I'm aware of the recent events the OP is talking about, but I'm not aware of the "recent events" that makes a lot of opportunistic pessimists scream of P2W on a supposedly B2P game.
The game isn't out, so we do not know how much "grinding" it would take for broke people to catch up to the "cash shop"-aholics. At this point the negativities are only coming from the pessimistic (and to an extent, the envious/greedy)nature of people. Everything is just in our heads. From what I know of this event the OP is referring to, nothing in the cash shop constitues a P2W item, but those with the abilities to bend reason and predict the future are too wary of how open the system is to eventual P2W conversion. Apparently they feel it's bound to happen. A bunch of paranoids.
SO to answer the OPs question, no. I don't think so. Until the game in question has been released and more time has passed that's the only time we can "prove" things. Right now everyone is just running around screaming out their theories.
Well I'm not happy with the cash shop items and it has nothing to do with whether those items are pay2win or not atleast not now. My problem is this scenario.
While leveling in a standard p2p mmo I see someone with a cool looking sword, being able to use swords myself I would like to know where I can get a sword like that. So I ask the guy and he tells me which mob it dropped off of, now I know where I can get said piece of gear.
Same scenario happens in gw2 and instead of telling me the mob he got it from he explains that he says loot bags were on sale yesterday and he grabbed 5 of them...
Did he pay to win? Nope I don't believe so, but it cheapens the in game 'rare' skin rewards when someone can get them from a cash shop item.
But I believe you can get the cool looking sword too. You have two options:
1. Spend real money
2. Spend in-game currency
Provided that the grind is NOT unbearable to earn the in-game money(this we do not know yet), the only difference now is how the process of buying the sword breaks immersion. Had there been no cash shop you would have grinded the mob instead.
I never said I couldn't get it, but you'd have to be blind to not have heard people posting on these very forums how difficult guild wars 2 would be and your normal 'wow kid' would never be able to obtain the rare loot in this game because it was difficult. Now I understand that nothing is known about the loot bags, but if its 'good' rares and from a business perspective they will have stuff in them that makes them worth buying otherwise they wouldn't sell and its their job to make them sell.
But even the worst wow player, puts forth more effort doing nothing more then auto-attacking a boss, then a person who buys a loot bag and gets a rare drop.
Oh, no I've seen these posts. Unfortunately for them I've also seen gameplay videos of the game enough for me to judge that it isn't actually difficult...just different. Although relatively, it's much involved than the usual click-to-auto-attack MMOs. I guess that's how they perceived it as difficult.
Anyway, we both do not know how long it would take us to farm gold in order to buy gems and ultimately buy that reskinned sword off the cash shop. If it proves too grindy and counters ANet's design principle I will not be blind and ignore it.
So everyone is convinced you can't buy power in this game? So everything in the loot bag or mystic box is just cosmetic item with the same power as the rest?
Oh, no I've seen these posts. Unfortunately for them I've also seen gameplay videos of the game enough for me to judge that it isn't actually difficult...just different. Although relatively, it's much involved than the usual click-to-auto-attack MMOs. I guess that's how they perceived it as difficult.
Anyway, we both do not know how long it would take us to farm gold in order to buy gems and ultimately buy that reskinned sword off the cash shop. If it proves too grindy and counters ANet's design principle I will not be blind and ignore it.
No, most of the game wont be that difficult. Probably a bit more than Rift or Wow but not that much.
But dungeons in explorable mode will be, and I am pretty sure there either will be some elite zone like Drok from launch or added soon.
GW1 actually got surprisingly difficult when you played a bit of it after launch. And again when they added hardmode, they made it a lot easier again but it is still harder than most regular games right now.
So it really depends on what you compare it with, against EQ alá '99 it will be easy street but against Wow, TOR and Rift I think it will be somewhat harder, and dungeons will be a lot harder once you do them in explorable. Even in easy mode have many groups who made vids wiped and stopped playing, while that basically is because they suck after so little playing (or generally) it is still a good sign.
I'm aware of the ability to sell/purchase gems, that approach is still up in the air due to the uncertainty of how much gold farming it will take to gain a certain item (in the CS).
It all depends on players and the price they set/accept. Not to mention the rate in which you earn gold as to how viable that approach will be.
I understand being content with these options, I just don't understand being as enthusiastic as you seemed to be about it heh. SImply because the question above could be answered in anyway, meaning it could be relatively painless to buy gems with gold, or it could be etremely tedious and not worth the effort.
You got it. I totally agree.
If I have to sit there with blood leaking out of my bloodshot eyes because I have to grind 12 hours to get a stupid cash shop thing that I actually really need to properly enjoy the game, then I'll grab my pitchfork and torch.
If its decent then I'll cheer and go along with my merry playing.
And I really dont want to have to grind gold. A little I can deal with, being a little annoyed. A lot, and I'll faceplant my face into the desk.
I figure Anet may be careful. I know I would be if I was them. The cash shop is one thing, but box sells is very important, as well as future expansions selling well, and if they overdo the cash shop and make it bogus early on, I'll just quit. I figure they have that in mind. Ive seen them interviewed and I'd call them anything but stupid based on my limited observations.
So those worries are damn valid, but I think its better to sit back and see how it all turns out. If its a moderate difficulty to get cash shop items by just playing, I'll be fine with that. If its a horrible insane grind that makes me tear my hair out, thus making my wife complain of my sudden baldness, then I'll be extremely angry myself. But my torch and fork are in the garage for the time being.
It's kind of nice to see a couple of folks who can look at it for what it is and defend this game or at least be open minded about it, while accepting the reality of it. An added difficulty sure because otherwise no one would buy anything for cash right? But you accept that difficulty and are still prepared to give it a chance and that's cool. I admire this approach more then the rabid fanboy one that appears to be hunting down dissenters wherever they may be and treating doubt with open contempt and ridicule. Possibly you have been around MMO's for long enough to know there is no perfect game, no holy grail of gaming.
Quality MMORPGs can be made, and are made, with B2P model. The P2P model is tempting because it has greater return for investment. People don't mind paying $15 a month so you'd be mad not to ask. Then again, customers may view that they get more value for their money with a B2P title so it may sell more boxes than a similar P2P game. We've known for quite some time now that box sales alone are enough to sustain and pay for the development of a MMORPG. And if you didn't know - well... now you know.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been-Wayne Gretzky
Quality MMORPGs can be made, and are made, with B2P model. The P2P model is tempting because it has greater return for investment. People don't mind paying $15 a month so you'd be mad not to ask. Then again, customers may view that they get more value for their money with a B2P title so it may sell more boxes than a similar P2P game. We've known for quite some time now that box sales alone are enough to sustain and pay for the development of a MMORPG. And if you didn't know - well... now you know.
Actually the main argument pro P2P model is not that people are guilible, but because the majority of F2P mmorpgs feature some form of p2win strategy or were withholding content to sell in the AH (and yes, cosmetic items are content). With the P2P model you were guaranteed a level field and that you could get all items available via ingame actions and not through a cash shop.
Also regarding your last comment "now I know". Know what? That GW2 is a F2P cash shop game that demands an admission cost? Well, that's certainly a first. We've seen P2P games opening cash shops, now we see a cash shop game asking for a rather hefty full price.
This is exactly what was said about LOTRO and they keep taking baby steps and strides to worse and worse items.
I have heard that said which is truly a shame. Turbine had pretty much got it right and it would be a shame if they blew it. I pretty much got a 'lifetime pass' to LOTRO by simply playing the game and a few strategic purchases. Earning TP's actually provided a kind of meta game.
Really it all boils down to what is good value. (Of course that will vary somewhat player to player). I think what will happen is that B2P might change peoples perception on this. Clearly 15 bucks a month to provide services that cost a few cents a month gives a lot of scope for someone with a decent product to offer better value.
I read an interesting article on Gamasutra the other day that dealt with this: There are several of them there, one gets published about every other week on iOS or other F2P marketing techniques if anyone is interested - I highly recommend the website in general.
True, some F2P games are just out there to gouge players: the Pay2Win model, as it's become known. But these aren't the model that most game designers aspire for.
Developers need to make money. It's an evil necessity. Even Indie developers need to get some revenue to eat, buy their software to make the games in the first place (Maya/PS/other dev tools and licenses are not cheap), play other games, etc.
So, to that end, I don't think ~most~ people are unwilling to pay something for their game. Every person has a different opinion of what it's worth to them, however.
If you offer a game (or any commodity) up for "Pay what you think it's worth" - people invariably rarely do. They may associate worth with the product, but since payment is voluntary, they choose not to - because they don't have to.
You want people to pay for your stuff, you don't want to force them to do it, but at the same time, you can't just say "pay what it's worth" - so the F2P concept is based around making items/services/etc available to players which don't imbalance the game, but are compelling enough such that people want to pay for them.
ArenaNet did this in the past with cosmetic items and expansion packs. A lot of games do it with convenience items - get XX% more XP per kill so you level faster, or run faster, or eliminate death effects - these don't imbalance the game, they just remove an imposed time limitation (the time it takes to level/travel/recover) or provide some other similar convenience.
The iOS/mobile gaming scene is absolutely huge on these concepts right now - the ~vast~ majority of apps are based on the F2P concept, and almost all of them are trading time for money. Sure, you can do everything the game has to offer without paying a dime; it will just take you longer (and in most cases, a whole lot longer).
There is also the concept of a "Whale" - you don't need everyone to buy stuff. Whales are people who essentially have no or very high spending limitations - not necessarily because they are 5 years old and Mom & Dad forgot to unlink the credit card; hopefully because they are perceiving value in your products and enjoy playing your game. The benefit of F2P over P2P is that some people are willing to pay more (and in the case of whales, much much more) for your product than whatever your base subscription fee is. By having products available, you give them the opportunity to provide you with more revenue. With a strict P2P model, you lose all of that additional income. This is why you see cash shops popping up in every game, even P2P ones with a subscription.
Now the moral question isn't "The developers shouldn't try to get my money" - I've already pointed out that developers need money. The moral question is - what do they do with that money? Do they pay their expenses and reinvest the profit into their product, or do they have to use it to "pay dividends".
Using Blizzard as an example: they have definitely reinvested in their product, probably more money than any other company. However, I also criticize them; the percentage of their total profit that they reinvest is probably much lower than many other companies. How much is enough? What do you do when you have all the bills paid and you've spent as much as you can on the next development cycle - do you just start handing out the product for free? Do you keep collecting and sit on it? Do you pay out bonuses? Do you reward your players? I don't think there are any right answers, but there are certainly some popular answers (depending on which side of the fence you approach it from).
They didn't lie. But they played with words to give the impression that they were creating a game where once you bought it, you were free and clear to enjoy all it has to offer with no further expense....
Well, unless you wanted some frilly fluff items or skill paks.
That is what they sold people on. That is not exaclty what they are delivering
Deja vu here, we are going in circles . So far that is exactly what they are offering. Personally it really dosen't bother me if they offer 'shortcuts'. I am not sure why some one would 'pay not to play' but if that floats their boat that's cool.
I guess it boils down to whether you trust them to get it right. Healthy scepticism is fine but so far they seem pretty focused on not killing the golden goose.
I'm aware of the recent events the OP is talking about, but I'm not aware of the "recent events" that makes a lot of opportunistic pessimists scream of P2W on a supposedly B2P game.
The game isn't out, so we do not know how much "grinding" it would take for broke people to catch up to the "cash shop"-aholics. At this point the negativities are only coming from the pessimistic (and to an extent, the envious/greedy)nature of people. Everything is just in our heads. From what I know of this event the OP is referring to, nothing in the cash shop constitues a P2W item, but those with the abilities to bend reason and predict the future are too wary of how open the system is to eventual P2W conversion. Apparently they feel it's bound to happen. A bunch of paranoids.
SO to answer the OPs question, no. I don't think so. Until the game in question has been released and more time has passed that's the only time we can "prove" things. Right now everyone is just running around screaming out their theories.
Well I'm not happy with the cash shop items and it has nothing to do with whether those items are pay2win or not atleast not now. My problem is this scenario.
While leveling in a standard p2p mmo I see someone with a cool looking sword, being able to use swords myself I would like to know where I can get a sword like that. So I ask the guy and he tells me which mob it dropped off of, now I know where I can get said piece of gear.
Same scenario happens in gw2 and instead of telling me the mob he got it from he explains that he says loot bags were on sale yesterday and he grabbed 5 of them...
Did he pay to win? Nope I don't believe so, but it cheapens the in game 'rare' skin rewards when someone can get them from a cash shop item.
But I believe you can get the cool looking sword too. You have two options:
1. Spend real money
2. Spend in-game currency
Provided that the grind is NOT unbearable to earn the in-game money(this we do not know yet), the only difference now is how the process of buying the sword breaks immersion. Had there been no cash shop you would have grinded the mob instead.
I never said I couldn't get it, but you'd have to be blind to not have heard people posting on these very forums how difficult guild wars 2 would be and your normal 'wow kid' would never be able to obtain the rare loot in this game because it was difficult. Now I understand that nothing is known about the loot bags, but if its 'good' rares and from a business perspective they will have stuff in them that makes them worth buying otherwise they wouldn't sell and its their job to make them sell.
But even the worst wow player, puts forth more effort doing nothing more then auto-attacking a boss, then a person who buys a loot bag and gets a rare drop.
Oh, no I've seen these posts. Unfortunately for them I've also seen gameplay videos of the game enough for me to judge that it isn't actually difficult...just different. Although relatively, it's much involved than the usual click-to-auto-attack MMOs. I guess that's how they perceived it as difficult.
Anyway, we both do not know how long it would take us to farm gold in order to buy gems and ultimately buy that reskinned sword off the cash shop. If it proves too grindy and counters ANet's design principle I will not be blind and ignore it.
If they can't even sell cosmetic items off the cash shop then what can they sell? You should be glad that you can even buy cash shop items with in game gold. You couldn't do that in GW1 so if you wanted those nice costumes, you HAD to spend real money. At least with GW2 you can work your way to it by grinding end game gold if you are really against spending money on the cash shop.
Recent events have proven nothing. Unless you have an insight to their financiel records you can't prove anything one way or the other. So you hate the cash shop. Big deal get over yourself. To say B2P simply doesn't work because they added certain types of items is nothing but ridiculous. Anet wants to get the maximum they can get out of the game. They aren't a charity company.
I have my own issues with the cash shop, but until I get enough information to either prove or disprove my point I will wait and see. I'm still going to buy it though. My issues with the cash shop won't interfere with my ability to enjoy the game.
Anyone who has followed the GW2's development progress knows that it had plans to implement a Cash Shop for a while now.
The only people who are surprised by this are recent followers or people who havnt done their research properly.
I for one think that a B2P Model with a Cash Shop to sustain the game is an excellent idea.
I used to think Cash Shops were evil too, then I got smart and realized, not all of them are Pay 2 Win, and some, if not most, offer good value for money.
"The problem with quotes from the Internet is that it's almost impossible to validate their authenticity." - Abraham Lincoln
Its ridiculous. I'm very annoyed at this now. And again, I fully admit I was on/off/on/off the bandwagon a few times over the last year about GW2 and finally decided it wasn't for me a few weeks ago. But this cash shop is just pathetic. It is totally pay2win and charging you $60 just to then have to pay2win. Not only do you buy experience, karma, and RvRvR capabilities faster, you can also pretty much buy the cool looking stuff too that otherwise you need to work for. There is absolutely no reason to play this game now and it is completely off my radar now.
Its disgusting. I'm not touching this game with a 100 foot pole now...
And that is just the cash shop they are starting with. Just wait until a few months in AFTER they suckered a bunch of people into the $60 box...
I think you are letting your imagination run away with you. As of now (23 March 2012) what you are saying is simply not true. Of course that might all change but so could it for any game currently on the market. Even if Activision don't you can bet your bottom dollar that EA will gouge you (if they ever fix their game). It's your perogative to skip GW2 but it seems a shame to on mis information. I guess it's down to whether you believe Anet or not. So far I believe the second statement because as of yet they seem to be one of the few companies to take that responsibility seriously.
O'Brien on the subject :-
"But it’s never OK for players to buy a game and not be able to enjoy what they paid for without additional purchases, and it’s never OK for players who spend money to have an unfair advantage over players who spend time."
"We have always taken our responsibility to players seriously with the original Guild Wars, and we will continue to do so with Guild Wars 2."
That isn't WAR that is the war spinoff MOBA game. Warhammer online is called Age of Reckoning not Wrath of Heroes. . Warhammer online still only has the play in tier 1 forever trial, and no cash shop at least from what I can find.
Yeah, even EA have the sense to know that a cashshop that sells something useful in a PvP game would kill it. PvP games just don't work as F2P.
Making a fashion shop just wouldn't be worth the work with so few players.
I think you credit EA with more than they deserve! They would sell their kids into slavery if they could squeeze a few bucks out of it!
So everyone is convinced you can't buy power in this game? So everything in the loot bag or mystic box is just cosmetic item with the same power as the rest?
Since everyone is just guessing and fearmongering around in here, here is my guess:
They will give a random mob drop, just like anyone getting a drop from a monster in the world. In other words, it will be at level with the player and range from common to uncommon loot. There, that would be horrible wouldnt it?
Maybe people in here should calm down a notch or two, instead of fabricating doom and gloom scenarios based on nothing.
And about the boosts and time saving stuff: in a game with a exp curve that turns flat pretty fast: how much of an advantage is it really? It would be similar to starting out in a P2P game 4 days after someone else: not really a big deal.
That isn't WAR that is the war spinoff MOBA game. Warhammer online is called Age of Reckoning not Wrath of Heroes. . Warhammer online still only has the play in tier 1 forever trial, and no cash shop at least from what I can find.
Yeah, even EA have the sense to know that a cashshop that sells something useful in a PvP game would kill it. PvP games just don't work as F2P.
Making a fashion shop just wouldn't be worth the work with so few players.
I think you credit EA with more than they deserve! They would sell their kids into slavery if they could squeeze a few bucks out of it!
And you expect people to take your post seriously? right.
My first thoughts about this started at the original announcement in 2007 that GW2 was going to be made barely 2 years after GW1 was released. This annoucement set alarm bells ringing in my head that the original GW model wasn't making as much money as planned and they could not keep up with content releases at the rate they had been, so announcing GW2 early would free Arenanet up from making more chapters for GW.
I wonder why your first thougts where not 'hmm not only has GW1 paid the shareholders, it has funded the development of a pretty ambitous AAA title (GW2)? If you want to debate what 'current events' 'prove' you really need to go beyond 'your fist thoughts' and lay out something a bit more rigurously thought out.
Incidentally GW1 did not actually make as much as they had 'planned' (hoped) mainly because they did not bang out new content quite as quick as they had planned. The model was sucessful and could easily be more so.
My mind doesn't think that way I'm a realist and if the GW1 model had been majorly profitable they would have continued releasing chapters, this is how most MMO developers do it, (Blizzrad hasn't stop development of WOW because Titan is in the works have they?) and that would have funded GW2 but they did not. As I said in my OP the only reason they announced GW2 so early was to have a reason to stop further development of GW1.
This doom and gloom thread was brought to you by Chin Up the new ultra high caffeine soft drink for gamers who just need that boost of happiness after a long forum session.
My first thoughts about this started at the original announcement in 2007 that GW2 was going to be made barely 2 years after GW1 was released. This annoucement set alarm bells ringing in my head that the original GW model wasn't making as much money as planned and they could not keep up with content releases at the rate they had been, so announcing GW2 early would free Arenanet up from making more chapters for GW.
I wonder why your first thougts where not 'hmm not only has GW1 paid the shareholders, it has funded the development of a pretty ambitous AAA title (GW2)? If you want to debate what 'current events' 'prove' you really need to go beyond 'your fist thoughts' and lay out something a bit more rigurously thought out.
Incidentally GW1 did not actually make as much as they had 'planned' (hoped) mainly because they did not bang out new content quite as quick as they had planned. The model was sucessful and could easily be more so.
My mind doesn't think that way I'm a realist and if the GW1 model had been majorly profitable they would have continued releasing chapters, this is how most MMO developers do it, (Blizzrad hasn't stop development of WOW because Titan is in the works have they?) and that would have funded GW2 but they did not. As I said in my OP the only reason they announced GW2 so early was to have a reason to stop further development of GW1.
They want GW2 to be bigger than GW1. A-net is nowhere near the size of Blizzard so most of the employees were moved to work on GW2 after EoTN was completed. Every company wants to make MORE money. If GW1 wasn't majorly profitable GW2 would never have been green lit. NCSoft wouldn't have given A-net their resources for GW2 if GW1 performed poorly.
My mind doesn't think that way I'm a realist and if the GW1 model had been majorly profitable they would have continued releasing chapters, this is how most MMO developers do it, (Blizzrad hasn't stop development of WOW because Titan is in the works have they?) and that would have funded GW2 but they did not. As I said in my OP the only reason they announced GW2 so early was to have a reason to stop further development of GW1.
Maybe that's so, but your original topic was not whether they where 'majorly profitable' but whether they could fund a fully featured MMO on B2P. The answer to that is yes, they have funded two (Gw1 & GW2).
Incidentally Eye of the North (the only true expansion) released after GW2 was announced and long after it was commenced. You could in fact argue they funded four though that obviously is a stretch but if you are being pedantic the first 3 GW1 titles are standalone games. (I'm not going to argue that )
In any case I'm pleased they dont do it how 'most developers do it'. I am glad they have invested in a brand new (hopefully pretty novel) game rather than investing in the same tired old formula, whether that is through stale expansions or worse through brand new games that are already the same stale formula at launch. I wonder whether the guys resposible for vanilla Wow, Starcraft, Battlenet, Diablo I & II left to form Anet precisely because Activision just wanted to churn out expansions? Easy to get fat and lazy if you are the elephant in the room.
It will be intresting to see if Blizzard continue to develop WoW once Titan is actually within site, seems fairly safe to assume (guess) that they won't carry on pushing out expacs. It will also be intresting to see how Bliz fair without the luminaries that brought us the games I mentgioned. Premature to say but it seems like they might be struggling just a little with Diablo III, my hunch is that Torchlight II (made by a smaller team of passionate developers might be the better game). Who knows, it will be fun to find out though.
Maybe that's so, but your original topic was not whether they where 'majorly profitable' but whether they could fund a fully featured MMO on B2P. The answer to that is yes, they have funded two (Gw1 & GW2).
Incidentally Eye of the North (the only true expansion) released after GW2 was announced and long after it was commenced. You could in fact argue they funded four though that obviously is a stretch but if you are being pedantic the first 3 GW1 titles are standalone games. (I'm not going to argue that )
In any case I'm pleased they dont do it how 'most developers do it'. I am glad they have invested in a brand new (hopefully pretty novel) game rather than investing in the same tired old formula, whether that is through stale expansions or worse through brand new games that are already the same stale formula at launch. I wonder whether the guys resposible for vanilla Wow, Starcraft, Battlenet, Diablo I & II left to form Anet precisely because Activision just wanted to churn out expansions? Easy to get fat and lazy if you are the elephant in the room.
It will be intresting to see if Blizzard continue to develop WoW once Titan is actually within site, seems fairly safe to assume (guess) that they won't carry on pushing out expacs. It will also be intresting to see how Bliz fair without the luminaries that brought us the games I mentgioned. Premature to say but it seems like they might be struggling just a little with Diablo III, my hunch is that Torchlight II (made by a smaller team of passionate developers might be the better game). Who knows, it will be fun to find out though.
I don't like picky people and now I'm going to make myself feel like one. I loved GW1, finished all the campaigns and I still play it sometimes. But it's not really an MMO. I never minded that as much as some but hey I loved the original Diablo. I like co-op mission games that are well done and GW1 was well done indeed.
As to your other points, yes it will be very interesting indeed to see how successful Diablo 3 is. I won't be playing it. I liked D2 less then D1 and really D3 doesn't apeal to me much at all. The fact that the Anet guys came from D1 and partway through D2 makes quite a lot of sense to me as a gamer who played all of those games. We'll see how D3 goes without that talent.
You get wierded out easy i guess. WOW's been out forever. How long was WOW out before it had a cash shop? You at least had a few years before that happened. It didn't come out with a cash shop day 1. WOW wasnt built with a cash shop as their master plan to make money.
When i buy a game i dont want to go look at the cash shop to see what i need in the first hour i play it. There are enough F2P games for that. And their free.
The thing is that almost every P2P game added a cashshop at more or less the same time.
EQ2 did it first, Wow and the rest followed a few months later so while it wasn't a masterplan from Blizzard (the masterplan was from SOEs Smed) they added it as soon as they saw someone else getting away eith it in a P2P game.
Personally I give the "did it first" award to EA... because all the paid services we see today... and even the "cash shop" were in Ultima Online... a decade ago if not earlier.
Or even EA with Earth and Beyond. Where the refer a friend program gave you X amont of credits per friend... and it increased up to a cap for every friend you got to join. Along with giving you a certain amount of skill points... that also increased per friend. (those were normally awarded by increasing a level so you could max out your character much earlier).
I never really figured out how that worked because unlike blizzard where they have to sub for 30 days. People used to sell what amounted to unlmited codes on ebay... pretty cheap.
So I'll stick with EA for the founder achievement title for most of those things.
As to the thread in general... I always wondered how B2P worked. Simply because in the early days of UO/EQ they used to talk about bandwidth costs. I assume in the late 90's this was different than now but anyway... When battle.net went up for Diablo and Starcraft etc... I always thought it had all these games being played constantly and it has to have the same bandwidth costs for active users. So how exactly do you pay all that with a product that generates no guaranteed income after the initial sale?
Just like in the 80's when I used Quantum Link. They ran paticular hours because phone rates used to be lower from like 6pm to 6am local time. If you were east coast for example you could stay logged in 3 hours longer by using a west coast access number. Beyond that you had a monthly fee and many services had a per minute fee (like 6 cents per minute) to pay the costs.
I just always have wondered if I buy a game like Guild Wars... and I played everyday and was still playing... and never bought any expansions... how do they not lose money.
Because subscription games had to increase subscription prices a few times just to make ends meet. (uo was like $9.95 at first and I believe EQ was $9.89... then they were both like $12.99 before the now common $14.99).
I don't think that "recent events" as you put it have proven anything else than that it's the purpose of a company to try to maximize profits.
NcSoft/Arenanet have prolly figured that their fans will accept a cash-shop like in any other F2P game, with the only difference that in GW2 you also have to buy the client. From the forum reaction it seems that the fans happily buy into the concept.
If that isn't good business sense from NCSoft I don't know what is.
GW2 is not really any different than Turbine's shops except Turbine actually have a few items that affect character development in a disparate way (stat tomes in LOTRO).
If GW2 lets you buy something that gives you a 15% xp boost, yet you can level to max level in say 5 days. Then seriously who care? If that is your definition of Pay to Win then I have a really big problem with your definition such that we can probably never come to an agreement about it.
For me Pay to Win comes in when you must pay money to get something that gives you significantly superior stats or abilities or when not paying is so incredibly adruous that most normal people would not do it.
Examples:
1) a state tome that raised stats enough that you did say 15% more damage than a non-payer
2) It takes 1 year to advance to max without paying and it takes a week with paying.
3) some super duper ultra mega weapon that will never exist via in game drops
That is pay to win. Although I do not like the idea that advancing to max level is "winning" since its not, but if advancement is so incredibly boringly slow without paying then that is an inducment. However I would like to point out that #2 is also REALLY bad business. Making your game completely unrewarding like that will only cause a small number of crazy people to pay you a large number of people will simply leave.
Also keep in mind that a small number of people pay large amounts of money and a large amount of people pay almost no money at all in many micortransaction games. If a game is truly Pay to Win and 80% of people are paying no money then it must be true that 80% of people are not "winning" whatever that means. According to the stats many of these games release you would surprised how much money a small number of people spend on things and how little the majority spends.
You get wierded out easy i guess. WOW's been out forever. How long was WOW out before it had a cash shop? You at least had a few years before that happened. It didn't come out with a cash shop day 1. WOW wasnt built with a cash shop as their master plan to make money.
When i buy a game i dont want to go look at the cash shop to see what i need in the first hour i play it. There are enough F2P games for that. And their free.
The thing is that almost every P2P game added a cashshop at more or less the same time.
EQ2 did it first, Wow and the rest followed a few months later so while it wasn't a masterplan from Blizzard (the masterplan was from SOEs Smed) they added it as soon as they saw someone else getting away eith it in a P2P game.
Personally I give the "did it first" award to EA... because all the paid services we see today... and even the "cash shop" were in Ultima Online... a decade ago if not earlier.
Or even EA with Earth and Beyond. Where the refer a friend program gave you X amont of credits per friend... and it increased up to a cap for every friend you got to join. Along with giving you a certain amount of skill points... that also increased per friend. (those were normally awarded by increasing a level so you could max out your character much earlier).
I never really figured out how that worked because unlike blizzard where they have to sub for 30 days. People used to sell what amounted to unlmited codes on ebay... pretty cheap.
So I'll stick with EA for the founder achievement title for most of those things.
As to the thread in general... I always wondered how B2P worked. Simply because in the early days of UO/EQ they used to talk about bandwidth costs. I assume in the late 90's this was different than now but anyway... When battle.net went up for Diablo and Starcraft etc... I always thought it had all these games being played constantly and it has to have the same bandwidth costs for active users. So how exactly do you pay all that with a product that generates no guaranteed income after the initial sale?
Just like in the 80's when I used Quantum Link. They ran paticular hours because phone rates used to be lower from like 6pm to 6am local time. If you were east coast for example you could stay logged in 3 hours longer by using a west coast access number. Beyond that you had a monthly fee and many services had a per minute fee (like 6 cents per minute) to pay the costs.
I just always have wondered if I buy a game like Guild Wars... and I played everyday and was still playing... and never bought any expansions... how do they not lose money.
Because subscription games had to increase subscription prices a few times just to make ends meet. (uo was like $9.95 at first and I believe EQ was $9.89... then they were both like $12.99 before the now common $14.99).
Actually MUDs did this way before EA. Many MUDs had donation items or special points for people who donated money to the game.
In the MUD I played you could get ridiculously overpowered items that you personally designed that permanently stayed on your character no matter what. This is actually one of the reasons I am so adamantly against real Pay to Win. One of the people on that MUD had a donation item so powerful it would essentially one shot anyone else in the game and he would abuse it and hunt down people who had no chance like the typical griefer.
Other MUDs have more balanced system and that MUD I played eventually toned down and balanced donation items to some degree.
But either way its not a new idea. Not by a long shot. And almost all the MUDs who did/do it were essentially non-profits run by volunteers who often got paid nothing at all.
So word to the wise: Don't believe this stuff is all greed or based in evil. Yes EA is evil and greedy. But the idea itself has spanned all sorts of things for multiple decades. And in some cases even back in the 80's and 90's some systems were sane and rational and worked ok and some were not and were brutally unfair.
I am very much against true Pay to Win because I have seen first hand how brutally unfair it can be. But that doesn't mean microtransactions are a bad idea. Nor does it even mean that some modest advantage in game play really matters all that much.
Comments
Oh, no I've seen these posts. Unfortunately for them I've also seen gameplay videos of the game enough for me to judge that it isn't actually difficult...just different. Although relatively, it's much involved than the usual click-to-auto-attack MMOs. I guess that's how they perceived it as difficult.
Anyway, we both do not know how long it would take us to farm gold in order to buy gems and ultimately buy that reskinned sword off the cash shop. If it proves too grindy and counters ANet's design principle I will not be blind and ignore it.
So everyone is convinced you can't buy power in this game? So everything in the loot bag or mystic box is just cosmetic item with the same power as the rest?
No, most of the game wont be that difficult. Probably a bit more than Rift or Wow but not that much.
But dungeons in explorable mode will be, and I am pretty sure there either will be some elite zone like Drok from launch or added soon.
GW1 actually got surprisingly difficult when you played a bit of it after launch. And again when they added hardmode, they made it a lot easier again but it is still harder than most regular games right now.
So it really depends on what you compare it with, against EQ alá '99 it will be easy street but against Wow, TOR and Rift I think it will be somewhat harder, and dungeons will be a lot harder once you do them in explorable. Even in easy mode have many groups who made vids wiped and stopped playing, while that basically is because they suck after so little playing (or generally) it is still a good sign.
But for us vets we wont really think it is hard.
It's kind of nice to see a couple of folks who can look at it for what it is and defend this game or at least be open minded about it, while accepting the reality of it. An added difficulty sure because otherwise no one would buy anything for cash right? But you accept that difficulty and are still prepared to give it a chance and that's cool. I admire this approach more then the rabid fanboy one that appears to be hunting down dissenters wherever they may be and treating doubt with open contempt and ridicule. Possibly you have been around MMO's for long enough to know there is no perfect game, no holy grail of gaming.
the poster formerly known as melangel :P
Quality MMORPGs can be made, and are made, with B2P model. The P2P model is tempting because it has greater return for investment. People don't mind paying $15 a month so you'd be mad not to ask. Then again, customers may view that they get more value for their money with a B2P title so it may sell more boxes than a similar P2P game. We've known for quite some time now that box sales alone are enough to sustain and pay for the development of a MMORPG. And if you didn't know - well... now you know.
I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been -Wayne Gretzky
Actually the main argument pro P2P model is not that people are guilible, but because the majority of F2P mmorpgs feature some form of p2win strategy or were withholding content to sell in the AH (and yes, cosmetic items are content). With the P2P model you were guaranteed a level field and that you could get all items available via ingame actions and not through a cash shop.
Also regarding your last comment "now I know". Know what? That GW2 is a F2P cash shop game that demands an admission cost? Well, that's certainly a first. We've seen P2P games opening cash shops, now we see a cash shop game asking for a rather hefty full price.
I have heard that said which is truly a shame. Turbine had pretty much got it right and it would be a shame if they blew it. I pretty much got a 'lifetime pass' to LOTRO by simply playing the game and a few strategic purchases. Earning TP's actually provided a kind of meta game.
Really it all boils down to what is good value. (Of course that will vary somewhat player to player). I think what will happen is that B2P might change peoples perception on this. Clearly 15 bucks a month to provide services that cost a few cents a month gives a lot of scope for someone with a decent product to offer better value.
I read an interesting article on Gamasutra the other day that dealt with this: There are several of them there, one gets published about every other week on iOS or other F2P marketing techniques if anyone is interested - I highly recommend the website in general.
True, some F2P games are just out there to gouge players: the Pay2Win model, as it's become known. But these aren't the model that most game designers aspire for.
Developers need to make money. It's an evil necessity. Even Indie developers need to get some revenue to eat, buy their software to make the games in the first place (Maya/PS/other dev tools and licenses are not cheap), play other games, etc.
So, to that end, I don't think ~most~ people are unwilling to pay something for their game. Every person has a different opinion of what it's worth to them, however.
If you offer a game (or any commodity) up for "Pay what you think it's worth" - people invariably rarely do. They may associate worth with the product, but since payment is voluntary, they choose not to - because they don't have to.
You want people to pay for your stuff, you don't want to force them to do it, but at the same time, you can't just say "pay what it's worth" - so the F2P concept is based around making items/services/etc available to players which don't imbalance the game, but are compelling enough such that people want to pay for them.
ArenaNet did this in the past with cosmetic items and expansion packs. A lot of games do it with convenience items - get XX% more XP per kill so you level faster, or run faster, or eliminate death effects - these don't imbalance the game, they just remove an imposed time limitation (the time it takes to level/travel/recover) or provide some other similar convenience.
The iOS/mobile gaming scene is absolutely huge on these concepts right now - the ~vast~ majority of apps are based on the F2P concept, and almost all of them are trading time for money. Sure, you can do everything the game has to offer without paying a dime; it will just take you longer (and in most cases, a whole lot longer).
There is also the concept of a "Whale" - you don't need everyone to buy stuff. Whales are people who essentially have no or very high spending limitations - not necessarily because they are 5 years old and Mom & Dad forgot to unlink the credit card; hopefully because they are perceiving value in your products and enjoy playing your game. The benefit of F2P over P2P is that some people are willing to pay more (and in the case of whales, much much more) for your product than whatever your base subscription fee is. By having products available, you give them the opportunity to provide you with more revenue. With a strict P2P model, you lose all of that additional income. This is why you see cash shops popping up in every game, even P2P ones with a subscription.
Now the moral question isn't "The developers shouldn't try to get my money" - I've already pointed out that developers need money. The moral question is - what do they do with that money? Do they pay their expenses and reinvest the profit into their product, or do they have to use it to "pay dividends".
Using Blizzard as an example: they have definitely reinvested in their product, probably more money than any other company. However, I also criticize them; the percentage of their total profit that they reinvest is probably much lower than many other companies. How much is enough? What do you do when you have all the bills paid and you've spent as much as you can on the next development cycle - do you just start handing out the product for free? Do you keep collecting and sit on it? Do you pay out bonuses? Do you reward your players? I don't think there are any right answers, but there are certainly some popular answers (depending on which side of the fence you approach it from).
Deja vu here, we are going in circles
. So far that is exactly what they are offering. Personally it really dosen't bother me if they offer 'shortcuts'. I am not sure why some one would 'pay not to play' but if that floats their boat that's cool.
I guess it boils down to whether you trust them to get it right. Healthy scepticism is fine but so far they seem pretty focused on not killing the golden goose.
People have been praising B2P for years? Recent events have proven that you can't have B2P? Get a grip.
Mission in life: Vanquish all MMORPG.com trolls - especially TESO, WOW and GW2 trolls.
If they can't even sell cosmetic items off the cash shop then what can they sell? You should be glad that you can even buy cash shop items with in game gold. You couldn't do that in GW1 so if you wanted those nice costumes, you HAD to spend real money. At least with GW2 you can work your way to it by grinding end game gold if you are really against spending money on the cash shop.
Recent events have proven nothing. Unless you have an insight to their financiel records you can't prove anything one way or the other. So you hate the cash shop. Big deal get over yourself. To say B2P simply doesn't work because they added certain types of items is nothing but ridiculous. Anet wants to get the maximum they can get out of the game. They aren't a charity company.
I have my own issues with the cash shop, but until I get enough information to either prove or disprove my point I will wait and see. I'm still going to buy it though. My issues with the cash shop won't interfere with my ability to enjoy the game.
Anyone who has followed the GW2's development progress knows that it had plans to implement a Cash Shop for a while now.
The only people who are surprised by this are recent followers or people who havnt done their research properly.
I for one think that a B2P Model with a Cash Shop to sustain the game is an excellent idea.
I used to think Cash Shops were evil too, then I got smart and realized, not all of them are Pay 2 Win, and some, if not most, offer good value for money.
"The problem with quotes from the Internet is that it's almost impossible to validate their authenticity." - Abraham Lincoln
I think you are letting your imagination run away with you. As of now (23 March 2012) what you are saying is simply not true. Of course that might all change but so could it for any game currently on the market. Even if Activision don't you can bet your bottom dollar that EA will gouge you (if they ever fix their game). It's your perogative to skip GW2 but it seems a shame to on mis information. I guess it's down to whether you believe Anet or not. So far I believe the second statement because as of yet they seem to be one of the few companies to take that responsibility seriously.
O'Brien on the subject :-
"But it’s never OK for players to buy a game and not be able to enjoy what they paid for without additional purchases, and it’s never OK for players who spend money to have an unfair advantage over players who spend time."
"We have always taken our responsibility to players seriously with the original Guild Wars, and we will continue to do so with Guild Wars 2."
I think you credit EA with more than they deserve! They would sell their kids into slavery if they could squeeze a few bucks out of it!
Since everyone is just guessing and fearmongering around in here, here is my guess:
They will give a random mob drop, just like anyone getting a drop from a monster in the world. In other words, it will be at level with the player and range from common to uncommon loot. There, that would be horrible wouldnt it?
Maybe people in here should calm down a notch or two, instead of fabricating doom and gloom scenarios based on nothing.
And about the boosts and time saving stuff: in a game with a exp curve that turns flat pretty fast: how much of an advantage is it really? It would be similar to starting out in a P2P game 4 days after someone else: not really a big deal.
And you expect people to take your post seriously? right.
My mind doesn't think that way I'm a realist and if the GW1 model had been majorly profitable they would have continued releasing chapters, this is how most MMO developers do it, (Blizzrad hasn't stop development of WOW because Titan is in the works have they?) and that would have funded GW2 but they did not. As I said in my OP the only reason they announced GW2 so early was to have a reason to stop further development of GW1.
This doom and gloom thread was brought to you by Chin Up the new ultra high caffeine soft drink for gamers who just need that boost of happiness after a long forum session.
They want GW2 to be bigger than GW1. A-net is nowhere near the size of Blizzard so most of the employees were moved to work on GW2 after EoTN was completed. Every company wants to make MORE money. If GW1 wasn't majorly profitable GW2 would never have been green lit. NCSoft wouldn't have given A-net their resources for GW2 if GW1 performed poorly.
Maybe that's so, but your original topic was not whether they where 'majorly profitable' but whether they could fund a fully featured MMO on B2P. The answer to that is yes, they have funded two (Gw1 & GW2).
Incidentally Eye of the North (the only true expansion) released after GW2 was announced and long after it was commenced. You could in fact argue they funded four though that obviously is a stretch but if you are being pedantic the first 3 GW1 titles are standalone games. (I'm not going to argue that
)
In any case I'm pleased they dont do it how 'most developers do it'. I am glad they have invested in a brand new (hopefully pretty novel) game rather than investing in the same tired old formula, whether that is through stale expansions or worse through brand new games that are already the same stale formula at launch. I wonder whether the guys resposible for vanilla Wow, Starcraft, Battlenet, Diablo I & II left to form Anet precisely because Activision just wanted to churn out expansions? Easy to get fat and lazy if you are the elephant in the room.
It will be intresting to see if Blizzard continue to develop WoW once Titan is actually within site, seems fairly safe to assume (guess) that they won't carry on pushing out expacs. It will also be intresting to see how Bliz fair without the luminaries that brought us the games I mentgioned. Premature to say but it seems like they might be struggling just a little with Diablo III, my hunch is that Torchlight II (made by a smaller team of passionate developers might be the better game). Who knows, it will be fun to find out though.
Is there some sort of unknown rules that B2P games cannot have CS?
P2P = CS = yes sure why not
F2P = CS = yes sure why not
B2P = CS = P2W? = Hell no?
Is it me or there is something wrong with the " no CS on B2P " people mindset?
And the worse thing everyone opinion is based fully on their assumption, no black and white.
Pardon my English as it is not my 1st language
I don't like picky people and now I'm going to make myself feel like one. I loved GW1, finished all the campaigns and I still play it sometimes. But it's not really an MMO. I never minded that as much as some but hey I loved the original Diablo. I like co-op mission games that are well done and GW1 was well done indeed.
As to your other points, yes it will be very interesting indeed to see how successful Diablo 3 is. I won't be playing it. I liked D2 less then D1 and really D3 doesn't apeal to me much at all. The fact that the Anet guys came from D1 and partway through D2 makes quite a lot of sense to me as a gamer who played all of those games. We'll see how D3 goes without that talent.
the poster formerly known as melangel :P
Personally I give the "did it first" award to EA... because all the paid services we see today... and even the "cash shop" were in Ultima Online... a decade ago if not earlier.
Or even EA with Earth and Beyond. Where the refer a friend program gave you X amont of credits per friend... and it increased up to a cap for every friend you got to join. Along with giving you a certain amount of skill points... that also increased per friend. (those were normally awarded by increasing a level so you could max out your character much earlier).
I never really figured out how that worked because unlike blizzard where they have to sub for 30 days. People used to sell what amounted to unlmited codes on ebay... pretty cheap.
So I'll stick with EA for the founder achievement title for most of those things.
As to the thread in general... I always wondered how B2P worked. Simply because in the early days of UO/EQ they used to talk about bandwidth costs. I assume in the late 90's this was different than now but anyway... When battle.net went up for Diablo and Starcraft etc... I always thought it had all these games being played constantly and it has to have the same bandwidth costs for active users. So how exactly do you pay all that with a product that generates no guaranteed income after the initial sale?
Just like in the 80's when I used Quantum Link. They ran paticular hours because phone rates used to be lower from like 6pm to 6am local time. If you were east coast for example you could stay logged in 3 hours longer by using a west coast access number. Beyond that you had a monthly fee and many services had a per minute fee (like 6 cents per minute) to pay the costs.
I just always have wondered if I buy a game like Guild Wars... and I played everyday and was still playing... and never bought any expansions... how do they not lose money.
Because subscription games had to increase subscription prices a few times just to make ends meet. (uo was like $9.95 at first and I believe EQ was $9.89... then they were both like $12.99 before the now common $14.99).
GW2 is not really any different than Turbine's shops except Turbine actually have a few items that affect character development in a disparate way (stat tomes in LOTRO).
If GW2 lets you buy something that gives you a 15% xp boost, yet you can level to max level in say 5 days. Then seriously who care? If that is your definition of Pay to Win then I have a really big problem with your definition such that we can probably never come to an agreement about it.
For me Pay to Win comes in when you must pay money to get something that gives you significantly superior stats or abilities or when not paying is so incredibly adruous that most normal people would not do it.
Examples:
1) a state tome that raised stats enough that you did say 15% more damage than a non-payer
2) It takes 1 year to advance to max without paying and it takes a week with paying.
3) some super duper ultra mega weapon that will never exist via in game drops
That is pay to win. Although I do not like the idea that advancing to max level is "winning" since its not, but if advancement is so incredibly boringly slow without paying then that is an inducment. However I would like to point out that #2 is also REALLY bad business. Making your game completely unrewarding like that will only cause a small number of crazy people to pay you a large number of people will simply leave.
Also keep in mind that a small number of people pay large amounts of money and a large amount of people pay almost no money at all in many micortransaction games. If a game is truly Pay to Win and 80% of people are paying no money then it must be true that 80% of people are not "winning" whatever that means. According to the stats many of these games release you would surprised how much money a small number of people spend on things and how little the majority spends.
Actually MUDs did this way before EA. Many MUDs had donation items or special points for people who donated money to the game.
In the MUD I played you could get ridiculously overpowered items that you personally designed that permanently stayed on your character no matter what. This is actually one of the reasons I am so adamantly against real Pay to Win. One of the people on that MUD had a donation item so powerful it would essentially one shot anyone else in the game and he would abuse it and hunt down people who had no chance like the typical griefer.
Other MUDs have more balanced system and that MUD I played eventually toned down and balanced donation items to some degree.
But either way its not a new idea. Not by a long shot. And almost all the MUDs who did/do it were essentially non-profits run by volunteers who often got paid nothing at all.
So word to the wise: Don't believe this stuff is all greed or based in evil. Yes EA is evil and greedy. But the idea itself has spanned all sorts of things for multiple decades. And in some cases even back in the 80's and 90's some systems were sane and rational and worked ok and some were not and were brutally unfair.
I am very much against true Pay to Win because I have seen first hand how brutally unfair it can be. But that doesn't mean microtransactions are a bad idea. Nor does it even mean that some modest advantage in game play really matters all that much.