Just to clear something up before people get the wrong idea. You wrote:
Guild Wars 2 has the whole “no subscription” angle cornered. Everyone understood why GW1 was free after the initial purchase, but people’s jaws dropped when they found out that GW2 was going to be much more “worldly” in scope and still retain the same stance (albeit with an added cash shop to help drive revenue).
Guild Wars 1 also has a cash shop, which primarily has cosmetic things for sale. The exception is the ability to unlock skills for use in PvP (which normally requires playing through PvE or PvP) and a few mision packs. Arenanet has already stated that the cash shop for Guild Wars 2 will be similar.
Yeah, this is something that kinda makes me chuckle when I read about how the GW folks talk about how P2P MMOs have to "justify" a subscription beyond the box purchase.
Meanwhile, GW has a cash shop selling some pretty compelling stuff.
Just strikes me as a bit hypocritical to call subscriptions into question as a supplementary income beyond the box purchase, when your game is selling skills and such through a cash shop.
These skills are only useable in PvP, and are the same as the skills you get from skill trainers and quests in the normal game. There is no real advantage. You're paying for something you could easily achieve in game, while with P2P you're paying in order to play the game you have already bought (and nowadays it's quite common for a P2P-MMORPG to have a cashshop).
That's not the point of my statement.
The point of my statement is he's questioning the justification of an alternate form of income beyond the initial purchase when it comes to subs. But, yet, has a means of alternate income in his own game that can be far more compelling... and costly... especially to someone who wants to roll a level 20 and be fully geared out to get into the action immediately without having to first unlock them through gameplay.
Either way is an alternate means of income. He's simply downplaying one without addressing the other.
It's PR spin, pure and simple.
The thing is that's it's optional, while in case of P2P-MMORPGs you HAVE to pay in order to play.
To me, the simplest solution to the sub/free/scam problem is to just have a monthly subscription. No "free" trails or similar features, no stupid bullshit. You dont have to be a genious to figure out that a "free games" will have to create some other, and not so great way to make money.
If you assume the following, then this should never be a dilemma. "Nothing is free, ever".
"I'd just like to see more games that focus on the world, and giving the people in it more of a role, im tired of these constant single player games that you can walk around with millions of people."
To me, the simplest solution to the sub/free/scam problem is to just have a monthly subscription. No "free" trails or similar features, no stupid bullshit.
You dont have to be a genious to figure out that a "free games" will have to create some other, and not so great way to make money.
If you assume the following, then this should never be a dilemma.
"Nothing is free, ever".
Making it free gets people to try it, if they try it and like it then you can make some money. Making it free also means the people who choose to pay have more people to play with. A hell of a lot of MMO's would be dead & burried by now if it werent for them being F2P or having moved to F2P when their populations were dwindling, especially MMO's where endgame is all about working with other players co-operatively or PvP focussed.
Now having said that I dont like cash shops that offer items that cannot be otherwise obtained ingame. I think the best model for Free 2 play is balance cash shop + optional multiple subscription options.
Several games run with this right now and their subscriptions allow faster XP progression, more cash to be earned, reduced A/H fees, Reduced mail send fees (I hate mail send fees, that should be free IMHO) and maybe a monthly item as a gift. Seems to work ok.
For once, I find myself totally in agreement with an article here.
I actually have a team of developers and designers currently working on one of these 'innovative' MMOs, and it puzzles me as to why nobody has thought of the ideas we've had before. The reality is, they probably have, an opted for the safe options.
Yea...I think the the OP answered his own question.
The big companies have a lower tolerance for risk considering the cost associated with their level of polish in development & publication.
So its the independent developers that can afford to experiment & appeal to niche groups because they don't have the sort of dollars & reputation on the line as the big AAA publishers.
With that said, it's important for those indie developers to have a good grasp on the scope of their project & what they are able to acomplish with the resources they have available to them. In this competitive world of entertainment (specifically MMORPG games), a community is KEY to a successful MMORPG. When an indie developer tries to bite off more than they can chew and tries to launch a game with a BUNCH of features, but none implemented fully (or with polish).....you get a bad launch and people leave in droves. With no community, even the dedicated have to leave too because what is a MMO with no people to play with?
Instead, keep it simple, set realistic expectations and then build on your success.
As for SW:TOR.......how this game plays out will have just as much influence over the landscape of the MMO industry as the successes the indie developers are having. If SW:TOR goes down the same road as Warhammer after spending 400+ million dollars & co-oping one of the most reconginzed IPs in the "gamer universe"......then MAYBE the AAA publishers will get a hint that players are burnt out on the linear quest / raid / upgrade gear model.
Comments
The thing is that's it's optional, while in case of P2P-MMORPGs you HAVE to pay in order to play.
I dont get why you guys discuss p2p vs other.
To me, the simplest solution to the sub/free/scam problem is to just have a monthly subscription. No "free" trails or similar features, no stupid bullshit.
You dont have to be a genious to figure out that a "free games" will have to create some other, and not so great way to make money.
If you assume the following, then this should never be a dilemma.
"Nothing is free, ever".
http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/261448/page/5
"I'd just like to see more games that focus on the world, and giving the people in it more of a role, im tired of these constant single player games that you can walk around with millions of people."
- Parsalin
Making it free gets people to try it, if they try it and like it then you can make some money. Making it free also means the people who choose to pay have more people to play with. A hell of a lot of MMO's would be dead & burried by now if it werent for them being F2P or having moved to F2P when their populations were dwindling, especially MMO's where endgame is all about working with other players co-operatively or PvP focussed.
Now having said that I dont like cash shops that offer items that cannot be otherwise obtained ingame. I think the best model for Free 2 play is balance cash shop + optional multiple subscription options.
Several games run with this right now and their subscriptions allow faster XP progression, more cash to be earned, reduced A/H fees, Reduced mail send fees (I hate mail send fees, that should be free IMHO) and maybe a monthly item as a gift. Seems to work ok.
For once, I find myself totally in agreement with an article here.
I actually have a team of developers and designers currently working on one of these 'innovative' MMOs, and it puzzles me as to why nobody has thought of the ideas we've had before. The reality is, they probably have, an opted for the safe options.
Yea...I think the the OP answered his own question.
The big companies have a lower tolerance for risk considering the cost associated with their level of polish in development & publication.
So its the independent developers that can afford to experiment & appeal to niche groups because they don't have the sort of dollars & reputation on the line as the big AAA publishers.
With that said, it's important for those indie developers to have a good grasp on the scope of their project & what they are able to acomplish with the resources they have available to them. In this competitive world of entertainment (specifically MMORPG games), a community is KEY to a successful MMORPG. When an indie developer tries to bite off more than they can chew and tries to launch a game with a BUNCH of features, but none implemented fully (or with polish).....you get a bad launch and people leave in droves. With no community, even the dedicated have to leave too because what is a MMO with no people to play with?
Instead, keep it simple, set realistic expectations and then build on your success.
As for SW:TOR.......how this game plays out will have just as much influence over the landscape of the MMO industry as the successes the indie developers are having. If SW:TOR goes down the same road as Warhammer after spending 400+ million dollars & co-oping one of the most reconginzed IPs in the "gamer universe"......then MAYBE the AAA publishers will get a hint that players are burnt out on the linear quest / raid / upgrade gear model.