seee here i am the oppisite, i dislike B2P and F2P and want P2P back,
oh and you dont have a vote anymore you lost that with P2P you sub was your vote, now they only hear what the whales have to say about the games, and dont care about the majority anymore.
F2P may be the way of the future, but ya know they dont make them like they used to Proper Grammer & spelling are extra, corrections will be LOL at.
Outside WoW the only games capable of sustaining a considerable amount of subs are niche games. Most hybrid models can at most expect 500K.
While it is certain GW2 didn't make a fraction of WoW revenue, the second most successful sub game is EvE.
EvE in 9 years (2003-2012) made some $360M in revenue. GW2 without a sub made $200M in 9 months.
This.
I like B2P, seems fair. I have no idea why people still support Sub games since they all fail whithin 1 year.
For me personally, MMOs have been "failing" for their quality, more so than their payment method.
i blame the B2P/F2P era for this downfall in qualirty we have seen of late, not that it means that all P2P MMO where awsome but at least we used to get a good one each year, im still wiating to see a good one come with this payment module right out the box.
F2P may be the way of the future, but ya know they dont make them like they used to Proper Grammer & spelling are extra, corrections will be LOL at.
9 pages of discussion about subscription models, but how many here realize that it doesn't matter? Couple of you do, thankfully.
The problem isn't whether the game is P2P, B2P, or even F2P (in theory). Problem is that devs are lazy, want a lot of money fast without making a good game and maintaining it longer than it takes them to squeeze out another "huge" title.
The other half of the problem is greed. Worst example would be B2P then P2P with cashshop dependent content.
Where did the times go when they just made you a good game and wanted to get paid for it? Now the consumer is taken for a fool with the whole F2P and cashshop fad, even if some gamers hustle the hustler right back and don't pay a thing.
Ultimately, it is the experience of enjoying a good game that suffers because of all this.
Have to keep an eye on indie and post F2P mmos to see if any real games find their way to the market soon.
People who buy into this genre take more risks than those who don't buy into this genre. They may buy a game and have it close down in a few months. They may buy a game that they like, only to have it turn into something they don't like in a month or two. That doesn't happen in 99% of games, but it does in MMORPGs.
Take Game A: $60 price tag, and no risk it'll go bust or do an NGE on you.
versus
Game B: $60 price tag, and a risk it'll be mismanaged, go bust, or morph into something you didn't want.
The problem with B2P is that it asks a Game A price without the quality control of a Game A product. We can't objectively compare the value of a B2P MMO unless we measure the risk the consumer bears. My question is, how much of a discount is this "extra risk" worth?
Because it has to be worth something. How much of a discount ought a consumer expect for taking on a risk that he or she wouldn't otherwise have in another form of consumer entertainment?
__________________________ "Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it." --Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints." --Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls." --Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE
People who buy into this genre take more risks than those who don't buy into this genre. They may buy a game and have it close down in a few months. They may buy a game that they like, only to have it turn into something they don't like in a month or two. That doesn't happen in 99% of games, but it does in MMORPGs.
Take Game A: $60 price tag, and no risk it'll go bust or do an NGE on you.
versus
Game B: $60 price tag, and a risk it'll be mismanaged, go bust, or morph into something you didn't want.
The problem with B2P is that it asks a Game A price without the quality control of a Game A product. We can't objectively compare the value of a B2P MMO unless we measure the risk the consumer bears. My question is, how much of a discount is this "extra risk" worth?
Because it has to be worth something. How much of a discount ought a consumer expect for taking on a risk that he or she wouldn't otherwise have in another form of consumer entertainment?
P2P shares this problem with B2P plus it expands on it by asking for $15/month. Once you have been playing and paying for a game for, let's say a year, you have now invested ~$240 into the game. What if they decide to drastically change it or it goes under now? It's a potentially far greater risk to throw in with a P2P game.
So really, I see your point about there being greater risk for MMORPG gamers as one of the pro's of B2P. It's less risk than a P2P MMO because if it goes down or changes, you have spent less resources on it than you would have on what used to be the industry standard payment model in MMORPGs.
It's difficult to compare it to $60 single player games because with MMORPGs, there is an expectation that content continues to be delivered. You could potentially justify the risk of paying up front like you are talking about with the constant addition of features and content to the games. Yes, this does mean that it could change in a direction you may not like, but it also means that people are getting new experiences that single players games don't have (unless they sell DLC for an additional cost).
People who think payment model dictates the quality of the game are just flat out wrong. There are good and bad examples of them in every payment type.
I prefer free to start and sub if you think the game is worth it but with the ability to still play for free if you're willing to put in the extra work to earn everything.
To talk about the bolded part, this would precisely be what I don't want to see in a game personally, and what I would call pay-to-win.
I'm okay with paying for content. I'm okay with free players not being able to, say, get past a certain level. What I'm not okay with, personally, is selling stuff like XP boosters or faster progression in other ways to make the paying players progress faster than the F2P players while they are on the same playing field.
If I was to play a game that had F2P elements to it, it would be something like a level restricted, unlimited trial, or something like RuneScape's F2P/P2P system where the P2P players indeed only pay for more content.
Many F2P Games offer this with a "gold membership, or elite membership", such as: TERA, EQ1, EQ2, Vanguard: SoH, Rift is going to have it, many others use it.
I like AIONs model, which has no "gold plan", same with GW2.
In comparison the AION model is infinitely better than the GW2 model. You are essentially paying 50$ up-front for a f2p game with GW2. As far as payment models go, why would B2P be better than F2P? You already said you weren't talking about content, only payment models, so I'm not sure how B2P would be considered better without taking into account the content of the game.
Outside WoW the only games capable of sustaining a considerable amount of subs are niche games. Most hybrid models can at most expect 500K.
While it is certain GW2 didn't make a fraction of WoW revenue, the second most successful sub game is EvE.
EvE in 9 years (2003-2012) made some $360M in revenue. GW2 without a sub made $200M in 9 months.
This.
I like B2P, seems fair. I have no idea why people still support Sub games since they all fail whithin 1 year.
How about WOW or EVE? These games are still going strong after all these years. Games that aren't worth playing go bust even F2P models.
the steel shines red with enemy blood. It sings of victory, granted by the gods. And as they return bleeding but proud, the horizon burns and the song is ringing LOUD!
Most MMO's would be good as B2P, but certain titles need different policies. Camelot Unchained should really have a luxury P2P model of $50 / month or greater. (The more I think about this, I'm thinking that $125-$150 / month is probably the sweetspot for that game)
All of my posts are either intelligent, thought provoking, funny, satirical, sarcastic or intentionally disrespectful. Take your pick.
I get banned in the forums for games I love, so lets see if I do better in the forums for games I hate.
I enjoy the serenity of not caring what your opinion is.
Most MMO's would be good as B2P, but certain titles need different policies. Camelot Unchained should really have a luxury P2P model of $50 / month or greater. (The more I think about this, I'm thinking that $125-$150 / month is probably the sweetspot for that game)
ARE YOU ON CRACK!?!?!?!?!
You actually think that $50-$150 dollars is something people will go for? Yeah, kiss the vast majority of your customers goodbye.
MMO success used to be compared to WoW back when companies thought they too could attract millions in a subscription capacity. Now that they have seen this will never be the case it's time for us to do the same.
MMO success can be measured the same way any other business is: is your company growing and making a profit. If this is true then it's a success no matter how many subs or sign ups you have. I've seen far too many comments in this thread that claim because you only have X subs it's not viable/dying/thing of the past.
It seems this industry is finally going to get some variance after years of the same model. The player base will likely get spread out as more MMOs are released. This means lower sub bases for sub games and less whales for anything with a cash shop (F2P or B2P). I would be more concerned about F2P/B2P in regards to content updates and quality of play.
Most MMO's would be good as B2P, but certain titles need different policies. Camelot Unchained should really have a luxury P2P model of $50 / month or greater. (The more I think about this, I'm thinking that $125-$150 / month is probably the sweetspot for that game)
ARE YOU ON CRACK!?!?!?!?!
You actually think that $50-$150 dollars is something people will go for? Yeah, kiss the vast majority of your customers goodbye.
I've heard multiple CU fans state that they want P2P because it keeps the F2P scum out. I've also heard those same people talk about how P2P means better games, so a bit more funding just means a better game. CU is a niche title, so it's fans need to step up to the plate and show them that they will pay whatever it costs to make the greatest game ever into the better than greatest game ever.
It's simply a matter of looking at how badly the CU fans need this title because everything else is just garbage, and then evaluating how much money they can put into the pot. $150/month is still cheaper then going to see a movie every couple days, and most CU fans are going to put more time in than that. It's great value really
All of my posts are either intelligent, thought provoking, funny, satirical, sarcastic or intentionally disrespectful. Take your pick.
I get banned in the forums for games I love, so lets see if I do better in the forums for games I hate.
I enjoy the serenity of not caring what your opinion is.
Most MMO's would be good as B2P, but certain titles need different policies. Camelot Unchained should really have a luxury P2P model of $50 / month or greater. (The more I think about this, I'm thinking that $125-$150 / month is probably the sweetspot for that game)
ARE YOU ON CRACK!?!?!?!?!
You actually think that $50-$150 dollars is something people will go for? Yeah, kiss the vast majority of your customers goodbye.
I've heard multiple CU fans state that they want P2P because it keeps the F2P scum out. I've also heard those same people talk about how P2P means better games, so a bit more funding just means a better game. CU is a niche title, so it's fans need to step up to the plate and show them that they will pay whatever it costs to make the greatest game ever into the better than greatest game ever.
It's simply a matter of looking at how badly the CU fans need this title because everything else is just garbage, and then evaluating how much money they can put into the pot. $150/month is still cheaper then going to see a movie every couple days, and most CU fans are going to put more time in than that. It's great value really
Yeah, and is $15/month really enough to keep any of the riffraff out? I don't think so. Raise that sub to remove all the whiners. After all, it's like the cost of a single movie.
Originally posted by GregorMcgregor No ty. Subs keep the assholes away! Death to the F2P welfare club. If your to poor or tight to play/sub, then don't! Go play Mario!
Ehh? what about games like WOW and EVE? monthly sub surely didn't help to keep them away.
I have no idea when this 'myth' about people being suddenly nice and gentlemen only because they got 15 bucks in their pockets got popular.
Originally posted by GregorMcgregor No ty. Subs keep the assholes away! Death to the F2P welfare club. If your to poor or tight to play/sub, then don't! Go play Mario!
Ehh? what about games like WOW and EVE? monthly sub surely didn't help to keep them away.
I have no idea when this 'myth' about people being suddenly nice and gentlemen only because they got 15 bucks in their pockets got popular.
There are many people who turn into assholes because they paid for something and now they're entitled.
All of my posts are either intelligent, thought provoking, funny, satirical, sarcastic or intentionally disrespectful. Take your pick.
I get banned in the forums for games I love, so lets see if I do better in the forums for games I hate.
I enjoy the serenity of not caring what your opinion is.
People who buy into this genre take more risks than those who don't buy into this genre. They may buy a game and have it close down in a few months. They may buy a game that they like, only to have it turn into something they don't like in a month or two. That doesn't happen in 99% of games, but it does in MMORPGs.
Take Game A: $60 price tag, and no risk it'll go bust or do an NGE on you.
versus
Game B: $60 price tag, and a risk it'll be mismanaged, go bust, or morph into something you didn't want.
The problem with B2P is that it asks a Game A price without the quality control of a Game A product. We can't objectively compare the value of a B2P MMO unless we measure the risk the consumer bears. My question is, how much of a discount is this "extra risk" worth?
Because it has to be worth something. How much of a discount ought a consumer expect for taking on a risk that he or she wouldn't otherwise have in another form of consumer entertainment?
Wrote a couple different replies, but I am starting to realize that, while techically MMOs, F2P, B2P, and P2P games all offer vastly different experience, to a point where they could be considered separate genres and not just separate subscription models.
While I take the "keeping the riff-raff away" notions with quite a bit of salt, as it is a justification I've often seen used by generally rather unpleasant fellow mmo gamers, it is true that with P2P you also pay something for the *experience* of playing within the content, and not just for the content. It is also true however that without updated content the experience grows stale.
If we separate gaming experience based on the subscription model, then B2P gets you what it promises: a game you can experience as an MMO. F2P allows you to experience the game as 100 different MMOs and if you spend ridiculous amount on it then you might even get P2P equivalent MMO experience. P2P offers consistent MMORPG experience, not 100 different quality games within one server, or a game that you can *experience* as an MMORGP.
So, from that angle, we could even say P2P and B2P MMOs are different games entirely because former tends to keep you entertained for up to a decade where as the other likely dies within few years, unless fed by a *shudder* cash shop..
Originally posted by Jemcrystal Box to play requires to much initial investment for people on a budget. Nothing out there is under $60. Turn me upside down and jiggle me. Nothing is going to fall out. Nope, I'm staying with f2p.
The Secret World is well under $60. Granted, it wasn't developed as a B2P game, but it's still well under the $60 mark.
You aint kiddn I found one for $13 on Amazon. Dos might play dat.
I am new and I read a bunch of threads now about B2P F2P and so on. There is no one solution for everything.
People that like F2P are happy they don't have to pay but complain about bad content or that others have an advantage if they use the store. If these people and options wouldn't exist you would NOT be playing a F2P and that is a fact.
B2P, nothing wrong with that. You pay and get a good game, well, some of the times you do.
P2P, if you want content developed and the game being updated and serviced and keep the servers running, nothing wrong with that.
WOW dips into all of this. You buy the game, pay to play it and you can buy stuff from the store.
Now I would think that I only should have to pay 1 of these 3 and not all 3. But I do. I have been playing wow for about 2 years now.
If you choose to play a F2P game and don't want to share in by paying anything ever, do not EVER complain about the game. You don't contribute to it, if you don't like it go play something else.
I don't mind any of these options but I don't like having more than 1 at the same time for any game. I would pay for more if the game was worth it but to be honest there is nothing out there that "deserves" more than 1 of the payment options.
I don't think all of the games should be B2P, some games don't have large advertising budgets and so cant get the word out, but turn out to be great games. Some games you B2P are horrible and not worth the money.
I think we should keep all variations and decide for ourselves what we are willing to do for each title. I dont think there is a one fits all option.
Guild Wars 2 really set the bar for the next generation of MMORPGs. They've really changed the playing field. I think it's time for a complete Buy-to-play market or Free-to-Play market. I am sure you would agree with me that the subscription model needs to die.
The subscription model is a thing of the past. Lets finish the job by boycotting games that charge subscription fees and playing B2P or F2P games. We the gamers need to have a voice and that voice needs to be strong.
Death to the Pay to Play market.
I like the buy to play model. And yes all mmos should go buy to play.
Originally posted by xBrando Despite the game itself, I'm most pleased with GW2's B2P route and their gem shop.
Agreed about their payment model, it's the best I've seen so far. And it's not even because I like the game. It's more of a bonus.
I do agree with the poster above me too... making everything the same might stagnate the market a bit, and let's face facts, some people still believe they can get better quality/enjoyment out of games created for a certain payment model, and that's their prerogative.
Guild Wars 2 really set the bar for the next generation of MMORPGs. They've really changed the playing field. I think it's time for a complete Buy-to-play market or Free-to-Play market. I am sure you would agree with me that the subscription model needs to die.
The subscription model is a thing of the past. Lets finish the job by boycotting games that charge subscription fees and playing B2P or F2P games. We the gamers need to have a voice and that voice needs to be strong.
Death to the Pay to Play market.
I like the buy to play model. And yes all mmos should go buy to play.
I'd agree with the OP about half-way. The only MMORPG that I've played and liked have been either B2P ( GW1 ) or P2P.
All of my experiences with so-called free-to-play games have been under-whelming in the sense they were either outright crap or nag-ware ( constant nagging to cough up ). Of course I'd be happy to find a really cool game that I liked that was free-to-play but I'm not going to hold my breath.
I sometimes make spelling and grammar errors but I don't pretend it's because I'm using a phone
B2P and F2P means to me shallow solo focused games with little in the way of end game other than endless PVP grinding.
No thanks, I would prefer a sub game with a PVE end game that takes months if not years to complete over a B2P or F2P game where you can do it in a few weeks.
Also give me a game where I can craft inventory bags or buy them with in game currency, doesn't have a slot machine based reward system and doesn't have a real money to in game currency option.
Just because there has not been a sub based game in the last 5+ years worth a salt doesn't mean the model is dead.
B2P and F2P means to me shallow solo focused games with little in the way of end game other than endless PVP grinding.
No thanks, I would prefer a sub game with a PVE end game that takes months if not years to complete over a B2P or F2P game where you can do it in a few weeks.
Just because there has not been a sub based game in the last 5+ years worth a salt doesn't mean the model is dead.
B2P and F2P means to me fun solo & MP focused games.
Great. I would not prefer a sub game with a PvE end game that takes months if not years to complete over a B2P or F2P game where you can see all the content in a few weeks.
Because there has not been a sub based games in the last 5+ year worth a salt pretty much mean that the model is dead.
Comments
seee here i am the oppisite, i dislike B2P and F2P and want P2P back,
oh and you dont have a vote anymore you lost that with P2P you sub was your vote, now they only hear what the whales have to say about the games, and dont care about the majority anymore.
F2P may be the way of the future, but ya know they dont make them like they used to
Proper Grammer & spelling are extra, corrections will be LOL at.
i blame the B2P/F2P era for this downfall in qualirty we have seen of late, not that it means that all P2P MMO where awsome but at least we used to get a good one each year, im still wiating to see a good one come with this payment module right out the box.
F2P may be the way of the future, but ya know they dont make them like they used to
Proper Grammer & spelling are extra, corrections will be LOL at.
9 pages of discussion about subscription models, but how many here realize that it doesn't matter? Couple of you do, thankfully.
The problem isn't whether the game is P2P, B2P, or even F2P (in theory). Problem is that devs are lazy, want a lot of money fast without making a good game and maintaining it longer than it takes them to squeeze out another "huge" title.
The other half of the problem is greed. Worst example would be B2P then P2P with cashshop dependent content.
Where did the times go when they just made you a good game and wanted to get paid for it? Now the consumer is taken for a fool with the whole F2P and cashshop fad, even if some gamers hustle the hustler right back and don't pay a thing.
Ultimately, it is the experience of enjoying a good game that suffers because of all this.
Have to keep an eye on indie and post F2P mmos to see if any real games find their way to the market soon.
People who buy into this genre take more risks than those who don't buy into this genre. They may buy a game and have it close down in a few months. They may buy a game that they like, only to have it turn into something they don't like in a month or two. That doesn't happen in 99% of games, but it does in MMORPGs.
Take Game A: $60 price tag, and no risk it'll go bust or do an NGE on you.
versus
Game B: $60 price tag, and a risk it'll be mismanaged, go bust, or morph into something you didn't want.
The problem with B2P is that it asks a Game A price without the quality control of a Game A product. We can't objectively compare the value of a B2P MMO unless we measure the risk the consumer bears. My question is, how much of a discount is this "extra risk" worth?
Because it has to be worth something. How much of a discount ought a consumer expect for taking on a risk that he or she wouldn't otherwise have in another form of consumer entertainment?
__________________________
"Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it."
--Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints."
--Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls."
--Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE
P2P shares this problem with B2P plus it expands on it by asking for $15/month. Once you have been playing and paying for a game for, let's say a year, you have now invested ~$240 into the game. What if they decide to drastically change it or it goes under now? It's a potentially far greater risk to throw in with a P2P game.
So really, I see your point about there being greater risk for MMORPG gamers as one of the pro's of B2P. It's less risk than a P2P MMO because if it goes down or changes, you have spent less resources on it than you would have on what used to be the industry standard payment model in MMORPGs.
It's difficult to compare it to $60 single player games because with MMORPGs, there is an expectation that content continues to be delivered. You could potentially justify the risk of paying up front like you are talking about with the constant addition of features and content to the games. Yes, this does mean that it could change in a direction you may not like, but it also means that people are getting new experiences that single players games don't have (unless they sell DLC for an additional cost).
In comparison the AION model is infinitely better than the GW2 model. You are essentially paying 50$ up-front for a f2p game with GW2. As far as payment models go, why would B2P be better than F2P? You already said you weren't talking about content, only payment models, so I'm not sure how B2P would be considered better without taking into account the content of the game.
How about WOW or EVE? These games are still going strong after all these years. Games that aren't worth playing go bust even F2P models.
the steel shines red with enemy blood. It sings of victory, granted by the gods. And as they return bleeding but proud, the horizon burns and the song is ringing LOUD!
Most MMO's would be good as B2P, but certain titles need different policies. Camelot Unchained should really have a luxury P2P model of $50 / month or greater. (The more I think about this, I'm thinking that $125-$150 / month is probably the sweetspot for that game)
All of my posts are either intelligent, thought provoking, funny, satirical, sarcastic or intentionally disrespectful. Take your pick.
I get banned in the forums for games I love, so lets see if I do better in the forums for games I hate.
I enjoy the serenity of not caring what your opinion is.
I don't hate much, but I hate Apple© with a passion. If Steve Jobs was alive, I would punch him in the face.
ARE YOU ON CRACK!?!?!?!?!
You actually think that $50-$150 dollars is something people will go for? Yeah, kiss the vast majority of your customers goodbye.
MMO success can be measured the same way any other business is: is your company growing and making a profit. If this is true then it's a success no matter how many subs or sign ups you have. I've seen far too many comments in this thread that claim because you only have X subs it's not viable/dying/thing of the past.
It seems this industry is finally going to get some variance after years of the same model. The player base will likely get spread out as more MMOs are released. This means lower sub bases for sub games and less whales for anything with a cash shop (F2P or B2P). I would be more concerned about F2P/B2P in regards to content updates and quality of play.
I've heard multiple CU fans state that they want P2P because it keeps the F2P scum out. I've also heard those same people talk about how P2P means better games, so a bit more funding just means a better game. CU is a niche title, so it's fans need to step up to the plate and show them that they will pay whatever it costs to make the greatest game ever into the better than greatest game ever.
It's simply a matter of looking at how badly the CU fans need this title because everything else is just garbage, and then evaluating how much money they can put into the pot. $150/month is still cheaper then going to see a movie every couple days, and most CU fans are going to put more time in than that. It's great value really
All of my posts are either intelligent, thought provoking, funny, satirical, sarcastic or intentionally disrespectful. Take your pick.
I get banned in the forums for games I love, so lets see if I do better in the forums for games I hate.
I enjoy the serenity of not caring what your opinion is.
I don't hate much, but I hate Apple© with a passion. If Steve Jobs was alive, I would punch him in the face.
Yeah, and is $15/month really enough to keep any of the riffraff out? I don't think so. Raise that sub to remove all the whiners. After all, it's like the cost of a single movie.
No trials. No tricks. No traps. No EU-RP server. NO THANKS!
...10% Benevolence, 90% Arrogance in my case!
Ehh? what about games like WOW and EVE? monthly sub surely didn't help to keep them away.
I have no idea when this 'myth' about people being suddenly nice and gentlemen only because they got 15 bucks in their pockets got popular.
There are many people who turn into assholes because they paid for something and now they're entitled.
All of my posts are either intelligent, thought provoking, funny, satirical, sarcastic or intentionally disrespectful. Take your pick.
I get banned in the forums for games I love, so lets see if I do better in the forums for games I hate.
I enjoy the serenity of not caring what your opinion is.
I don't hate much, but I hate Apple© with a passion. If Steve Jobs was alive, I would punch him in the face.
Wrote a couple different replies, but I am starting to realize that, while techically MMOs, F2P, B2P, and P2P games all offer vastly different experience, to a point where they could be considered separate genres and not just separate subscription models.
While I take the "keeping the riff-raff away" notions with quite a bit of salt, as it is a justification I've often seen used by generally rather unpleasant fellow mmo gamers, it is true that with P2P you also pay something for the *experience* of playing within the content, and not just for the content. It is also true however that without updated content the experience grows stale.
If we separate gaming experience based on the subscription model, then B2P gets you what it promises: a game you can experience as an MMO. F2P allows you to experience the game as 100 different MMOs and if you spend ridiculous amount on it then you might even get P2P equivalent MMO experience. P2P offers consistent MMORPG experience, not 100 different quality games within one server, or a game that you can *experience* as an MMORGP.
So, from that angle, we could even say P2P and B2P MMOs are different games entirely because former tends to keep you entertained for up to a decade where as the other likely dies within few years, unless fed by a *shudder* cash shop..
You aint kiddn I found one for $13 on Amazon. Dos might play dat.
I am new and I read a bunch of threads now about B2P F2P and so on. There is no one solution for everything.
People that like F2P are happy they don't have to pay but complain about bad content or that others have an advantage if they use the store. If these people and options wouldn't exist you would NOT be playing a F2P and that is a fact.
B2P, nothing wrong with that. You pay and get a good game, well, some of the times you do.
P2P, if you want content developed and the game being updated and serviced and keep the servers running, nothing wrong with that.
WOW dips into all of this. You buy the game, pay to play it and you can buy stuff from the store.
Now I would think that I only should have to pay 1 of these 3 and not all 3. But I do. I have been playing wow for about 2 years now.
If you choose to play a F2P game and don't want to share in by paying anything ever, do not EVER complain about the game. You don't contribute to it, if you don't like it go play something else.
I don't mind any of these options but I don't like having more than 1 at the same time for any game. I would pay for more if the game was worth it but to be honest there is nothing out there that "deserves" more than 1 of the payment options.
I don't think all of the games should be B2P, some games don't have large advertising budgets and so cant get the word out, but turn out to be great games. Some games you B2P are horrible and not worth the money.
I think we should keep all variations and decide for ourselves what we are willing to do for each title. I dont think there is a one fits all option.
I like the buy to play model. And yes all mmos should go buy to play.
Agreed about their payment model, it's the best I've seen so far. And it's not even because I like the game. It's more of a bonus.
I do agree with the poster above me too... making everything the same might stagnate the market a bit, and let's face facts, some people still believe they can get better quality/enjoyment out of games created for a certain payment model, and that's their prerogative.
+1
I'd agree with the OP about half-way. The only MMORPG that I've played and liked have been either B2P ( GW1 ) or P2P.
All of my experiences with so-called free-to-play games have been under-whelming in the sense they were either outright crap or nag-ware ( constant nagging to cough up ). Of course I'd be happy to find a really cool game that I liked that was free-to-play but I'm not going to hold my breath.
I sometimes make spelling and grammar errors but I don't pretend it's because I'm using a phone
B2P and F2P means to me shallow solo focused games with little in the way of end game other than endless PVP grinding.
No thanks, I would prefer a sub game with a PVE end game that takes months if not years to complete over a B2P or F2P game where you can do it in a few weeks.
Also give me a game where I can craft inventory bags or buy them with in game currency, doesn't have a slot machine based reward system and doesn't have a real money to in game currency option.
Just because there has not been a sub based game in the last 5+ years worth a salt doesn't mean the model is dead.
B2P and F2P means to me fun solo & MP focused games.
Great. I would not prefer a sub game with a PvE end game that takes months if not years to complete over a B2P or F2P game where you can see all the content in a few weeks.
Because there has not been a sub based games in the last 5+ year worth a salt pretty much mean that the model is dead.