Only thing I dislike about the no sub fee is the clientele it attracts.
An example: I let my 8 year old son play DDO on the weekends. I feel sorry for the people he groups with.
Having a sub fee hasn't helped WoW's population ferret out the immature, and I can think of several people who let their children play WoW as well (and have heard horror stories from those who play with other peoples' children).
In other words, it takes all kinds. Fortunately, a poor player isn't going to hamper other peoples' progress in GW2 as much as other games in the open world because of dynamic event scaling and cooperative rewards.
Granted, I played WoW for only a few months, but never ran into people being totally clueless about how to play. In DDO, it was literally an everyday occurence. So, I have a lot of bias. However, please don't feel I'm attacking GW2. I'm just pointing out if there is a negative that, for me, is it.
The one time i did need support in GW, they were pretty on the ball. Hell by the time i submitted my request and got back in the game they had just patched in a fix. Seeing as it was the only time i ever had an issue with a bug in game, i would say that it was pretty quickly resolved. The great thing about arenanet is they learned a long time ago that you dont need to spend alot of money on support if you arent releasing a bug filled pos like most mmo's these days.
If your company could increase revenue by adding manpower, but your budget prevents you from hiring those new employees, budget and availability of financing are the core of the issue.
It's water under the bridge, but I don't fully understand why ANet stopped producing expansions for GW1 entirely as soon as they decided to develop GW2. It seems that there was still room for revenue production there, the profits of which could have further fueled GW2 development. It might have something to do with just how small ANet was for GW1 development. They already faced the hurdle of greatly expanding staff levels for GW2 development and maybe they thought it would spread the original team too thin to have to manage development for both games?
ANet has made the transition to a much larger team and it seems their strong core, plus their custom project management systems, have allowed them to make the transition successfully.
If the game is as successful as many hope, ANet will have to expand further. I think the Buy to Play plus Expansions model, combined with the limited cash shop, should allow them to keep pace with the ongoing momentum. The bigger challenge may be ANet adapting to become even bigger.
I do hope that players will appreciate the business model and be generous with the cash shop if they decide the game is worth playing. I also hope people will be forgiving if ANet tries to find ways to use the cash shop to provide additional game content, on top of free updates and expansions. Anet will never go overboard with the cash shop, but there is a grey zone between account services/cosmetic items and full out cash shop that they should be allowed to very carefully explore.
Only thing I dislike about the no sub fee is the clientele it attracts.
An example: I let my 8 year old son play DDO on the weekends. I feel sorry for the people he groups with.
Having a sub fee hasn't helped WoW's population ferret out the immature, and I can think of several people who let their children play WoW as well (and have heard horror stories from those who play with other peoples' children).
In other words, it takes all kinds. Fortunately, a poor player isn't going to hamper other peoples' progress in GW2 as much as other games in the open world because of dynamic event scaling and cooperative rewards.
Granted, I played WoW for only a few months, but never ran into people being totally clueless about how to play. In DDO, it was literally an everyday occurence. So, I have a lot of bias. However, please don't feel I'm attacking GW2. I'm just pointing out if there is a negative that, for me, is it.
But you have to admit that DDO has some actual complexity. It has traps, riddles, tests based on stats, hidden sections of maps, and all sorts of fun, weird stuff going on. I know because I played it and I remember. It was probably one of the better things about it, despite it being all a bit unwieldy. WoW's complexity, by comparison, amounts to 'push butan.'
It's not hard to be clueless in regards to DDO's complexity, but i would be absolutely amazed if I ever met anyone who was dumbfounded by WoW's concept of 'push butan,' I really would. So there's the divide right there.
I know lots of people love this, it makes me a little concerned. I like the idea of devs having to come out with a constant stream of content to keep people playing. I feel like with this system once they sell you the game they have no incentive to keep you playing. Just a thought.
i think the only ones who should be concerned about the no-sub models are people who own for-sub or item mall MMO studios, because the enevitable querstion that will be asked by a LOT of gamers is: if gw2 can do it with just box/expansion profits, why cant YOU?
RIP Ribbitribbitt you are missed, kid.
Currently Playing EVE, ESO
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed.
You say there is then no incentive for them to keep the game up to date with new content. But I think the opposite is true. With no subscription they need to stay on the top of their game at all time to keep bring in more people thus getting more money. This also means expansion packs (which I like) to get more money from us. (I'm perfectly fine for paying for a lot of content in a pack like that.)
So in short... I am not concerned about the no sub model.
The thing is.. IMO GW1 had amazing people to play with. I really made some friends on that game more so than WoW. However there were also people that were... the opposite of amazing.
Part of the issue though, I think and hope, is the spam. But you really can't blame the players for the spam without any real decent group finder nor Auction House.
As people have said: it worked for guild wars. You say there is then no incentive for them to keep the game up to date with new content. But I think the opposite is true. With no subscription they need to stay on the top of their game at all time to keep bring in more people thus getting more money. This also means expansion packs (which I like) to get more money from us. (I'm perfectly fine for paying for a lot of content in a pack like that.)
So in short... I am not concerned about the no sub model.
This is exactly why I am concerned... Guild Wars sucked. It was sub par, and did not even come close to meeting the standard of real AAA MMO's. I paid 7 bucks for my copy, and I feel that was way too much. GW2 looks great... in theory. I can't help but wonder, however, if NCSoft just doesn't believe that it's worth a subscription fee.
You say there is then no incentive for them to keep the game up to date with new content. But I think the opposite is true. With no subscription they need to stay on the top of their game at all time to keep bring in more people thus getting more money. This also means expansion packs (which I like) to get more money from us. (I'm perfectly fine for paying for a lot of content in a pack like that.)
So in short... I am not concerned about the no sub model.
As people have said: it worked for guild wars. You say there is then no incentive for them to keep the game up to date with new content. But I think the opposite is true. With no subscription they need to stay on the top of their game at all time to keep bring in more people thus getting more money. This also means expansion packs (which I like) to get more money from us. (I'm perfectly fine for paying for a lot of content in a pack like that.) So in short... I am not concerned about the no sub model.
You say there is then no incentive for them to keep the game up to date with new content. But I think the opposite is true. With no subscription they need to stay on the top of their game at all time to keep bring in more people thus getting more money. This also means expansion packs (which I like) to get more money from us. (I'm perfectly fine for paying for a lot of content in a pack like that.)
So in short... I am not concerned about the no sub model.
The fight between Netflix and Blockbuster show that charging more does not make the product better or ensure the company that charges more gains more money. Way back in the long long ago, Blockbuster charged per movie, from $3-$5 dependong on location,along with late fees. You get the movie for I think 2 or 3 days and have to send it back. Netflix came along and decided to try a different business model. First they decided to Internet only, second they decided to have a subscription fee instead of a per movie price.
Because Netflix was charging less that means they have an inferior product and they would have to go out of business, right? Nope! Event though Blockbuster charged more money than Neflix, Blockbuster declared bankruptcy and was bought out by DISH Network last year.
I'm not saying Blizzard will be declaring bankruptcy soon, and I know some of you won't even read this far and will argue that Blizzard won't be declaring bankruptcy soon, so if you make that post you're dumb. I'm just saying they don't have to charge as much as the competition to stay in business.
As people have said: it worked for guild wars. You say there is then no incentive for them to keep the game up to date with new content. But I think the opposite is true. With no subscription they need to stay on the top of their game at all time to keep bring in more people thus getting more money. This also means expansion packs (which I like) to get more money from us. (I'm perfectly fine for paying for a lot of content in a pack like that.) So in short... I am not concerned about the no sub model.
Titanic won a handful of Oscars, that doesn't mean it didn't suck.
You can keep your opinions, just don't pass them off as fact.
I'm sorry that I didn't state "In my opinion, Guild Wars sucked." I wasn't aware of your strict requirements or the inability of people around here to distinguish between facts and opinions on their own. Of course, it's obvious to everyone else that fanboys such as yourself are just trying to avoid the real issues involving this game, and one in particular that is the point of this thread. NCSoft is going to expect the same ROI from this game as all of their other MMO's. Without a sub fee, they're going to be getting it from either a) numerous, paid expansions or b) mass transactions in their cash shop. Both of these things warrant concern.
You say there is then no incentive for them to keep the game up to date with new content. But I think the opposite is true. With no subscription they need to stay on the top of their game at all time to keep bring in more people thus getting more money. This also means expansion packs (which I like) to get more money from us. (I'm perfectly fine for paying for a lot of content in a pack like that.)
So in short... I am not concerned about the no sub model.
Titanic won a handful of Oscars, that doesn't mean it didn't suck.
You can keep your opinions, just don't pass them off as fact.
Without a sub fee, they're going to be getting it from either a) numerous, paid expansions or b) mass transactions in their cash shop. Both of these things warrant concern.
Why? That's how WoW makes money on top of a subscription fee.
That's how TSW makes money on top of a subscription fee.
TOR is going to make money with expansions on top of a subscription fee and I'm expecting them to add a cash shop on top of that sometime in the future.
GW2 is just doing what everyone else is, they're just not requiring people to pay them every month so they can play the game.
People have been conditioned so much by subscription fees that they think they're going to get scammed when they're offered a game that doesn't have one.
I'm sorry that I didn't state "In my opinion, Guild Wars sucked." I wasn't aware of your strict requirements or the inability of people around here to distinguish between facts and opinions on their own. Of course, it's obvious to everyone else that fanboys such as yourself are just trying to avoid the real issues involving this game, and one in particular that is the point of this thread. NCSoft is going to expect the same ROI from this game as all of their other MMO's. Without a sub fee, they're going to be getting it from either a) numerous, paid expansions or b) mass transactions in their cash shop. Both of these things warrant concern.
Not sure if you follow revenues and financial releases... but GW1 did outstanding when compared to other NCSoft games. GW2 will no doubt generate more revenue than GW1. And so, I don't believe you need fear that NCSoft will start panicking for money.
Not sure if you follow revenues and financial releases... but GW1 did outstanding when compared to other NCSoft games. GW2 will no doubt generate more revenue than GW1. And so, I don't believe you need fear that NCSoft will start panicking for money.
Lol, it seems like most MMO companies panic all the time nowadays.
But yes, I expect GW2 to become a cashcow for NC soft as well. It is the only MMO that have the potential to become a E-sport (and don't joke about Wow as an E-Sport, best gear wins is not a sport).
GW1 played in many times it's total costs and while GW2 were more expensive to make it will get in plenty of dough.
You say there is then no incentive for them to keep the game up to date with new content. But I think the opposite is true. With no subscription they need to stay on the top of their game at all time to keep bring in more people thus getting more money. This also means expansion packs (which I like) to get more money from us. (I'm perfectly fine for paying for a lot of content in a pack like that.)
So in short... I am not concerned about the no sub model.
Titanic won a handful of Oscars, that doesn't mean it didn't suck.
It didn't sucked, the fact that it hold the biggest box office until Avatar? or The Dark Knight? It stayed at number one for fifteen consecutive weeks in the United States and Canada, which remains a record for any film.
Just because you don't like it, that doesn't mean it sucked.
If Guild Wars 2 can offer even just the same playing experience as Rift or WoW, it already proves that no sub model works as a financial stable method of business. But the fact that it is trying to reinnovate the structure of MMO, yet offering the same Persisent, Online experience as other MMORPG, shows that sub model offers nothing extra compare to no sub model, just another way for players to dump more money to developers.
How much WoW could a WoWhater hate, if a WoWhater could hate WoW? As much WoW as a WoWhater would, if a WoWhater could hate WoW.
You say there is then no incentive for them to keep the game up to date with new content. But I think the opposite is true. With no subscription they need to stay on the top of their game at all time to keep bring in more people thus getting more money. This also means expansion packs (which I like) to get more money from us. (I'm perfectly fine for paying for a lot of content in a pack like that.)
So in short... I am not concerned about the no sub model.
Titanic won a handful of Oscars, that doesn't mean it didn't suck.
You can keep your opinions, just don't pass them off as fact.
I'm sorry that I didn't state "In my opinion, Guild Wars sucked." I wasn't aware of your strict requirements or the inability of people around here to distinguish between facts and opinions on their own. Of course, it's obvious to everyone else that fanboys such as yourself are just trying to avoid the real issues involving this game, and one in particular that is the point of this thread. NCSoft is going to expect the same ROI from this game as all of their other MMO's. Without a sub fee, they're going to be getting it from either a) numerous, paid expansions or b) mass transactions in their cash shop. Both of these things warrant concern.
We're not sure what kind of paid content GW2 is going to provide, but one of the great features about GW1 is that you don't need to purchase any of the expansions. Even to this day, whether you purchased Prophecies, Factions or Nightfall, you can still play the game no problem. They didn't even increase the level cap (which makes WoW's expansions all but mandatory purchases).
With this kind of B2P model, it's all voluntary when it comes to paid content purchases. It has to be good enough and affordable enough to make people want to make a conscious choice to buy it. In the case of GW1, releasing Factions and Nightfall as two expansions for a year would cost the consumer $100 to purchase both. It would still be cheaper than a P2P subscription ($156 minimum, not counting buying a P2P expansion), and you might also get a lot more. Factions and Nightfall were standalone games combining to 60+ zones, 45+ missions, 450+ quests, 4 new classes, new skills and new gameplay mechanics.
Numerous paid expansions sounds like it might be a good problem to have. If you don't think they're worth your money, don't buy them. If enough people don't, then they have to work harder for the next one and/or lower the price.
"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
Log onto Guild Wars and look how many people are still playing a game that now only gets a content update once in a blue moon. Still a lot of people. If anything not having a sub fee makes people want to play the game more but in a healthy way. Since you only payed for the box and maybe some fluff or content in the store you never feel like you are wasting money because you have not played the game for a week. (unless you didn't like it) A player can drop in and out as they please, allowing themselves to do what they need to in the real world but also having the ability to have fun in the game without the needed stress of thinking about how much play time= money time. I doubt everyone thinks this way but I like to think that way.
Yeah I did the same thing and was quite impressed with the amount of people on.
If you don't like a game don't play it, and quit running to MMORPG.com to trash it.
People have been conditioned so much by subscription fees that they think they're going to get scammed when they're offered a game that doesn't have one.
Log onto Guild Wars and look how many people are still playing a game that now only gets a content update once in a blue moon. Still a lot of people. If anything not having a sub fee makes people want to play the game more but in a healthy way. Since you only payed for the box and maybe some fluff or content in the store you never feel like you are wasting money because you have not played the game for a week. (unless you didn't like it) A player can drop in and out as they please, allowing themselves to do what they need to in the real world but also having the ability to have fun in the game without the needed stress of thinking about how much play time= money time. I doubt everyone thinks this way but I like to think that way.
Yeah I did the same thing and was quite impressed with the amount of people on.
The game is still going strong now after 6 years or something. And also, I agree with your reasoning here. Well that's how I fell towards GW. I still log on and play, for as long as I wish, then I take a break, for as long as I wish.
Without a sub fee, they're going to be getting it from either a) numerous, paid expansions or b) mass transactions in their cash shop. Both of these things warrant concern.
The problem here, of course, is the lack of truth behind this statement. You're making this claim as a factual satatement but you're not providing any citations or evidence to show that you're not just pulling it out of your rear. Conversely, I can provide a counter-example which shows that you honestly have no clue about the economics surrounding MMORPGs.
Champions Onlline was a subscription MMORPG and it under that model it wasn't doing so great, so they had to do something about that. Can you guess what their solution was? They went free to play. Now here's the interesting part: The vast majority of the stuff on their store is purely cosmetic, only a few small pieces of content which are unnecessary to complete the game are on the store, you don't have to get them. A friend of mine, as a silver player, managed to play a grind free MMORPG that had no subscription or no nickel-and-diming to the max level in just over a month.
There was no trickery to keep him playing, there were no cons, there was no forced level grinding, and there were no necessary payments. Can you guess what happened? He gave money to Cryptic. He felt that he'd had so much fun that they deserved some of his money. He bought some costume packs and other assorted things from their C-Store. And here's the funny part: Since Champions Onnline went free to play it's become a success, their income has increased tenfold. This was covered on a number of sites.
And their profits (not just their revenue) continues to improve. Now... this is a direct contradiction to your statement that an MMORPG would have to require loads of microtransactions to be forced upon players, and that an MMORPG would need to section off some of its normal content to be sold on the store. Champions Online does neither of these things and yet it's still a success. You're underestimating how successful the system can be, but that's because I think you misunderstand how it works, and you likely don't think that Team Fortress 2 is currently a success, either.
Yes, let's look at TF2.
In TF2 you have a completely free game where you can play the game in its entirety without spending a single penny, and that keeps Valve afloat. Why? Valve aren't selling maps which are restricted only to paying customers, Valve aren't forcing mictrotransaction purchases where money has to be spent to progress (buy to win). Noap, they're doing neither of those things. And yet the TF2 free to play move has been a success. Why do you think that is? Perhaps it's just you that's misunderstanding the economics at work, here.
Let's be honest, who do you think is wrong? Mr. Gabe "Valve is comfortably rich!!" Newell, or you? if you, then where are your bags of money? Or at least where are your credentials as an industry analyst? I'm betting you have neither. This is why you shouldn't go parading those opinions of yours as facts (which you've already been told about once). Because, see, you're paradign opinions as facts here. It's more you believe that a game requires a subscription to survive, but the reality of things conradicts what you believe.
You can weave a bloody religion around your opinions if you like and believe with all your might that the money you spent on subscriptions was actually necessary, and that those who thought it was a con, that realised that it was a con all along, are all wrong. Except reality disagrees. Yes, I'm saying that I'm presenting facts here, but I'm backing it up with evidence. If you want to fight me with facts then you'd better damn well up the ante and provide some evidence to support your claims.
As it stands, in reality, free to play and buy to play works. Neither system needs to become pay to win. Neither system needs to have forced microtransactions. Neither system needs to section off normal content into microtransactions to be successful. These systems are successful purely based on player desires and greed. The difference is is that instead of spending 120 hours (or more) a week repetitively grinding dungeons instead of getting a damned job, you'll actually have to pay real money for some of those cosmetic goods, and that means getting a real job. I'm betting that's what's really rubbing you the wrong way about all of this.
Frankly, I think that the excuses some people are coming up with just to avoid being honest are ridiculous.
There are games out there which are all about subscriptions and grinding. Guild Wars 2, like Champions Online, like TF2, won't be one of them.
I am worried that the game is going to do so well, that people will be wanting to pay money.
Hopefully, Arenanet doesn't realize that the game could stand as a P2P model. And listen to those players.
P2P is argued back and forth that it offers better quality. I don't agree with that being set in stone in every case.
The main thing P2P does that I hate. Is it makes me choose games. I would enjoy the genre so much more if I could jump from time time to different games. But the money factor has penetrated, choked and corrupted gamer choices on the whole.
Buy to Play starts with an advantage over both Pay to Play and Free to Play.
The advantage vs. Pay to Play is obvious. The advantage vs. Free to Play starts with the fact that every player of the game will at least have to invest the cost of the box price, so that's a lot of immediate revenue right there that Free to Play doesn't get.
I've seen numbers elsewhere that show that the cost per player for providing and maintaining game servers and services is miniscule. The box price covers the cost for hosting the player for a long time, covers development cost and may even provide a profit on it's own.
With that all covered, ANet doesn't have the pressure of needing Game Shop sales to cover expenses and provide the sole source of profit. They can then focus on giving players things they will want to buy, but never things they will feel they have to buy to play the game or be competitive. This removes the almost hostile relationship between players and Cash Shops seen in games that try to almost force players to buy things to succeed or be good at the game. That pressure removed, I think players are more likely to spend money buying things they want, to support the game and the developers, rather than resisting the urge to spend money out of resentment towards the developers, as seen in games where Cash Shop purchases are almost forced upon players who want to achieve anything in the game.
Each future Buy to Play Expansion just renews the coffers. It covers the development costs, extends the downpayment on player services down the line and should also provide additional profit.
The Cash Shop provides bonus profit and with the pressure to rely on it to cover ongoing player related and development costs gone, ANet can approach the way they sell items to players in a very different, low pressure way.
Also, with the cost per player to maintain services being so slow, every box sale after reaching the point of profitibility is mostly profit.
A game needs to be good to succeed with this model. Pair the model with a game that may be one of the best games in the genre and other game developers may have a lot to worry about. If GW2 is successful, it won't only influence future MMO design, but it may reshape the business model for most future titles.
Comments
Granted, I played WoW for only a few months, but never ran into people being totally clueless about how to play. In DDO, it was literally an everyday occurence. So, I have a lot of bias. However, please don't feel I'm attacking GW2. I'm just pointing out if there is a negative that, for me, is it.
The one time i did need support in GW, they were pretty on the ball. Hell by the time i submitted my request and got back in the game they had just patched in a fix. Seeing as it was the only time i ever had an issue with a bug in game, i would say that it was pretty quickly resolved. The great thing about arenanet is they learned a long time ago that you dont need to spend alot of money on support if you arent releasing a bug filled pos like most mmo's these days.
If your company could increase revenue by adding manpower, but your budget prevents you from hiring those new employees, budget and availability of financing are the core of the issue.
It's water under the bridge, but I don't fully understand why ANet stopped producing expansions for GW1 entirely as soon as they decided to develop GW2. It seems that there was still room for revenue production there, the profits of which could have further fueled GW2 development. It might have something to do with just how small ANet was for GW1 development. They already faced the hurdle of greatly expanding staff levels for GW2 development and maybe they thought it would spread the original team too thin to have to manage development for both games?
ANet has made the transition to a much larger team and it seems their strong core, plus their custom project management systems, have allowed them to make the transition successfully.
If the game is as successful as many hope, ANet will have to expand further. I think the Buy to Play plus Expansions model, combined with the limited cash shop, should allow them to keep pace with the ongoing momentum. The bigger challenge may be ANet adapting to become even bigger.
I do hope that players will appreciate the business model and be generous with the cash shop if they decide the game is worth playing. I also hope people will be forgiving if ANet tries to find ways to use the cash shop to provide additional game content, on top of free updates and expansions. Anet will never go overboard with the cash shop, but there is a grey zone between account services/cosmetic items and full out cash shop that they should be allowed to very carefully explore.
Want to know more about GW2 and why there is so much buzz? Start here: Guild Wars 2 Mass Info for the Uninitiated
But you have to admit that DDO has some actual complexity. It has traps, riddles, tests based on stats, hidden sections of maps, and all sorts of fun, weird stuff going on. I know because I played it and I remember. It was probably one of the better things about it, despite it being all a bit unwieldy. WoW's complexity, by comparison, amounts to 'push butan.'
It's not hard to be clueless in regards to DDO's complexity, but i would be absolutely amazed if I ever met anyone who was dumbfounded by WoW's concept of 'push butan,' I really would. So there's the divide right there.
i think the only ones who should be concerned about the no-sub models are people who own for-sub or item mall MMO studios, because the enevitable querstion that will be asked by a LOT of gamers is: if gw2 can do it with just box/expansion profits, why cant YOU?
RIP Ribbitribbitt you are missed, kid.
Currently Playing EVE, ESO
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and not clothed.
Dwight D Eisenhower
My optimism wears heavy boots and is loud.
Henry Rollins
As people have said: it worked for guild wars.
You say there is then no incentive for them to keep the game up to date with new content. But I think the opposite is true. With no subscription they need to stay on the top of their game at all time to keep bring in more people thus getting more money. This also means expansion packs (which I like) to get more money from us. (I'm perfectly fine for paying for a lot of content in a pack like that.)
So in short... I am not concerned about the no sub model.
The thing is.. IMO GW1 had amazing people to play with. I really made some friends on that game more so than WoW. However there were also people that were... the opposite of amazing.
Part of the issue though, I think and hope, is the spam. But you really can't blame the players for the spam without any real decent group finder nor Auction House.
Why would I worry about not having to pay extra money for the similar services?
I can just pay or not play. At least I'm not trying to milk everything in monthly periods.
How much WoW could a WoWhater hate, if a WoWhater could hate WoW?
As much WoW as a WoWhater would, if a WoWhater could hate WoW.
This is exactly why I am concerned... Guild Wars sucked. It was sub par, and did not even come close to meeting the standard of real AAA MMO's. I paid 7 bucks for my copy, and I feel that was way too much. GW2 looks great... in theory. I can't help but wonder, however, if NCSoft just doesn't believe that it's worth a subscription fee.In your opinion.
These awards disagree with you.
Guild Wars sucked.In your opinion.
These awards disagree with you.
Titanic won a handful of Oscars, that doesn't mean it didn't suck.You can keep your opinions, just don't pass them off as fact.
The fight between Netflix and Blockbuster show that charging more does not make the product better or ensure the company that charges more gains more money. Way back in the long long ago, Blockbuster charged per movie, from $3-$5 dependong on location,along with late fees. You get the movie for I think 2 or 3 days and have to send it back. Netflix came along and decided to try a different business model. First they decided to Internet only, second they decided to have a subscription fee instead of a per movie price.
Because Netflix was charging less that means they have an inferior product and they would have to go out of business, right? Nope! Event though Blockbuster charged more money than Neflix, Blockbuster declared bankruptcy and was bought out by DISH Network last year.
I'm not saying Blizzard will be declaring bankruptcy soon, and I know some of you won't even read this far and will argue that Blizzard won't be declaring bankruptcy soon, so if you make that post you're dumb. I'm just saying they don't have to charge as much as the competition to stay in business.
Guild Wars sucked.In your opinion.
These awards disagree with you.
Titanic won a handful of Oscars, that doesn't mean it didn't suck.You can keep your opinions, just don't pass them off as fact.
I'm sorry that I didn't state "In my opinion, Guild Wars sucked." I wasn't aware of your strict requirements or the inability of people around here to distinguish between facts and opinions on their own. Of course, it's obvious to everyone else that fanboys such as yourself are just trying to avoid the real issues involving this game, and one in particular that is the point of this thread. NCSoft is going to expect the same ROI from this game as all of their other MMO's. Without a sub fee, they're going to be getting it from either a) numerous, paid expansions or b) mass transactions in their cash shop. Both of these things warrant concern.Why? That's how WoW makes money on top of a subscription fee.
That's how TSW makes money on top of a subscription fee.
TOR is going to make money with expansions on top of a subscription fee and I'm expecting them to add a cash shop on top of that sometime in the future.
GW2 is just doing what everyone else is, they're just not requiring people to pay them every month so they can play the game.
People have been conditioned so much by subscription fees that they think they're going to get scammed when they're offered a game that doesn't have one.
Not sure if you follow revenues and financial releases... but GW1 did outstanding when compared to other NCSoft games. GW2 will no doubt generate more revenue than GW1. And so, I don't believe you need fear that NCSoft will start panicking for money.
Lol, it seems like most MMO companies panic all the time nowadays.
But yes, I expect GW2 to become a cashcow for NC soft as well. It is the only MMO that have the potential to become a E-sport (and don't joke about Wow as an E-Sport, best gear wins is not a sport).
GW1 played in many times it's total costs and while GW2 were more expensive to make it will get in plenty of dough.
It didn't sucked, the fact that it hold the biggest box office until Avatar? or The Dark Knight? It stayed at number one for fifteen consecutive weeks in the United States and Canada, which remains a record for any film.
Just because you don't like it, that doesn't mean it sucked.
If Guild Wars 2 can offer even just the same playing experience as Rift or WoW, it already proves that no sub model works as a financial stable method of business. But the fact that it is trying to reinnovate the structure of MMO, yet offering the same Persisent, Online experience as other MMORPG, shows that sub model offers nothing extra compare to no sub model, just another way for players to dump more money to developers.
How much WoW could a WoWhater hate, if a WoWhater could hate WoW?
As much WoW as a WoWhater would, if a WoWhater could hate WoW.
We're not sure what kind of paid content GW2 is going to provide, but one of the great features about GW1 is that you don't need to purchase any of the expansions. Even to this day, whether you purchased Prophecies, Factions or Nightfall, you can still play the game no problem. They didn't even increase the level cap (which makes WoW's expansions all but mandatory purchases).
With this kind of B2P model, it's all voluntary when it comes to paid content purchases. It has to be good enough and affordable enough to make people want to make a conscious choice to buy it. In the case of GW1, releasing Factions and Nightfall as two expansions for a year would cost the consumer $100 to purchase both. It would still be cheaper than a P2P subscription ($156 minimum, not counting buying a P2P expansion), and you might also get a lot more. Factions and Nightfall were standalone games combining to 60+ zones, 45+ missions, 450+ quests, 4 new classes, new skills and new gameplay mechanics.
Numerous paid expansions sounds like it might be a good problem to have. If you don't think they're worth your money, don't buy them. If enough people don't, then they have to work harder for the next one and/or lower the price.
"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
Yeah I did the same thing and was quite impressed with the amount of people on.
If you don't like a game don't play it, and quit running to MMORPG.com to trash it.
Don't think I could have put it better myself.
The game is still going strong now after 6 years or something. And also, I agree with your reasoning here. Well that's how I fell towards GW. I still log on and play, for as long as I wish, then I take a break, for as long as I wish.
scribble scribble scribble
The problem here, of course, is the lack of truth behind this statement. You're making this claim as a factual satatement but you're not providing any citations or evidence to show that you're not just pulling it out of your rear. Conversely, I can provide a counter-example which shows that you honestly have no clue about the economics surrounding MMORPGs.
Champions Onlline was a subscription MMORPG and it under that model it wasn't doing so great, so they had to do something about that. Can you guess what their solution was? They went free to play. Now here's the interesting part: The vast majority of the stuff on their store is purely cosmetic, only a few small pieces of content which are unnecessary to complete the game are on the store, you don't have to get them. A friend of mine, as a silver player, managed to play a grind free MMORPG that had no subscription or no nickel-and-diming to the max level in just over a month.
There was no trickery to keep him playing, there were no cons, there was no forced level grinding, and there were no necessary payments. Can you guess what happened? He gave money to Cryptic. He felt that he'd had so much fun that they deserved some of his money. He bought some costume packs and other assorted things from their C-Store. And here's the funny part: Since Champions Onnline went free to play it's become a success, their income has increased tenfold. This was covered on a number of sites.
Here's one such article.
And their profits (not just their revenue) continues to improve. Now... this is a direct contradiction to your statement that an MMORPG would have to require loads of microtransactions to be forced upon players, and that an MMORPG would need to section off some of its normal content to be sold on the store. Champions Online does neither of these things and yet it's still a success. You're underestimating how successful the system can be, but that's because I think you misunderstand how it works, and you likely don't think that Team Fortress 2 is currently a success, either.
Yes, let's look at TF2.
In TF2 you have a completely free game where you can play the game in its entirety without spending a single penny, and that keeps Valve afloat. Why? Valve aren't selling maps which are restricted only to paying customers, Valve aren't forcing mictrotransaction purchases where money has to be spent to progress (buy to win). Noap, they're doing neither of those things. And yet the TF2 free to play move has been a success. Why do you think that is? Perhaps it's just you that's misunderstanding the economics at work, here.
Let's be honest, who do you think is wrong? Mr. Gabe "Valve is comfortably rich!!" Newell, or you? if you, then where are your bags of money? Or at least where are your credentials as an industry analyst? I'm betting you have neither. This is why you shouldn't go parading those opinions of yours as facts (which you've already been told about once). Because, see, you're paradign opinions as facts here. It's more you believe that a game requires a subscription to survive, but the reality of things conradicts what you believe.
You can weave a bloody religion around your opinions if you like and believe with all your might that the money you spent on subscriptions was actually necessary, and that those who thought it was a con, that realised that it was a con all along, are all wrong. Except reality disagrees. Yes, I'm saying that I'm presenting facts here, but I'm backing it up with evidence. If you want to fight me with facts then you'd better damn well up the ante and provide some evidence to support your claims.
As it stands, in reality, free to play and buy to play works. Neither system needs to become pay to win. Neither system needs to have forced microtransactions. Neither system needs to section off normal content into microtransactions to be successful. These systems are successful purely based on player desires and greed. The difference is is that instead of spending 120 hours (or more) a week repetitively grinding dungeons instead of getting a damned job, you'll actually have to pay real money for some of those cosmetic goods, and that means getting a real job. I'm betting that's what's really rubbing you the wrong way about all of this.
Frankly, I think that the excuses some people are coming up with just to avoid being honest are ridiculous.
There are games out there which are all about subscriptions and grinding. Guild Wars 2, like Champions Online, like TF2, won't be one of them.
Yes, I am very worried.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I am worried that the game is going to do so well, that people will be wanting to pay money.
Hopefully, Arenanet doesn't realize that the game could stand as a P2P model. And listen to those players.
P2P is argued back and forth that it offers better quality. I don't agree with that being set in stone in every case.
The main thing P2P does that I hate. Is it makes me choose games. I would enjoy the genre so much more if I could jump from time time to different games. But the money factor has penetrated, choked and corrupted gamer choices on the whole.
Buy to Play starts with an advantage over both Pay to Play and Free to Play.
The advantage vs. Pay to Play is obvious. The advantage vs. Free to Play starts with the fact that every player of the game will at least have to invest the cost of the box price, so that's a lot of immediate revenue right there that Free to Play doesn't get.
I've seen numbers elsewhere that show that the cost per player for providing and maintaining game servers and services is miniscule. The box price covers the cost for hosting the player for a long time, covers development cost and may even provide a profit on it's own.
With that all covered, ANet doesn't have the pressure of needing Game Shop sales to cover expenses and provide the sole source of profit. They can then focus on giving players things they will want to buy, but never things they will feel they have to buy to play the game or be competitive. This removes the almost hostile relationship between players and Cash Shops seen in games that try to almost force players to buy things to succeed or be good at the game. That pressure removed, I think players are more likely to spend money buying things they want, to support the game and the developers, rather than resisting the urge to spend money out of resentment towards the developers, as seen in games where Cash Shop purchases are almost forced upon players who want to achieve anything in the game.
Each future Buy to Play Expansion just renews the coffers. It covers the development costs, extends the downpayment on player services down the line and should also provide additional profit.
The Cash Shop provides bonus profit and with the pressure to rely on it to cover ongoing player related and development costs gone, ANet can approach the way they sell items to players in a very different, low pressure way.
Also, with the cost per player to maintain services being so slow, every box sale after reaching the point of profitibility is mostly profit.
A game needs to be good to succeed with this model. Pair the model with a game that may be one of the best games in the genre and other game developers may have a lot to worry about. If GW2 is successful, it won't only influence future MMO design, but it may reshape the business model for most future titles.
Want to know more about GW2 and why there is so much buzz? Start here: Guild Wars 2 Mass Info for the Uninitiated
