Howdy, Stranger!

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

GW2 may threaten the whole subscription model of the industry.

245678

Comments

  • PalebanePalebane Member RarePosts: 4,011

    GW2 is following the current cash shop trend. Sub models have been losing popularity as we've seen more and more games going "FTP" with cash shops and microtransactions. I think the trend is pretty obvious by now and will have nothing to do with GW2. WoW already has a cash shop and microtransactions. Once the game starts to lose popularity they may lose the sub.

    Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.

  • mmogawdmmogawd Member Posts: 732

    Originally posted by Emhster

    Originally posted by mmogawd



    You forget that more people play f2p games than play p2p...

    How do you know?

    All genre included, or only few genres to inflates the F2P numbers? (such as this study that tried to pull that conclusion by comparing Farmville+F2P MMORPGs to P2P MMORPGs) Are you mixing B2P with F2P?

    Well, in June Free Realms had 10 million registered users.   Runescape alone has 10 million ACTIVE accounts.  

  • UnlightUnlight Member Posts: 2,540

    Originally posted by BioNut

    Originally posted by Creslin321


    Originally posted by BioNut

    No offense but I would wait to see how GW2 turns out before you crown it king.  You might find out you are being ruled by a stillborn.

    No crowning ;).  My post says it "MAY" threaten and "IF" it becomes the industry leader.  Basically, all I'm saying is that IF GW2 wins the market, then the subscription model is dead.  Or at least the two part payment subscription model (buy game, then pay subscription fee).

    Sorry, so much GW2 love has clouded my brain.  I think it will be successful but it won't beat WoW. As lon as WoW is king subscription will still rule.

    I agree that GW2 won't unseat WoW from its throne, but it is capable of revealing that emperor has no clothes.  It doesn't need 10 million subscribers to do it either, just critical and financial success.  I'm not worried about the former, but the latter is much more up in the air.  I think it has a sound principle, but ArenaNet is going to have to prove it -- to everyone.  Of course, I'll do my part with a CE pre-order.  And then I cross my fingers...

  • EmhsterEmhster Member UncommonPosts: 913

    Originally posted by mmogawd

    Well, in June Free Realms had 10 million registered users.   Runescape alone has 10 million ACTIVE accounts.  

    You are calling bs on WoW's 12 million accounts, but don't question Runescape's 10 million accounts?

  • RamadarRamadar Member Posts: 167

    I dont see GW 2 dominating the markets anytime soon, after all the majority of mmo's are played by word of mouth. (example: you buy EVE, you play it for a few days then you tell your friend about it so he's buys it, a few days later he tells another friend about and this is how its done.) Blizzard is the only company that made their game a household name like Lucas did with Star Wars until other companies and including ANet are going to have to quit sitting on their butts and let other markets develop other products of their games like Blizzard did with WoW . WoW has board games , comics , trade paperbacks, mouse pads, t-shirts, toys so forth an so on and this is why WoW is the most dominate game cuz it can produce revenue from other markets, so I'll say again until ANet follows suit GW 2 will never dominate or anyother game for that matter.

    Evil will always triumph because good is dumb....

  • EdliEdli Member Posts: 941

    Originally posted by mmogawd

    Well, in June Free Realms had 10 million registered users.   

    Never use the registered users of f2p games as statistical data. Everyone can create an account in these games and everyone does. I created a shitload of accounts in these games. Create an account, play for a hour and then uninstall. I am one of those 10 million registered users too even though I played it only for a few minutes. 

  • mmogawdmmogawd Member Posts: 732

    Originally posted by Emhster

    Originally posted by mmogawd



    Well, in June Free Realms had 10 million registered users.   Runescape alone has 10 million ACTIVE accounts.  

    You are calling bs on WoW's 12 million accounts, but don't question Runescape's 10 million accounts?

    Those are just the active accounts, and this was certified by Guiness.  Argue with them if you don't like it. 

  • KabaalKabaal Member UncommonPosts: 3,042

    Originally posted by mmogawd

    It doesn't even have to become the industry leader.  I think there's enough hype for the game, and enough improvements on GW1, and some real innovations in the MMO genre... the game has a great chance of standing out and making an impact.  F2P is already ravaging the industry... I think B2P is a much better option.  The larger initial investment will filter out a lot of douchebags and kiddies.

    And yet the population of what is arguably the most expensive pay to play game on the market is more often than not described as home to those very same "douchebags and kiddies".

     

    I agree that it may affect payment models of future and possibly existing games if it does exceedingly well but it will have absolutely no bearing on the quality of person behind the keyboards.

  • EmhsterEmhster Member UncommonPosts: 913

    Back in topic, I think the current subscription model is horrible in NA/EU. It only helps Blizzard to establish its dominance in the market, while other game publishers are giving themselves an handicap by offering less for the same 15$/month.

    I'll all for hybrid models, B2P or please import the pay-as-you-go model from Asia. Companies like NCSoft should know better than doing a copycat from the established subscription offering.

  • EmhsterEmhster Member UncommonPosts: 913

    Originally posted by mmogawd

    Those are just the active accounts, and this was certified by Guiness.  Argue with them if you don't like it. 

    So is WoW's 12 million accounts, though this argument is a fallacy.

  • mmogawdmmogawd Member Posts: 732

    Originally posted by Edli

    Originally posted by mmogawd

    Well, in June Free Realms had 10 million registered users.   

    Never use the registered users of f2p games as statistical data. Everyone can create an account in these games and everyone does. I created a shitload of accounts in these games. Create an account, play for a hour and then uninstall. I am one of those 10 million registered users too even though I played it only for a few minutes. 

    It's little different than counting a WoW subscription as someone in Asia who plays for a single hour and pays for only that time played.  It's hardly fair to compare that to a real account subscription.

  • eye_meye_m Member UncommonPosts: 3,317

    I have no doubt that GW2 B2P model will have an "affect" on future and current mmo's. I have no doubt that many implimentations used in GW2 will be copied or create new ideas for other games.  I have no doubt that GW2 will be a success. 

     

    It won't kill any mmo's that aren't on death's door already. It won't kill WoW. It won't kill P2P.  It won't kill your dog.

    All of my posts are either intelligent, thought provoking, funny, satirical, sarcastic or intentionally disrespectful. Take your pick.

    I get banned in the forums for games I love, so lets see if I do better in the forums for games I hate.

    I enjoy the serenity of not caring what your opinion is.

    I don't hate much, but I hate Apple© with a passion. If Steve Jobs was alive, I would punch him in the face.

  • BrenelaelBrenelael Member UncommonPosts: 3,821

    GW1 used basically the same payment model and was very popular yet it didn't change a thing as far as other developers are concerned. I expect the same for GW2. Turbine is the one changing the industry with DDO and now LotRO. SOE was quick to follow with EQ2 and now Cryptic is jumping on the bandwagon as well. The Turbine model is the model that will change the way games are designed in the future and how we pay to play them. Like it or not it's already happening and will continue into the future. It won't replace the subscription model entirely but we will be seeing a lot more games based on the Turbine multi-level payment model. If anything it will replace the current F2P payment model.

     

    Bren

    while(horse==dead)
    {
    beat();
    }

  • HalibrandHalibrand Member UncommonPosts: 136

    Making the argument that a successful GW2 will threaten the subscription model of the industry is a lot like arguing that once someone creates a bank with truly great customer service, every other bank will feel like they have to follow suit, and then people will stop using cash and credit cards; just use their debit cards.  I don't see it happening.

     

    Variety survives very easily in every marketplace.

  • EdliEdli Member Posts: 941

    Originally posted by mmogawd

    Originally posted by Edli


    Originally posted by mmogawd

    Well, in June Free Realms had 10 million registered users.   

    Never use the registered users of f2p games as statistical data. Everyone can create an account in these games and everyone does. I created a shitload of accounts in these games. Create an account, play for a hour and then uninstall. I am one of those 10 million registered users too even though I played it only for a few minutes. 

    It's little different than counting a WoW subscription as someone in Asia who plays for a single hour and pays for only that time played.  It's hardly fair to compare that to a real account subscription.

    No it;s not little different. It's a lot different. The chinese subscribers in wow  are counted like this

    ("Internet Game Room players who have accessed the game over the last thirty days are also counted as subscribers.") 

    I created an account a year ago in free realm and played for a few minutes. I can't be considered the same as the chinese guy who payed in the past 30 days.

  • IhmoteppIhmotepp Member Posts: 14,495

     

    I think TOR is the one to watch, not GW2.

    The success of GW2 remains to be seen. Can you keep the servers open with just the box price, and NOT ad a cash shop which makes you just another F2P game, only with an added box purchase?

     

    image

  • Creslin321Creslin321 Member Posts: 5,359

    Originally posted by Halibrand

    Making the argument that a successful GW2 will threaten the subscription model of the industry is a lot like arguing that once someone creates a bank with truly great customer service, every other bank will feel like they have to follow suit, and then people will stop using cash and credit cards; just use their debit cards.  I don't see it happening.

     

    Variety survives very easily in every marketplace.

     I don't really see how the bank analogy applies here.

    I think it's more like if it was opposite day and Activision decided to release a new CoD game for $40 instead of $60.  How would all of the subpar FPS games compete with this?  THey would have to lower their price to at least $40 to even hope to have a chance.

    Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?

  • Creslin321Creslin321 Member Posts: 5,359

    Originally posted by Ihmotepp

     

    I think TOR is the one to watch, not GW2.

    The success of GW2 remains to be seen. Can you keep the servers open with just the box price, and NOT ad a cash shop which makes you just another F2P game, only with an added box purchase?

     

    Contrary to popular belief..."maintaining servers" is not such a huge expense that you need subscribers to pay $15 a month.  All you need is a staff to monitor/maintain the servers and enough $ to buy new servers if you need to expand capacity.  But if you need to expand capacity, then that means more people have bought your game giving you revenue.

    Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?

  • KyleranKyleran Member LegendaryPosts: 44,088

    Originally posted by Creslin321

    Originally posted by Ihmotepp

     

    I think TOR is the one to watch, not GW2.

    The success of GW2 remains to be seen. Can you keep the servers open with just the box price, and NOT ad a cash shop which makes you just another F2P game, only with an added box purchase?

     

    Contrary to popular belief..."maintaining servers" is not such a huge expense that you need subscribers to pay $15 a month.  All you need is a staff to monitor/maintain the servers and enough $ to buy new servers if you need to expand capacity.  But if you need to expand capacity, then that means more people have bought your game giving you revenue.

    You know, popular belief is all I've ever seen regarding the cost of maintaining gaming servers. It would be very interesting to know how much each MMO out there spends on this effort, maybe they keep it secret on purpose?

    "True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde 

    "I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant

    Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm

    Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV

    Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™

    "This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon






  • EdliEdli Member Posts: 941

    Originally posted by Creslin321

    Originally posted by Ihmotepp

     

    I think TOR is the one to watch, not GW2.

    The success of GW2 remains to be seen. Can you keep the servers open with just the box price, and NOT ad a cash shop which makes you just another F2P game, only with an added box purchase?

     

    Contrary to popular belief..."maintaining servers" is not such a huge expense that you need subscribers to pay $15 a month.  All you need is a staff to monitor/maintain the servers and enough $ to buy new servers if you need to expand capacity.  But if you need to expand capacity, then that means more people have bought your game giving you revenue.

    What about the GMs or the staff that have to fix endless bugs? Who's gonna pay for them? I guess in gw2 the mission packs, skill packs and costumes will pay for them. Clearly a mmo can't survive with only box sales. 

  • gaeanprayergaeanprayer Member UncommonPosts: 2,341

    Originally posted by Ihmotepp

     

    I think TOR is the one to watch, not GW2.

    The success of GW2 remains to be seen. Can you keep the servers open with just the box price, and NOT ad a cash shop which makes you just another F2P game, only with an added box purchase?

     

    They've already proven this a hundred times over with GW1. If they hadn't decided to move on to GW2 rather than continue expansions for GW1, it would still have been a growing game. Their expansion "Guild Wars: Utopia" was already being worked on when they decided there were things they wanted to do but couldnt because of the restrictions made on the game engine when the core was originally developed, thus the reason for a sequel game instead of another expansion.

    I see absolutely no reason why they can't do with one game what they did, very successfully, with another one.

    As for this thread, I agree that the subscription model of the industry is changing, but it's not going to be GW2 alone that does it. The recent F2P trend is affecting it, too. Also, I think GW2's lack of subscription would only strengthen the subscriptions of existing games, because people can just buy the box and have an MMO there whenever they like, and then use that subscription money they WOULD have spent on a different game.

    In other words, I doubt people are just going to play GW2. It's far more likely they're going to play GW2 AND another game that has a subscription fee. Meaning, if I don't have to spend that 15 a month on GW2, I can spend it on something else. People do the same thing with lifetime subs. Those who have lifetimes to games like LOTRO and Champions always have a game to go back to, even though they probably have a sub to something else as well.

    "Forums aren't for intelligent discussion; they're for blow-hards with unwavering opinions."

  • shylock1079shylock1079 Member Posts: 158

    Originally posted by Brenelael

    GW1 used basically the same payment model and was very poular yet it didn't change a thing as far as other developers are concerned. I expect the same for GW2. Turbine is the one changing the industry with DDO and now LotRO. SOE was quick to follow with EQ2 and now Cryptic is jumping on the bandwagon as well. The Turbine model is the model that will change the way games are designed in the future and how we pay to play them. Like it or not it's already happening and will continue into the future. It won't replace the subscription model entirely but we will be seeing a lot more games based on the Turbine multi-level payment model. If anything it will replace the current F2P payment model.

     

    Bren

    This is the reality of the post I think.  Lotro has already made the "changes" the poster is thinking of.  It has completely altered every mmo landscape (for better or worse) out there save for WoW..and I'm guessing they also have adopted some parts of the Turbine model.  I know Lotro isn't has hip or flashy as GW2, but change comes gradually.  And no, I don't think GW2 will drastically change anything.  It didn't the first time.  Regardless of the "persistent world variable", I think GW2 will appeal to GW players.  I honestly don't think the B2P matters.  Why?  Because there is a common misconception that comes with the idea: B2P means dev's are slow to fix bugs and wait till next expansion.  It might be completely incorrect, but we have a habit of believing the wrong things until we become open to other ideas.  How often does that happen?

  • CoffinshockCoffinshock Member Posts: 21

    I think GW2 will be alot more like GW1 than people think or people that never played GW1 have any idea about...but because of the new gen graphics and "dynamic content" some like OP think it will be the best. As far as the leveling and pvp go: low max level, not much of a grind, and lots of pvp because you can pick a max level toon with max gear and go right at it. Yes it looks good. Yes the dynamic content looks cool. Yes I will be buying it for when I start to get bored of what ever subscription MMO I will be playing. But without the $14.99 a month what you buy is what you get untill a new expansion comes out. When I pay a subscription fee I expect to see new content via patches, balancing issues covered, responsive coustomer support, ect. Now that doesn't always happen but those games (you know which ones I'm talking about) are usually the ones most call fail. With out the income generated from the subsription I just don't see how any F2P game can compete with P2P games except for micro-transactions and then alot of times you just end up paying alot more than the normal 14.99.

    Each player must accept the cards life deals him or her: but once they are in hand, he or she alone must decide how to play the cards in order to win the game.

  • ZeroxinZeroxin Member UncommonPosts: 2,515

    Lotro didn't change anyting, it was Runescape, Free Realms, Club Penguin and GW1 that changed the industry. Without their CONTINUED success, Lotro wouldn't have changed to F2P. GW2 will just continue and reinforce the trend if it becomes successful. Even if it doesn't get more sales than all the WoW expansions put together, it will still be seen as the successful anomaly and many will want to ape that success if it becomes that great.

    I believe Arenanet knows the world has its eyes on them and they will have to impress for success.

    This is not a game.

  • MalcanisMalcanis Member UncommonPosts: 3,297

    Originally posted by Creslin321

    So in conclusion, what I think makes GW2 dangerous is that it is bargain priced AND it looks like it will be a quality product.  All imitators MUST be priced below or equal to the industry leader to have a hope of succeeding.  I don't see how the subscription model will survive (except for maybe in very small niches) if GW2 becomes the industry leader.

    So what you're saying is that to compete, they'll have to be original in some way, not just a cheap imitation?

    And this is bad, why?

    Give me liberty or give me lasers

Sign In or Register to comment.