Many companies are going F2P because they find it works well. Those who say only crappy games go F2P .. tell that to Valve and TF2 because they would like to have a word with you. Actually, they where kinda shocked themselves that a F2P game could make.
However, this doesn't mean the F2P model is all that good for the consumers. Most do not enjoy the cash shop crap, and most of all pay to win.
Not all F2P games have a bad cash shop. Nor are all F2P games bad. Anyone who says that clearly has no idea what they are talking about. You can't base your claims on a handful of games you tried, because I bet there are tons you have not tried. Actually most people who complain about F2P don't even play F2P game, so their opinion is fairly biased and not really based on evidence at all. They base most of their claims on older games, or game that just where plainly not good at all. Some people even mention games they didn't even try themselves.
I personally do not mind a F2P model, however, it isn't the choice I would make if I had to make that choice. The choice I like is B2P.
B2P allows you to pay for the game just as you would any other game. You actually get more sales then you would get from a P2P option since more are willing to take the risk, thus making you more money to at least keep up with the P2P model for the first year. They have to include a cash shop that sells very minor aesthetic items. This increases and helps cover server costs. This also doesn't cause any of the so called pay gates that are mentioned. You could technically not even include the cash shop if you release DLC content as often as passed Elder Scrolls games did. Elder Scrolls has a very large backing with Skyrim having sold about 9 - 12 million copies. These numbers can easily sustain ESO as a B2P even with out a cash shop if they release their DLC content on a yearly bases.
P2P model I do not find to be all that viable despite what some will tell you, it's a hard model to actually keep going. P2P requires to to not only purchase the game initially for $60, but has you pay an extra $15 fee. Some will say it's worth it if they release enough content. I say poppy cock to that. If you really are getting your monies worth, would you not expect to have as much content as a full single player games content when you reach the $120 payment mark? You essentially have been playing for 5 months since the first month is free. You payed the price of 2 games at this point. At the 9 month mark, you payed for the price of 3 games.
Now I know some people are obviously willing to pay this price. That is fine. What you don't understand though is, a LOT of people are not willing. I don't claim to know the exact amount of people, however, it has to be near the 50% mark give or take. Even though other players could care less who plays and who doesn't. The developer certainly does give a crap.
Why is this an issue? Because if the developer finds they alienated to many of their potential customer base, they could end up switching to F2P which then would piss off their current customers. Those who say it will not happen, are fooling themselves. It most certainly WILL happen, it's just a matter of how long will it go before it does so? Will it be able to last longer then all the passed attempts in recent years? If not, they can actually see a possible loss rather then a gain if they had gone B2P to begin with.
This is just one of the many issues with the P2P model. A double edge sword for those who feel obligated to play the game. On one hand we have players who like the idea, that it will give them a reason to continue to play. However, this doesn't work the same way for everyone. Other people like to play many games. This can create a wall for them. They will feel they HAVE to play this game because they payed for that month. They may drop their subscription if they want to play a different game rather then just keep paying for it. In which case, they may not resub for a few months until a few updates have been made. This type of thing can also cause problems with making enough money.
Other issues involve a lot of their player base include college students who currently can't pay the $15 fee per month. Some of which may decide to not even purchase the game at all due to this. You also have to remember, a lot of the console crowd are not used to paying a service for for 1 specific game. At least not a large majority of them. If you look at passed statistics, you will find console players actually made up the vast majority of sales for Skyrim. Kind of shocking since i would have expected it being the other way around. I will include links to my sources below.
I see a lot of P2P who are perfectly fine with this, but really they should be a little more worried. This could effect the quality of this game overall. The very model you like, could actually prevent this game from doing well enough to remain a P2P game. I realize a lot of people have a lot of hope the model will work out, but they really are going to have to set the bar far and above all past and present MMO games. A $15 tagged onto it, means it's going to need to be better then any of the F2P or B2P alternatives. You also have to realize they will be competing with all the other P2P MMOs as well.
Let me ask you this. Would you rather a game be a great B2P game from the start and remain great till the very end? Or would you rather it start as a great P2P game and turn into a crappy F2P in the end? Now you could say, why not turn into a B2P instead? Yes they could go from P2P to B2P. However, that really depends on how well it did while it was P2P. B2P may not drag the numbers in that are needed after the P2P model failed.
Now the excuse people have used for a P2P game failing is that the game sucked. However, I do not agree with this. If the game really was bad, why are people still playing these games? Sure the numbers may not be extremely high to keep the game P2P, but that is because it takes a lot to remain as such. They games show they do really well after the transition to F2P. If these games where bad, why do they do well even after the transition?
Then the other argument is, if you don't like it, don't play it. I love how often this argument is used, because from a business stand point it makes no sense. As a player it doesn't matter to you. However, for Zenimax, it matters a lot. Can you imagine if they used that excuse for their customers? You forget, each and every customer matters to companies. However, numbers speak for themselves. If they are going to lose 25 - 50% of their customers, that may not matter to you, but that is a very very big deal to a company. That is a lot of potential profit lost. This means for them to succeed they have to really believe, they will keep those subs for a very long time to counter that loss.
Right, understandable, however in order to say something is expensive or is a lot of money, the comparison has to be made to the same type of thing. Also by what a particular thing is worth to that person.
Remember, I am not the one who was making such dumb claims by saying it's only $0.50 per day. My example is just to show you how stupid it is. It is stupid in both ways.
Just as you can make anything look cheap, you can make anything look expensive.
So what is and what isn't expensive is decided by each person independently on their own.
Just keep in mind ,you pretty much are agreeing with me, by disagreeing with what I did. That was the point I was making. Multiplying or dividing the cost to make it look expensive or cheaper is equally stupid.
Also, you mention F2P AGAIN right after I made a statement on that. ... Why are you mentioning F2P .. when we are talking about B2P?
AGAIN, no one is saying we want F2P. -.-
I feel like a broken record.
Yes it's true that people can decide on how expensive and inexpensive something is. However, up until this point in time, these games have been sub based and rarely raised their prices over time. The 14.99 now is a lot less than the 14.99 when it was first introduced.
so "yes" one can compare the same thing and say video games cost less money over time for subscriptions. However, I do see your point where one can say it costs pennies per day yet the reality is it costs "x per year".
As far as as the last part, throw in b2p as well. It wasn't my direct intention to exclude it. Regardless of p2p, b2p or f2p, "x" amount of dollars needs to be made.
It's just that some players don't want to pay their share of that cost. B2P might seem to be the way to go but in reality it doesn't cover the costs hence the additional cash shop. The only difference between b2p and f2p is that in b2p you pay for the game up front. There is still the cash shop to hopefully make up the difference they are losing in not charging a sub.
Even GW has a cash shop. GW2 launched with it. They knew they needed additional revenue.
And before someone cries "there is no pay to win" I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about additional revenue streams and allowing a small minority to fill those revenue streams.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Sorry for such a long winded response. However, that is my thoughts on the entire matter.
Just FYI those statistics do not include digital purchases, in which it is widely believed the PC version has outsold the console versions combined thanks to Steam. For those who don't know, Skyrim has been on the top 10 seller list on Steam pretty much every week since it released near on two years ago.
In all honesty, while it can't be proven and it is certainly possible what you say. It's very doubtful. I really can't see the steam sales topping the console numbers. That would essentially mean they would need to have sold around 8 million copies or so on steam. Do you have any idea how unlikely that is?
Now however, considering steam never seems to like to release numbers, I really do not have a very strong argument sadly. However, neither do you really either XD.
I'm over the scam that has become "Free-to-Play". I have forked out more on so called free games in the last few years then I had in 10 years of gaming combined. Neverwinter was the straw that broke this gamers back. I will not be supporting another free-to-play game. I prefer a sub and no micro-transactions at all.. I seriously think a sub brings better quality both in the game itself and in the communities that support them.
I WOULD NOT HAVE played if it was a free to play game, just like I WILL NOT PLAY eqnext if it sticks with f2p model. There is a massive quality difference between free to play and sub to play games.
Sub to play games are for the most part a much much more quality game, communities thrive in them, and they have longevity.
F2p games are the exact opposite, if a dev makes a game and determines it's not good enough for a sub, It gets launched f2p for the quick cash grab and then many many members of the support team for that game are left hung out to dry. Which means we as consumers lose our support team as well.
This market appears to be flooded with mmorpgs, but that is not true. The truth is the market is flooded with devs that think they can make mmorpgs. The truth is there are only a few dev teams that can actually make an mmorpg that is worth playing. The rest of the games 95% of them are just a bunch of wannabe's.
When a dev isn't a wannabe they know it, they produce a game, they stand by their game, it launches sub to play and we see what happens. You can have all the confidence in the world, but you never know what will happen.
Lets look at SWTOR. I think SWTOR actually is a great game, but in todays age of social media, once the momentum built on the anti swtor snow ball it couldn't be stopped. I believe a lot of that momentum came from people that were angry about things that were not even related to SWTOR to begin with.
ESO Team - decided sub to play - they have shown the game off now and people like it, more details are to come yes, but so far its getting a positive vide, the team is confident in their game, they actually believe it merits a sub and they are doing it for their benefit and ours. If it turns out the sub model works, they are seeing sustainable income, the game will be around for a while for people to enjoy. If not it will simply flip to f2p - there will be a cash grab - and then the team will move onto the next project in a short amount of time.
In my opinion, switching to f2p after I bought and payed for a sub to play game is a crime. When that happens I should be refunded my money three fold. The only exception is for example TSW went buy to play, I am ok with that, but going f2p after I already invested time and money is a rip off.
I WOULD NOT HAVE played if it was a free to play game, just like I WILL NOT PLAY eqnext if it sticks with f2p model. There is a massive quality difference between free to play and sub to play games.
Sub to play games are for the most part a much much more quality game, communities thrive in them, and they have longevity.
F2p games are the exact opposite, if a dev makes a game and determines it's not good enough for a sub, It gets launched f2p for the quick cash grab and then many many members of the support team for that game are left hung out to dry. Which means we as consumers lose our support team as well.
This market appears to be flooded with mmorpgs, but that is not true. The truth is the market is flooded with devs that think they can make mmorpgs. The truth is there are only a few dev teams that can actually make an mmorpg that is worth playing. The rest of the games 95% of them are just a bunch of wannabe's.
When a dev isn't a wannabe they know it, they produce a game, they stand by their game, it launches sub to play and we see what happens. You can have all the confidence in the world, but you never know what will happen.
Lets look at SWTOR. I think SWTOR actually is a great game, but in todays age of social media, once the momentum built on the anti swtor snow ball it couldn't be stopped. I believe a lot of that momentum came from people that were angry about things that were not even related to SWTOR to begin with.
ESO Team - decided sub to play - they have shown the game off now and people like it, more details are to come yes, but so far its getting a positive vide, the team is confident in their game, they actually believe it merits a sub and they are doing it for their benefit and ours. If it turns out the sub model works, they are seeing sustainable income, the game will be around for a while for people to enjoy. If not it will simply flip to f2p - there will be a cash grab - and then the team will move onto the next project in a short amount of time.
In my opinion, switching to f2p after I bought and payed for a sub to play game is a crime. When that happens I should be refunded my money three fold. The only exception is for example TSW went buy to play, I am ok with that, but going f2p after I already invested time and money is a rip off.
While I agree with just about everything you said in your last 2 paragraphs, I can't agree with what you said at the start of your post.
No offence to you, but I have found some of the best communities in F2P games, and some of the worst in P2P or B2P games. However, this goes both ways. I have also seen pretty good communities in P2P and B2P ... and really bad communities in F2P.
Also , quality is another thing that works both ways. Yes, a lot of F2P games, are crap. But, again there are a lot of good F2P games as well. Just because you have not specifically played them, does not make them bad just because you played a few bad ones in the past.
The only thing I can almost certainly agree with you on in this area, is customer service tends to be total crap on F2P games. It's not even like they make little money. The moment they go F2P, it's like they stop caring about their support. I never understood it.
As for your truth statement ... that is not truth, that is an opinion. XD Actually really, unless you played every single mmo that exists you couldn't give a percentage like you just did. Basically what you are doing here, is you played a bunch of bad games, and applied that on the rest of the games you didn't play.
Back to community, ... trolls exist ever where. F2P, P2P, and B2P all have them. The only reason you see less of them in P2P, is because the cost limits how much of the entire community actually plays. So you are not just losing the trolls, but you are losing nice players as well.
As for bots, they exist everywhere as well, it just takes them longer to get into the P2P games in comparison. Unless a game has a good system to prevent it, which I have seen a few even in F2P games.
Really I never ran into a F2P game that was complete and total crap entirely as some here make it seem like. Also, I seen plenty of the B2P and P2P games, that are just as bad as some of the worst F2P games out there. A bunch of them claiming they are different, and doing the same exact thing all the other games did.
It's not that devs do not know how to make MMORPGs, it's simply that people are sick of the same thing over and over again. The actual mechanics have not evolved very much to keep up with player demands.
I voted "No", because based on the game features announced, I think this game is not worth a sub fee.
It offers nothing more than GW2 , a B2P game, already has. In fact, since TESO does not have any kind of structured PVP, it offers even less. Honestly, I would rather re-sub to SWTOR, which I perosnally consider a failure, than pay sub for TESO.
Having a sub fee simply because of popular IP is an insult to players intelligence.
I voted "No", because based on the game features announced, I think this game is not worth a sub fee.
It offers nothing more than GW2 , a B2P game, already has. In fact, since TESO does not have any kind of structured PVP, it offers even less. Honestly, I would rather re-sub to SWTOR, which I perosnally consider a failure, than pay sub for TESO.
Having a sub fee simply because of popular IP is an insult to players intelligence.
Not sure what you would consider structured PVP.
To me it seems like one of the better PVP system MMORPG ever had. Perhaps because those who want to PVP actually play against other people who want to PVP that could be a issue for some people?
Your examples I don't get them, you talk about games that are completely different. But maybe you enjoy the PVP in GW2 or SWtOR more then actually PVP that fits the gameworld and even influences it. Might again be too much for some people I don't know. But the amount of complaints we read on forums like this about PVP in general then TESO must really look intresting for those who miss PVP in other MMORPG's.
The sub-fee is a smart move and it doesn't insult players intelligence. In fact I would even go as far as saying that Everquest Next being a sandbox insults me by going F2P.
Also Wildstar isn't a well know populair IP and also going the sub way.
Overall I feel it's a good decision game company's are returning back to subscription models. I fear allot of trouble in the not so distant future for f2p games mainly because of laws that I am sure will go futher looking into the gambling aspects of F2P.
Originally posted by Crazy_Stick Well, I figure it will go like GW2 did for me. I will wait patently while everyone buys it at full price and with mark up. As they wear it out, the player base that won't stick with it gorges themselves, pukes, and flops in a raging forum fit, I will buy it for like $15 during their first promotional sale as the product goes free to play. At least for me it will be like Christmas as the masses burn everything about TESO around them. This has become pretty typical of my experience. Buying discipline pays off.
^ this, considering the devs said it's not an MMO and pretty much one can play solo, I am not in a hurry to play it at launch; I still haven't finished Skyrim lol
Every game I've been subbed to as P2P for the past 6 years has gone F2P, so that is why I will simply wait a year or so.
If anything it will at least give me an idea of the quality of the content, since most people will have explored everything by then. If it still is growing/ maintains a steady following after a year in this market, it's probably a good game.
There are so many good games out right now.... there is no reason to buy anything earlier.
I don't mind the P2P. However, a cash shop on top of a sub is absurd imo. I can deal with the cash shop so long as it doesn't sell game breaking items and everything available in the cash shop can also be attained in the game world some how.
Originally posted by Broshi I don't mind the P2P. However, a cash shop on top of a sub is absurd imo. I can deal with the cash shop so long as it doesn't sell game breaking items and everything available in the cash shop can also be attained in the game world some how.
Matt Firor already stated it's purely cosmetic. People have a drive to buy that crap and I say hey, it if helps a great title like ESO - which is a company doing something in their game that is so unknown to most people on these forums that they aren't even comprehending it when they discuss it (i.e., tri realm RvR, no repeated classes and races, smashable walls and so forth in RvR castles)...
The cash shop will bring more currency to support the title. More money (even if it's from fluff) means more game content and quality investing.
Originally posted by Broshi I don't mind the P2P. However, a cash shop on top of a sub is absurd imo. I can deal with the cash shop so long as it doesn't sell game breaking items and everything available in the cash shop can also be attained in the game world some how.
Matt Firor already stated it's purely cosmetic. People have a drive to buy that crap and I say hey, it if helps a great title like ESO - which is a company doing something in their game that is so unknown to most people on these forums that they aren't even comprehending it when they discuss it (i.e., tri realm RvR, no repeated classes and races, smashable walls and so forth in RvR castles)...
The cash shop will bring more currency to support the title. More money (even if it's from fluff) means more game content and quality investing.
I agree with you. The cosmetic cash shop is not a big deal to me. I want this game to have enough revenue for the devs to make it great and keep it great.
I'll pay a subscription for any game that I feel is worth it. I'm not sure ESO will be one of those games, we'll see. I prefer subs over F2P, B2P gimmicky games though.
I already had a lot of doubts about this game before the sub announcement. Now that it will have a box price + monthly sub, I'm going to pass on it at launch. If launch goes smoothly and I read a lot of people saying it's a great game (by which I mean AvA is great because I don't care about leveling and raiding), then maybe I'll pick it up a month or two later. If it gets the mediocre to bad reviews I expect, then I'll wait for them to add a non subscription option later on before I try it (if ever).
I'm over the scam that has become "Free-to-Play". I have forked out more on so called free games in the last few years then I had in 10 years of gaming combined. Neverwinter was the straw that broke this gamers back. I will not be supporting another free-to-play game. I prefer a sub and no micro-transactions at all.. I seriously think a sub brings better quality both in the game itself and in the communities that support them.
^ hear hear, people tend to actually spend more money on free to play games due to the amount of cash shops. I'll be playing this game and will gladly pay subscriptions if it doesn't pull a SOE by charging subscription PLUS utilize tons of cash shop. If they charge subs and provide good amount of content the way Blizzard has done for WoW, then I will be happy.
I read most of this thread and see a reoccurring thing I needed to say something about.
It seems a LOT of people who are against this being p2p are GW2 fans. Always stating that B2P is the way to go.
I played that game. It was a f2p cash shop game with a box price. You cant sit there with a straight face and tell me a game that has me use the cash shop to expand my tiny inventory isn't a damn f2p game...only they suckered me by telling me their game was b2p. Buy to play is like a single player game where you buy the box and that's it. Slapping a box price on an item mall game is just some new sort of evil that needs to start and end with GW2.
Also, I see a few people posting here that they will never play a p2p again, but are in the ffxiv forums posting about how they got to level 50 already...strange
Well anyway, stop trying to use gw2 as an argument for buy to play. its not buy to play its a cash shop game with a box price, and ill never fall for that one again.
Im sticking with p2p for now. They really need to remarket it as "never pay more than $15 a month" because a lot of these f2p games get you to pay far more than that a month...or make the game really frustrating, slow, and well...not fun....I don't have time to waste on games that are not fun because I didn't pay enough...I got enough unfun things to do in my life and they don't require a $60 cash shop purchase to temporality remedy that situation
I think the real advantage to p2p is that they can hire a staff based on monthly sales and be more stable with development. That and I know up front how much ill be paying out of pocket to play. Never any surprises.
Lastly, a lot of the arguments against p2p use games that go f2p after launch as an excuse. I can only think of a couple games that actually went f2p. Games like AOC, WAR, Anarchy Online, SWTOR...shit I know im missing a lot here but off the top of my head those games all restrict content from free players, and offer a p2p option to unlock it all...I don't call that f2p I call that a really long trial. The list of games that actually went from p2p to f2p are like, aion,L2, TERA....and I think that's it. Those are the only games I can think of that were p2p and then went f2p not restricting any of the games content. The rest were a dirty trap to milk a dying player base and get some new suckers in.
Comments
Many companies are going F2P because they find it works well. Those who say only crappy games go F2P .. tell that to Valve and TF2 because they would like to have a word with you. Actually, they where kinda shocked themselves that a F2P game could make.
However, this doesn't mean the F2P model is all that good for the consumers. Most do not enjoy the cash shop crap, and most of all pay to win.
Not all F2P games have a bad cash shop. Nor are all F2P games bad. Anyone who says that clearly has no idea what they are talking about. You can't base your claims on a handful of games you tried, because I bet there are tons you have not tried. Actually most people who complain about F2P don't even play F2P game, so their opinion is fairly biased and not really based on evidence at all. They base most of their claims on older games, or game that just where plainly not good at all. Some people even mention games they didn't even try themselves.
I personally do not mind a F2P model, however, it isn't the choice I would make if I had to make that choice. The choice I like is B2P.
B2P allows you to pay for the game just as you would any other game. You actually get more sales then you would get from a P2P option since more are willing to take the risk, thus making you more money to at least keep up with the P2P model for the first year. They have to include a cash shop that sells very minor aesthetic items. This increases and helps cover server costs. This also doesn't cause any of the so called pay gates that are mentioned. You could technically not even include the cash shop if you release DLC content as often as passed Elder Scrolls games did. Elder Scrolls has a very large backing with Skyrim having sold about 9 - 12 million copies. These numbers can easily sustain ESO as a B2P even with out a cash shop if they release their DLC content on a yearly bases.
P2P model I do not find to be all that viable despite what some will tell you, it's a hard model to actually keep going. P2P requires to to not only purchase the game initially for $60, but has you pay an extra $15 fee. Some will say it's worth it if they release enough content. I say poppy cock to that. If you really are getting your monies worth, would you not expect to have as much content as a full single player games content when you reach the $120 payment mark? You essentially have been playing for 5 months since the first month is free. You payed the price of 2 games at this point. At the 9 month mark, you payed for the price of 3 games.
Now I know some people are obviously willing to pay this price. That is fine. What you don't understand though is, a LOT of people are not willing. I don't claim to know the exact amount of people, however, it has to be near the 50% mark give or take. Even though other players could care less who plays and who doesn't. The developer certainly does give a crap.
Why is this an issue? Because if the developer finds they alienated to many of their potential customer base, they could end up switching to F2P which then would piss off their current customers. Those who say it will not happen, are fooling themselves. It most certainly WILL happen, it's just a matter of how long will it go before it does so? Will it be able to last longer then all the passed attempts in recent years? If not, they can actually see a possible loss rather then a gain if they had gone B2P to begin with.
This is just one of the many issues with the P2P model. A double edge sword for those who feel obligated to play the game. On one hand we have players who like the idea, that it will give them a reason to continue to play. However, this doesn't work the same way for everyone. Other people like to play many games. This can create a wall for them. They will feel they HAVE to play this game because they payed for that month. They may drop their subscription if they want to play a different game rather then just keep paying for it. In which case, they may not resub for a few months until a few updates have been made. This type of thing can also cause problems with making enough money.
Other issues involve a lot of their player base include college students who currently can't pay the $15 fee per month. Some of which may decide to not even purchase the game at all due to this. You also have to remember, a lot of the console crowd are not used to paying a service for for 1 specific game. At least not a large majority of them. If you look at passed statistics, you will find console players actually made up the vast majority of sales for Skyrim. Kind of shocking since i would have expected it being the other way around. I will include links to my sources below.
I see a lot of P2P who are perfectly fine with this, but really they should be a little more worried. This could effect the quality of this game overall. The very model you like, could actually prevent this game from doing well enough to remain a P2P game. I realize a lot of people have a lot of hope the model will work out, but they really are going to have to set the bar far and above all past and present MMO games. A $15 tagged onto it, means it's going to need to be better then any of the F2P or B2P alternatives. You also have to realize they will be competing with all the other P2P MMOs as well.
Let me ask you this. Would you rather a game be a great B2P game from the start and remain great till the very end? Or would you rather it start as a great P2P game and turn into a crappy F2P in the end? Now you could say, why not turn into a B2P instead? Yes they could go from P2P to B2P. However, that really depends on how well it did while it was P2P. B2P may not drag the numbers in that are needed after the P2P model failed.
Now the excuse people have used for a P2P game failing is that the game sucked. However, I do not agree with this. If the game really was bad, why are people still playing these games? Sure the numbers may not be extremely high to keep the game P2P, but that is because it takes a lot to remain as such. They games show they do really well after the transition to F2P. If these games where bad, why do they do well even after the transition?
Then the other argument is, if you don't like it, don't play it. I love how often this argument is used, because from a business stand point it makes no sense. As a player it doesn't matter to you. However, for Zenimax, it matters a lot. Can you imagine if they used that excuse for their customers? You forget, each and every customer matters to companies. However, numbers speak for themselves. If they are going to lose 25 - 50% of their customers, that may not matter to you, but that is a very very big deal to a company. That is a lot of potential profit lost. This means for them to succeed they have to really believe, they will keep those subs for a very long time to counter that loss.
Skyrim Statistics:
PS3 http://www.vgchartz.com/game/49113/the-elder-scrolls-v-skyrim/ - 4.79 million units sold
Xbox 360 http://www.vgchartz.com/game/49112/the-elder-scrolls-v-skyrim/ - 7.39 million units sold
PC http://www.vgchartz.com/game/49111/the-elder-scrolls-v-skyrim/ - 3.03 million units sold
Sorry for such a long winded response. However, that is my thoughts on the entire matter.
Yes it's true that people can decide on how expensive and inexpensive something is. However, up until this point in time, these games have been sub based and rarely raised their prices over time. The 14.99 now is a lot less than the 14.99 when it was first introduced.
so "yes" one can compare the same thing and say video games cost less money over time for subscriptions. However, I do see your point where one can say it costs pennies per day yet the reality is it costs "x per year".
As far as as the last part, throw in b2p as well. It wasn't my direct intention to exclude it. Regardless of p2p, b2p or f2p, "x" amount of dollars needs to be made.
It's just that some players don't want to pay their share of that cost. B2P might seem to be the way to go but in reality it doesn't cover the costs hence the additional cash shop. The only difference between b2p and f2p is that in b2p you pay for the game up front. There is still the cash shop to hopefully make up the difference they are losing in not charging a sub.
Even GW has a cash shop. GW2 launched with it. They knew they needed additional revenue.
And before someone cries "there is no pay to win" I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about additional revenue streams and allowing a small minority to fill those revenue streams.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
In all honesty, while it can't be proven and it is certainly possible what you say. It's very doubtful. I really can't see the steam sales topping the console numbers. That would essentially mean they would need to have sold around 8 million copies or so on steam. Do you have any idea how unlikely that is?
Now however, considering steam never seems to like to release numbers, I really do not have a very strong argument sadly. However, neither do you really either XD.
I'm over the scam that has become "Free-to-Play". I have forked out more on so called free games in the last few years then I had in 10 years of gaming combined. Neverwinter was the straw that broke this gamers back. I will not be supporting another free-to-play game. I prefer a sub and no micro-transactions at all.. I seriously think a sub brings better quality both in the game itself and in the communities that support them.
I WOULD NOT HAVE played if it was a free to play game, just like I WILL NOT PLAY eqnext if it sticks with f2p model. There is a massive quality difference between free to play and sub to play games.
Sub to play games are for the most part a much much more quality game, communities thrive in them, and they have longevity.
F2p games are the exact opposite, if a dev makes a game and determines it's not good enough for a sub, It gets launched f2p for the quick cash grab and then many many members of the support team for that game are left hung out to dry. Which means we as consumers lose our support team as well.
This market appears to be flooded with mmorpgs, but that is not true. The truth is the market is flooded with devs that think they can make mmorpgs. The truth is there are only a few dev teams that can actually make an mmorpg that is worth playing. The rest of the games 95% of them are just a bunch of wannabe's.
When a dev isn't a wannabe they know it, they produce a game, they stand by their game, it launches sub to play and we see what happens. You can have all the confidence in the world, but you never know what will happen.
Lets look at SWTOR. I think SWTOR actually is a great game, but in todays age of social media, once the momentum built on the anti swtor snow ball it couldn't be stopped. I believe a lot of that momentum came from people that were angry about things that were not even related to SWTOR to begin with.
ESO Team - decided sub to play - they have shown the game off now and people like it, more details are to come yes, but so far its getting a positive vide, the team is confident in their game, they actually believe it merits a sub and they are doing it for their benefit and ours. If it turns out the sub model works, they are seeing sustainable income, the game will be around for a while for people to enjoy. If not it will simply flip to f2p - there will be a cash grab - and then the team will move onto the next project in a short amount of time.
In my opinion, switching to f2p after I bought and payed for a sub to play game is a crime. When that happens I should be refunded my money three fold. The only exception is for example TSW went buy to play, I am ok with that, but going f2p after I already invested time and money is a rip off.
While I agree with just about everything you said in your last 2 paragraphs, I can't agree with what you said at the start of your post.
No offence to you, but I have found some of the best communities in F2P games, and some of the worst in P2P or B2P games. However, this goes both ways. I have also seen pretty good communities in P2P and B2P ... and really bad communities in F2P.
Also , quality is another thing that works both ways. Yes, a lot of F2P games, are crap. But, again there are a lot of good F2P games as well. Just because you have not specifically played them, does not make them bad just because you played a few bad ones in the past.
The only thing I can almost certainly agree with you on in this area, is customer service tends to be total crap on F2P games. It's not even like they make little money. The moment they go F2P, it's like they stop caring about their support. I never understood it.
As for your truth statement ... that is not truth, that is an opinion. XD Actually really, unless you played every single mmo that exists you couldn't give a percentage like you just did. Basically what you are doing here, is you played a bunch of bad games, and applied that on the rest of the games you didn't play.
Back to community, ... trolls exist ever where. F2P, P2P, and B2P all have them. The only reason you see less of them in P2P, is because the cost limits how much of the entire community actually plays. So you are not just losing the trolls, but you are losing nice players as well.
As for bots, they exist everywhere as well, it just takes them longer to get into the P2P games in comparison. Unless a game has a good system to prevent it, which I have seen a few even in F2P games.
Really I never ran into a F2P game that was complete and total crap entirely as some here make it seem like. Also, I seen plenty of the B2P and P2P games, that are just as bad as some of the worst F2P games out there. A bunch of them claiming they are different, and doing the same exact thing all the other games did.
It's not that devs do not know how to make MMORPGs, it's simply that people are sick of the same thing over and over again. The actual mechanics have not evolved very much to keep up with player demands.
I voted "No", because based on the game features announced, I think this game is not worth a sub fee.
It offers nothing more than GW2 , a B2P game, already has. In fact, since TESO does not have any kind of structured PVP, it offers even less. Honestly, I would rather re-sub to SWTOR, which I perosnally consider a failure, than pay sub for TESO.
Having a sub fee simply because of popular IP is an insult to players intelligence.
Not sure what you would consider structured PVP.
To me it seems like one of the better PVP system MMORPG ever had. Perhaps because those who want to PVP actually play against other people who want to PVP that could be a issue for some people?
http://elderscrollsonline.com/en/game-guide/the-alliance-war
http://elderscrollsonline.info/pvp
Your examples I don't get them, you talk about games that are completely different. But maybe you enjoy the PVP in GW2 or SWtOR more then actually PVP that fits the gameworld and even influences it. Might again be too much for some people I don't know. But the amount of complaints we read on forums like this about PVP in general then TESO must really look intresting for those who miss PVP in other MMORPG's.
The sub-fee is a smart move and it doesn't insult players intelligence. In fact I would even go as far as saying that Everquest Next being a sandbox insults me by going F2P.
Also Wildstar isn't a well know populair IP and also going the sub way.
Overall I feel it's a good decision game company's are returning back to subscription models. I fear allot of trouble in the not so distant future for f2p games mainly because of laws that I am sure will go futher looking into the gambling aspects of F2P.
^ this, considering the devs said it's not an MMO and pretty much one can play solo, I am not in a hurry to play it at launch; I still haven't finished Skyrim lol
gameplay > graphics
very very happy to see there isn't a F2P option in this game, makes me want to play even more now.
this game doesn't need a F2P option at first, especially when they wont have issues with dead servers.
this is easily my most anticipated game right now.
Every game I've been subbed to as P2P for the past 6 years has gone F2P, so that is why I will simply wait a year or so.
If anything it will at least give me an idea of the quality of the content, since most people will have explored everything by then. If it still is growing/ maintains a steady following after a year in this market, it's probably a good game.
There are so many good games out right now.... there is no reason to buy anything earlier.
Matt Firor already stated it's purely cosmetic. People have a drive to buy that crap and I say hey, it if helps a great title like ESO - which is a company doing something in their game that is so unknown to most people on these forums that they aren't even comprehending it when they discuss it (i.e., tri realm RvR, no repeated classes and races, smashable walls and so forth in RvR castles)...
The cash shop will bring more currency to support the title. More money (even if it's from fluff) means more game content and quality investing.
I agree with you. The cosmetic cash shop is not a big deal to me. I want this game to have enough revenue for the devs to make it great and keep it great.
What happens when you log off your characters????.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFQhfhnjYMk
Dark Age of Camelot
DAOC Live (inactive): R11 Cleric R11 Druid R11 Minstrel R9 Eldritch R6 Sorc R6 Scout R6 Healer
^ hear hear, people tend to actually spend more money on free to play games due to the amount of cash shops. I'll be playing this game and will gladly pay subscriptions if it doesn't pull a SOE by charging subscription PLUS utilize tons of cash shop. If they charge subs and provide good amount of content the way Blizzard has done for WoW, then I will be happy.
EQ1-AC1-DAOC-FFXI-L2-EQ2-WoW-DDO-GW-LoTR-VG-WAR-GW2-ESO
I read most of this thread and see a reoccurring thing I needed to say something about.
It seems a LOT of people who are against this being p2p are GW2 fans. Always stating that B2P is the way to go.
I played that game. It was a f2p cash shop game with a box price. You cant sit there with a straight face and tell me a game that has me use the cash shop to expand my tiny inventory isn't a damn f2p game...only they suckered me by telling me their game was b2p. Buy to play is like a single player game where you buy the box and that's it. Slapping a box price on an item mall game is just some new sort of evil that needs to start and end with GW2.
Also, I see a few people posting here that they will never play a p2p again, but are in the ffxiv forums posting about how they got to level 50 already...strange
Well anyway, stop trying to use gw2 as an argument for buy to play. its not buy to play its a cash shop game with a box price, and ill never fall for that one again.
Im sticking with p2p for now. They really need to remarket it as "never pay more than $15 a month" because a lot of these f2p games get you to pay far more than that a month...or make the game really frustrating, slow, and well...not fun....I don't have time to waste on games that are not fun because I didn't pay enough...I got enough unfun things to do in my life and they don't require a $60 cash shop purchase to temporality remedy that situation
I think the real advantage to p2p is that they can hire a staff based on monthly sales and be more stable with development. That and I know up front how much ill be paying out of pocket to play. Never any surprises.
Lastly, a lot of the arguments against p2p use games that go f2p after launch as an excuse. I can only think of a couple games that actually went f2p. Games like AOC, WAR, Anarchy Online, SWTOR...shit I know im missing a lot here but off the top of my head those games all restrict content from free players, and offer a p2p option to unlock it all...I don't call that f2p I call that a really long trial. The list of games that actually went from p2p to f2p are like, aion,L2, TERA....and I think that's it. Those are the only games I can think of that were p2p and then went f2p not restricting any of the games content. The rest were a dirty trap to milk a dying player base and get some new suckers in.