I want this to work because if more games start offering this, I never have to make the decision to unsub (losing all access to the game I already probably paid $50 for (plus sub for however long I've had it, plus any expansions). When I buy Guild Wars 2, the game remains mine to access and enjoy. If I want access to expansions, I can buy those and they are then mine.
Legal jargon that actually points out nothing I've purchased is mine aside, as an MMO player, I would rather buy to play, even if it means I pay the exact same amount per month that I would have ended up paying had I bought the box and expansions and then subbed to a game.
Bonus if I end up actually paying less.
Can't argue with that, it would be nice to not have to commit to playing as much as you do with a sub based MMO, while at the same time really enjoying the experience.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
I don't know about everyone else but I am paying for some form of civility and seperation from those that demand "free stuff" or think they are "entitled" to everything without paying OR working for it. In other words, playing a video game is NOT a civil right.
FULL access to ALL content (and, yes, Fluff IS content) that is EARNABLE by PLAYING the game (in theory).
This.
And as I'm fond of saying, the average MMO monthly sub is $15.00
That's fifty cents per day.
If you can't afford that, stop playing so many games and get a job.
This.
$15.00 is NOTHING and if you cannot afford it, go get a damn job and stop gaming. Its simple as that.
I cannot even buy myself a decent dinner for $15. My wife and I can play an MMO for 30 days for the cost of $1 per day. The last time we went to dinner and a movie (3-4 hours worth of entertainment), we spent over $80. The last nice dinner we had was over $90! But she and I can have unlimited access to ALL content in a game, realistically play for well over 100+ hours a month if we wanted and all that for $15.....its a no-brainer to me.
In addition games that have fully or are partially funded by a cash shop tend to have other issues as well. From my experience, cash shop games have worse communities, more drama, etc... Example A: LOTRO before and after.
Its just the classic argument of people not thinking beyond the tip of their own noce and understanding why someone likes something they do not.
You're either very well off financially, you live with Mommy and Daddy still, or you actually ARE married, but your wife is the one who writes out (or pays online) all the bills every month. Because no one with any amount of common sense or responsibilities in life, would say "$15.00 is NOTHING...." That's just ridiculous. Now, I'm not saying it's a fortune or anything, but to say it's NOTHING proves you don't know much in the way of costs and paying bills. Furthermore, for my family gaming will cost 30-45 dollars a month since there are 3 of us, so it's not a matter of 15 bucks, but a question of priorities and let's see....do we want Showtime or Netflix or gaming? It requires, at least for US.....making a choice.....because 15 dollars IS SOMETHING.
Cocky privileged attitudes just reek, if you ask me. If you're so well to do that 15 dollars is nothing to you, that's fine, but don't make it a declaration for the world as if 15 bucks should be "nothing" to EVERYONE. That's just arrogant and ignorant.
You're kidding me, right? I work a middle-class job and I have many bills. $15 a month is nothing for the value you get out of a decent subscription game.
Well I am happy for you that you're "middle class." *cheers* I said in a later post that I still play ONE pay to play game at a time, but that it requires choosing if we want Netflix, Showtime, or a game sub. I'm glad for you that 15 bucks is so "nothing" you don't have to make decisions like that. If you DO have to make those kinds of decisions, you can't say that 15 bucks is "nothing." Besides, some of us have families and have to pay for more than one account for a game. Are you incapable of putting yourself in someone else's shoes?
Man some people are sure proud about having a lot of money. It really makes you look like a douche when you try to make people that don't have as much money feel bad for it.
I don't know about everyone else but I am paying for some form of civility and seperation from those that demand "free stuff" or think they are "entitled" to everything without paying OR working for it. In other words, playing a video game is NOT a civil right.
You pay a subscription fee so you can feel superior to a straw man you made up in your head? Nice. Let the imaginary people eat cake, huh?
Nobody is talking about playing games for free, or games being some sort of unalienable right. Whether you want to discuss subscription based games or a B2P game like GW2...you are always paying for the box at the very least.
We're talking about value for the player's money, and what the various payment models offer in terms of game design. I might argue that the subscription fee itself creates dramatically more of an entitlement mentality...players believe that they should be catered to individually in every way, and their play style supported exclusively, simply because of their $15 per month payment.
I don't know about everyone else but I am paying for some form of civility and seperation from those that demand "free stuff" or think they are "entitled" to everything without paying OR working for it. In other words, playing a video game is NOT a civil right.
Well judging from your mentality i think in fact pay2win model would fit you a lot better than sub model. I don't think i would need to explain why, would I?
What is it with some posters getting all snarly when they defend the sub model? The '$15 is nothing, you should shut up and pay' posters make no sense. Even though $15/mo is a good bargain as far as I'm concerned, it's still not nothing.
There's actually some anger and lashing out in the wording of a few of these posts, not to mention belittling others for the financial decisions they make. It's disturbing.
It's not like GW2 is going to be free to play but pay to win, if it were, I could at least understand why so many are protective of their sub payment preference, but buy to play is different and could provide a better bargain for gamers over all. So why would anyone object?
I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals.
The thing is, if ANet does produce one of the best MMOs in the space, using the Buy 2 Play model and they live up to their promise not to sell anything in the store that makes anyone more powerful in game, it will shake up the genre considerably.
The game looks to be incredibly innovative, with a bottom up redesign of the MMO concept with the intent of eliminating a lot of the negatives of the defacto design strategies, while maintaining "what works" and providing a fimiliar enough game experience not to be completely foreign to what people expect from an MMORPG.
Everything looks pretty promising, but we won't know for sure just how good the game and it's core design really are until people get a chance to play it.
Which is where we get back to the IF. IF the game does come close to matching the hype and produces ongoing box sales and audience growth, it most definitely will have many players and developers questioning the P2P model.
Unless and until other titles come along to match GW2 execution and value, the B2P model will give GW2 a pretty solid advantage over competitors. It also makes it a perfect game for those who's interest in a title waxes and wanes depending on mood and what ever else they might be playing. With the subscription model, once you reach the point where you decide the game is no longer worth a subscription and cancel, it's pretty hard to go back on a whim. With GW2, once you buy it, you own it and can play it. Whether you get five hours a week or thirty out of the game, there is never the pressure to justify an ongoing expense.
Im not sure where anet will derive their money from this plan (Frequent expansions? Microtransactions?), but rest assured they will get every bit as much money out of the playerbase as any other mmo. If you think its a free show you are mistaken.
LOL. I've been playing GW1 for over 5 years now and haven't spent near as much on that game as I would have if I'd been playing any P2P game in that same time frame. None of the stuff in the GW1 cash shop is necessary to buy, in fact, the only things worth buying are the fluff (if you like that type of thing) and maybe an inventory slot or two (get them on sale....)
In that 5 years, I've spent roughly $180.00 on the games. That includes all three games, the expansion, 2 sets of cosmetic outfits and 2 sets of inventory blocks. I don't need more than 8 characters (which is what the game comes with), and I don't mind actually playing the game to get my character up to par both in PvE and PvP. That's what playing the game is for!
Do you honestly think that I would have spent the same or less than that on, say, WoW, or any other P2P game? No way. I would have spent close to that just to buy the game and expansions. Even a cheap game ($10/month sub) would have me spending $600 in that five years. So don't try to tell me that cash shops are more expensive than a sub fee.
1) My post was not about what Evolver has or hasn't spent in GW1. In other words, it's not about you.
2) You apparently missed - or are ignoring - the entire point of my post.
The entire point of your post was to:
1) Try to show that spending the money on a B2P game was the same as the money you would spend on a sub based game.
2) That somehow, the people who say that there is no justification for a sub for a game are hypocrites because they sell a B2P game with a cash shop.
My point - since you seemed to have missed it - is that there is no compelling reason for anyone to charge a sub fee. The B2P method maybe with a very small cash shop (did you notice how small the GW1 gift shop is compared to other games?) works just fine if a company isn't interested in gouging their customers.
My example was just that, an example. Just to show that you don't have to spend anywhere near the price of a sub fee to play an MMO for a long time.
You want me to pay to play a game I already paid for???
LOL. I've been playing GW1 for over 5 years now and haven't spent near as much on that game as I would have if I'd been playing any P2P game in that same time frame. None of the stuff in the GW1 cash shop is necessary to buy, in fact, the only things worth buying are the fluff (if you like that type of thing) and maybe an inventory slot or two (get them on sale....)
In that 5 years, I've spent roughly $180.00 on the games. That includes all three games, the expansion, 2 sets of cosmetic outfits and 2 sets of inventory blocks. I don't need more than 8 characters (which is what the game comes with), and I don't mind actually playing the game to get my character up to par both in PvE and PvP. That's what playing the game is for!
Do you honestly think that I would have spent the same or less than that on, say, WoW, or any other P2P game? No way. I would have spent close to that just to buy the game and expansions. Even a cheap game ($10/month sub) would have me spending $600 in that five years. So don't try to tell me that cash shops are more expensive than a sub fee.
1) My post was not about what Evolver has or hasn't spent in GW1. In other words, it's not about you.
2) You apparently missed - or are ignoring - the entire point of my post.
The entire point of your post was to:
1) Try to show that spending the money on a B2P game was the same as the money you would spend on a sub based game.
2) That somehow, the people who say that there is no justification for a sub for a game are hypocrites because they sell a B2P game with a cash shop.
My point - since you seemed to have missed it - is that there is no compelling reason for anyone to charge a sub fee. The B2P method maybe with a very small cash shop (did you notice how small the GW1 gift shop is compared to other games?) works just fine if a company isn't interested in gouging their customers.
If anet makes just as much money but in different ways then how is one model considered gouging? Or did you think anet is going to make less money per player?
It's a little to soon for you two to be patting each other on the back. You actually didn't think it out enough.
There is no double standard.
1. A cash shop purchase is not a requirement and a subscription is. Two very different forms of revenue.
It doesn't matter if some spends the average amount of a monthly subscription because it is their choice to. If you would have read his statement without the intent to find fault you would have recognized what he was saying.
Try playing WOW without paying the sub and see what happens. Then play GW and don't buy anything out the cash shop and see what happens.
1. Largely irrelevant, as the issue here is how they make their money. And what they offer in game for the money you've already paid.
Which WOW really is a bad example, many P2P today are. Due to the monetization of them due to people who "want" to and are "willing" to continually pay for more. Or those games which have made the switch to a complete F2P (pay as you go) model.
Which we can look at those games as proof that the cash shop model simply brings in more cash (in all cases revenues have grown), with all the fluff they sell, and the larger demographic they open themselves up to.
What ever happened to the days where you paid for everything with one fee and were able to enjoy whatever you wanted without ever paying extra?
What happened to it is, the false assumption that F2P, B2P and cashops are cheap in the long run. It only is if you want to cut yourself off from half of what the game is supposed to offer.
How is the requirement for a sub vs. the option of the cash shop irrelevant? It's completely relevant to how they make their money! Having a requirement for people to spend money can't be irrelevant to a how a company makes there money.
Explain to me how Guild Wars (since we're talking about Anet vs sub based games here) cuts you off from half the game has to offer if you don't use the cash shop? Like my earlier post, it's demonstrably untrue that you HAVE to use a cash shop, that a cash shop makes a game even more expensive, or that you miss out on the game experience if you don't sub.
The B2P method (with cash shop) and the F2P method (if done correctly - reference LotRO) are both much cheaper in the long run than most if not all sub based games I've come across. If you know of one that's cheaper than $40 per year, please let me know.
You want me to pay to play a game I already paid for???
Im not sure where anet will derive their money from this plan (Frequent expansions? Microtransactions?), but rest assured they will get every bit as much money out of the playerbase as any other mmo. If you think its a free show you are mistaken.
Partially replying to you, partly in general.
Yes, ArenaNet is a business, and businesses exist to make money.
There probably will be frequent expansions, but unlike other games where they're basically a mandatory purchase, GW2's will be voluntary. This benefits the consumer because they don't need to purchase them. It benefits the consumer because the expansions have to be so great that a person will voluntarily purchase them. It benefits the consumer because chances are even with very frequent expansions it'll still be cheaper than a sub (using GW1 as an example, probably like $100 a year vs $180).
Like you say, they are going to get the money out of the playerbase, and the reason they can do that is sales volume. If GW1 was P2P it would be that game nobody remembers that peaked with 100k subs. Instead it's the game with 2-3 million users buying 7 million units. A B2P AAA quality MMO is unprecendented and significantly cheaper than P2P, which means more sales, which means more expansions sold and more microtransactions.
In general though, subs aren't terribly expensive on their own, but that's hardly the point. It's about not having to pay $180 a year to play a game you bought. It's about being able to play multiple games, or have multiple people in the same household without having to pay full retail price every month. It's about not having to find a credit card if you want to play an old game. It's about not having to decide a month in advance whether you want to play. It's about being able to log on for 2 seconds if you want.
It's also about that the subscription really has absolutely no bearing on what you're getting. Trion is trying to hold on to their 500k subs, so the $15 you give them is for new content literally every month. For the $15 you're paying WoW, it's for a dungeon or something every couple months, and they still make you pay for the yearly expansion. And you can be sure WoW isn't going to change what they're offering whether they've got 2 million subs or 12 million subs. Did the extra billion dollars in revenue from those 10 million people get reflected in WoW, or did they just put out their most poorly received expansion and line their pockets?
"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
Has anyone mentioned the annoying pop up add for the CS you see everytime you log in? Not having to see this is enough incentive for me to pay a sub fee. Maybe its just that the pop up reminds me of how something has been added ingame that I need to make a purchase to remedy? In the end I would rather pay for everything up front than have to decide what slick new thing I need to get the most from my game.
Really? This game sucks and Im not having fun? Im going to unsub right now. Thanks for the tip.
To be honest paying a sub fee is like paying a monthly bill for HBO but every time a new season of Game of Thrones comes out you have to pay an additional price ontop of your sub to see it.
LOL. I've been playing GW1 for over 5 years now and haven't spent near as much on that game as I would have if I'd been playing any P2P game in that same time frame. None of the stuff in the GW1 cash shop is necessary to buy, in fact, the only things worth buying are the fluff (if you like that type of thing) and maybe an inventory slot or two (get them on sale....)
In that 5 years, I've spent roughly $180.00 on the games. That includes all three games, the expansion, 2 sets of cosmetic outfits and 2 sets of inventory blocks. I don't need more than 8 characters (which is what the game comes with), and I don't mind actually playing the game to get my character up to par both in PvE and PvP. That's what playing the game is for!
Do you honestly think that I would have spent the same or less than that on, say, WoW, or any other P2P game? No way. I would have spent close to that just to buy the game and expansions. Even a cheap game ($10/month sub) would have me spending $600 in that five years. So don't try to tell me that cash shops are more expensive than a sub fee.
1) My post was not about what Evolver has or hasn't spent in GW1. In other words, it's not about you.
2) You apparently missed - or are ignoring - the entire point of my post.
The entire point of your post was to:
1) Try to show that spending the money on a B2P game was the same as the money you would spend on a sub based game.
2) That somehow, the people who say that there is no justification for a sub for a game are hypocrites because they sell a B2P game with a cash shop.
My point - since you seemed to have missed it - is that there is no compelling reason for anyone to charge a sub fee. The B2P method maybe with a very small cash shop (did you notice how small the GW1 gift shop is compared to other games?) works just fine if a company isn't interested in gouging their customers.
If anet makes just as much money but in different ways then how is one model considered gouging? Or did you think anet is going to make less money per player?
They don't make just as much money as, say WoW, but they probably make just as much as, say LotRo before LotRo went F2P/Hybrid. The difference is this: Anet sold way more boxes than LotRO ever did (something like 6-8 million across all GW titles vs less than 1 million total for LotRO). So, yes, Anet makes less per player than most sub based games. They are a smallish company so they make do with less (innovate instead of just hire more people) than others would. You also have to remember that if not for WoW, GW would be the largest MMO around. That in itself would make them a lot of money.
You want me to pay to play a game I already paid for???
LOL. I've been playing GW1 for over 5 years now and haven't spent near as much on that game as I would have if I'd been playing any P2P game in that same time frame. None of the stuff in the GW1 cash shop is necessary to buy, in fact, the only things worth buying are the fluff (if you like that type of thing) and maybe an inventory slot or two (get them on sale....)
In that 5 years, I've spent roughly $180.00 on the games. That includes all three games, the expansion, 2 sets of cosmetic outfits and 2 sets of inventory blocks. I don't need more than 8 characters (which is what the game comes with), and I don't mind actually playing the game to get my character up to par both in PvE and PvP. That's what playing the game is for!
Do you honestly think that I would have spent the same or less than that on, say, WoW, or any other P2P game? No way. I would have spent close to that just to buy the game and expansions. Even a cheap game ($10/month sub) would have me spending $600 in that five years. So don't try to tell me that cash shops are more expensive than a sub fee.
1) My post was not about what Evolver has or hasn't spent in GW1. In other words, it's not about you.
2) You apparently missed - or are ignoring - the entire point of my post.
The entire point of your post was to:
1) Try to show that spending the money on a B2P game was the same as the money you would spend on a sub based game.
2) That somehow, the people who say that there is no justification for a sub for a game are hypocrites because they sell a B2P game with a cash shop.
My point - since you seemed to have missed it - is that there is no compelling reason for anyone to charge a sub fee. The B2P method maybe with a very small cash shop (did you notice how small the GW1 gift shop is compared to other games?) works just fine if a company isn't interested in gouging their customers.
If anet makes just as much money but in different ways then how is one model considered gouging? Or did you think anet is going to make less money per player?
Because one requires a fee and the other one is based on consumer choice. It really is that simple. If Developers use other creative ways to earn money that provides customers with a choice then it will suceed more so than just requiring your customer to pay a fee to play your game. The gouging comes in because of the requirement. Both are viable models but only one provides value for the consumer.
Im not sure where anet will derive their money from this plan (Frequent expansions? Microtransactions?), but rest assured they will get every bit as much money out of the playerbase as any other mmo. If you think its a free show you are mistaken.
I still play GW1 from time to time. I've been playing it off and on since it was released. I paid for the boxes for the game and the expansions. I did buy a few character slots. However, I haven't paid a penny in a long while and if I were to tally up the total amount I put into the game and divided it by the number of months in which the game saw some play time, the amount per month is miniscule compared to what I put into a typical subscription game.
As others have pointed out, it's not like subscription games are just a subscription, with no box price and paid expansions.
I have pre-ordered SW:TOR. Let's say I really like it and play it for the next two years and buy one expansion during that 24 month period. $60+$60+(24x$15)=$480 That's $20/month over 24 months.
Now, look at GW2. I buy the game and buy two expansions during that 24 months. $60x3=$180. That works out to $7.50/month.
The cash shop will not sell anything that enchances a character's power or accelerates game play. Even in LotRO, which does sell game play enhancing items, I have spent less than $2.50/month on the game since it has gone F2P. I don't expect to pay much more than that on GW2 cash shop purchases over the course of a year. In any event, I'd have to make $300 in OPTIONAL purchases over the course of two years to equal the cost of playing SW:TOR for two years.
Let's look at another scenario that occurs far too often, even for MMORPGs that are pretty good. I buy the game, play for six months before I stop playing enough to justify a monthy fee and cancel.
If I do that with SW:TOR it's $60+(6x$15)=$150 That's $25/month for six months and drop.
GW2? $60/6 = $10/month.
Plus, if I'm ever in the mood to play a little GW2 after six months, I can hop back in at no cost. If I decide to return to SW:TOR, it's $15/month, whether I get a full month's worth out of it or not.
The discussion always has to go back to WoW, if players want to pin down the value of paying a subscription vs. the amount of content that money provides. Knowing that the infrastructure and server costs are minimal, does anyone really think that the $Billions in revenue that WoW has brought in have purchased a reasonable ratio of ongoing development? The ongoing content is minimal and their expansions have taken for ever to produce and offered very little extension to game play vs. the time players have had to wait between expansions.
If massive amounts of monthly revenue actually resulted in massive amounts of developement resources, that resulted in massive amounts of ongoing content creation, sure, I'd be all for subscription fees. It just hasn't happened.
Maybe SW:TOR will break the mold and actually deliver ongoing content creation at a rate that justifies the monthly cost. Other titles, though, have already proven that the monthly fee hasn't bought players of those games a whole heck of a lot.
It is rather cute that you mentioned that some posters are getting snarly about defending their payment options in respect to a MMORPG. I would also like to point out that that underlying derision by those that think that their way is the better option that of B2P or F2P and that those who think otherwise are fools .I guess both sides have a chip.
It is rather cute that you mentioned that some posters are getting snarly about defending their payment options in respect to a MMORPG. I would also like to point out that that underlying derision by those that think that their way is the better option that of B2P or F2P and that those who think otherwise are fools .I guess both sides have a chip.
Well, I can find merits in arguing for a sub, buy to play, and even many free to play models (freemium, anyway). Right now, Buy to Play tickles my fancy, but I'm not going to scream at someone, "You're paying a sub because you're a capitalist pig with too much money and no sense and you're just supporting subs as a way to keep the workers of the world under your fascist thumb!"
Although now that I have said it, I'm quite amused by it. But then, I'm easily amused.
Carry on.
I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals.
LOL. I've been playing GW1 for over 5 years now and haven't spent near as much on that game as I would have if I'd been playing any P2P game in that same time frame. None of the stuff in the GW1 cash shop is necessary to buy, in fact, the only things worth buying are the fluff (if you like that type of thing) and maybe an inventory slot or two (get them on sale....)
In that 5 years, I've spent roughly $180.00 on the games. That includes all three games, the expansion, 2 sets of cosmetic outfits and 2 sets of inventory blocks. I don't need more than 8 characters (which is what the game comes with), and I don't mind actually playing the game to get my character up to par both in PvE and PvP. That's what playing the game is for!
Do you honestly think that I would have spent the same or less than that on, say, WoW, or any other P2P game? No way. I would have spent close to that just to buy the game and expansions. Even a cheap game ($10/month sub) would have me spending $600 in that five years. So don't try to tell me that cash shops are more expensive than a sub fee.
1) My post was not about what Evolver has or hasn't spent in GW1. In other words, it's not about you.
2) You apparently missed - or are ignoring - the entire point of my post.
The entire point of your post was to:
1) Try to show that spending the money on a B2P game was the same as the money you would spend on a sub based game.
2) That somehow, the people who say that there is no justification for a sub for a game are hypocrites because they sell a B2P game with a cash shop.
My point - since you seemed to have missed it - is that there is no compelling reason for anyone to charge a sub fee. The B2P method maybe with a very small cash shop (did you notice how small the GW1 gift shop is compared to other games?) works just fine if a company isn't interested in gouging their customers.
If anet makes just as much money but in different ways then how is one model considered gouging? Or did you think anet is going to make less money per player?
They don't make just as much money as, say WoW, but they probably make just as much as, say LotRo before LotRo went F2P/Hybrid. The difference is this: Anet sold way more boxes than LotRO ever did (something like 6-8 million across all GW titles vs less than 1 million total for LotRO). So, yes, Anet makes less per player than most sub based games. They are a smallish company so they make do with less (innovate instead of just hire more people) than others would. You also have to remember that if not for WoW, GW would be the largest MMO around. That in itself would make them a lot of money.
It's not 6-8 million, it's 6 million. And the majority of those bought the game at a huge discount. I paid 7 bucks on Amazon and got free shipping. The game sucked and was uninstalled quickly.
GW2 looks very promising, I hope that it's a fun game, and I hope that it's worth the 50 bucks. I really, really wish, however, that there was enough quality/quantity of content to make it worth a sub fee. That doesn't mean it won't be a good value, but iIt clearly isn't worth the fee, or NCSoft would be charging it.
LOL. I've been playing GW1 for over 5 years now and haven't spent near as much on that game as I would have if I'd been playing any P2P game in that same time frame. None of the stuff in the GW1 cash shop is necessary to buy, in fact, the only things worth buying are the fluff (if you like that type of thing) and maybe an inventory slot or two (get them on sale....)
In that 5 years, I've spent roughly $180.00 on the games. That includes all three games, the expansion, 2 sets of cosmetic outfits and 2 sets of inventory blocks. I don't need more than 8 characters (which is what the game comes with), and I don't mind actually playing the game to get my character up to par both in PvE and PvP. That's what playing the game is for!
Do you honestly think that I would have spent the same or less than that on, say, WoW, or any other P2P game? No way. I would have spent close to that just to buy the game and expansions. Even a cheap game ($10/month sub) would have me spending $600 in that five years. So don't try to tell me that cash shops are more expensive than a sub fee.
1) My post was not about what Evolver has or hasn't spent in GW1. In other words, it's not about you.
2) You apparently missed - or are ignoring - the entire point of my post.
The entire point of your post was to:
1) Try to show that spending the money on a B2P game was the same as the money you would spend on a sub based game.
2) That somehow, the people who say that there is no justification for a sub for a game are hypocrites because they sell a B2P game with a cash shop.
My point - since you seemed to have missed it - is that there is no compelling reason for anyone to charge a sub fee. The B2P method maybe with a very small cash shop (did you notice how small the GW1 gift shop is compared to other games?) works just fine if a company isn't interested in gouging their customers.
If anet makes just as much money but in different ways then how is one model considered gouging? Or did you think anet is going to make less money per player?
They don't make just as much money as, say WoW, but they probably make just as much as, say LotRo before LotRo went F2P/Hybrid. The difference is this: Anet sold way more boxes than LotRO ever did (something like 6-8 million across all GW titles vs less than 1 million total for LotRO). So, yes, Anet makes less per player than most sub based games. They are a smallish company so they make do with less (innovate instead of just hire more people) than others would. You also have to remember that if not for WoW, GW would be the largest MMO around. That in itself would make them a lot of money.
It's not 6-8 million, it's 6 million. And the majority of those bought the game at a huge discount. I paid 7 bucks on Amazon and got free shipping. The game sucked and was uninstalled quickly.
GW2 looks very promising, I hope that it's a fun game, and I hope that it's worth the 50 bucks. I really, really wish, however, that there was enough quality/quantity of content to make it worth a sub fee. That doesn't mean it won't be a good value, but iIt clearly isn't worth the fee, or NCSoft would be charging it.
You apparently have no idea what the ideals and values of Anet are. They purposely make games that require no sub fee and if you do even a short search you will find that Guild Wars is considered by many in the industry - critics and gamers alike - to be one of the best games out there, period.
Or you're just trolling....yep, that seems a more likely idea...and I just fell off your bridge.
You want me to pay to play a game I already paid for???
LOL. I've been playing GW1 for over 5 years now and haven't spent near as much on that game as I would have if I'd been playing any P2P game in that same time frame. None of the stuff in the GW1 cash shop is necessary to buy, in fact, the only things worth buying are the fluff (if you like that type of thing) and maybe an inventory slot or two (get them on sale....)
In that 5 years, I've spent roughly $180.00 on the games. That includes all three games, the expansion, 2 sets of cosmetic outfits and 2 sets of inventory blocks. I don't need more than 8 characters (which is what the game comes with), and I don't mind actually playing the game to get my character up to par both in PvE and PvP. That's what playing the game is for!
Do you honestly think that I would have spent the same or less than that on, say, WoW, or any other P2P game? No way. I would have spent close to that just to buy the game and expansions. Even a cheap game ($10/month sub) would have me spending $600 in that five years. So don't try to tell me that cash shops are more expensive than a sub fee.
1) My post was not about what Evolver has or hasn't spent in GW1. In other words, it's not about you.
2) You apparently missed - or are ignoring - the entire point of my post.
The entire point of your post was to:
1) Try to show that spending the money on a B2P game was the same as the money you would spend on a sub based game.
2) That somehow, the people who say that there is no justification for a sub for a game are hypocrites because they sell a B2P game with a cash shop.
My point - since you seemed to have missed it - is that there is no compelling reason for anyone to charge a sub fee. The B2P method maybe with a very small cash shop (did you notice how small the GW1 gift shop is compared to other games?) works just fine if a company isn't interested in gouging their customers.
If anet makes just as much money but in different ways then how is one model considered gouging? Or did you think anet is going to make less money per player?
They don't make just as much money as, say WoW, but they probably make just as much as, say LotRo before LotRo went F2P/Hybrid. The difference is this: Anet sold way more boxes than LotRO ever did (something like 6-8 million across all GW titles vs less than 1 million total for LotRO). So, yes, Anet makes less per player than most sub based games. They are a smallish company so they make do with less (innovate instead of just hire more people) than others would. You also have to remember that if not for WoW, GW would be the largest MMO around. That in itself would make them a lot of money.
It's not 6-8 million, it's 6 million. And the majority of those bought the game at a huge discount. I paid 7 bucks on Amazon and got free shipping. The game sucked and was uninstalled quickly.
GW2 looks very promising, I hope that it's a fun game, and I hope that it's worth the 50 bucks. I really, really wish, however, that there was enough quality/quantity of content to make it worth a sub fee. That doesn't mean it won't be a good value, but iIt clearly isn't worth the fee, or NCSoft would be charging it.
You apparently have no idea what the ideals and values of Anet are. They purposely make games that require no sub fee and if you do even a short search you will find that Guild Wars is considered by many in the industry - critics and gamers alike - to be one of the best games out there, period.
Or you're just trolling....yep, that seems a more likely idea...and I just fell off your bridge.
You apparantly have no idea that your precious Anet are a wholly owned subsidiary of NCSoft. NCSoft will demand the same return on investment from this division as the division that produced Aion. That means either their going to make shitloads of money off of an unholy cash shop, or they simply aren't going to be putting as much money into the developement.
The ideals and values of Anet are to make as much money as possible so they can keep their jobs, period. If you really believe otherwise, that's truly sad.
I love how every time a discussion of GW2's payment model gets started, one side always turns into a comparison between subscription-based games and free-to-play games. GW2 is neither of those. If you want to argue against GW2's payment model, you should probably understand what it is first.
GW2 is not a F2P game. You buy the box and you buy the expansions.
Subscription-based games still require you to buy the box and buy the expansions...it IS NOT just $15 a month for a subscription-based game. People seem to forget this when they are making the "$15 is super cheap" arguments.
GW2's cash shop will have only cosmetic items available which provide no in-game advantage or lift one character above another in any way. This has always been ArenaNet's philosophy, and there's no reason they would change it now.
Based on what I've heard, it appears that most, if not all, of the cash shop items will be available to earn in-game. The only "exclusive" cash shop items will be account services like name changes or extra character slots. This is not unlike many other P2P MMORPGs.
Those who refuse to try a GW2 simply because it has no monthly fee are only hurting themselves. They'll end up playing once their friends and family let them in on the secret...GW2 is actually going to be a better game, with more available content, and with a much better community, than whatever P2P games people have played in many years. The payment model doesn't make the community, the game mechanics, systems, and world do.
It's a B2P game with a cash shop, cosmetitc or not, needed or not it is still a cash shop. Which means it will be more expensive than many F2P games - not that the cost is a lot or even particularly relevant.
GW1 let you buy skills for pvp;
I agree. I love GW but lets not pretend it's business model is anything more then standard 'F2P' with a box cost attached.
I personally have no idea why folks proclaim 'B2P' as mana from heaven and superior to 'F2P'. It is just the same.
A huge difference here is that the F2P games have monetary "walls" in the way... you can't advance to this or that zone or content without forking out cash. This is something GW2 won't have... you'll have full access to all content with the purchase of the game. There's no pay-to-win in GW2 either... no items bought that make you more powerful or advance you. Cosmetic only.
This B2P model is markedly different than the generic F2P model out there.
FULL access to ALL content (and, yes, Fluff IS content) that is EARNABLE by PLAYING the game (in theory).
This.
And as I'm fond of saying, the average MMO monthly sub is $15.00
That's fifty cents per day.
If you can't afford that, stop playing so many games and get a job.
This.
$15.00 is NOTHING and if you cannot afford it, go get a damn job and stop gaming. Its simple as that.
I cannot even buy myself a decent dinner for $15. My wife and I can play an MMO for 30 days for the cost of $1 per day. The last time we went to dinner and a movie (3-4 hours worth of entertainment), we spent over $80. The last nice dinner we had was over $90! But she and I can have unlimited access to ALL content in a game, realistically play for well over 100+ hours a month if we wanted and all that for $15.....its a no-brainer to me.
In addition games that have fully or are partially funded by a cash shop tend to have other issues as well. From my experience, cash shop games have worse communities, more drama, etc... Example A: LOTRO before and after.
Its just the classic argument of people not thinking beyond the tip of their own noce and understanding why someone likes something they do not.
You're either very well off financially, you live with Mommy and Daddy still, or you actually ARE married, but your wife is the one who writes out (or pays online) all the bills every month. Because no one with any amount of common sense or responsibilities in life, would say "$15.00 is NOTHING...." That's just ridiculous. Now, I'm not saying it's a fortune or anything, but to say it's NOTHING proves you don't know much in the way of costs and paying bills. Furthermore, for my family gaming will cost 30-45 dollars a month since there are 3 of us, so it's not a matter of 15 bucks, but a question of priorities and let's see....do we want Showtime or Netflix or gaming? It requires, at least for US.....making a choice.....because 15 dollars IS SOMETHING.
Cocky privileged attitudes just reek, if you ask me. If you're so well to do that 15 dollars is nothing to you, that's fine, but don't make it a declaration for the world as if 15 bucks should be "nothing" to EVERYONE. That's just arrogant and ignorant.
Edit: You missed my point entirely. Compared to other forms of entertainment (dinner, movies, etc....), paying $15 a month for an MMO is dirt cheap. Sure $15 is still money but its a lot, LOT cheaper than most alternatives.
Gamers who play games with cash shops statistically pay MORE per month for their games than gamers do who pay a sub fee. So accordingly, $15 is nothing and I guarantee the average gamer will spend more than $15 a month on Guild Wars 2due to the cash shop and frequency of expansions that they will have to release to make a profit.
Just a comment on the highlighted part. It has been shown over and over and over again on this very site with mutlple links to multple sources that what you stated is categorically wrong. 80-90% of those playing F2P games never spend a single cent while of those that do only about 10% actually spend any significant amount of money.
Venge
However I agree MMO's are very cheap, howeve that still doesn't mean they are worth it.
Well I heard that 90% of all 10% of people who play 72% of the F2P games only pay 5% of their gross annual income on 27% of the cute hats available on the cash shop 16% of the time.
Comments
Can't argue with that, it would be nice to not have to commit to playing as much as you do with a sub based MMO, while at the same time really enjoying the experience.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
I don't know about everyone else but I am paying for some form of civility and seperation from those that demand "free stuff" or think they are "entitled" to everything without paying OR working for it. In other words, playing a video game is NOT a civil right.
Let's party like it is 1863!
Well I am happy for you that you're "middle class." *cheers* I said in a later post that I still play ONE pay to play game at a time, but that it requires choosing if we want Netflix, Showtime, or a game sub. I'm glad for you that 15 bucks is so "nothing" you don't have to make decisions like that. If you DO have to make those kinds of decisions, you can't say that 15 bucks is "nothing." Besides, some of us have families and have to pay for more than one account for a game. Are you incapable of putting yourself in someone else's shoes?
Man some people are sure proud about having a lot of money. It really makes you look like a douche when you try to make people that don't have as much money feel bad for it.
President of The Marvelously Meowhead Fan Club
You pay a subscription fee so you can feel superior to a straw man you made up in your head? Nice. Let the imaginary people eat cake, huh?
Nobody is talking about playing games for free, or games being some sort of unalienable right. Whether you want to discuss subscription based games or a B2P game like GW2...you are always paying for the box at the very least.
We're talking about value for the player's money, and what the various payment models offer in terms of game design. I might argue that the subscription fee itself creates dramatically more of an entitlement mentality...players believe that they should be catered to individually in every way, and their play style supported exclusively, simply because of their $15 per month payment.
Well judging from your mentality i think in fact pay2win model would fit you a lot better than sub model. I don't think i would need to explain why, would I?
What is it with some posters getting all snarly when they defend the sub model? The '$15 is nothing, you should shut up and pay' posters make no sense. Even though $15/mo is a good bargain as far as I'm concerned, it's still not nothing.
There's actually some anger and lashing out in the wording of a few of these posts, not to mention belittling others for the financial decisions they make. It's disturbing.
It's not like GW2 is going to be free to play but pay to win, if it were, I could at least understand why so many are protective of their sub payment preference, but buy to play is different and could provide a better bargain for gamers over all. So why would anyone object?
I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals.
~Albert Einstein
The thing is, if ANet does produce one of the best MMOs in the space, using the Buy 2 Play model and they live up to their promise not to sell anything in the store that makes anyone more powerful in game, it will shake up the genre considerably.
The game looks to be incredibly innovative, with a bottom up redesign of the MMO concept with the intent of eliminating a lot of the negatives of the defacto design strategies, while maintaining "what works" and providing a fimiliar enough game experience not to be completely foreign to what people expect from an MMORPG.
Everything looks pretty promising, but we won't know for sure just how good the game and it's core design really are until people get a chance to play it.
Which is where we get back to the IF. IF the game does come close to matching the hype and produces ongoing box sales and audience growth, it most definitely will have many players and developers questioning the P2P model.
Unless and until other titles come along to match GW2 execution and value, the B2P model will give GW2 a pretty solid advantage over competitors. It also makes it a perfect game for those who's interest in a title waxes and wanes depending on mood and what ever else they might be playing. With the subscription model, once you reach the point where you decide the game is no longer worth a subscription and cancel, it's pretty hard to go back on a whim. With GW2, once you buy it, you own it and can play it. Whether you get five hours a week or thirty out of the game, there is never the pressure to justify an ongoing expense.
Want to know more about GW2 and why there is so much buzz? Start here: Guild Wars 2 Mass Info for the Uninitiated
Im not sure where anet will derive their money from this plan (Frequent expansions? Microtransactions?), but rest assured they will get every bit as much money out of the playerbase as any other mmo. If you think its a free show you are mistaken.
The entire point of your post was to:
1) Try to show that spending the money on a B2P game was the same as the money you would spend on a sub based game.
2) That somehow, the people who say that there is no justification for a sub for a game are hypocrites because they sell a B2P game with a cash shop.
My point - since you seemed to have missed it - is that there is no compelling reason for anyone to charge a sub fee. The B2P method maybe with a very small cash shop (did you notice how small the GW1 gift shop is compared to other games?) works just fine if a company isn't interested in gouging their customers.
My example was just that, an example. Just to show that you don't have to spend anywhere near the price of a sub fee to play an MMO for a long time.
You want me to pay to play a game I already paid for???
Be afraid.....The dragons are HERE!
If anet makes just as much money but in different ways then how is one model considered gouging? Or did you think anet is going to make less money per player?
How is the requirement for a sub vs. the option of the cash shop irrelevant? It's completely relevant to how they make their money! Having a requirement for people to spend money can't be irrelevant to a how a company makes there money.
Explain to me how Guild Wars (since we're talking about Anet vs sub based games here) cuts you off from half the game has to offer if you don't use the cash shop? Like my earlier post, it's demonstrably untrue that you HAVE to use a cash shop, that a cash shop makes a game even more expensive, or that you miss out on the game experience if you don't sub.
The B2P method (with cash shop) and the F2P method (if done correctly - reference LotRO) are both much cheaper in the long run than most if not all sub based games I've come across. If you know of one that's cheaper than $40 per year, please let me know.
You want me to pay to play a game I already paid for???
Be afraid.....The dragons are HERE!
Partially replying to you, partly in general.
Yes, ArenaNet is a business, and businesses exist to make money.
There probably will be frequent expansions, but unlike other games where they're basically a mandatory purchase, GW2's will be voluntary. This benefits the consumer because they don't need to purchase them. It benefits the consumer because the expansions have to be so great that a person will voluntarily purchase them. It benefits the consumer because chances are even with very frequent expansions it'll still be cheaper than a sub (using GW1 as an example, probably like $100 a year vs $180).
Like you say, they are going to get the money out of the playerbase, and the reason they can do that is sales volume. If GW1 was P2P it would be that game nobody remembers that peaked with 100k subs. Instead it's the game with 2-3 million users buying 7 million units. A B2P AAA quality MMO is unprecendented and significantly cheaper than P2P, which means more sales, which means more expansions sold and more microtransactions.
In general though, subs aren't terribly expensive on their own, but that's hardly the point. It's about not having to pay $180 a year to play a game you bought. It's about being able to play multiple games, or have multiple people in the same household without having to pay full retail price every month. It's about not having to find a credit card if you want to play an old game. It's about not having to decide a month in advance whether you want to play. It's about being able to log on for 2 seconds if you want.
It's also about that the subscription really has absolutely no bearing on what you're getting. Trion is trying to hold on to their 500k subs, so the $15 you give them is for new content literally every month. For the $15 you're paying WoW, it's for a dungeon or something every couple months, and they still make you pay for the yearly expansion. And you can be sure WoW isn't going to change what they're offering whether they've got 2 million subs or 12 million subs. Did the extra billion dollars in revenue from those 10 million people get reflected in WoW, or did they just put out their most poorly received expansion and line their pockets?
"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
Has anyone mentioned the annoying pop up add for the CS you see everytime you log in? Not having to see this is enough incentive for me to pay a sub fee. Maybe its just that the pop up reminds me of how something has been added ingame that I need to make a purchase to remedy? In the end I would rather pay for everything up front than have to decide what slick new thing I need to get the most from my game.
Really? This game sucks and Im not having fun? Im going to unsub right now. Thanks for the tip.
Lets not forget what the options are.
Free to Play + Pay to win Cash Shop
Buy to Play + Fluff Cash Shop
Pay to Play + Fluff Cash Shop
To be honest paying a sub fee is like paying a monthly bill for HBO but every time a new season of Game of Thrones comes out you have to pay an additional price ontop of your sub to see it.
My theme song.
They don't make just as much money as, say WoW, but they probably make just as much as, say LotRo before LotRo went F2P/Hybrid. The difference is this: Anet sold way more boxes than LotRO ever did (something like 6-8 million across all GW titles vs less than 1 million total for LotRO). So, yes, Anet makes less per player than most sub based games. They are a smallish company so they make do with less (innovate instead of just hire more people) than others would. You also have to remember that if not for WoW, GW would be the largest MMO around. That in itself would make them a lot of money.
You want me to pay to play a game I already paid for???
Be afraid.....The dragons are HERE!
Because one requires a fee and the other one is based on consumer choice. It really is that simple. If Developers use other creative ways to earn money that provides customers with a choice then it will suceed more so than just requiring your customer to pay a fee to play your game. The gouging comes in because of the requirement. Both are viable models but only one provides value for the consumer.
I still play GW1 from time to time. I've been playing it off and on since it was released. I paid for the boxes for the game and the expansions. I did buy a few character slots. However, I haven't paid a penny in a long while and if I were to tally up the total amount I put into the game and divided it by the number of months in which the game saw some play time, the amount per month is miniscule compared to what I put into a typical subscription game.
As others have pointed out, it's not like subscription games are just a subscription, with no box price and paid expansions.
I have pre-ordered SW:TOR. Let's say I really like it and play it for the next two years and buy one expansion during that 24 month period. $60+$60+(24x$15)=$480 That's $20/month over 24 months.
Now, look at GW2. I buy the game and buy two expansions during that 24 months. $60x3=$180. That works out to $7.50/month.
The cash shop will not sell anything that enchances a character's power or accelerates game play. Even in LotRO, which does sell game play enhancing items, I have spent less than $2.50/month on the game since it has gone F2P. I don't expect to pay much more than that on GW2 cash shop purchases over the course of a year. In any event, I'd have to make $300 in OPTIONAL purchases over the course of two years to equal the cost of playing SW:TOR for two years.
Let's look at another scenario that occurs far too often, even for MMORPGs that are pretty good. I buy the game, play for six months before I stop playing enough to justify a monthy fee and cancel.
If I do that with SW:TOR it's $60+(6x$15)=$150 That's $25/month for six months and drop.
GW2? $60/6 = $10/month.
Plus, if I'm ever in the mood to play a little GW2 after six months, I can hop back in at no cost. If I decide to return to SW:TOR, it's $15/month, whether I get a full month's worth out of it or not.
The discussion always has to go back to WoW, if players want to pin down the value of paying a subscription vs. the amount of content that money provides. Knowing that the infrastructure and server costs are minimal, does anyone really think that the $Billions in revenue that WoW has brought in have purchased a reasonable ratio of ongoing development? The ongoing content is minimal and their expansions have taken for ever to produce and offered very little extension to game play vs. the time players have had to wait between expansions.
If massive amounts of monthly revenue actually resulted in massive amounts of developement resources, that resulted in massive amounts of ongoing content creation, sure, I'd be all for subscription fees. It just hasn't happened.
Maybe SW:TOR will break the mold and actually deliver ongoing content creation at a rate that justifies the monthly cost. Other titles, though, have already proven that the monthly fee hasn't bought players of those games a whole heck of a lot.
Want to know more about GW2 and why there is so much buzz? Start here: Guild Wars 2 Mass Info for the Uninitiated
It is rather cute that you mentioned that some posters are getting snarly about defending their payment options in respect to a MMORPG. I would also like to point out that that underlying derision by those that think that their way is the better option that of B2P or F2P and that those who think otherwise are fools .I guess both sides have a chip.
Well, I can find merits in arguing for a sub, buy to play, and even many free to play models (freemium, anyway). Right now, Buy to Play tickles my fancy, but I'm not going to scream at someone, "You're paying a sub because you're a capitalist pig with too much money and no sense and you're just supporting subs as a way to keep the workers of the world under your fascist thumb!"
Although now that I have said it, I'm quite amused by it. But then, I'm easily amused.
Carry on.
I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals.
~Albert Einstein
It's not 6-8 million, it's 6 million. And the majority of those bought the game at a huge discount. I paid 7 bucks on Amazon and got free shipping. The game sucked and was uninstalled quickly.
GW2 looks very promising, I hope that it's a fun game, and I hope that it's worth the 50 bucks. I really, really wish, however, that there was enough quality/quantity of content to make it worth a sub fee. That doesn't mean it won't be a good value, but iIt clearly isn't worth the fee, or NCSoft would be charging it.
You apparently have no idea what the ideals and values of Anet are. They purposely make games that require no sub fee and if you do even a short search you will find that Guild Wars is considered by many in the industry - critics and gamers alike - to be one of the best games out there, period.
Or you're just trolling....yep, that seems a more likely idea...and I just fell off your bridge.
You want me to pay to play a game I already paid for???
Be afraid.....The dragons are HERE!
You apparantly have no idea that your precious Anet are a wholly owned subsidiary of NCSoft. NCSoft will demand the same return on investment from this division as the division that produced Aion. That means either their going to make shitloads of money off of an unholy cash shop, or they simply aren't going to be putting as much money into the developement.
The ideals and values of Anet are to make as much money as possible so they can keep their jobs, period. If you really believe otherwise, that's truly sad.
DAoC is amazing
A huge difference here is that the F2P games have monetary "walls" in the way... you can't advance to this or that zone or content without forking out cash. This is something GW2 won't have... you'll have full access to all content with the purchase of the game. There's no pay-to-win in GW2 either... no items bought that make you more powerful or advance you. Cosmetic only.
This B2P model is markedly different than the generic F2P model out there.
Oderint, dum metuant.
Well I heard that 90% of all 10% of people who play 72% of the F2P games only pay 5% of their gross annual income on 27% of the cute hats available on the cash shop 16% of the time.