Of course not. Why is this even an issue? It's the same business model as every single player game ever sold. It has been proven to work, by literally thousands of games. It is, in my opinion, by far the best business model, because it both gives players the feeling they actually "own" something when they buy the game, and gives developers incentive to give the players more content. It just makes sense.
There is not reason to be concerned, at all, unless you don't understand games, gamers, or economics.
"Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true you know it, and they know it." Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007
The only thing i fear is that Anet wont have the funs to fund expansions, patches etc if the playerbase wont be as big as they expected. I cant wait for this game, but to be honest i seriously doubt that the plakyer base will be small..
My son. The day you were born the very staff of Blizzard whispered the name, profit.
The only thing i fear is that Anet wont have the funs to fund expansions, patches etc if the playerbase wont be as big as they expected. I cant wait for this game, but to be honest i seriously doubt that the plakyer base will be small..
They did fine with GW1 so I hear. The sequel is supposed to be so much more, so I dont think this will be a problem. Anet seems to have released a whole lot of content for GW1. Im confident.
The only thing i fear is that Anet wont have the funs to fund expansions, patches etc if the playerbase wont be as big as they expected. I cant wait for this game, but to be honest i seriously doubt that the plakyer base will be small..
NCSoft, the parent company of ArenaNet and publisher of GW2, makes something like 40 million dollars in profit every quarter. If for some reason GW2's playerbase is small, I'm sure any additional development costs will be covered in the short term (and they'll get a huge advertising campaign to bring up sales to where they think they should be).
"Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true you know it, and they know it."-Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007
Buy to Play starts with an advantage over both Pay to Play and Free to Play.
The advantage vs. Pay to Play is obvious. The advantage vs. Free to Play starts with the fact that every player of the game will at least have to invest the cost of the box price, so that's a lot of immediate revenue right there that Free to Play doesn't get.
I've seen numbers elsewhere that show that the cost per player for providing and maintaining game servers and services is miniscule. The box price covers the cost for hosting the player for a long time, covers development cost and may even provide a profit on it's own.
With that all covered, ANet doesn't have the pressure of needing Game Shop sales to cover expenses and provide the sole source of profit. They can then focus on giving players things they will want to buy, but never things they will feel they have to buy to play the game or be competitive. This removes the almost hostile relationship between players and Cash Shops seen in games that try to almost force players to buy things to succeed or be good at the game. That pressure removed, I think players are more likely to spend money buying things they want, to support the game and the developers, rather than resisting the urge to spend money out of resentment towards the developers, as seen in games where Cash Shop purchases are almost forced upon players who want to achieve anything in the game.
Each future Buy to Play Expansion just renews the coffers. It covers the development costs, extends the downpayment on player services down the line and should also provide additional profit.
The Cash Shop provides bonus profit and with the pressure to rely on it to cover ongoing player related and development costs gone, ANet can approach the way they sell items to players in a very different, low pressure way.
Also, with the cost per player to maintain services being so slow, every box sale after reaching the point of profitibility is mostly profit.
A game needs to be good to succeed with this model. Pair the model with a game that may be one of the best games in the genre and other game developers may have a lot to worry about. If GW2 is successful, it won't only influence future MMO design, but it may reshape the business model for most future titles.
Another advantage of B2P over F2P is that it wont be a hacker/exploiter paradise. Getting banned imply on money loss
Instead of taking the time to write out something that would explain why a subscription is not mandatory I will just say watch this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ns-IIn-DG-c
It explains everything you need to know.
One of the best trailers for the game I've seen
On top of all the talk about payment models, that's a lot of seriously impressive game footage.
Haha, I was thinking the same thing. I had to replay the vid to hear the guy talk since I wasn't really listening the first time because I was just staring at the visuals.
Originally posted by AKASlaphappy Instead of taking the time to write out something that would explain why a subscription is not mandatory I will just say watch this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ns-IIn-DG-c
It explains everything you need to know.
Oh...I can't see how rectifying invalid statement with invalid arguments is explaining anything...
Instead of taking the time to write out something that would explain why a subscription is not mandatory I will just say watch this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ns-IIn-DG-c
It explains everything you need to know.
Oh...I can't see how rectifying invalid statement with invalid arguments is explaining anything...
Instead of trailing off with a ..., perhaps you should say why you think the video's argument is invalid.
"Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true you know it, and they know it."-Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007
Originally posted by cali59 Instead of trailing off with a ..., perhaps you should say why you think the video's argument is invalid.
Oh, I thought that pointing out to obvious and fundamental flaw is self-explanatory... Okey.
You pay subscription fee to access the game as it is.
Simple as it that, no more no less. Statement that you pay subscription fee to pay for the servers running is as invalid as argument that the server costs do not justify the fee.
Do you like the game and fee is acceptable? Yes? You subscribe. Take or leave, anything else is irrelevant and nonsense.
as someone said before, it worked for GW, and hell....I logged last night and the server is well populated. And well they are ArenaNet and NCSoft, from my point of view 2 companies that always care about their customers. They might be not perfect but they are one of the best out there.
Originally posted by Gdemami Originally posted by cali59 Instead of trailing off with a ..., perhaps you should say why you think the video's argument is invalid.
Oh, I thought that pointing out to obvious and fundamental flaw is self-explanatory... Okey.
You pay subscription fee to access the game as it is.
Simple as it that, no more no less. Statement that you pay subscription fee to pay for the servers running is as invalid as argument that the server costs do not justify the fee.
Do you like the game and fee is acceptable? Yes? You subscribe. Take or leave, anything else is irrelevant and nonsense.
What you are saying is irrelevant nonsense.
The argument is and has been that the subscription is necessary to pay for server costs and content development. That that has long been the explanation is common knowledge. And while it may once have been true, it no longer is, and that fact is the point of the video.
Of course when you pay a subscription you are paying to access as is. But companies have used the aforementioned argument to justify making players pay subscriptions. If companies had said "you pay to access the game, simple as that," people would have baulked at the idea. Companies needed something to explain the cost.
"Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true you know it, and they know it." Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007
The arguments that some people are comig up with to avoid admitting to themselves that they wasted years of money, hundreds of dollars, on something that wasn't worth a single dollar of it and all upon a false basis... simply amazes me. Rather than put all that effort into trying to lie to yourself, isn't it simpler to just admit the truth of things? You were never paying for server costs or content, you were paying because some corporate fatcats thought they could get away with charging a subscription. That's what you were paying for, and if you're still paying... woe betide you, because that's what you're still paying for.
And to compare a one-off payment (like single-player games have) with an ongoing monthly subscription that you have to pay every month in order to have access to the game? That's so ridiculous that it's laughable. I'll say again that i'm amazed at the excuses people are coming up with in order to try to make out that either we're paying a subscription (when we're obviously not) or that the subscription was somehow worth it (when it clearly was not). What next? Blizzard needed monthly monies 'to survive'? Or erhaps ArenaNet is secretly teleporting montlhy payments out of our wallets!
I think this whole discussion is going to get much, much worse before it gets better. It's human nature, you see, to be obstinately stubborn. When facing their huge failures (such as a massive loss of money), most people will make any excuse they can, blame anyone else they can, rather than fess up and put something down to their own foolishness. That's exactly what we're seeing a lot of in this thread, and it's as sad and pitiable as it is fascinating.
The arguments that some people are comig up with to avoid admitting to themselves that they wasted years of money, hundreds of dollars, on something that wasn't worth a single dollar of it and all upon a false basis... simply amazes me. Rather than put all that effort into trying to lie to yourself, isn't it simpler to just admit the truth of things? You were never paying for server costs or content, you were paying because some corporate fatcats thought they could get away with charging a subscription. That's what you were paying for, and if you're still paying... woe betide you, because that's what you're still paying for.
And to compare a one-off payment (like single-player games have) with an ongoing monthly subscription that you have to pay every month in order to have access to the game? That's so ridiculous that it's laughable. I'll say again that i'm amazed at the excuses people are coming up with in order to try to make out that either we're paying a subscription (when we're obviously not) or that the subscription was somehow worth it (when it clearly was not). What next? Blizzard needed monthly monies 'to survive'? Or erhaps ArenaNet is secretly teleporting montlhy payments out of our wallets!
I think this whole discussion is going to get much, much worse before it gets better. It's human nature, you see, to be obstinately stubborn. When facing their huge failures (such as a massive loss of money), most people will make any excuse they can, blame anyone else they can, rather than fess up and put something down to their own foolishness. That's exactly what we're seeing a lot of in this thread, and it's as sad and pitiable as it is fascinating.
I would not considering the money I spent on MMOs as wasted money even though it could have been less.
Heck, a beer in my local pub cost 4 times as much as buying the same beer in a store and I still go to the pub.
That does not mean I havn't enjoyed Guildwars and aren't looking forward to GW2, and that it cost less to play is good news, but I regret nothing about my MMO subs in the past.
You might be right that some people think this sounds to good to be true or even feel cheated when they hear just how much of the monthly fees that goes back into the games but far from all players feels that way.
I would not considering the money I spent on MMOs as wasted money even though it could have been less.
Heck, a beer in my local pub cost 4 times as much as buying the same beer in a store and I still go to the pub.
That does not mean I havn't enjoyed Guildwars and aren't looking forward to GW2, and that it cost less to play is good news, but I regret nothing about my MMO subs in the past.
You might be right that some people think this sounds to good to be true or even feel cheated when they hear just how much of the monthly fees that goes back into the games but far from all players feels that way.
I completely agree with this since any time you buy an item you have to look at the value added to it. Like you buying a beer in a pub has the value added of being with friends. Or another great example is popcorn; you can buy 30 oz popcorn from a grocery store for $4, while that same 30z of popcorn at a convenience store is $9, and a small bag of popcorn at a movie theater is $5. The grocery store has the value of being cheaper, while the convenience store has what the name suggest convenience of location so you can save time, and the theater has the added value of the movie and fellowship. Each time you are buying popcorn but each one has a different value added to make it worthwhile in different ways.
The same can be said for buy to play and pay to play games; people can see value in the different methods so they will support it. The fallacy that started this thread comes from the idea that every product has to sale the exact same way to be profitable. This is clearly not true and can be seen in the example of the popcorn, otherwise everyone would be selling a small bag of popcorn for $5. Now it is up to you to determine if there is a value in pay to play or buy to play games. For me personally I do not see a value in pay to play but that is because over the last 10 years I have been mentored by a business owner to see things in the terms of ROI (at least were money is concerned). Hence why I do not buy or play any game that requires a subscription but that does not mean other people will not see value in the system. Each person needs to make that decision on their own! But in no way shape or form does that decision disqualify that value for another person or business. Just like when you pay $9 at a convenience store for popcorn it does not mean that the people who buy it for $4 or $5 are wrong, it just means they saw a different value in the purchase.
I honestly wish this debate would end because some people will see value in buying content to support a game and some will see value in paying a subscription to support a game. And no one is going to be able to change a person’s mind on the value they see in a purchase, try telling someone that paid $9 for popcorn how stupid they are and see how far that will get you. Just because you do not see the value in the convenience does not mean they are wrong from their point of view!
But seeing how it's an actually MMO that means they are going to crap out an X-pac every month to cover the cost of patches and content updates. If they need 40USD to fund the game every 6-8 months then I'll have to pass.
I know lots of people love this, it makes me a little concerned. I like the idea of devs having to come out with a constant stream of content to keep people playing. I feel like with this system once they sell you the game they have no incentive to keep you playing. Just a thought.
Im not as concerned about that as I am the community. WoW was pretty bad, GW was complete and utter crap as well if not worse.
But seeing how it's an actually MMO that means they are going to crap out an X-pac every month to cover the cost of patches and content updates. If they need 40USD to fund the game every 6-8 months then I'll have to pass.
You have no idea the difference in cost between a CORPG (GW1) and a MMO (GW2)! Because if you listen to Jeff Strain a person that actually programs them he says there is not much of a difference in cost.
Instead of trailing off with a ..., perhaps you should say why you think the video's argument is invalid.
Oh, I thought that pointing out to obvious and fundamental flaw is self-explanatory... Okey.
You pay subscription fee to access the game as it is.
Simple as it that, no more no less. Statement that you pay subscription fee to pay for the servers running is as invalid as argument that the server costs do not justify the fee.
Do you like the game and fee is acceptable? Yes? You subscribe. Take or leave, anything else is irrelevant and nonsense.
What you are saying is irrelevant nonsense.
The argument is and has been that the subscription is necessary to pay for server costs and content development. That that has long been the explanation is common knowledge. And while it may once have been true, it no longer is, and that fact is the point of the video.
Of course when you pay a subscription you are paying to access as is. But companies have used the aforementioned argument to justify making players pay subscriptions. If companies had said "you pay to access the game, simple as that," people would have baulked at the idea. Companies needed something to explain the cost.
No it hasn't, people are truly putting on the blinders if that's what they think. It pays for far more than updates and server fees. It pays for the service all around. From manpower to continued advertisment.
Also show me one link to where a dev states sub money is only a primary source of continued development funding.I've never seen one, never.
The fact of the matter is it's a business, in any business the fee's associated with it cover the cost of both offering the service, as well as making profit. So yes part of a sub fee is pure profit, just like part of what you pay for a soda is purely for profit.
The same will go for GW2, they will offer a service plan that pays for their costs as well as makes them money.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
But seeing how it's an actually MMO that means they are going to crap out an X-pac every month to cover the cost of patches and content updates. If they need 40USD to fund the game every 6-8 months then I'll have to pass.
You have no idea the difference in cost between a CORPG (GW1) and a MMO (GW2)! Because if you listen to Jeff Strain a person that actually programs them he says there is not much of a difference in cost.
[Mod Edit]
well rly no1 really knows..just because this guy said something than the other doesnt make it true..but my money is on the "pumping out expanions" theroy ..only because it is how the beast is today..money money money..people say things and change minds and lie cheat and steal ..its a fact
Instead of trailing off with a ..., perhaps you should say why you think the video's argument is invalid.
Oh, I thought that pointing out to obvious and fundamental flaw is self-explanatory... Okey.
You pay subscription fee to access the game as it is.
Simple as it that, no more no less. Statement that you pay subscription fee to pay for the servers running is as invalid as argument that the server costs do not justify the fee.
Do you like the game and fee is acceptable? Yes? You subscribe. Take or leave, anything else is irrelevant and nonsense.
What you are saying is irrelevant nonsense.
The argument is and has been that the subscription is necessary to pay for server costs and content development. That that has long been the explanation is common knowledge. And while it may once have been true, it no longer is, and that fact is the point of the video.
Of course when you pay a subscription you are paying to access as is. But companies have used the aforementioned argument to justify making players pay subscriptions. If companies had said "you pay to access the game, simple as that," people would have baulked at the idea. Companies needed something to explain the cost.
It pays for the service all around. From manpower to continued advertisment.
Single player games have those costs too you know. They seem to be doing pretty damn fine without subscription fees.
Instead of trailing off with a ..., perhaps you should say why you think the video's argument is invalid.
Oh, I thought that pointing out to obvious and fundamental flaw is self-explanatory... Okey.
You pay subscription fee to access the game as it is.
Simple as it that, no more no less. Statement that you pay subscription fee to pay for the servers running is as invalid as argument that the server costs do not justify the fee.
Do you like the game and fee is acceptable? Yes? You subscribe. Take or leave, anything else is irrelevant and nonsense.
What you are saying is irrelevant nonsense.
The argument is and has been that the subscription is necessary to pay for server costs and content development. That that has long been the explanation is common knowledge. And while it may once have been true, it no longer is, and that fact is the point of the video.
Of course when you pay a subscription you are paying to access as is. But companies have used the aforementioned argument to justify making players pay subscriptions. If companies had said "you pay to access the game, simple as that," people would have baulked at the idea. Companies needed something to explain the cost.
It pays for the service all around. From manpower to continued advertisment.
Single player games have those costs too you know. They seem to be doing pretty damn fine without subscription fees.
but most single player games dont need to be updated or anything..they just sit back and collect box sales..not haveing a team to keep working on that title..if your meaning single player games like on consoles and such
Instead of trailing off with a ..., perhaps you should say why you think the video's argument is invalid.
Oh, I thought that pointing out to obvious and fundamental flaw is self-explanatory... Okey.
You pay subscription fee to access the game as it is.
Simple as it that, no more no less. Statement that you pay subscription fee to pay for the servers running is as invalid as argument that the server costs do not justify the fee.
Do you like the game and fee is acceptable? Yes? You subscribe. Take or leave, anything else is irrelevant and nonsense.
What you are saying is irrelevant nonsense.
The argument is and has been that the subscription is necessary to pay for server costs and content development. That that has long been the explanation is common knowledge. And while it may once have been true, it no longer is, and that fact is the point of the video.
Of course when you pay a subscription you are paying to access as is. But companies have used the aforementioned argument to justify making players pay subscriptions. If companies had said "you pay to access the game, simple as that," people would have baulked at the idea. Companies needed something to explain the cost.
It pays for the service all around. From manpower to continued advertisment.
Single player games have those costs too you know. They seem to be doing pretty damn fine without subscription fees.
but most single player games dont need to be updated or anything..they just sit back and collect box sales..not haveing a team to keep working on that title..if your meaning single player games like on consoles and such
Single player games period. And developers need get more money by making more games or making expansions and DLC for the games they already have. They then use that money to fund the development of their next games.
And guess what? They do all this without subscription fees.
Comments
No.
Not even slightly.
Of course not. Why is this even an issue? It's the same business model as every single player game ever sold. It has been proven to work, by literally thousands of games. It is, in my opinion, by far the best business model, because it both gives players the feeling they actually "own" something when they buy the game, and gives developers incentive to give the players more content. It just makes sense.
There is not reason to be concerned, at all, unless you don't understand games, gamers, or economics.
"Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true you know it, and they know it." Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007
WTF? No subscription fee?
The only thing i fear is that Anet wont have the funs to fund expansions, patches etc if the playerbase wont be as big as they expected. I cant wait for this game, but to be honest i seriously doubt that the plakyer base will be small..
My son. The day you were born the very staff of Blizzard whispered the name, profit.
They did fine with GW1 so I hear. The sequel is supposed to be so much more, so I dont think this will be a problem. Anet seems to have released a whole lot of content for GW1. Im confident.
NCSoft, the parent company of ArenaNet and publisher of GW2, makes something like 40 million dollars in profit every quarter. If for some reason GW2's playerbase is small, I'm sure any additional development costs will be covered in the short term (and they'll get a huge advertising campaign to bring up sales to where they think they should be).
"Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true you know it, and they know it." -Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007
Another advantage of B2P over F2P is that it wont be a hacker/exploiter paradise. Getting banned imply on money loss
Haha, I was thinking the same thing. I had to replay the vid to hear the guy talk since I wasn't really listening the first time because I was just staring at the visuals.
Oh...I can't see how rectifying invalid statement with invalid arguments is explaining anything...
Instead of trailing off with a ..., perhaps you should say why you think the video's argument is invalid.
"Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true you know it, and they know it." -Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007
Oh, I thought that pointing out to obvious and fundamental flaw is self-explanatory... Okey.
You pay subscription fee to access the game as it is.
Simple as it that, no more no less. Statement that you pay subscription fee to pay for the servers running is as invalid as argument that the server costs do not justify the fee.
Do you like the game and fee is acceptable? Yes? You subscribe. Take or leave, anything else is irrelevant and nonsense.
as someone said before, it worked for GW, and hell....I logged last night and the server is well populated. And well they are ArenaNet and NCSoft, from my point of view 2 companies that always care about their customers. They might be not perfect but they are one of the best out there.
Oh, I thought that pointing out to obvious and fundamental flaw is self-explanatory... Okey.
You pay subscription fee to access the game as it is.
Simple as it that, no more no less. Statement that you pay subscription fee to pay for the servers running is as invalid as argument that the server costs do not justify the fee.
Do you like the game and fee is acceptable? Yes? You subscribe. Take or leave, anything else is irrelevant and nonsense.
What you are saying is irrelevant nonsense.
The argument is and has been that the subscription is necessary to pay for server costs and content development. That that has long been the explanation is common knowledge. And while it may once have been true, it no longer is, and that fact is the point of the video.
Of course when you pay a subscription you are paying to access as is. But companies have used the aforementioned argument to justify making players pay subscriptions. If companies had said "you pay to access the game, simple as that," people would have baulked at the idea. Companies needed something to explain the cost.
"Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true you know it, and they know it." Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007
WTF? No subscription fee?
No.
The arguments that some people are comig up with to avoid admitting to themselves that they wasted years of money, hundreds of dollars, on something that wasn't worth a single dollar of it and all upon a false basis... simply amazes me. Rather than put all that effort into trying to lie to yourself, isn't it simpler to just admit the truth of things? You were never paying for server costs or content, you were paying because some corporate fatcats thought they could get away with charging a subscription. That's what you were paying for, and if you're still paying... woe betide you, because that's what you're still paying for.
And to compare a one-off payment (like single-player games have) with an ongoing monthly subscription that you have to pay every month in order to have access to the game? That's so ridiculous that it's laughable. I'll say again that i'm amazed at the excuses people are coming up with in order to try to make out that either we're paying a subscription (when we're obviously not) or that the subscription was somehow worth it (when it clearly was not). What next? Blizzard needed monthly monies 'to survive'? Or erhaps ArenaNet is secretly teleporting montlhy payments out of our wallets!
I think this whole discussion is going to get much, much worse before it gets better. It's human nature, you see, to be obstinately stubborn. When facing their huge failures (such as a massive loss of money), most people will make any excuse they can, blame anyone else they can, rather than fess up and put something down to their own foolishness. That's exactly what we're seeing a lot of in this thread, and it's as sad and pitiable as it is fascinating.
I would not considering the money I spent on MMOs as wasted money even though it could have been less.
Heck, a beer in my local pub cost 4 times as much as buying the same beer in a store and I still go to the pub.
That does not mean I havn't enjoyed Guildwars and aren't looking forward to GW2, and that it cost less to play is good news, but I regret nothing about my MMO subs in the past.
You might be right that some people think this sounds to good to be true or even feel cheated when they hear just how much of the monthly fees that goes back into the games but far from all players feels that way.
I completely agree with this since any time you buy an item you have to look at the value added to it. Like you buying a beer in a pub has the value added of being with friends. Or another great example is popcorn; you can buy 30 oz popcorn from a grocery store for $4, while that same 30z of popcorn at a convenience store is $9, and a small bag of popcorn at a movie theater is $5. The grocery store has the value of being cheaper, while the convenience store has what the name suggest convenience of location so you can save time, and the theater has the added value of the movie and fellowship. Each time you are buying popcorn but each one has a different value added to make it worthwhile in different ways.
The same can be said for buy to play and pay to play games; people can see value in the different methods so they will support it. The fallacy that started this thread comes from the idea that every product has to sale the exact same way to be profitable. This is clearly not true and can be seen in the example of the popcorn, otherwise everyone would be selling a small bag of popcorn for $5. Now it is up to you to determine if there is a value in pay to play or buy to play games. For me personally I do not see a value in pay to play but that is because over the last 10 years I have been mentored by a business owner to see things in the terms of ROI (at least were money is concerned). Hence why I do not buy or play any game that requires a subscription but that does not mean other people will not see value in the system. Each person needs to make that decision on their own! But in no way shape or form does that decision disqualify that value for another person or business. Just like when you pay $9 at a convenience store for popcorn it does not mean that the people who buy it for $4 or $5 are wrong, it just means they saw a different value in the purchase.
I honestly wish this debate would end because some people will see value in buying content to support a game and some will see value in paying a subscription to support a game. And no one is going to be able to change a person’s mind on the value they see in a purchase, try telling someone that paid $9 for popcorn how stupid they are and see how far that will get you. Just because you do not see the value in the convenience does not mean they are wrong from their point of view!
I wouldn't be worried if it was more like GW1.
But seeing how it's an actually MMO that means they are going to crap out an X-pac every month to cover the cost of patches and content updates. If they need 40USD to fund the game every 6-8 months then I'll have to pass.
Im not as concerned about that as I am the community. WoW was pretty bad, GW was complete and utter crap as well if not worse.
You have no idea the difference in cost between a CORPG (GW1) and a MMO (GW2)! Because if you listen to Jeff Strain a person that actually programs them he says there is not much of a difference in cost.
[Mod Edit]
No it hasn't, people are truly putting on the blinders if that's what they think. It pays for far more than updates and server fees. It pays for the service all around. From manpower to continued advertisment.
Also show me one link to where a dev states sub money is only a primary source of continued development funding.I've never seen one, never.
The fact of the matter is it's a business, in any business the fee's associated with it cover the cost of both offering the service, as well as making profit. So yes part of a sub fee is pure profit, just like part of what you pay for a soda is purely for profit.
The same will go for GW2, they will offer a service plan that pays for their costs as well as makes them money.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
well rly no1 really knows..just because this guy said something than the other doesnt make it true..but my money is on the "pumping out expanions" theroy ..only because it is how the beast is today..money money money..people say things and change minds and lie cheat and steal ..its a fact
Single player games have those costs too you know. They seem to be doing pretty damn fine without subscription fees.
but most single player games dont need to be updated or anything..they just sit back and collect box sales..not haveing a team to keep working on that title..if your meaning single player games like on consoles and such
Single player games period. And developers need get more money by making more games or making expansions and DLC for the games they already have. They then use that money to fund the development of their next games.
And guess what? They do all this without subscription fees.