I do not need to wise up to anything. I do not play games based on whether there is a subscription model or not. Believe it or not that is the least of my concerns. I want to play a game because I enjoy playing. I am not going to cut my nose off to spite my face and go play some boring f2p game just because I do not have to pay.
What is the matter with you all ? Honestly just because people pay for games does not mean they are all sitting about sad that that money is wasted. I do not care. If the game is good I play it irregardless of its pay structure whether b2p or f2p who cares. I mean your sole criteria seems to be based on this paltry notion that $15 a month is highway robbery.
I am currently playing Guildwars and I like the game. That does not mean I am now swearing off all other subscription games. There are no absolute choices folks so try to reduce the rhetoric.
I remember how when GW1 was a success and it completely destroyed P2P. There hasn't been one successful P2P since GWs.
GW is a CORPG, not a MMO. And there have not actually been a successful CORPG since it. DDO was forced to go F2P because of it and STO doesn't do well, It seems like NWNO might be B2P as well, and GW set that standard.
But a game that is instanced except for the hubs can't compete with an open world MMO, ANET did have a limited budget.
If GW2 really is fun it is a very different thing, this is an open world with the possibility for huge PvP battles. GW2 doesn't even need to be really fun but just rather fun to do great since it has no fees. If it really is what the developers say it will blow peoples minds away for a reasonable sum.
I do not need to wise up to anything. I do not play games based on whether there is a subscription model or not. Believe it or not that is the least of my concerns. I want to play a game because I enjoy playing. I am not going to cut my nose off to spite my face and go play some boring f2p game just because I do not have to pay.
What is the matter with you all ? Honestly just because people pay for games does not mean they are all sitting about sad that that money is wasted. I do not care. If the game is good I play it irregardless of its pay structure whether b2p or f2p who cares. I mean your sole criteria seems to be based on this paltry notion that $15 a month is highway robbery.
I am currently playing Guildwars and I like the game. That does not mean I am now swearing off all other subscription games. There are no absolute choices folks so try to reduce the rhetoric.
Well, yes but the point is more that if you can choose between 2 great game and one cost a lot more than the other it is higher chances you choose the cheaper one. If you already play and like another game things are different but look on GW and DDO. DDO released earlier but once GW came out it had very few players until they made it F2P. People choosed the cheapest alternative between 2 choices.
It is also a bit of bother with monthly fees, it has happen that some companies (ok, it was Mythic) taken a fee twice and so on, not anything that will happen in GW.
If, say TOR or Rift will be a lot better than they will get the players of course. But if the games are equally good more players will get 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?
Well I can tell you that I maintain SharePoint servers for a living, and they probably aren't all that different from MMO servers. You basically buy them and then the warranty takes care of any hardware replacements or maintenance required.
I would bet that the cost of customer support is far higher than "server maintenance." But does this really require a subscription fee? Normal game companies finance an entire multi-year development cycle off of profits from previously released games. That money can last a long time. I completely believe that MMO firms can finance support/maintenance expenses with B2P sales.
Now you pay have to pay for bandwidth/network expenses, but as another poster mentioned those costs have gone way down in recent years.
Well, I think the OP has a valid point. Guild Wars 2 currently stands out among the upcoming AAA MMO games by NOT asking for a subscription.
If it is successful in our eyes wont many of us ask why the hell we are paying a subscription for *any* MMO? Wont we ask ourselves what exactly are we paying for?
...
This is exactly what I was trying to get at in my OP. To anyone who doesn't think GW2 becoming dominant will change things ask yourself this question:
"Why do AAA MMORPGs charge a subscription fee?"
The answer isn't because they need to pay for servers, or support staff, or bandwidth or anything else. In fact, even if all those are true, they are IRRELEVANT to pricing.
The real reason that they charge a subscription fee is because consumers BELIEVE that is what the price should be and are WILLING to pay it. That's all that ever matters in pricing. If a firm needs to charge a high price for a product then they first must convince consumers that their product is worth the price.
Now, imagine if a AAA MMORPG comes out, dominates the market, and does NOT charge a subscription fee. This will challenge the consumer belief that a subscription fee is required to run an MMORPG. As such, it will be very difficult for any competitors to charge a subscription fee when the product quality leader does not.
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?
Well I can tell you that I maintain SharePoint servers for a living, and they probably aren't all that different from MMO servers. You basically buy them and then the warranty takes care of any hardware replacements or maintenance required.
I would bet that the cost of customer support is far higher than "server maintenance." But does this really require a subscription fee? Normal game companies finance an entire multi-year development cycle off of profits from previously released games. That money can last a long time. I completely believe that MMO firms can finance support/maintenance expenses with B2P sales.
Now you pay have to pay for bandwidth/network expenses, but as another poster mentioned those costs have gone way down in recent years.
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?
Well I can tell you that I maintain SharePoint servers for a living, and they probably aren't all that different from MMO servers. You basically buy them and then the warranty takes care of any hardware replacements or maintenance required.
I would bet that the cost of customer support is far higher than "server maintenance." But does this really require a subscription fee? Normal game companies finance an entire multi-year development cycle off of profits from previously released games. That money can last a long time. I completely believe that MMO firms can finance support/maintenance expenses with B2P sales.
Now you pay have to pay for bandwidth/network expenses, but as another poster mentioned those costs have gone way down in recent years.
It's an extensive answer to all your "server upkeep" needs.
Hah, indeed it is. A pertinent point from that post is:
any MMORPG that takes 1 month of Fees, has enough money to actually keep the servers alive for 8 - 10 years
There is backup for this in the post that Datarin linked if anyone doubts it. The whole subscription model is basically a sham. Consumers believe they have to pay a subscription to get the highest quality MMO, so they do. Hopefully, GW2 will change that belief.
Hah, indeed it is. A pertinent point from that post is:
any MMORPG that takes 1 month of Fees, has enough money to actually keep the servers alive for 8 - 10 years
There is backup for this in the post that Datarin linked if anyone doubts it. The whole subscription model is basically a sham. Consumers believe they have to pay a subscription to get the highest quality MMO, so they do. Hopefully, GW2 will change that belief.
You seem to be missing the whole point of subscriptions.
But I think GW2 will teach you more about that.
Using LOL is like saying "my argument sucks but I still want to disagree".
Hah, indeed it is. A pertinent point from that post is:
any MMORPG that takes 1 month of Fees, has enough money to actually keep the servers alive for 8 - 10 years
There is backup for this in the post that Datarin linked if anyone doubts it. The whole subscription model is basically a sham. Consumers believe they have to pay a subscription to get the highest quality MMO, so they do. Hopefully, GW2 will change that belief.
You seem to be missing the whole point of subscriptions.
Well given that GW2 isn't released yet, it obviously does not have frequent content updates or longevity. It is a bit presumptuous to say it won't have these things though.
Guild Wars 1 however, is using the same model that GW2 will use and it DOES have both of these things. The game is still going strong after several years so it has longevity. As for content updates, just check the update here: http://www.guildwars.com/community/events/contentupdates/4thanniversary/. There have been several content updates like this over the years. I don't think that WoW or other MMORPGs have significantly more content updates than GW.
It is more than possible to offer content updates and to have longevity with a B2P model. This has been proven by GW1. It really shouldn't be suprising considering that most game developers use the sales of previous games to finance the development of new games.
Well given that GW2 isn't released yet, it obviously does not have frequent content updates or longevity. It is a bit presumptuous to say it won't have these things though.
If you really like PvP, sure.
But not much changes. GW1 didn't threaten the subscription model, what makes you think GW2 will? It is bigger and better, yet still made from the same foundation.
"There is little grind" should alone tell you what's up. PvP will keep this game floating but this alone won't make it a blazing success for years to come. As far as the MMO audience is concerned, anyway- of course they will sell millions of copies, just as planned.
Using LOL is like saying "my argument sucks but I still want to disagree".
Well given that GW2 isn't released yet, it obviously does not have frequent content updates or longevity. It is a bit presumptuous to say it won't have these things though.
If you really like PvP, sure.
But not much changes. GW1 didn't threaten the subscription model, what makes you think GW2 will? It is bigger and better, yet still made from the same foundation.
"There is little grind" should alone tell you what's up. PvP will keep this game floating but this alone won't make it a blazing success for years to come. As far as the MMO audience is concerned, anyway- of course they will sell millions of copies, just as planned.
There is a grind in GW1 it's just a grind for new skills, not levels. Also, when you measure longevity, the only thing that matters are how many people are still playing the game and there are plenty of people still playing GW1.
Next, GW2 is going to be far different from GW1. GW1 was an instanced cooperative RPG, whereas GW2 will be a persistent world MMORPG much like WoW and other MMORPGs. The implications of this are that GW2 will be more of a direct competitor to MMORPGs than GW1 ever was. GW2 is actually in a position to be a strong substitue product for WoW, GW1 wasn't.
There is a grind in GW1 it's just a grind for new skills, not levels. Also, when you measure longevity, the only thing that matters are how many people are still playing the game and there are plenty of people still playing GW1.
I think the thing that would matter about longevity is not really how long people are playing, but how long people are playing and spending money. Theres a huge difference in expectations when people play a game that costs them nothing and one that they have to pay every month. I seriously doubt GW1 would have the same number of people playing today if they were expected to spend $10 or $15 a month and seldom get updates.
There is a grind in GW1 it's just a grind for new skills, not levels. Also, when you measure longevity, the only thing that matters are how many people are still playing the game and there are plenty of people still playing GW1.
Next, GW2 is going to be far different from GW1. GW1 was an instanced cooperative RPG, whereas GW2 will be a persistent world MMORPG much like WoW and other MMORPGs. The implications of this are that GW2 will be more of a direct competitor to MMORPGs than GW1 ever was. GW2 is actually in a position to be a strong substitue product for WoW, GW1 wasn't.
PvP has it's own audience.
How many people bought GW1? 5-6 million? Did it affect anything as far as MMO's are concerned? Not really.
Whether the game is cooperative ORPG or MMORPG matters little if the foundation is not different. ArenaNet doesn't have to lenghen the experience needlessly, they just need you to buy the game and that's it.
Even if GW2 will be more like an MMO, it is still built to be a shorter experience. That is the most important thing to remember here, not the persistent world.
And I'm not saying it's a bad thing- it makes all the sense to do it that way. What doesn't make sense is for them to try to keep you playing if you're not paying. Expansions will come, sure- but there is little reason for them to try to keep you playing until each expansion is released. It would require a lot more grind or a lot more PvE effort from the developers in-between the expansions, for little to gain.
The expansions will make you come back from time to time, and ArenaNet will get their money out of it. But after you purchase that expansion, the rest doesn't matter- as long as they can convince you to buy the next expansion too. The over-all impression is a lot more important than how long they can drag out the content in the expansion/vanilla.
They say the game is an MMORPG, and people are fooled to think this means everything will be different. I for one am glad for a persistent world- but realistically, I am not expecting the game to replace anything- nor do I think it needs to. This is the perfect game to play "on the side", just like GW1. I am glad for that.
Using LOL is like saying "my argument sucks but I still want to disagree".
To me gw1 is set up as a time sink, and I worry gw2 is going to be a lot more of the same. I also feel the whole thing is geared toward a quick cash grab on the flagging popularity of gw1. I base this off the whole hall of monuments thing which makes it more benificial for people to go play the game with as many characters as possible and have all the expansions, add ons, and pay for unlocks to increase how much they have in the hall to get more bonuses for gw2. But that is just smart buisness and more power to um.
Now is the whole mmo system with subs screwed up, yes it is but I don't see GW being a company based on the idea of lets give all we can to our players. If it was a full real F2P system like many games have gone to there would be a way to unlock everything they sell, excluding expansions, via gameplay but you are forced to pay for a lot of things because there is no in game way to get it. Worse still this model has led to item malls in subscription based games. F2p will never kill sub based games because the sub based model can afford to do things just for the hell of it.
Such as free content updates, add ons, events, and so on. While the F2P model will put them in an item mall and have you pay for it. Do I think this is a problem, only in a game I am paying by the month to play. I have no problem with buying F2P mmo's, they are no different than a consol game to me though. I can play it when I want and if I want. The Sub games though will always be more important.
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?
Well I can tell you that I maintain SharePoint servers for a living, and they probably aren't all that different from MMO servers. You basically buy them and then the warranty takes care of any hardware replacements or maintenance required.
I would bet that the cost of customer support is far higher than "server maintenance." But does this really require a subscription fee? Normal game companies finance an entire multi-year development cycle off of profits from previously released games. That money can last a long time. I completely believe that MMO firms can finance support/maintenance expenses with B2P sales.
Now you pay have to pay for bandwidth/network expenses, but as another poster mentioned those costs have gone way down in recent years.
It's an extensive answer to all your "server upkeep" needs.
Hah, indeed it is. A pertinent point from that post is:
any MMORPG that takes 1 month of Fees, has enough money to actually keep the servers alive for 8 - 10 years
There is backup for this in the post that Datarin linked if anyone doubts it. The whole subscription model is basically a sham. Consumers believe they have to pay a subscription to get the highest quality MMO, so they do. Hopefully, GW2 will change that belief.
What im interested knowing is that if the cost of running mmo servers is so minimal why does Anet and partners feel the need to sell vanity item etc ontop of boxes / expansions ?
If the answer is money ... then what exactly justifies MT compared to Subs , because in both cases the developers wants to make extra money.
The only difference i see in these two payment models is seemingly voluntary costs for player on the MT part ...
If i see nice armor / vanity item in-game id much rather it to involve me in a epic playsession than a trip to a local Jack&Jills Cheap Armor Co .... for me its simply downgrading the game experience but yeah thats just me i guess.
And please save the arguments over minor details on specific game since obviously the practice varies depending on the company in question and after all it all comes down to what / when and for how much ur selling.
To me gw1 is set up as a time sink, and I worry gw2 is going to be a lot more of the same. I also feel the whole thing is geared toward a quick cash grab on the flagging popularity of gw1. I base this off the whole hall of monuments thing which makes it more benificial for people to go play the game with as many characters as possible and have all the expansions, add ons, and pay for unlocks to increase how much they have in the hall to get more bonuses for gw2. But that is just smart buisness and more power to um.
Now is the whole mmo system with subs screwed up, yes it is but I don't see GW being a company based on the idea of lets give all we can to our players. If it was a full real F2P system like many games have gone to there would be a way to unlock everything they sell, excluding expansions, via gameplay but you are forced to pay for a lot of things because there is no in game way to get it. Worse still this model has led to item malls in subscription based games. F2p will never kill sub based games because the sub based model can afford to do things just for the hell of it.
Such as free content updates, add ons, events, and so on. While the F2P model will put them in an item mall and have you pay for it. Do I think this is a problem, only in a game I am paying by the month to play. I have no problem with buying F2P mmo's, they are no different than a consol game to me though. I can play it when I want and if I want. The Sub games though will always be more important.
GW is a buy to play system with a vanity cash shop. About the only thing you can buy that actually affects your gameplay is extra bank slots. The hall of monuments rewards are vanity as well, pets and skins. There will be no in game advantage.
GW2 was announced in 2007. It's a AAA MMO that is coming about because they had to start over because they couldn't work all their innovations into the existing framework of GW1. We can only hope that it's out sometime in 2011. That is NOT my definition of a quick cash grab.
"Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true you know it, and they know it."-Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007
I like how everyone claims that running servers is a very miminal cost affair. When in reality its very much a different beast. While I'm not saying a monthly fee is required per person to keep servers up and running. But I do imagine a fair amount of that fee goes into server upkeep and maintance.
In World of Warcrafts case you litterly have multiple datacenters that they own and operate. Theres hundreds of dedicated computers within the centers, not to mention all the additional hardware that is required to keep the datacenters online and operational. You are probly looking at a 50 person staff minimal to keep all the servers running 24/7 and all the hardware in the datacenters in top shape. It's not as simple as buying a box and dropping it in a building and it just working 24/7. Servers do have fail and physical hardware also fails. You've got to have people on call / someone in the center to fix these problems on the fly.
Then we have the whole other side of the coin that most people tend to not even think about. And thats bandwidth useage. Peer connections generally charge on a useage based system where you alloted an amount of useage and if you exceed that then you are charged more and put into a higher bracket. This generally is anything but cheap. i can only imagine the amount of bandwidth that is used to keep say 250k concorrent connections online for a mmo like world of warcraft.
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?
Well I can tell you that I maintain SharePoint servers for a living, and they probably aren't all that different from MMO servers. You basically buy them and then the warranty takes care of any hardware replacements or maintenance required.
I would bet that the cost of customer support is far higher than "server maintenance." But does this really require a subscription fee? Normal game companies finance an entire multi-year development cycle off of profits from previously released games. That money can last a long time. I completely believe that MMO firms can finance support/maintenance expenses with B2P sales.
Now you pay have to pay for bandwidth/network expenses, but as another poster mentioned those costs have gone way down in recent years.
It's an extensive answer to all your "server upkeep" needs.
Hah, indeed it is. A pertinent point from that post is:
any MMORPG that takes 1 month of Fees, has enough money to actually keep the servers alive for 8 - 10 years
There is backup for this in the post that Datarin linked if anyone doubts it. The whole subscription model is basically a sham. Consumers believe they have to pay a subscription to get the highest quality MMO, so they do. Hopefully, GW2 will change that belief.
What im interested knowing is that if the cost of running mmo servers is so minimal why does Anet and partners feel the need to sell vanity item etc ontop of boxes / expansions ?
If the answer is money ... then what exactly justifies MT compared to Subs , because in both cases the developers wants to make extra money.
The only difference i see in these two payment models is seemingly voluntary costs for player on the MT part ...
If i see nice armor / vanity item in-game id much rather it to involve me in a epic playsession than a trip to a local Jack&Jills Cheap Armor Co .... for me its simply downgrading the game experience but yeah thats just me i guess.
And please save the arguments over minor details on specific game since obviously the practice varies depending on the company in question and after all it all comes down to what / when and for how much ur selling.
I think the vogue answer is "multiple revenue streams". People buy vanity items because they have an emotional investment in the game, hence "vanity" as opposed to "practical". A mmo is like a virtual world with virtual items that can be made and sold for this reason: Players want to express themselves in game, so a little cash for this service in a game is a fair trade it seems. Afterall at pop you do not even have to consider this and it's not included in the cost of the game as you are not emotionally invested in it in any way. Later there may be a reason, hence MT.
It's when it's intrusively advertised or "play to win" that this addition may harm the quality of the experience of the game from being a vanity item to being an advert or "practical" component to the game, suddenly the rules of the game have changed in a detrimental way or billboards are all over the place, afterall the mmo devs should be providing a SERVICE to the players who wish to give SPEND their free time in the game and keep it a fair and vocation experience.
B2P is the business model ArenaNet use. They stated (see previous posts) that they will not charge in a way that detracts from a player's game experience. But if there is a demand for MT's of some kind they will supply for that demand at expected value.
I don't understand people saying that there won't be content updates. Look at GW's expansion history.
GW: Vanilla (now known as Prophecies) came out April 2005
GW: Factions April 2006
GW: Nightfall Oct 2006
GW: Eye of the North August 2007
The Factions and Nightfall aren't even just expansions, they're entire standalone games.
They're also in the process of putting out 3 free content updates called Guild Wars: Beyond, to bridge the gap between GW1 and GW2.
As far as the "grind" to GW2, it'll have 80 levels with about 90 minutes per level after a certain point. That's probably over 100 hours to cap. Sure, they could have dragged that out, but they don't want to. The game design features a personal storyline that is affected by choices you make at character creation. I'm sure they'd much rather you reach cap and then start over with a new profession and see how choosing noble birth vs common birth affected the story than they would have you just have spent 200 hours getting to cap instead. And there's 5 races and 8 professions. Plenty of replayability there.
Seriously, what is there to do in WoW? You race to level cap and then spend $15 a month for the priviledge of beating your head against the same raid bosses week after week hoping your guildmates learn to play. Is that all it would have taken to convince people that GW2 is a AAA MMO? Maybe the problem is that they're just trying too hard.
"Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true you know it, and they know it."-Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007
I don't understand people saying that there won't be content updates. Look at GW's expansion history.
GW: Core (now known as Prophecies) came out April 2005
GW: Factions April 2006
GW: Nightfall Oct 2006
GW: Eye of the North August 2007
The Factions and Nightfall aren't even just expansions, they're entire standalone games.
As far as the "grind" to GW2, it'll have 80 levels with about 90 minutes per level after a certain point. That's probably over 100 hours to cap. Sure, they could have dragged that out, but they don't want to.
What are you trying to say? This is exactly what I said. They don't want us to grind. They don't need to make us grind. They don't care whether we play for 2 weeks or two years, as long as we go to the shop and buy the game itself.
Expansions will come at a steady pace, but a year's wait between major content update + as said very little grind do not make this game a replacement for any MMO out there. There is no downside to playing GW2 and a subscription MMO, since you are only paying monthly for one. This game won't require all your time to progress either.
Why should they even threaten the industry if they don't have to? Does it help them? Why can't both this game and the rest of the MMO's coexist without "stealing" from each other? It is a stupid approach to take, but it seems only players feel that way, fortunately.
Using LOL is like saying "my argument sucks but I still want to disagree".
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?
Well I can tell you that I maintain SharePoint servers for a living, and they probably aren't all that different from MMO servers. You basically buy them and then the warranty takes care of any hardware replacements or maintenance required.
I would bet that the cost of customer support is far higher than "server maintenance." But does this really require a subscription fee? Normal game companies finance an entire multi-year development cycle off of profits from previously released games. That money can last a long time. I completely believe that MMO firms can finance support/maintenance expenses with B2P sales.
Now you pay have to pay for bandwidth/network expenses, but as another poster mentioned those costs have gone way down in recent years.
It's an extensive answer to all your "server upkeep" needs.
Hah, indeed it is. A pertinent point from that post is:
any MMORPG that takes 1 month of Fees, has enough money to actually keep the servers alive for 8 - 10 years
There is backup for this in the post that Datarin linked if anyone doubts it. The whole subscription model is basically a sham. Consumers believe they have to pay a subscription to get the highest quality MMO, so they do. Hopefully, GW2 will change that belief.
What im interested knowing is that if the cost of running mmo servers is so minimal why does Anet and partners feel the need to sell vanity item etc ontop of boxes / expansions ?
If the answer is money ... then what exactly justifies MT compared to Subs , because in both cases the developers wants to make extra money.
The only difference i see in these two payment models is seemingly voluntary costs for player on the MT part ...
If i see nice armor / vanity item in-game id much rather it to involve me in a epic playsession than a trip to a local Jack&Jills Cheap Armor Co .... for me its simply downgrading the game experience but yeah thats just me i guess.
And please save the arguments over minor details on specific game since obviously the practice varies depending on the company in question and after all it all comes down to what / when and for how much ur selling.
I think your confusing something here, The amount one spends on a subscription for a game such as WoW is so much more than the cost of a B2P game, expansions and vanity items included. MT is a way for the game to increase the money they make sure, but it is in no way forced upon you like WoW forces its expansions and its sub; you can choose not to spend money in it. And on top of that, you cant expect Anet to just not make money, they got familes to feed and a company to grow. The point is, they can maintain a company, make games, and generate a deicent revenue without having to scam their consumers with monthly subscription fees. So basically its the best thing for every one, players get a good game and developers are still able to make an ok living.
the only way p2p sub models (or any sub models for that matter) will die will be because they become unprofitable (or less profitable than another alternate).
The only way gw2 can beat out the ongoing sub fees of a p2p game is if it sells at least 1 game box per customer per 2 months (give or take). That is assuming the expansions are about $60 and the current p2p sub fees are $15.
I'm sure GW2 will be an awesome game but i highly highly doubt it can top the p2p model
MMO wish list:
-Changeable worlds -Solid non level based game -Sharks with lasers attached to their heads
Im looking forward to GW2, more then any other MMO atm. But I dont think that it will be GW2 that changes payment models. The change has already begun, now that several big names moved to a hybrid subscription model.
On the other hand, you can see it in any thread about payment models, there are enough suckers who pay a sub simply for the idea of paying for quality. No matter if the game actually delivers (STO anyone?). Somehow they cant imagine a b2p game being as good as a p2p game. Instead of looking at the quality of the game, they stare blindly at the payment model and use that to judge the quality of the game. Commercial companies' easiest targets
Comments
I do not need to wise up to anything. I do not play games based on whether there is a subscription model or not. Believe it or not that is the least of my concerns. I want to play a game because I enjoy playing. I am not going to cut my nose off to spite my face and go play some boring f2p game just because I do not have to pay.
What is the matter with you all ? Honestly just because people pay for games does not mean they are all sitting about sad that that money is wasted. I do not care. If the game is good I play it irregardless of its pay structure whether b2p or f2p who cares. I mean your sole criteria seems to be based on this paltry notion that $15 a month is highway robbery.
I am currently playing Guildwars and I like the game. That does not mean I am now swearing off all other subscription games. There are no absolute choices folks so try to reduce the rhetoric.
GW is a CORPG, not a MMO. And there have not actually been a successful CORPG since it. DDO was forced to go F2P because of it and STO doesn't do well, It seems like NWNO might be B2P as well, and GW set that standard.
But a game that is instanced except for the hubs can't compete with an open world MMO, ANET did have a limited budget.
If GW2 really is fun it is a very different thing, this is an open world with the possibility for huge PvP battles. GW2 doesn't even need to be really fun but just rather fun to do great since it has no fees. If it really is what the developers say it will blow peoples minds away for a reasonable sum.
Well, yes but the point is more that if you can choose between 2 great game and one cost a lot more than the other it is higher chances you choose the cheaper one. If you already play and like another game things are different but look on GW and DDO. DDO released earlier but once GW came out it had very few players until they made it F2P. People choosed the cheapest alternative between 2 choices.
It is also a bit of bother with monthly fees, it has happen that some companies (ok, it was Mythic) taken a fee twice and so on, not anything that will happen in GW.
If, say TOR or Rift will be a lot better than they will get the players of course. But if the games are equally good more players will get GW2.
GW is a great game BTW, I play it as well.
Well I can tell you that I maintain SharePoint servers for a living, and they probably aren't all that different from MMO servers. You basically buy them and then the warranty takes care of any hardware replacements or maintenance required.
I would bet that the cost of customer support is far higher than "server maintenance." But does this really require a subscription fee? Normal game companies finance an entire multi-year development cycle off of profits from previously released games. That money can last a long time. I completely believe that MMO firms can finance support/maintenance expenses with B2P sales.
Now you pay have to pay for bandwidth/network expenses, but as another poster mentioned those costs have gone way down in recent years.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
This is exactly what I was trying to get at in my OP. To anyone who doesn't think GW2 becoming dominant will change things ask yourself this question:
"Why do AAA MMORPGs charge a subscription fee?"
The answer isn't because they need to pay for servers, or support staff, or bandwidth or anything else. In fact, even if all those are true, they are IRRELEVANT to pricing.
The real reason that they charge a subscription fee is because consumers BELIEVE that is what the price should be and are WILLING to pay it. That's all that ever matters in pricing. If a firm needs to charge a high price for a product then they first must convince consumers that their product is worth the price.
Now, imagine if a AAA MMORPG comes out, dominates the market, and does NOT charge a subscription fee. This will challenge the consumer belief that a subscription fee is required to run an MMORPG. As such, it will be very difficult for any competitors to charge a subscription fee when the product quality leader does not.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
I really love using this bookmarked entry as a Joker card: http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/post/3870630#3870630
It's an extensive answer to all your "server upkeep" needs.
Forums: The best real-time interactive MMORPG you'll ever be in.
Hah, indeed it is. A pertinent point from that post is:
any MMORPG that takes 1 month of Fees, has enough money to actually keep the servers alive for 8 - 10 years
There is backup for this in the post that Datarin linked if anyone doubts it. The whole subscription model is basically a sham. Consumers believe they have to pay a subscription to get the highest quality MMO, so they do. Hopefully, GW2 will change that belief.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
You seem to be missing the whole point of subscriptions.
But I think GW2 will teach you more about that.
What, praytell, is the point?
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
Frequent content updates, longevity.
Something GW2 doesn't need, nor have.
Well given that GW2 isn't released yet, it obviously does not have frequent content updates or longevity. It is a bit presumptuous to say it won't have these things though.
Guild Wars 1 however, is using the same model that GW2 will use and it DOES have both of these things. The game is still going strong after several years so it has longevity. As for content updates, just check the update here: http://www.guildwars.com/community/events/contentupdates/4thanniversary/. There have been several content updates like this over the years. I don't think that WoW or other MMORPGs have significantly more content updates than GW.
It is more than possible to offer content updates and to have longevity with a B2P model. This has been proven by GW1. It really shouldn't be suprising considering that most game developers use the sales of previous games to finance the development of new games.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
If you really like PvP, sure.
But not much changes. GW1 didn't threaten the subscription model, what makes you think GW2 will? It is bigger and better, yet still made from the same foundation.
"There is little grind" should alone tell you what's up. PvP will keep this game floating but this alone won't make it a blazing success for years to come. As far as the MMO audience is concerned, anyway- of course they will sell millions of copies, just as planned.
There is a grind in GW1 it's just a grind for new skills, not levels. Also, when you measure longevity, the only thing that matters are how many people are still playing the game and there are plenty of people still playing GW1.
Next, GW2 is going to be far different from GW1. GW1 was an instanced cooperative RPG, whereas GW2 will be a persistent world MMORPG much like WoW and other MMORPGs. The implications of this are that GW2 will be more of a direct competitor to MMORPGs than GW1 ever was. GW2 is actually in a position to be a strong substitue product for WoW, GW1 wasn't.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
I think the thing that would matter about longevity is not really how long people are playing, but how long people are playing and spending money. Theres a huge difference in expectations when people play a game that costs them nothing and one that they have to pay every month. I seriously doubt GW1 would have the same number of people playing today if they were expected to spend $10 or $15 a month and seldom get updates.
PvP has it's own audience.
How many people bought GW1? 5-6 million? Did it affect anything as far as MMO's are concerned? Not really.
Whether the game is cooperative ORPG or MMORPG matters little if the foundation is not different. ArenaNet doesn't have to lenghen the experience needlessly, they just need you to buy the game and that's it.
Even if GW2 will be more like an MMO, it is still built to be a shorter experience. That is the most important thing to remember here, not the persistent world.
And I'm not saying it's a bad thing- it makes all the sense to do it that way. What doesn't make sense is for them to try to keep you playing if you're not paying. Expansions will come, sure- but there is little reason for them to try to keep you playing until each expansion is released. It would require a lot more grind or a lot more PvE effort from the developers in-between the expansions, for little to gain.
The expansions will make you come back from time to time, and ArenaNet will get their money out of it. But after you purchase that expansion, the rest doesn't matter- as long as they can convince you to buy the next expansion too. The over-all impression is a lot more important than how long they can drag out the content in the expansion/vanilla.
They say the game is an MMORPG, and people are fooled to think this means everything will be different. I for one am glad for a persistent world- but realistically, I am not expecting the game to replace anything- nor do I think it needs to. This is the perfect game to play "on the side", just like GW1. I am glad for that.
To me gw1 is set up as a time sink, and I worry gw2 is going to be a lot more of the same. I also feel the whole thing is geared toward a quick cash grab on the flagging popularity of gw1. I base this off the whole hall of monuments thing which makes it more benificial for people to go play the game with as many characters as possible and have all the expansions, add ons, and pay for unlocks to increase how much they have in the hall to get more bonuses for gw2. But that is just smart buisness and more power to um.
Now is the whole mmo system with subs screwed up, yes it is but I don't see GW being a company based on the idea of lets give all we can to our players. If it was a full real F2P system like many games have gone to there would be a way to unlock everything they sell, excluding expansions, via gameplay but you are forced to pay for a lot of things because there is no in game way to get it. Worse still this model has led to item malls in subscription based games. F2p will never kill sub based games because the sub based model can afford to do things just for the hell of it.
Such as free content updates, add ons, events, and so on. While the F2P model will put them in an item mall and have you pay for it. Do I think this is a problem, only in a game I am paying by the month to play. I have no problem with buying F2P mmo's, they are no different than a consol game to me though. I can play it when I want and if I want. The Sub games though will always be more important.
What im interested knowing is that if the cost of running mmo servers is so minimal why does Anet and partners feel the need to sell vanity item etc ontop of boxes / expansions ?
If the answer is money ... then what exactly justifies MT compared to Subs , because in both cases the developers wants to make extra money.
The only difference i see in these two payment models is seemingly voluntary costs for player on the MT part ...
If i see nice armor / vanity item in-game id much rather it to involve me in a epic playsession than a trip to a local Jack&Jills Cheap Armor Co .... for me its simply downgrading the game experience but yeah thats just me i guess.
And please save the arguments over minor details on specific game since obviously the practice varies depending on the company in question and after all it all comes down to what / when and for how much ur selling.
GW is a buy to play system with a vanity cash shop. About the only thing you can buy that actually affects your gameplay is extra bank slots. The hall of monuments rewards are vanity as well, pets and skins. There will be no in game advantage.
GW2 was announced in 2007. It's a AAA MMO that is coming about because they had to start over because they couldn't work all their innovations into the existing framework of GW1. We can only hope that it's out sometime in 2011. That is NOT my definition of a quick cash grab.
"Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true you know it, and they know it." -Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007
I like how everyone claims that running servers is a very miminal cost affair. When in reality its very much a different beast. While I'm not saying a monthly fee is required per person to keep servers up and running. But I do imagine a fair amount of that fee goes into server upkeep and maintance.
In World of Warcrafts case you litterly have multiple datacenters that they own and operate. Theres hundreds of dedicated computers within the centers, not to mention all the additional hardware that is required to keep the datacenters online and operational. You are probly looking at a 50 person staff minimal to keep all the servers running 24/7 and all the hardware in the datacenters in top shape. It's not as simple as buying a box and dropping it in a building and it just working 24/7. Servers do have fail and physical hardware also fails. You've got to have people on call / someone in the center to fix these problems on the fly.
Then we have the whole other side of the coin that most people tend to not even think about. And thats bandwidth useage. Peer connections generally charge on a useage based system where you alloted an amount of useage and if you exceed that then you are charged more and put into a higher bracket. This generally is anything but cheap. i can only imagine the amount of bandwidth that is used to keep say 250k concorrent connections online for a mmo like world of warcraft.
I think the vogue answer is "multiple revenue streams". People buy vanity items because they have an emotional investment in the game, hence "vanity" as opposed to "practical". A mmo is like a virtual world with virtual items that can be made and sold for this reason: Players want to express themselves in game, so a little cash for this service in a game is a fair trade it seems. Afterall at pop you do not even have to consider this and it's not included in the cost of the game as you are not emotionally invested in it in any way. Later there may be a reason, hence MT.
It's when it's intrusively advertised or "play to win" that this addition may harm the quality of the experience of the game from being a vanity item to being an advert or "practical" component to the game, suddenly the rules of the game have changed in a detrimental way or billboards are all over the place, afterall the mmo devs should be providing a SERVICE to the players who wish to give SPEND their free time in the game and keep it a fair and vocation experience.
B2P is the business model ArenaNet use. They stated (see previous posts) that they will not charge in a way that detracts from a player's game experience. But if there is a demand for MT's of some kind they will supply for that demand at expected value.
http://www.gdcvault.com/play/1014633/Classic-Game-Postmortem
I don't understand people saying that there won't be content updates. Look at GW's expansion history.
GW: Vanilla (now known as Prophecies) came out April 2005
GW: Factions April 2006
GW: Nightfall Oct 2006
GW: Eye of the North August 2007
The Factions and Nightfall aren't even just expansions, they're entire standalone games.
They're also in the process of putting out 3 free content updates called Guild Wars: Beyond, to bridge the gap between GW1 and GW2.
As far as the "grind" to GW2, it'll have 80 levels with about 90 minutes per level after a certain point. That's probably over 100 hours to cap. Sure, they could have dragged that out, but they don't want to. The game design features a personal storyline that is affected by choices you make at character creation. I'm sure they'd much rather you reach cap and then start over with a new profession and see how choosing noble birth vs common birth affected the story than they would have you just have spent 200 hours getting to cap instead. And there's 5 races and 8 professions. Plenty of replayability there.
Seriously, what is there to do in WoW? You race to level cap and then spend $15 a month for the priviledge of beating your head against the same raid bosses week after week hoping your guildmates learn to play. Is that all it would have taken to convince people that GW2 is a AAA MMO? Maybe the problem is that they're just trying too hard.
"Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true you know it, and they know it." -Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007
What are you trying to say? This is exactly what I said. They don't want us to grind. They don't need to make us grind. They don't care whether we play for 2 weeks or two years, as long as we go to the shop and buy the game itself.
Expansions will come at a steady pace, but a year's wait between major content update + as said very little grind do not make this game a replacement for any MMO out there. There is no downside to playing GW2 and a subscription MMO, since you are only paying monthly for one. This game won't require all your time to progress either.
Why should they even threaten the industry if they don't have to? Does it help them? Why can't both this game and the rest of the MMO's coexist without "stealing" from each other? It is a stupid approach to take, but it seems only players feel that way, fortunately.
I think your confusing something here, The amount one spends on a subscription for a game such as WoW is so much more than the cost of a B2P game, expansions and vanity items included. MT is a way for the game to increase the money they make sure, but it is in no way forced upon you like WoW forces its expansions and its sub; you can choose not to spend money in it. And on top of that, you cant expect Anet to just not make money, they got familes to feed and a company to grow. The point is, they can maintain a company, make games, and generate a deicent revenue without having to scam their consumers with monthly subscription fees. So basically its the best thing for every one, players get a good game and developers are still able to make an ok living.
the only way p2p sub models (or any sub models for that matter) will die will be because they become unprofitable (or less profitable than another alternate).
The only way gw2 can beat out the ongoing sub fees of a p2p game is if it sells at least 1 game box per customer per 2 months (give or take). That is assuming the expansions are about $60 and the current p2p sub fees are $15.
I'm sure GW2 will be an awesome game but i highly highly doubt it can top the p2p model
MMO wish list:
-Changeable worlds
-Solid non level based game
-Sharks with lasers attached to their heads
Im looking forward to GW2, more then any other MMO atm. But I dont think that it will be GW2 that changes payment models. The change has already begun, now that several big names moved to a hybrid subscription model.
On the other hand, you can see it in any thread about payment models, there are enough suckers who pay a sub simply for the idea of paying for quality. No matter if the game actually delivers (STO anyone?). Somehow they cant imagine a b2p game being as good as a p2p game. Instead of looking at the quality of the game, they stare blindly at the payment model and use that to judge the quality of the game. Commercial companies' easiest targets