Like other have said, pricing has nothing to do with the quality of the game.
If it was a B2P game, It would certainly say it's worth the money in terms of how many hours of gameplay it offers, but I would still say it's not worth the money in terms of gameplay quality...
Quests are a boring grind, and while the story is fairly good for most classes, some feel lacking, namely the Trooper because of it's generic dialogue responses of "Yes, Sir.", "Sounds like you need a soldier.", and "How can I help?".
There are many other features or lack of them which prompted me to cancel my subscription, but people should make up their own mind about the game, but I really feel people need to stop investing in these grind games, so the developers start making games that people will play for fun, not as a second job.
"The problem with quotes from the Internet is that it's almost impossible to validate their authenticity." - Abraham Lincoln
Basically, a CORPG (perhaps with some next-gen features for a CORPG), with paid DLCs sold on BioWare's site periodically as well as boxed expansions now and then?
I am a detractor and critic of this game and I would definitely receieve it better if that were the case.
The benefits of this model would include:
- no sub (duh)
- less pressure on developers to attain the same functionality of modern, state-of-the-art themeparks (that SWTOR clearly missing at this point)
- mod support from the talented modder crowd BW games seem to have: would include character customization mods, UI mods, etc
- DLCs that I choose to buy or not buy to improve my own game experience
- have a legitimate reason for things that are otherwise shoddy in an MMO (poor atmosphere for example)
So what do you think, critics?
really since when DLC are a thing we should hope or want for? in the end you pay more for less....
and don't see much change like now, most of people are quiting now because they run all the content, a MMO who should let us create our own history and let us make a name for ourselfs in the game, is like a SP with a multiplayer on it, you have everyone on the same class most same look, same pets, and same gameplay used for over 10 years now. only way now to save it is change most of the core gameplay
No... I like the game as it is now.. F2P woudl only cause a lot of clogged servers and drive up server costs, cutting deeply in to development budgets... Also all and every update would go taking a big NOM out of my wallet since that is the onlöy way to make money for a game like that.
Would it have had more people playing past 1:st month... Most likley but in all honesty bejeweld blits have more players.. does not make it a better game. Simply every one likes cheap or free stuff.
Basically, a CORPG (perhaps with some next-gen features for a CORPG), with paid DLCs sold on BioWare's site periodically as well as boxed expansions now and then?
I am a detractor and critic of this game and I would definitely receieve it better if that were the case.
The benefits of this model would include:
- no sub (duh)
- less pressure on developers to attain the same functionality of modern, state-of-the-art themeparks (that SWTOR clearly missing at this point)
- mod support from the talented modder crowd BW games seem to have: would include character customization mods, UI mods, etc
- DLCs that I choose to buy or not buy to improve my own game experience
- have a legitimate reason for things that are otherwise shoddy in an MMO (poor atmosphere for example)
So what do you think, critics?
Short answer : yes.
Not because I prefer B2P model (I think I prefer P2P) but because Swtor FEEL like CORPG game and not like MMORPG game.
If Swtor would be fully-featured not so instanced & focused on small group & single player content then I think it would be received much better.
So :
fully featured , (no open world instancing, feeling of 'living breathing world' , truly massive feeling ,etc ) mmorpg = P2P is justified and then it is good model
game like GW1, DDO or SWTOR = best model B2P.
f2p, freemium - don't like them anymore (played in past) and I skip those games.
Definetely yes. I have said all along that the game is worth the initial cost but not the sub-fee. For example I have already clocked more hours into this game than Mass Effect 2 so it is well worth the purchase cost.
However I just cant justify the sub-fee. There simply are not that many interesting MMORPG features to warrant that.
They couldn't build this game as a B2P. The budget is too big.
They could've if they had done it to console platforms also.
But PC only, you're right. There wouldn't have been enought buyers to make profit.
Well imo they made mistake with making game with limited mmorpg features , a game that imo resembles CORPG game but invested ALOT of money on voice overs to it.
If they would made Voice Overs / cutscenes only on class-quests (as they are very costly) and not do cinematic movies then maybe it would be viable as B2P?
They couldn't build this game as a B2P. The budget is too big.
They could've if they had done it to console platforms also.
But PC only, you're right. There wouldn't have been enought buyers to make profit.
Well imo they made mistake with making game with limited mmorpg features , a game that imo resembles CORPG game but invested ALOT of money on voice overs to it.
If they would made Voice Overs / cutscenes only on class-quests (as they are very costly) and not do cinematic movies then maybe it would be viable as B2P?
That's the point zymurgeist meant, I think.
Full VO raises the budget so high, it must have a cashflow after initial buy (and to cover server upkeep and stuff).
The game has nothing that would be impossible on consoles, and console players are roughly 85% of any new games. That would've made B2P possible.
Answer is yes. I would probably go and try to get the cheapest key from some shady RMT page today, jump in every now and then to hit some mobs with a glowing stick.
But as it is now, EA/Bioware's scheme is easy to see through. Release a SP/CORPG and count on the big companies and big name IP behind it to get people to sub. They probably thought this game would run on it's own -or have enough momentum from Kotor's reputation and the clone wars cartoon series.
This game offers absolutely no MMO-value to speak of for me to actually pay to play (monthly).
They couldn't build this game as a B2P. The budget is too big.
They could've if they had done it to console platforms also.
But PC only, you're right. There wouldn't have been enought buyers to make profit.
Well imo they made mistake with making game with limited mmorpg features , a game that imo resembles CORPG game but invested ALOT of money on voice overs to it.
If they would made Voice Overs / cutscenes only on class-quests (as they are very costly) and not do cinematic movies then maybe it would be viable as B2P?
That's the point zymurgeist meant, I think.
Full VO raises the budget so high, it must have a cashflow after initial buy (and to cover server upkeep and stuff).
The game has nothing that would be impossible on consoles, and console players are roughly 85% of any new games. That would've made B2P possible.
Well yes with one correction.
Actually in last few years trend change a bit with game sales. PC game sales are rising faster than console ones in last years due to sites like Steam , GoG, electronic sales on Amazon, D2D ,etc
So it is not 85% anymore. Well maybe in US itself where consoles have very strong position, but definately not world-wide or NA+ EMEAA+Russia.
Remember sales shown on vgchartz only count retail sales, it does not show ANY digital distribution (which is more priftable than retail) and does not show retail sales from Central Europe and Eastern Europe/ Russa, Australia and other coutnries. Only NA and part of EU retail sales and sometimes Japan.
My next big failure seems to be GW2, which in total offers 40+ hours of content.
Yeah, because you've obviously explored all the content. That has to be the most one-sided, ignorant statement I've seen in a while from the SW camp.
Also, I might have received the game better, or at least differently, if it were B2P, because I have a lot against subscription games, especially new ones that hardly have the content to justify the price. As it stands though, I can already see that the game was what I expected it would be, and won't be playing more than a few months at most. In the end it's all the same, but there's a small chance I might have kept playing if the game didn't become a useless hunk of plastic once I stopped feeding the EA machine. If you mean ratings, I'd still give the game a 7.0 or 7.5, regardless of pricing model.
Basically, a CORPG (perhaps with some next-gen features for a CORPG), with paid DLCs sold on BioWare's site periodically as well as boxed expansions now and then?
I am a detractor and critic of this game and I would definitely receieve it better if that were the case.
The benefits of this model would include:
- no sub (duh)
- less pressure on developers to attain the same functionality of modern, state-of-the-art themeparks (that SWTOR clearly missing at this point)
- mod support from the talented modder crowd BW games seem to have: would include character customization mods, UI mods, etc
- DLCs that I choose to buy or not buy to improve my own game experience
- have a legitimate reason for things that are otherwise shoddy in an MMO (poor atmosphere for example)
So what do you think, critics?
Well...not everything you mentioned is characteristic of GW as Rizel mentions...
BUT.
I would have definitely received this game better as a CORPG. If I've ever played an MMORPG that just really wants to be a CORPG, this is it.
It's actually funny because GW1 basically recognized that it would be very difficult to combine a full-fledged MMORPG with an SPRPG-esque story, so they created the CORPG model to accomplish this task. Not an MMORPG. Not an SPRPG. Somewhere in-between. And it worked! This was in 2004 btw...
But now, in 2012, we have MMORPGs that just can't grasp the concept that GW grasped way back then. They just keep pushing closer and closer to the CORPG realm without actually just taking the leap and becoming a CORPG.
SWTOR kind of reminds me of that movie "Twins." The CORPG portion of the movie is Arnold Schwarzenegger. Strong, good looking, exciting. While the MMORPG portion is...Danny Devito.
Totally agree. SW:TOR's heavy emphasis on story just BEGS for it to be a GW1 style corpg. Imo it would have been a much much better game that way.
If they really wanted to copy a succesful model, why the hell did it have to be WoW?!
Oh, then they wouldn't be able to charge subs on top of the box price. How silly of me. Greedy little pig is very greedy.
The most "MMO" game, GW2, will be BTP and the less MMO game, SWTOR, is BTP + sub. Doesn't make sense.
Been saying that all along. GW2 is built with much more persistent, emergent behavior mmo features while SW:TOR is more of a "story" game.
With that in mind, imo GW2 would make much more money with P2P model and SW:TOR with B2P+DLC. I have no idea what those devs were thinking... but I don't mind. As a player I'll profit with GW2's no-sub revolution.
P2P model has been the rule for AAA MMORPG's at their launch for years now, not the exception. In fact, GW and GW2 are the exception, and since GW2 hasn't arrived yet, we'll still have to see how that goes, if it won't go too far into the cash shop or other sneaky revenue models direction - I don't expect it, but let's be honest, people have been praising and idolizing a lot of MMO's before their actual launch for years now, how fans are talking about GW2 is no different in that. Wait and see till those games actually are released is the better approach, imo.
P2P model has been the rule for AAA MMORPG's at their launch for years now, not the exception. In fact, GW and GW2 are the exception, and since GW2 hasn't arrived yet, we'll still have to see how that goes, if it won't go too far into the cash shop or other sneaky revenue models direction - I don't expect it, but let's be honest, people have been praising and idolizing a lot of MMO's before their actual launch for years now, how fans are talking about GW2 is no different in that. Wait and see till those games actually are released is the better approach, imo.
Actually, it is different than that for a few key reasons.
1.) ANet is completely open about the game and will tell you pretty much anything you want to know, barring the full release date.
2.) They have the history of B2P models with options for superficial cash shop items.
As for AAA MMO's being P2P by default, what good has really come from it? It hasn't increased quality by leaps and bounds over past MMO's, yet GW2, a B2P game, is already being hailed as a spectacular game by fans who have had seat time on it at shows. It honestly makes P2P companies look embarrassing that they can't do the same with huge budgets and monthly sub dollars lining their pockets.
Definetely yes. I have said all along that the game is worth the initial cost but not the sub-fee. For example I have already clocked more hours into this game than Mass Effect 2 so it is well worth the purchase cost.
However I just cant justify the sub-fee. There simply are not that many interesting MMORPG features to warrant that.
I agree. It seems the recent trend for MMORPG's due to their themepark/single player style game play is to enjoy them until you finish the current level of content and then stop until the next expansion, which means its really perfect for a B2P payment model.
Perhaps they would have to release a bit less content in the first go around, but in the long run I think their would be happier players.
Unfortunately, so far the B2P model doesn't seem to generate the same revenue as sub games do.
Yesterday someone posted a graph of all NCSoft titles and over time almost all of their monthly sub MMO's (besides COH) have out performed GW1, even back when they were releasing content expansions regularly.
We'll have to see if GW2 is able to generate higher revenue streams than its predecessor.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
@eir_s: 15 dollars a month isn't much to me, I don't know how other people live or what they earn after they're past 19-20 years old (I'm guessing there are also some kids posting here), but I spend easily double and more on 1 night out. 15 dollars equals 1 take out for me when I have too little time to shop or cook, it's trivial to other costs and spendings I do.
That said, ofc I'd like it if it costs me even less, np with the B2P or F2P model at all. So far though, GW is only 1 game in a legion of F2P/B2P games that were as good as all of a lesser quality than the P2P AAA MMO's. If GW2 is released with a successful and enjoyable B2P model, good! I enjoyed GW and liked to play it next to other MMO's over the years. However, if The Secret World or Arche Age or TERA or WoD or EQ Next arrive, I have no problems or principal objections to pay a 15 dollar sub for those games as long as I enjoy them, just like I did with former AAA MMORPG's that I enjoyed.
Definetely yes. I have said all along that the game is worth the initial cost but not the sub-fee. For example I have already clocked more hours into this game than Mass Effect 2 so it is well worth the purchase cost.
However I just cant justify the sub-fee. There simply are not that many interesting MMORPG features to warrant that.
I agree. It seems the recent trend for MMORPG's due to their themepark/single player style game play is to enjoy them until you finish the current level of content and then stop until the next expansion, which means its really perfect for a B2P payment model.
Perhaps they would have to release a bit less content in the first go around, but in the long run I think their would be happier players.
Unfortunately, so far the B2P model doesn't seem to generate the same revenue as sub games do.
Yesterday someone posted a graph of all NCSoft titles and over time almost all of their monthly sub MMO's (besides COH) have out performed GW1, even back when they were releasing content expansions regularly.
We'll have to see if GW2 is able to generate higher revenue streams than its predecessor.
Don't think GW2 will match revenue per player with for example WoW. It will be lower.
Well unless they really will introduce "big & heavy cashshop" but then they might lose alot of players.
Think devs & publishers will face cold truth. They want subs? They need to do game that has more mmorpg features & feel.
That will limit size of playerbase propably though.
Games emphasising single player exparience and follwing CORPG model will attract bigger playerbase but won't be justified in players eyes to pay sub for.
Think mmorpg genre as a whole just matured enogh and is saturated (I would say oversaturated) so devs & investors have to realize that investment returns will just take LONGER and maybe profit levels will be lower as well (statistically on average game).
Think financing from venurte capital funds & short-medium term loan will not fit mmorpg market anymore.
It is natural thing that happen to all business industries as they mature.
If you were a Guild Wars fan, you paid for 5 Games in a period of 2 years, so the savings for me at least isn't that great. I typically sub for about 6 months at a time due to my play schedule, so it ends up being very close in price. But I felt like what you get is different as Guild Wars didn't really fill my mmo needs. We'll have to see what GW2 can pull off with ths model before I can say it would interest me. I'm happy with SWTOR just the way it is for now, but as I said before, I'm a casual gamer. My highest guy right now is 16...lol, mostly cause I can't sto making alts. Most of the bitching I'm hearing is coming from the hardcore crowd, and let's face it, they bitch about errrthing..
Basically, a CORPG (perhaps with some next-gen features for a CORPG), with paid DLCs sold on BioWare's site periodically as well as boxed expansions now and then?
I am a detractor and critic of this game and I would definitely receieve it better if that were the case. The benefits of this model would include: - no sub (duh) - less pressure on developers to attain the same functionality of modern, state-of-the-art themeparks (that SWTOR clearly missing at this point) - mod support from the talented modder crowd BW games seem to have: would include character customization mods, UI mods, etc - DLCs that I choose to buy or not buy to improve my own game experience - have a legitimate reason for things that are otherwise shoddy in an MMO (poor atmosphere for example)
So what do you think, critics?
I'm for it...as long as there is not a single "donate" or "pay" button for any mod.
Member of Talon | www.lakexeno.com RIFT: Redcameo, Warrior, Faemist Server RIFT: Bluecameo, Mage, Faemist Server
Comments
Short Answer; No.
Like other have said, pricing has nothing to do with the quality of the game.
If it was a B2P game, It would certainly say it's worth the money in terms of how many hours of gameplay it offers, but I would still say it's not worth the money in terms of gameplay quality...
Quests are a boring grind, and while the story is fairly good for most classes, some feel lacking, namely the Trooper because of it's generic dialogue responses of "Yes, Sir.", "Sounds like you need a soldier.", and "How can I help?".
There are many other features or lack of them which prompted me to cancel my subscription, but people should make up their own mind about the game, but I really feel people need to stop investing in these grind games, so the developers start making games that people will play for fun, not as a second job.
"The problem with quotes from the Internet is that it's almost impossible to validate their authenticity." - Abraham Lincoln
really since when DLC are a thing we should hope or want for? in the end you pay more for less....
and don't see much change like now, most of people are quiting now because they run all the content, a MMO who should let us create our own history and let us make a name for ourselfs in the game, is like a SP with a multiplayer on it, you have everyone on the same class most same look, same pets, and same gameplay used for over 10 years now. only way now to save it is change most of the core gameplay
I would have bought SWTOR if its a B2P with a Vanity Shop.
I should think SWTOR won't get so much hater if its a B2P lol.
Pardon my English as it is not my 1st language
No... I like the game as it is now.. F2P woudl only cause a lot of clogged servers and drive up server costs, cutting deeply in to development budgets... Also all and every update would go taking a big NOM out of my wallet since that is the onlöy way to make money for a game like that.
Would it have had more people playing past 1:st month... Most likley but in all honesty bejeweld blits have more players.. does not make it a better game. Simply every one likes cheap or free stuff.
This have been a good conversation
Short answer : yes.
Not because I prefer B2P model (I think I prefer P2P) but because Swtor FEEL like CORPG game and not like MMORPG game.
If Swtor would be fully-featured not so instanced & focused on small group & single player content then I think it would be received much better.
So :
fully featured , (no open world instancing, feeling of 'living breathing world' , truly massive feeling ,etc ) mmorpg = P2P is justified and then it is good model
game like GW1, DDO or SWTOR = best model B2P.
f2p, freemium - don't like them anymore (played in past) and I skip those games.
Definetely yes. I have said all along that the game is worth the initial cost but not the sub-fee. For example I have already clocked more hours into this game than Mass Effect 2 so it is well worth the purchase cost.
However I just cant justify the sub-fee. There simply are not that many interesting MMORPG features to warrant that.
My gaming blog
They could've if they had done it to console platforms also.
But PC only, you're right. There wouldn't have been enought buyers to make profit.
It would have been much more logical, yes.
The most "MMO" game, GW2, will be BTP and the less MMO game, SWTOR, is BTP + sub. Doesn't make sense.
An honest review of SW:TOR 6/10 (Danny Wojcicki)
Well imo they made mistake with making game with limited mmorpg features , a game that imo resembles CORPG game but invested ALOT of money on voice overs to it.
If they would made Voice Overs / cutscenes only on class-quests (as they are very costly) and not do cinematic movies then maybe it would be viable as B2P?
That's the point zymurgeist meant, I think.
Full VO raises the budget so high, it must have a cashflow after initial buy (and to cover server upkeep and stuff).
The game has nothing that would be impossible on consoles, and console players are roughly 85% of any new games. That would've made B2P possible.
Answer is yes. I would probably go and try to get the cheapest key from some shady RMT page today, jump in every now and then to hit some mobs with a glowing stick.
But as it is now, EA/Bioware's scheme is easy to see through. Release a SP/CORPG and count on the big companies and big name IP behind it to get people to sub. They probably thought this game would run on it's own -or have enough momentum from Kotor's reputation and the clone wars cartoon series.
This game offers absolutely no MMO-value to speak of for me to actually pay to play (monthly).
Well yes with one correction.
Actually in last few years trend change a bit with game sales. PC game sales are rising faster than console ones in last years due to sites like Steam , GoG, electronic sales on Amazon, D2D ,etc
So it is not 85% anymore. Well maybe in US itself where consoles have very strong position, but definately not world-wide or NA+ EMEAA+Russia.
Remember sales shown on vgchartz only count retail sales, it does not show ANY digital distribution (which is more priftable than retail) and does not show retail sales from Central Europe and Eastern Europe/ Russa, Australia and other coutnries. Only NA and part of EU retail sales and sometimes Japan.
Yeah, because you've obviously explored all the content. That has to be the most one-sided, ignorant statement I've seen in a while from the SW camp.
Also, I might have received the game better, or at least differently, if it were B2P, because I have a lot against subscription games, especially new ones that hardly have the content to justify the price. As it stands though, I can already see that the game was what I expected it would be, and won't be playing more than a few months at most. In the end it's all the same, but there's a small chance I might have kept playing if the game didn't become a useless hunk of plastic once I stopped feeding the EA machine. If you mean ratings, I'd still give the game a 7.0 or 7.5, regardless of pricing model.
Totally agree. SW:TOR's heavy emphasis on story just BEGS for it to be a GW1 style corpg. Imo it would have been a much much better game that way.
If they really wanted to copy a succesful model, why the hell did it have to be WoW?!
Oh, then they wouldn't be able to charge subs on top of the box price. How silly of me. Greedy little pig is very greedy.
Been saying that all along. GW2 is built with much more persistent, emergent behavior mmo features while SW:TOR is more of a "story" game.
With that in mind, imo GW2 would make much more money with P2P model and SW:TOR with B2P+DLC. I have no idea what those devs were thinking... but I don't mind. As a player I'll profit with GW2's no-sub revolution.
Actually, it is different than that for a few key reasons.
1.) ANet is completely open about the game and will tell you pretty much anything you want to know, barring the full release date.
2.) They have the history of B2P models with options for superficial cash shop items.
As for AAA MMO's being P2P by default, what good has really come from it? It hasn't increased quality by leaps and bounds over past MMO's, yet GW2, a B2P game, is already being hailed as a spectacular game by fans who have had seat time on it at shows. It honestly makes P2P companies look embarrassing that they can't do the same with huge budgets and monthly sub dollars lining their pockets.
I second this opinion.
It's like the OP is thinks that the people who don't like SWTOR don't like it because of the payment structure lol.
BTP would not hide swtor flaws,it runs way deeper than the payment model.
I agree. It seems the recent trend for MMORPG's due to their themepark/single player style game play is to enjoy them until you finish the current level of content and then stop until the next expansion, which means its really perfect for a B2P payment model.
Perhaps they would have to release a bit less content in the first go around, but in the long run I think their would be happier players.
Unfortunately, so far the B2P model doesn't seem to generate the same revenue as sub games do.
Yesterday someone posted a graph of all NCSoft titles and over time almost all of their monthly sub MMO's (besides COH) have out performed GW1, even back when they were releasing content expansions regularly.
We'll have to see if GW2 is able to generate higher revenue streams than its predecessor.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
That said, ofc I'd like it if it costs me even less, np with the B2P or F2P model at all. So far though, GW is only 1 game in a legion of F2P/B2P games that were as good as all of a lesser quality than the P2P AAA MMO's. If GW2 is released with a successful and enjoyable B2P model, good! I enjoyed GW and liked to play it next to other MMO's over the years. However, if The Secret World or Arche Age or TERA or WoD or EQ Next arrive, I have no problems or principal objections to pay a 15 dollar sub for those games as long as I enjoy them, just like I did with former AAA MMORPG's that I enjoyed.Other than GW, please name another MMO that is B2P? Kind of hard to say a model can be successful with just one example of it.
Is a man not entitled to the herp of his derp?
Remember, I live in a world where juggalos and yugioh players are real things.
Don't think GW2 will match revenue per player with for example WoW. It will be lower.
Well unless they really will introduce "big & heavy cashshop" but then they might lose alot of players.
Think devs & publishers will face cold truth. They want subs? They need to do game that has more mmorpg features & feel.
That will limit size of playerbase propably though.
Games emphasising single player exparience and follwing CORPG model will attract bigger playerbase but won't be justified in players eyes to pay sub for.
Think mmorpg genre as a whole just matured enogh and is saturated (I would say oversaturated) so devs & investors have to realize that investment returns will just take LONGER and maybe profit levels will be lower as well (statistically on average game).
Think financing from venurte capital funds & short-medium term loan will not fit mmorpg market anymore.
It is natural thing that happen to all business industries as they mature.
I'm for it...as long as there is not a single "donate" or "pay" button for any mod.
Member of Talon | www.lakexeno.com
RIFT: Redcameo, Warrior, Faemist Server
RIFT: Bluecameo, Mage, Faemist Server