Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
General: The Daily Quest - Can B2P Revive the MMO Genre?
SBFord
Former Associate EditorMember LegendaryPosts: 33,129
The Crowfall team is the latest to embrace the notion that the old standards of revenue generation have stagnated and that something else needs to be brought into the mix. Up to the last couple of years, MMO revenue was generated either with subscriptions or through item malls in free-to-play games. Yet with today's more mercurial MMO community, those tried and true ways of generating cash seem to be inadequate for the task.
The F2P MMO movement that has been so widely prevalent in the last few years seems to be ending its reign, with more and more MMOs choosing alternative ways to provide players with a great gaming experience. Subscriptions, too, seem to be headed the way of the dodo with only a few titles, most notably World of Warcraft, able to sustain themselves by requiring all players to pay a monthly fee to access the game.
Which brings us to the so-called hybrid movement of revenue generation:
Crowfall's "buy once, play forever" is not the first of its kind. Guild Wars 2 and The Secret World have blazed a path to this new way of generating much-needed finances to continue developing the game by offering players the chance to make a one time purchase the "box" for the normal cost of a console title ($50-60 or so). Other MMOs have changed from subscription-only to hybrid revenue models. Star Wars: The Old Republic and Elder Scrolls Online have both opted to change course this way.
The advantage of the B2P movement is that players are not required to put in any additional money unless they choose to do so through optional "VIP" programs that offer super-currency and in-game perks such as accelerated XP, etc. Players can also buy items from an in-game shop that are cosmetic in nature or that do not in any way affect game play. Even with the boosts that VIP players may receive on a monthly basis, all players have access to the same game, the same content, the same items, though it may take "normal" players longer to achieve those things.
B2P seems to have it all going for it: The ability for developers to actually make money, pay their employees and continue to develop the games we love. In addition, players have wide options on how they want to finance their relaxation and can choose how much beyond the base price of the game they wish to pay.
Is it enough to revive the MMO industry? Will more and more titles adopt this revenue model? What do you think? Let us know in the comments.
Comments
I am not o sure that changing payment model will do much to revive the genre, a good game will have plenty of players no matter what payment model it have.
But I still like B2P better than F2P, with B2P you already get in some money from start so you can let the itemshop be far less impacting on the gameplay. You also get rid of a lot of the goldspammers.
But to revive the genre we need a new big game that doesn't really feel like anything we played before. And I am critical that Crowfall can do that but nothing would make me happier than being wrong there.
B2P doesn't always work either. Defiance for one launched as B2P and wound up going full F2P not all that much later.
I think we'll continue to see lots of hybrids. Definitely more than sub only games.
I've always liked TSW's reasoning behind going B2P instead of F2P. Making an initial investment into the game makes players give it more of a chance before hopping to the next thing on the list (since they'd be throwing away money) and it keeps a lot of the unsavory elements out of the game.
My SWTOR referral link for those wanting to give the game a try. (Newbies get a welcome package while returning players get a few account upgrades to help with their preferred status.)
https://www.ashesofcreation.com/ref/Callaron/
not sure...
From the point of view of a player it doen't realy change much. While b2p-shops tend to be slightly less agressive i still don't like them and development seems still to much focused on the shop. At the end the payment model harldy matters if the game is good and my current issue with mmo's is the lack of quality.
But for a developer the b2p-model might be more attractive because of the additional cash income right at the start. The result might be more investors willing to fund more quality products that results in better mmo's.
Problems with B2P: Lack of population.
Problems with F2P: Nickel & DIme'd to death - turns me off.
Personally? I'd rather have the option to choose.
#1. Pay box fee + monthly fee = I have access to everything in the game - including everything from the cash shop.
#2. F2P = Typical FTP Cash Shop stuff.
ArcheAge would've done very well as a B2P game. The gameplay is actually fantastic. However, the P2W schemes completely killed it for me. I've never seen such a good game be brought down so bad due to an ignorant Cash Shop.
I think there are several problems with the OP's statement, first is that there is the automatic assumption that MMO's are somehow in decline and need to be revived, a statement i really don't agree with at all. Secondly, that the financial model will have any real impact on how successful a game is, or how profitable it will inevitably be, or not.
To begin with, there are so many MMO's out there now, that choosing one to play is really the only issue in hand, if your at all interested in MMO's there are probably several out there that fit whatever category a player might be interested in, the market is in more of a 'glut' situation than otherwise.
Then there is the finance model used in a game, i think its highly significant, that the most successful games are ones that either are P2P only, or have a P2P option, and here i am using WoW, FFXIV;ARR, Eve Online, SW;TOR, and if figures are to be believed, Archeage.
But if a game is going to use P2P solely as its finance model then it really does have to be a good game, which is something that both ESO and Wildstar imo, did not manage to be, will B2P option make ESO more profitable, or even viable, really depends on how profitable the games cash shop turns out to be, as future sales of the game in all probability will be reliant solely on console version sales, rather than PC, what that can mean for the future of the game, is highly debatable, though i can easily see them using the same kind of monetisation in their cash shop, as has been utilised in SW;TOR, though whether the game can be 'revived' through microtransactions remains to be seen, and i think that is part of the problem with B2P, is that all too often, there is a cash shop that the game relies on for generating revenue, inevitably, it means the only difference between B2P and F2P, is usually, the box price.
In short, i don't see B2P as being any kind of savior, as it will have to offer more than is usually associated with F2P games, or at least have 'cheaper' cash shops associated with them, and i don't see that happening honestly, instead, i only really see progress being made by more games embracing F2P/P2P hybrids, SW;TOR and Archeage are probably prime examples, though at the end of the day, there still has to be a good game at the back of it, and that has really been the main issue with newer MMO's lately, they just haven't been up to it.
LOL, really... B2P is somehow a new idea? Wake up folks... B2P is nothing more than the way things were done before the internet came along. It's a very tried and true method of business... you make a product, you sell a product. They've used this model for decades and it serves one purpose... to make money the old fashioned way.
Doesn't matter what business model you choose... if the game is good, they will come. You could charge people $100 a month and they'd pay... if the game was that good.
But B2P today isn't a return to the tried and true, it is merely yet another shift in marketing schmooze... flavor of the month and stand on the highest mountain and proclaim "We are different because we do this!" No, nothing has changed... the games still fall flat, just you paid a box price this time around.
Can SBFord or one of the other "B2P" advocates explain to me what the perceived difference is between B2P with Item Mall and a F2P game?
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
The change to B2P for mmos would be more helpful to developers and publishers than the players themselves. Devs/Pubs would get to recoup some costs immediately via initial "box" price and not have to rely upon the whales as much early on. Initial box sales can also help them advertise their game to draw in more players via the "WE SOLD 1 MILLION UNITS IN THE FIRST WEEK!" type of advertising.
As far as gamers are concerned. B2P has been the traditional model for all game purchases forever. You buy a game and for as long as you have the ability to actually run it (ie functioning hardware/software) you can play that game as much or as little as you want. A shift towards B2P may also attract more non-mmo playing gamers. I have plenty of co-workers who think I am nuts to pay access for mmos on a monthly basis. Even though mmos have been traditionally sub based for two decades now, the concept is still foreign to a decent number of gamers.
Of course, as other's have stated, if the game isn't good...well it being B2P or F2P won't really help it much. Another potential downside would be further fragmentation of the mmo populace as a whole. People who are playing sub games, like WoW and FF XIV may or may not also sub to other games. However, we've seen enough discussion over the years to know that when paying a sub many gamers feel the need to log into that game more. If all mmos were B2P, we may see folks waxing and waning more with their mmo habits, and we may see a migration of population as each of the mmos have their various content patches. Which in turn has potential to harm groups of gamers in the long run. Smaller raiding programs may suffer due to more gamers coming and going like the tide with content patches. PvP may see increased activity for short periods, but then be more inactive as a patch ages. Which could lead to longer wait times for structured PvP and reduction in activity in more open world settings.
There is potential for a lot of good to come from better B2P options for mmos, but it also may wind up not doing much for the genre as a whole.
I am not sure that I am seeing the same thing that the OP is seeing. Here, let me explain.
Option 1. Box Price + Expansion + Monthly Sub
Option 2. Box Price + Expansion + Monthly Sub + (Optional) Cash Shop
Option 3. Box Price + Expansion + (Optional) Monthly Sub + (Optional) Cash Shop
Option 4. (Optional) Monthly Sub + (Optional) Cash Shop
Option 1 is what most people consider the 'traditional' P2P model. This has no longer existed for many years.
Option 2 is the 'current' P2P model.
Option 3 is the 'current' B2P model.
Option 4 is the 'current' F2P model.
Why would anyone believe that Option 3 is going to change anything in the industry?
Revive?
If you're talking about more people playing MMOS... I think we are currently near tapped with that. Most big AAA devs are trying to entice as many gamers as possible to play MMOs. And in my opinion they have succeeded.
Most MMOs that don't try to be RPGs do a pretty good job at the moment. The issue I am noticing is most of these MMORPGs are a jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none.
I don't think anything can really "revive" the RPG side of genre except the AAA devs who hope to create games that MASTER certain aspects provided by MMORPGs instead of full-out trying to please everyone.
B2P will get more people to play of course, but I don't consider a revival improved sales alone.
You have to pay to enter a b2p game, f2p you don't. The cash shops in both f2p or b2p vary, though the ultimate goal is for the dev studio/publisher to make even more money with the shop. So in that regard, the cash shop is what they have in common making both types of games perceived to be the same.
"If I offended you, you needed it" -Corey Taylor
Buy to play is just Free to play with an upfront cost.
It provides a large chunk of revenue at launch but eventually becomes a detriment later in the game's life.
GW2 is constantly having sales to minimize the upfront cost to get people in the game to use the cash shop where the real is made.
B2P is simply paying for the game... like buying milk at the supermarket... you see the milk, you buy it, you take the milk home and consume it. That's it. They charged you a price that recovers the cost of marketing the milk, packaging, and producing the milk, plus a maintenance fee (to cover the loss due to spoilage/contamination) plus some profit (because no one is in business to break even).
A true F2P game is non-existent for the most part... the idea that they made the game and toss it out there for you to play for free for as long as you care to play it. The last time I ever saw that happen was with Return to Castle Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory. The game was scrapped but they gave the multiplayer online game away for free... even hosted it on there servers for a good 10 years for nil a penny to the users. Most F2P games have a means to acquire money from their players... a true F2P game does not have any such means.
So what you have left is the cash shop, subscription, and early access models... they may or may not charge you for the game, the real profit is in the nickel and dime transactions (yes subscriptions are nickel and dime transactions because they are incurred above and beyond the price of the game). Just like in-app purchases on mobile games, it's banking on the fact that you don't see a small fee as intrusive and happily click yes to each iteration they throw at you. Some people can't stop clicking yes... these people will pay for the game 100 times over thus clearly the winner in the profit game. Plenty of folks play these games without spending a dime, but it only takes a small few throwing money away to make up for the droves of players who don't spend a dime.
In the end, the game is either good or it's not... people may point to the business model as to why it failed but the reality is, it was doomed not because of the business model, but rather the game itself. AND THAT is what everyone needs to realize. You'd give your left kidney for a good game... so cost is not the issue... it's about the product and these snake oil salesman are all about getting you to not notice the product in actual daylight.
Payment model doesn't matter. How intrusive the cash shop is and how good the game is are more important.
If all your resources as a studio are directing towards the cash shop instead of the game, then players realize that and move on.
To find an intelligent person in a PUG is not that rare, but to find a PUG made up of "all" intelligent people is one of the rarest phenomenons in the known universe.
+1
The worst aspect of calling microtransaction games with an entry fee " B2P " is it doesn't allow the publisher to properly monetize their game, since players are expecting nothing " important " to be in the cash shop.
Do you realize you're basing your definition on what you want it to be, not what it actually is in regards to MMOs?
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Spot on.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre