'll post inside your post and pose questions to your views.

 
Hmm, obvious slams against AOC and WAR vs. obvious praise for Guild Wars. I wonder which games you play.

 

 

I dont play GW anymore and I've been looking for more than a year for something new to play.

I got burned by Fury.

I've been waiting for a new good MMO and seeing the shrinking numbers of AOC and WAR just after release, tell me they are not it. I'm not going to buy blindly on release, only when I see the game gaining momentum and gamers goining in. So far, the big, promissing, releases that we all have been waiting for do not deliver. And i think it is interesting enough and bothering enough to try to figure out why.

 

SgtFrog

Originally posted by strategy


OP: I agree. Look at xfire.
Just a couple of 150 K random PC players... and what do they play? Free to play games. COD4, COD2, WC3 ....GOOD games and free to play.
The only exception is Wow. So that's the one exception to the rule.
Warhammer is just in its first 6 weeks, but with a very downward spiral. It will only be a matter of weeks (days perhaps), before it stumbles out of the top 10. GW is free ... and is in the top 10.
So OP is right: free to play is the only thing to go for OR a very low fee like 10 dollars per 6 months.
 

 

you do realize all those games you listed are not mmorpg.

neodavie

Originally posted by redOrc
I've been waiting for a new good MMO and seeing the shrinking numbers of AOC and WAR just after release, tell me they are not it. I'm not going to buy blindly on release, only when I see the game gaining momentum and gamers goining in.

 

But you are going to trash talk a game after having never played it? Please don't insult my intelligence. What you said right there absolutely negates everything you've said. If you have no experience with the game you can't say if was a failure. I'm honestly getting sick of these people that claim to have even base knowledge about a game and how it's fairing without even having played it.

redOrc

Originally posted by neodavie

Originally posted by redOrc
I've been waiting for a new good MMO and seeing the shrinking numbers of AOC and WAR just after release, tell me they are not it. I'm not going to buy blindly on release, only when I see the game gaining momentum and gamers goining in.

 

But you are going to trash talk a game after having never played it? Please don't insult my intelligence. What you said right there absolutely negates everything you've said. If you have no experience with the game you can't say if was a failure. I'm honestly getting sick of these people that claim to have even base knowledge about a game and how it's fairing without even having played it.

 

I dont "trash" those games.

I think they are great games, that were rushed and are unfinished bcause they are P2P. I think many more players would have played them' had they been developed in the mindset of "pay for content".

That is my whole argument. I dont need to play a game to realize the number of players are shrinking.

 

ste2000

Originally posted by redOrc


In the last year, several good MMO games have failed. You might wonder how is it they fail so fast.
They are not worse than the ones before them, they are better, but they fail all the same.
Just to name 2: AOC and now WAR.
The reason is that they are based on P2P (pay to play). I argue that this concept reached it's peak with WOW, but will not hold for other games and once the game developpers realize it, will end the WOW dominance and the stgnation of MMO.
The reason those game fail, is cause if I continue to pay, I expect to continue to be served with content and fixes and what have you. How ever the development team cannot reaspond that fast and the game fails through high expectations.
Another thing that is problematic is the fact that each month you continue to pay, you perfrm an actual decision, similar to the decision to buy the game. This is why many people stop exploring the game and dont resub. If they were not required to perform such a decision, they would have played more, would have learned the game better and maybe even find new interest in the game, otheriwse dumped. 
We have to get back to the old concept of Pay for Content and not for just playing. Pay once and play the game. You may add "server fee" which is the cost of the time you use the server. This way, people will stay more in the game, explore it beyond the first month, find more interest and recommend it to others.
This way the game community will grow and not shrink. The game maker will gain more money through extentions to the game that provide more content.
So far Guild Wars was the only game that went that way, and they made it big.
I guess we will have to wait till Guild wars II comes out, to see that the concept works, before other companies will addopt it.
 

Nonsense.

The fact that WoW is increasing his subscription base (11 Millions), just prove you completely wrong.

There are precise reasons why recent games are failing.

WAR is boring, AoC is incomplete, go to all the whining post and you won't see any complaint about the price.



I tryied both and they were fairly inferior to WoW, and many other older games.

I can spend up to 60$ on subscriptions, but at the moment the only game that deserve my cash is WoW.

I have still 45$ of spare cash for more MMO, hopefully I can use them for Darkfall or Aion, let's see.



Certainly what put me off games is not the P2P, but the crappiness of the game.

Ozmodan

Not a very well thought out post.  Mainly because your f2p games lack one thing the p2p's have, that is content.  Secondly,  what is the point of working hard on your avatar when someone else can buy the success you worked so hard for?   While these cash shop games are fun to play, you end up spending a lot more than the subscription games if you want to keep up and for what?

redOrc

Originally posted by Ozmodan


Not a very well thought out post.  Mainly because your f2p games lack one thing the p2p's have, that is content.  Secondly,  what is the point of working hard on your avatar when someone else can buy the success you worked so hard for?   While these cash shop games are fun to play, you end up spending a lot more than the subscription games if you want to keep up and for what?

 

Who was talking about cash shops ?

Who was talking about F2P ?

Go back to maplestory, or try to read the post before you respond.

altairzq

I don't think anyone would hesitate to pay 50 cents every day for 1-2 hours (or more) of good gaming. Problem is that MMOs now are not challenging enough and not good enough, not the price.

Rekindle

Nothing is free. The P2P games offset something.

You're suggesting that AOC and WAR are failures. Why, because you don't like them? 

People forget how relatively cheap it is to maintain a mmorpg once its up and running. To that end there is a critical mass of subscribers, that, if you obtain, means profit.  I would suggest that a profitable game is only a failure in the eye of some. If I were making 2 million a month i'd wish I was Blizzard but I'd probably still be happy.