Subscription-based games still require you to buy the box and buy the expansions...it IS NOT just $15 a month for a subscription-based game. People seem to forget this when they are making the "$15 is super cheap" arguments.
Whens the last time you paid for an Eve Online client download or even a EO expansion?
Don't generalize.
Lets take WoW for instance, since everyone loves to use it as their punching bag lately. You can amortize out the cost of the game and all it's expansions over it's life, add in the sub costs and you'll still come out with a good value. Sure, the number seems high when you are looking at the raw value but split that up over 6 years.
Another little secret that all the F2P fanbois love to leave out:
The blockbuster titles, like GW2, don't release games as F2P because they are nice people, they, like many other business, are out to make money and they tailor their own business model to make MONEY. Yes, surprising to know this.
How many F2P fanbois out there would be butthurt to find out over the first year of it's release, GW2 made more money through nickel and dimeing people through the cash shop than WoW did it's first year of record box/sub sales? (Let the excuses begin)
The obvious double-standard in that whole ANet guy's statement is just amazing to me.
I'm surprised I haven't seen it called out more often.
Yeah I know what you mean, his statements have bothered me as well. Though it's just a pain to discuss anything GW2 that isn't all about groveling at A-nets feet.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Well of course GW2 won't need a subscription... They'll have a cash shop, just like GW1 does! And it's already been noted by folks in the indusry that cash shops can potentially monetize players for far more than a flat monthly sub fee could... especially if you're selling items that players deem as valuable or beneficial to their gameplay... such as, say, full skill sets available at once, instead of having to earn them through gameplay. Or, say, enhancements which benefit the player in PvP...
That said, let's see what kind of things we can find in GW1's cash shop and, potentially, expect to find in GW2's shop as well...
10 for a PvP Upgrade pack with some very compelling, game-affecting items
$10 a pop for each of the "core skill" packs from the core game and each expansion so you don't even have to play any of the campaigns to unlock them
A pet upgrade pack for $10
Storage upgrade for another $10...
A whole bunch of special costumes ("fluff items") for $7 a pop...
An extra character slot for $10
And so on.
2 purchases, of even the $7 costumes, equals the standard sub fee for a P2P MMO ($14-$15), and you know as well as I do that there are people spending at least that much, if not more, to obtain those items.
And that's all on top of the box fee that so many love to claim is "all ANet needs to maintain the game".
I literally laughed out loud at the sheer sanctimony in the assertion made by of the the ANet folks (forget their name at the moment) about "P2P developers having to justify subscriptions". I believe I actually said "what a freaking hypocrite" out loud when I read it.
While he's making such "bold assertions" about how developers "can't justify charging extra money for their MMOs" in the form of subscriptions, he's selling skill packs and other items via a cash shop in his own game.
When GW does away with the cash shop and truly exists on box sales alone... then people like the ANet guy will have the right to question the validity of subscription fees. Until then, it's pure hypocrisy and spin-doctoring.
For anyone to even imply that ANet could get by on box sales alone is either the height of gullibility, willful ignorance or dishonesty. And if ANet truly could do just fine on box sales alone - rendering their cash shop sales entirely superfluous and entirely for extra profit - then the remarks made by that individual would be doubly hypocritical and damning.
Further still, each developer has its own circumstances and expenses based on how the company is set up, based on how the finances are set up and based on their overhead compared to their income. So there is no way to make such blanket statements as "developers don't need to charge a subscription". Unless someone knows the specific circumstances of each and every single developer charging a sub, they have no grounds to make that claim.
QFT
Very well thought out post, kudos to you.
Heh, thanks.
The obvious double-standard in that whole ANet guy's statement is just amazing to me.
I'm surprised I haven't seen it called out more often.
When I called it out last I was reported and banned for 'trolling' lol.
And I actually love GW and GW2 (from whats been seen)!
Well of course GW2 won't need a subscription... They'll have a cash shop, just like GW1 does! And it's already been noted by folks in the indusry that cash shops can potentially monetize players for far more than a flat monthly sub fee could... especially if you're selling items that players deem as valuable or beneficial to their gameplay... such as, say, full skill sets available at once, instead of having to earn them through gameplay. Or, say, enhancements which benefit the player in PvP...
That said, let's see what kind of things we can find in GW1's cash shop and, potentially, expect to find in GW2's shop as well...
10 for a PvP Upgrade pack with some very compelling, game-affecting items
$10 a pop for each of the "core skill" packs from the core game and each expansion so you don't even have to play any of the campaigns to unlock them
A pet upgrade pack for $10
Storage upgrade for another $10...
A whole bunch of special costumes ("fluff items") for $7 a pop...
An extra character slot for $10
And so on.
2 purchases, of even the $7 costumes, equals the standard sub fee for a P2P MMO ($14-$15), and you know as well as I do that there are people spending at least that much, if not more, to obtain those items.
And that's all on top of the box fee that so many love to claim is "all ANet needs to maintain the game".
I literally laughed out loud at the sheer sanctimony in the assertion made by of the the ANet folks (forget their name at the moment) about "P2P developers having to justify subscriptions". I believe I actually said "what a freaking hypocrite" out loud when I read it.
While he's making such "bold assertions" about how developers "can't justify charging extra money for their MMOs" in the form of subscriptions, he's selling skill packs and other items via a cash shop in his own game.
When GW does away with the cash shop and truly exists on box sales alone... then people like the ANet guy will have the right to question the validity of subscription fees. Until then, it's pure hypocrisy and spin-doctoring.
For anyone to even imply that ANet could get by on box sales alone is either the height of gullibility, willful ignorance or dishonesty. And if ANet truly could do just fine on box sales alone - rendering their cash shop sales entirely superfluous and entirely for extra profit - then the remarks made by that individual would be doubly hypocritical and damning.
Further still, each developer has its own circumstances and expenses based on how the company is set up, based on how the finances are set up and based on their overhead compared to their income. So there is no way to make such blanket statements as "developers don't need to charge a subscription". Unless someone knows the specific circumstances of each and every single developer charging a sub, they have no grounds to make that claim.
QFT
Very well thought out post, kudos to you.
Heh, thanks.
The obvious double-standard in that whole ANet guy's statement is just amazing to me.
I'm surprised I haven't seen it called out more often.
It's a little to soon for you two to be patting each other on the back. You actually didn't think it out enough.
There is no double standard.
1. A cash shop purchase is not a requirement and a subscription is. Two very different forms of revenue.
It doesn't matter if some spends the average amount of a monthly subscription because it is their choice to. If you would have read his statement without the intent to find fault you would have recognized what he was saying.
Try playing WOW without paying the sub and see what happens. Then play GW and don't buy anything out the cash shop and see what happens.
2. The P2P subscription games have cash shops as well. So they take advantage of the same revenue stream. As a matter of fact it is probably why Blizzard Activision had a record first quarter when subs were down 600,000.
3. Jeff Strain never said that developers should only get revenue from box sales. He just said it was necessary to require a subscription. Developers could use other methods for revenue while giving a choice to their customers. See #2.
4. The actual quote
"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. Gamers may buy the argument that your MMO requires a subscription fee, if you can tell them what they are getting for their money. This is the legacy of games like Guild Wars, Maple Story, and Silkroad Online, all of which introduced new business models into the MMO genre and were quite successful. The subscription model is still perfectly viable, but the pain threshold is very low now. It's no secret that gamers don't want to pay a subscription fee. If you can convince them that your game offers enough value to justify it, more power to you! But be prepared to defend your decision, often and loudly, and back it up over the lifetime of your game."
So the double-standard that you think you uncovered is nothing more then a misinterpretation of his words and your inability to comprehend what he was saying.
It's a little to soon for you two to be patting each other on the back. You actually didn't think it out enough.
There is no double standard.
1. A cash shop purchase is not a requirement and a subscription is. Two very different forms of revenue.
It doesn't matter if some spends the average amount of a monthly subscription because it is their choice to. If you would have read his statement without the intent to find fault you would have recognized what he was saying.
Try playing WOW without paying the sub and see what happens. Then play GW and don't buy anything out the cash shop and see what happens.
The only difference between the two is that with GW you can choose to do the content provided to you by the initial purchase (and expansion purchases). This model chooses to nickle and dime people to make their money.
With that said, we all know very well that ANet is there to make money, provided you purchase stuff from a cash shop. You would be smokin some serious dank if you thought for 1 second that just the box purchases were going to keep this company alive and ANet is smokin it with you if they think box sales alone will keep them producing content at the rate gamers consume it.
We also don't have alot of details on what will be available in the cash shop or at what prices.
Edit: It's a double standard in the context that the he is suggesting "sub based games are a rip off" when ANet has the exact same goal of making buttloads of money. In essence, the entire argument is PR based - so ANet appears to be the good guy and all the dullards fall in line to support the philosophy without looking at the underlying sceme.
Sure, people can buy the game and play for free but we all know most people aren't like that - which is why F2P with cash shops is lucrative. They can draw you in with that magic word - FREE - then nickle and dime your ass till you add up your total expenses for the game. In THAT context it's a stealth buttrape instead of overt - but you're gonna get it either way.
In the end it will come down to the quality of the content and what they are holding back to put on the cash shop that will determin the fate of a F2P game. I'll also state, for the record, that sub-based games are not going anywhere soon and the notion that they are is ridiculous.
It's a little to soon for you two to be patting each other on the back. You actually didn't think it out enough.
There is no double standard.
1. A cash shop purchase is not a requirement and a subscription is. Two very different forms of revenue.
It doesn't matter if some spends the average amount of a monthly subscription because it is their choice to. If you would have read his statement without the intent to find fault you would have recognized what he was saying.
Try playing WOW without paying the sub and see what happens. Then play GW and don't buy anything out the cash shop and see what happens.
The only difference between the two is that with GW you can choose to do the content provided to you by the initial purchase (and expansion purchases). This model chooses to nickle and dime people to make their money.
With that said, we all know very well that ANet is there to make money, provided you purchase stuff from a cash shop. You would be smokin some serious dank if you thought for 1 second that just the box purchases were going to keep this company alive and ANet is smokin it with you if they think box sales alone will keep them producing content at the rate gamers consume it.
We also don't have alot of details on what will be available in the cash shop or at what prices.
Edit: It's a double standard in the context that the he is suggesting "sub based games are a rip off" when ANet has the exact same goal of making buttloads of money. In essence, the entire argument is PR based - so ANet appears to be the good guy and all the dullards fall in line to support the philosophy without looking at the underlying sceme.
Sure, people can buy the game and play for free but we all know most people aren't like that - which is why F2P with cash shops is lucrative. They can draw you in with that magic word - FREE - then nickle and dime your ass till you add up your total expenses for the game. In THAT context it's a stealth buttrape instead of overt - but you're gonna get it either way.
In the end it will come down to the quality of the content and what they are holding back to put on the cash shop that will determin the fate of a F2P game. I'll also state, for the record, that sub-based games are not going anywhere soon and the notion that they are is ridiculous.
I accidently posted before I was done so I had a few more points which kinda of covers what you said. But it is not a double standard. A double standard would be ANet bashing on the subscription model and then requiring you to purchase $15.00 a month from the cash shop. That isn't happening. He was pointing out that developers could use additional revenue streams to make up for the required fee that didn't force people to play. Also he never said that developers shouldn't charge a subscription, he said that they should make sure that they are providing something for that subcription fee. Using the excuse of its for server costs isn't a reason anymore. That's why the misinterpretation from above is incorrect.
It's a little to soon for you two to be patting each other on the back. You actually didn't think it out enough.
There is no double standard.
1. A cash shop purchase is not a requirement and a subscription is. Two very different forms of revenue.
It doesn't matter if some spends the average amount of a monthly subscription because it is their choice to. If you would have read his statement without the intent to find fault you would have recognized what he was saying.
Try playing WOW without paying the sub and see what happens. Then play GW and don't buy anything out the cash shop and see what happens.
1. Largely irrelevant, as the issue here is how they make their money. And what they offer in game for the money you've already paid.
Which WOW really is a bad example, many P2P today are. Due to the monetization of them due to people who "want" to and are "willing" to continually pay for more. Or those games which have made the switch to a complete F2P (pay as you go) model.
Which we can look at those games as proof that the cash shop model simply brings in more cash (in all cases revenues have grown), with all the fluff they sell, and the larger demographic they open themselves up to.
What ever happened to the days where you paid for everything with one fee and were able to enjoy whatever you wanted without ever paying extra?
What happened to it is, the false assumption that F2P, B2P and cashops are cheap in the long run. It only is if you want to cut yourself off from half of what the game is supposed to offer.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
As far as I know, all P2P MMORPGs have cash shops. Some offer more in-game items than others, but they all offer some amount of services and things for additional money beyond the price of the game. In fact, there are some subscription-based games that offer quite a bit MORE in their cash shop than Guild Wars does. GW2 having a cash shop does not automatically make it a F2P game.
P2P game -
Cash shop
Box price and expansion price
Monthly Subscription fee
GW2 (B2P) -
Cash shop
Box Price and Expansion price
F2P -
Cash shop
The GW2 developers are simply comparing apples to apples. The difference between a P2P game and GW2 is that one has a sub fee, and the other does not, period. The question is what that sub fee provides in the way of value, and other than a few cosmetic outfits that a player might or might not want, I've heard nothing solid in this thread as an explanation of why a subscription fee is charged. GW2 is going to offer as much or more content and replay value as any P2P MMORPG, they will offer plenty of bandwidth and customer support, and they will do it without a subscription.
The other thing to bare in mind is that a cash shop like ArenaNet's is completely voluntary. I can choose to never buy anything from the cash shop, and my character will be no weaker or disadvantaged because of that decision (which is actually my stance, I would never buy any in-game anything from a cash shop). A subscription fee, on the other hand, is mandatory to play a P2P game... whether you use the service or not. The money I spend playing GW2 will be dramatically less than I would spend for the same amount of time playing any recent P2P game, because I will buy the box, never use the cash shop, and just enjoy the game until expansion time. The idea that having a cash shop means every person will get nickled and dimed out of all their money completely ignores the free will that every consumer has. A subscription fee, on the other hand, provides no options.
The simple fact is, unless you have access to cooking the corporate books, it's going to be rather difficult to decide which of the payment plans is the "greediest". And can any of you conceive any corporation opening up their books for public examination, for any reason whatsoever?
All we have is some anecdotal evidence that games with cash shops are (apparently) enormously profitable. When the corporate herd suddenly turns and moves in one direction, there's a good reason for it.
And indirect evidence that suggests the same thing--Kotick lusts after cash shops. What more do you need to know?
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
It's a little to soon for you two to be patting each other on the back. You actually didn't think it out enough.
There is no double standard.
1. A cash shop purchase is not a requirement and a subscription is. Two very different forms of revenue.
It doesn't matter if some spends the average amount of a monthly subscription because it is their choice to. If you would have read his statement without the intent to find fault you would have recognized what he was saying.
Try playing WOW without paying the sub and see what happens. Then play GW and don't buy anything out the cash shop and see what happens.
1. Largely irrelevant, as the issue here is how they make their money. And what they offer in game for the money you've already paid.
Which WOW really is a bad example, many P2P today are. Due to the monetization of them due to people who "want" to and are "willing" to continually pay for more. Or those games which have made the switch to a complete F2P (pay as you go) model.
Which we can look at those games as proof that the cash shop model simply brings in more cash (in all cases revenues have grown), with all the fluff they sell, and the larger demographic they open themselves up to.
What ever happened to the days where you paid for everything with one fee and were able to enjoy what =ever you wanted without ever paying extra?
What happened to it is, the false assumption that F2P or B2p is cheaper in the long run. It only is if you want to cut yourself off from half of what the game is supposed to offer.
Sorry I accidently posted before I finished so you can read the rest of what I had to say.
But I was responding to a so call double standard that was a false interpetation of what Jeff Strain said. See his quote.
Actually it isn't irrelevant, it's the whole point. There are other means to revenue which every game developer is entitled to. If the product is worth it than they should be able to make as much as they can off of it. I personally think people cry greed way to fast. These companies provide hundreds of people the ability to survive, to pay a mortgage, the ability to purchase things they want.
You can't exclude games from your arguement because they are successful, if anything it proves the point. When the time comes, WOW's last ditch effort to keep revenue will be going B2P. The amount of money they make in the cash shop will be enough to cover their costs and still make money.
I am a little suprised that I have to point out that if you buy GW1, you get 100% of the game and all the content that comes with it. You don't get that from F2P or P2P. So you ask what happend to the days... GW is where it is.
Do we really have write the math out again. Really. For the last year of WOW, it cost 1 box sale + plus a 12 month subscription minimum. Thats 50 + (13 x 12) = a minimum payment of $206 compared to a minimum of $50.00. That should be enough to get the point.
It's a little to soon for you two to be patting each other on the back. You actually didn't think it out enough.
There is no double standard.
1. A cash shop purchase is not a requirement and a subscription is. Two very different forms of revenue.
It doesn't matter if some spends the average amount of a monthly subscription because it is their choice to. If you would have read his statement without the intent to find fault you would have recognized what he was saying.
Try playing WOW without paying the sub and see what happens. Then play GW and don't buy anything out the cash shop and see what happens.
1. Largely irrelevant, as the issue here is how they make their money. And what they offer in game for the money you've already paid.
Which WOW really is a bad example, many P2P today are. Due to the monetization of them due to people who "want" to and are "willing" to continually pay for more. Or those games which have made the switch to a complete F2P (pay as you go) model.
Which we can look at those games as proof that the cash shop model simply brings in more cash (in all cases revenues have grown), with all the fluff they sell, and the larger demographic they open themselves up to.
What ever happened to the days where you paid for everything with one fee and were able to enjoy what =ever you wanted without ever paying extra?
What happened to it is, the false assumption that F2P or B2p is cheaper in the long run. It only is if you want to cut yourself off from half of what the game is supposed to offer.
Sorry I accidently posted before I finished so you can read the rest of what I had to say.
But I was responding to a so call double standard that was a false interpetation of what Jeff Strain said. See his quote.
Actually it isn't irrelevant, it's the whole point. There are other means to revenue which every game developer is entitled to. If the product is worth it than they should be able to make as much as they can off of it. I personally think people cry greed way to fast. These companies provide hundreds of people the ability to survive, to pay a mortgage, the ability to purchase things they want.
You can't exclude games from your arguement because they are successful, if anything it proves the point. When the time comes, WOW's last ditch effort to keep revenue will be going B2P. The amount of money they make in the cash shop will be enough to cover their costs and still make money.
I am a little suprised that I have to point out that if you buy GW1, you get 100% of the game and all the content that comes with it. You don't get that from F2P or P2P. So you ask what happend to the days... GW is where it is.
Do we really have write the math out again. Really. For the last year of WOW, it cost 1 box sale + plus a 12 month subscription minimum. Thats 50 + (13 x 12) = a minimum payment of $206 compared to a minimum of $50.00. That should be enough to get the point.
Here's the point you seem to refuse to get. GW wasn't worth a sub fee, which is why they didnt charge it. You did NOT get the same amount or quality of content that WoW gave you, so of course it was more expensive.
Here's the point you seem to refuse to get. GW wasn't worth a sub fee, which is why they didnt charge it. You did NOT get the same amount or quality of content that WoW gave you, so of course it was more expensive.
That is a 100% subjective opinion on your part, and we aren't talking about GW....we're talking about GW2. By all measures and according to all facts available, GW2 will provide everything any other subscription-based MMORPG offers and in some ways even more...and it will do it with the same payment model as Guild Wars.
This all comes down to one simple question. What does the subscription fee of Rift, WoW, or SW:TOR provide that GW2 won't provide?
Here's the point you seem to refuse to get. GW wasn't worth a sub fee, which is why they didnt charge it. You did NOT get the same amount or quality of content that WoW gave you, so of course it was more expensive.
That is a 100% subjective opinion on your part, and we aren't talking about GW....we're talking about GW2. By all measures and according to all facts available, GW2 will provide everything any other subscription-based MMORPG offers and in some ways even more...and it will do it with the same payment model as Guild Wars.
This all comes down to one simple question. What does the subscription fee of Rift, WoW, or SW:TOR provide that GW2 won't provide?
If they're providing the same content, NCSoft will require the same payment, one way or the other, meaning they are going to be raping people via the cash shop or selling lots of expansions.
It's a little to soon for you two to be patting each other on the back. You actually didn't think it out enough.
There is no double standard.
1. A cash shop purchase is not a requirement and a subscription is. Two very different forms of revenue.
It doesn't matter if some spends the average amount of a monthly subscription because it is their choice to. If you would have read his statement without the intent to find fault you would have recognized what he was saying.
Try playing WOW without paying the sub and see what happens. Then play GW and don't buy anything out the cash shop and see what happens.
1. Largely irrelevant, as the issue here is how they make their money. And what they offer in game for the money you've already paid.
Which WOW really is a bad example, many P2P today are. Due to the monetization of them due to people who "want" to and are "willing" to continually pay for more. Or those games which have made the switch to a complete F2P (pay as you go) model.
Which we can look at those games as proof that the cash shop model simply brings in more cash (in all cases revenues have grown), with all the fluff they sell, and the larger demographic they open themselves up to.
What ever happened to the days where you paid for everything with one fee and were able to enjoy what =ever you wanted without ever paying extra?
What happened to it is, the false assumption that F2P or B2p is cheaper in the long run. It only is if you want to cut yourself off from half of what the game is supposed to offer.
Sorry I accidently posted before I finished so you can read the rest of what I had to say.
But I was responding to a so call double standard that was a false interpetation of what Jeff Strain said. See his quote.
Actually it isn't irrelevant, it's the whole point. There are other means to revenue which every game developer is entitled to. If the product is worth it than they should be able to make as much as they can off of it. I personally think people cry greed way to fast. These companies provide hundreds of people the ability to survive, to pay a mortgage, the ability to purchase things they want.
You can't exclude games from your arguement because they are successful, if anything it proves the point. When the time comes, WOW's last ditch effort to keep revenue will be going B2P. The amount of money they make in the cash shop will be enough to cover their costs and still make money.
I am a little suprised that I have to point out that if you buy GW1, you get 100% of the game and all the content that comes with it. You don't get that from F2P or P2P. So you ask what happend to the days... GW is where it is.
Do we really have write the math out again. Really. For the last year of WOW, it cost 1 box sale + plus a 12 month subscription minimum. Thats 50 + (13 x 12) = a minimum payment of $206 compared to a minimum of $50.00. That should be enough to get the point.
Here's the point you seem to refuse to get. GW wasn't worth a sub fee, which is why they didnt charge it. You did NOT get the same amount or quality of content that WoW gave you, so of course it was more expensive.
Apparently you didn't get it. I didn't say GW because what WOW is up against is GW2 with the same B2P model. A fully persisent MMO. I agree with your point that WOW is better MMO than GW that isn't an MMO. I prefer WOW as an MMO, but ripping GW is foolish. It has sold over 6 million boxes. You may not have liked it but alot of people did. I enjoyed it very much. It was a great game but it wasn't an MMO. The whole point of the thread is what will sub-based games do with GW2 on the market. An b2p MMO against other sub-based MMO's.
If they're providing the same content, NCSoft will require the same payment, one way or the other, meaning they are going to be raping people via the cash shop or selling lots of expansions.
That's a lot of guesses and assumptions in one sentence. But you separated each with a comma...so it's all good.
What does "the same payment" mean? You mean NCSoft will require GW2 to make a big profit? The game will do that simply from initial box sales, because it's going to sell millions of copies. Do you mean the same profit as other MMOs? I guess then it depends on what MMO you want to compare it to.
How exactly would they "rape" people with the cash shop?
You feel it would be a bad thing for them to create a lot of expansions? :-
Sorry I accidently posted before I finished so you can read the rest of what I had to say.
But I was responding to a so call double standard that was a false interpetation of what Jeff Strain said. See his quote.
Actually it isn't irrelevant, it's the whole point. There are other means to revenue which every game developer is entitled to. If the product is worth it than they should be able to make as much as they can off of it. I personally think people cry greed way to fast. These companies provide hundreds of people the ability to survive, to pay a mortgage, the ability to purchase things they want.
You can't exclude games from your arguement because they are successful, if anything it proves the point. When the time comes, WOW's last ditch effort to keep revenue will be going B2P. The amount of money they make in the cash shop will be enough to cover their costs and still make money.
I am a little suprised that I have to point out that if you buy GW1, you get 100% of the game and all the content that comes with it. You don't get that from F2P or P2P. So you ask what happend to the days... GW is where it is.
Do we really have write the math out again. Really. For the last year of WOW, it cost 1 box sale + plus a 12 month subscription minimum. Thats 50 + (13 x 12) = a minimum payment of $206 compared to a minimum of $50.00. That should be enough to get the point.
First I'm am not saying the cash shop is a bad approach, I'm not saying that B2P is either. Personally I'm not a cosmetic driven player, as I said in another thread on this subject, they could cover me in Tar and Feathers for all I care.
I'm not arguing from a point of what you or I pay. The exact opposite actually, what i'm talking about is how these companies make money. As well as the idea that sub models are greed based. That's the double standard.
It's all greed based to some extent, they want to make as much money as possible. Whether it's B2p, F2P or P2P. They all have the same underlying goal, to part you from your money.
In the end if cash shop sales are not what they want them to be, they will add to that shop until they are. If cosmetics aren't making them money, they'll add something that will. My whole problem with what Jeff Strain and others from A-net (past and present) have said. Is that it gives the playerbase the wrong impression, that they are some sort of saint in a sea of criminals, which just isn't the case. They want your money as much as the next guy, and they need it just as much as everyone else.
As for your (1.) the reason I say it's irrelevant is because while yes you have to pay to play WOW, you also have to pay for everything you may want from GW1 as well, whether it's new content, the look you want etc... In the end it's all the same thing, companies trying to make a profit and keep their services running.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Here's the point you seem to refuse to get. GW wasn't worth a sub fee, which is why they didnt charge it. You did NOT get the same amount or quality of content that WoW gave you, so of course it was more expensive.
That is a 100% subjective opinion on your part, and we aren't talking about GW....we're talking about GW2. By all measures and according to all facts available, GW2 will provide everything any other subscription-based MMORPG offers and in some ways even more...and it will do it with the same payment model as Guild Wars.
This all comes down to one simple question. What does the subscription fee of Rift, WoW, or SW:TOR provide that GW2 won't provide?
If they're providing the same content, NCSoft will require the same payment, one way or the other, meaning they are going to be raping people via the cash shop or selling lots of expansions.
Sorry I accidently posted before I finished so you can read the rest of what I had to say.
But I was responding to a so call double standard that was a false interpetation of what Jeff Strain said. See his quote.
Actually it isn't irrelevant, it's the whole point. There are other means to revenue which every game developer is entitled to. If the product is worth it than they should be able to make as much as they can off of it. I personally think people cry greed way to fast. These companies provide hundreds of people the ability to survive, to pay a mortgage, the ability to purchase things they want.
You can't exclude games from your arguement because they are successful, if anything it proves the point. When the time comes, WOW's last ditch effort to keep revenue will be going B2P. The amount of money they make in the cash shop will be enough to cover their costs and still make money.
I am a little suprised that I have to point out that if you buy GW1, you get 100% of the game and all the content that comes with it. You don't get that from F2P or P2P. So you ask what happend to the days... GW is where it is.
Do we really have write the math out again. Really. For the last year of WOW, it cost 1 box sale + plus a 12 month subscription minimum. Thats 50 + (13 x 12) = a minimum payment of $206 compared to a minimum of $50.00. That should be enough to get the point.
First I'm am not saying the cash shop is a bad approach, I'm not saying that B2P is either. Personally I'm not a cosmetic driven player, as I said in another thread on this subject they could cover me in Tar and Feathers for all I care.
I'm not arguing from a point of what you or I pay. The exact opposite actually, what i'm talking about is how these companies make money. As well as the idea that sub models are greed based. That's the double standard.
It's all greed based to some extent, they want to make as much money as possible. Whether it's B2p, F2P or P2P. They all have the same underlying goal, to part you from your money.
In the end if cash shop sales are not what they want them to be, they will add to that shop until they are. If cosmetics aren't making them money, they'll add something that will. My whole problem with what Jeff Strain and others from A-net (past and present) have said. Is that it gives the playerbase the wrong impression, that they are some sort of saint in a sea of criminals, which just isn't the case. They want your money as much as the next guy, and they need it just as much as everyone else.
You supported a claim of a double standard that didn't exist. Re-read Jeff Strains quote again. He said they subscription is still viable but you need to be ready to explain it. His point was to not count on subscriptions. He isn't trying to make Anet look like a saint, just stating what he feels and he is exaclty right. You are misinterperting what he and the rest of Arenanet is saying. Both you and I will pay a subscription but we have to be getting something for it. The old excuse is for server costs, which can't be used anymore. You are holding Jeff Strain to a higher standard simply because he pointed it out. That is your mistake. You are misinterpreting what he is saying.
It doesn't matter what they add to the cash shop if it remains a choice. You and I will pay only for things we deem worthy. Jeff Strain and Arenanet have never said anything bad about games that charge a subscription, only that they won't charge a subscription. They will use another method to get that revenue, one that provides a choice for the consumer which happens to always be better off in the long run. It doesn't matter what you are selling. Yes, if they save me $15.00 a month I am much more likely to buy a charr plushy.
I am not sure this is really true in reality but paying for a game sometimes filters out the community and garners you the possibility of more mature players. When you demand a payment generally the people who pay may be loath to behave poorly.
Also f2p will focus on the shop rather than the game.
F2p games also will probably allow cheating and other aspect to go unchecked as they can use the excuse that it is f2p whereas p2p cannot do the same since you are paying for them to solve that issue. Not that less cheating occurs in p2p.
All those arguments sound great until you actually play a subscription-based MMO. Let's take WoW as an example, since it's by far the most popular P2P MMORPG. The community is perfectly awesome in WoW due to the subscription fee, right? And there's no cheating or hacking at all, because the millions of people paying $15 a month covers the cost of stopping all that, right?
Oh wait, the community is pants and there's tons of cheating and hacking. Hm...
Actually the community is quite nice and fine...a lot better now than most cash shop F2P MMO's I have tried.
Ah c'mon. For the sake of argument, can you at least pretend to be serious?
Comments
Whens the last time you paid for an Eve Online client download or even a EO expansion?
Don't generalize.
Lets take WoW for instance, since everyone loves to use it as their punching bag lately. You can amortize out the cost of the game and all it's expansions over it's life, add in the sub costs and you'll still come out with a good value. Sure, the number seems high when you are looking at the raw value but split that up over 6 years.
Another little secret that all the F2P fanbois love to leave out:
The blockbuster titles, like GW2, don't release games as F2P because they are nice people, they, like many other business, are out to make money and they tailor their own business model to make MONEY. Yes, surprising to know this.
How many F2P fanbois out there would be butthurt to find out over the first year of it's release, GW2 made more money through nickel and dimeing people through the cash shop than WoW did it's first year of record box/sub sales? (Let the excuses begin)
Yeah I know what you mean, his statements have bothered me as well. Though it's just a pain to discuss anything GW2 that isn't all about groveling at A-nets feet.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
When I called it out last I was reported and banned for 'trolling' lol.
And I actually love GW and GW2 (from whats been seen)!
It's a little to soon for you two to be patting each other on the back. You actually didn't think it out enough.
There is no double standard.
1. A cash shop purchase is not a requirement and a subscription is. Two very different forms of revenue.
It doesn't matter if some spends the average amount of a monthly subscription because it is their choice to. If you would have read his statement without the intent to find fault you would have recognized what he was saying.
Try playing WOW without paying the sub and see what happens. Then play GW and don't buy anything out the cash shop and see what happens.
2. The P2P subscription games have cash shops as well. So they take advantage of the same revenue stream. As a matter of fact it is probably why Blizzard Activision had a record first quarter when subs were down 600,000.
3. Jeff Strain never said that developers should only get revenue from box sales. He just said it was necessary to require a subscription. Developers could use other methods for revenue while giving a choice to their customers. See #2.
4. The actual quote
"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. Gamers may buy the argument that your MMO requires a subscription fee, if you can tell them what they are getting for their money. This is the legacy of games like Guild Wars, Maple Story, and Silkroad Online, all of which introduced new business models into the MMO genre and were quite successful. The subscription model is still perfectly viable, but the pain threshold is very low now. It's no secret that gamers don't want to pay a subscription fee. If you can convince them that your game offers enough value to justify it, more power to you! But be prepared to defend your decision, often and loudly, and back it up over the lifetime of your game."
So the double-standard that you think you uncovered is nothing more then a misinterpretation of his words and your inability to comprehend what he was saying.
The only difference between the two is that with GW you can choose to do the content provided to you by the initial purchase (and expansion purchases). This model chooses to nickle and dime people to make their money.
With that said, we all know very well that ANet is there to make money, provided you purchase stuff from a cash shop. You would be smokin some serious dank if you thought for 1 second that just the box purchases were going to keep this company alive and ANet is smokin it with you if they think box sales alone will keep them producing content at the rate gamers consume it.
We also don't have alot of details on what will be available in the cash shop or at what prices.
Edit: It's a double standard in the context that the he is suggesting "sub based games are a rip off" when ANet has the exact same goal of making buttloads of money. In essence, the entire argument is PR based - so ANet appears to be the good guy and all the dullards fall in line to support the philosophy without looking at the underlying sceme.
Sure, people can buy the game and play for free but we all know most people aren't like that - which is why F2P with cash shops is lucrative. They can draw you in with that magic word - FREE - then nickle and dime your ass till you add up your total expenses for the game. In THAT context it's a stealth buttrape instead of overt - but you're gonna get it either way.
In the end it will come down to the quality of the content and what they are holding back to put on the cash shop that will determin the fate of a F2P game. I'll also state, for the record, that sub-based games are not going anywhere soon and the notion that they are is ridiculous.
The real question is what are you NOT paying for.........
I accidently posted before I was done so I had a few more points which kinda of covers what you said. But it is not a double standard. A double standard would be ANet bashing on the subscription model and then requiring you to purchase $15.00 a month from the cash shop. That isn't happening. He was pointing out that developers could use additional revenue streams to make up for the required fee that didn't force people to play. Also he never said that developers shouldn't charge a subscription, he said that they should make sure that they are providing something for that subcription fee. Using the excuse of its for server costs isn't a reason anymore. That's why the misinterpretation from above is incorrect.
1. Largely irrelevant, as the issue here is how they make their money. And what they offer in game for the money you've already paid.
Which WOW really is a bad example, many P2P today are. Due to the monetization of them due to people who "want" to and are "willing" to continually pay for more. Or those games which have made the switch to a complete F2P (pay as you go) model.
Which we can look at those games as proof that the cash shop model simply brings in more cash (in all cases revenues have grown), with all the fluff they sell, and the larger demographic they open themselves up to.
What ever happened to the days where you paid for everything with one fee and were able to enjoy whatever you wanted without ever paying extra?
What happened to it is, the false assumption that F2P, B2P and cashops are cheap in the long run. It only is if you want to cut yourself off from half of what the game is supposed to offer.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
As far as I know, all P2P MMORPGs have cash shops. Some offer more in-game items than others, but they all offer some amount of services and things for additional money beyond the price of the game. In fact, there are some subscription-based games that offer quite a bit MORE in their cash shop than Guild Wars does. GW2 having a cash shop does not automatically make it a F2P game.
P2P game -
Cash shop
Box price and expansion price
Monthly Subscription fee
GW2 (B2P) -
Cash shop
Box Price and Expansion price
F2P -
Cash shop
The GW2 developers are simply comparing apples to apples. The difference between a P2P game and GW2 is that one has a sub fee, and the other does not, period. The question is what that sub fee provides in the way of value, and other than a few cosmetic outfits that a player might or might not want, I've heard nothing solid in this thread as an explanation of why a subscription fee is charged. GW2 is going to offer as much or more content and replay value as any P2P MMORPG, they will offer plenty of bandwidth and customer support, and they will do it without a subscription.
The other thing to bare in mind is that a cash shop like ArenaNet's is completely voluntary. I can choose to never buy anything from the cash shop, and my character will be no weaker or disadvantaged because of that decision (which is actually my stance, I would never buy any in-game anything from a cash shop). A subscription fee, on the other hand, is mandatory to play a P2P game... whether you use the service or not. The money I spend playing GW2 will be dramatically less than I would spend for the same amount of time playing any recent P2P game, because I will buy the box, never use the cash shop, and just enjoy the game until expansion time. The idea that having a cash shop means every person will get nickled and dimed out of all their money completely ignores the free will that every consumer has. A subscription fee, on the other hand, provides no options.
The simple fact is, unless you have access to cooking the corporate books, it's going to be rather difficult to decide which of the payment plans is the "greediest". And can any of you conceive any corporation opening up their books for public examination, for any reason whatsoever?
All we have is some anecdotal evidence that games with cash shops are (apparently) enormously profitable. When the corporate herd suddenly turns and moves in one direction, there's a good reason for it.
And indirect evidence that suggests the same thing--Kotick lusts after cash shops. What more do you need to know?
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
Sorry I accidently posted before I finished so you can read the rest of what I had to say.
But I was responding to a so call double standard that was a false interpetation of what Jeff Strain said. See his quote.
Actually it isn't irrelevant, it's the whole point. There are other means to revenue which every game developer is entitled to. If the product is worth it than they should be able to make as much as they can off of it. I personally think people cry greed way to fast. These companies provide hundreds of people the ability to survive, to pay a mortgage, the ability to purchase things they want.
You can't exclude games from your arguement because they are successful, if anything it proves the point. When the time comes, WOW's last ditch effort to keep revenue will be going B2P. The amount of money they make in the cash shop will be enough to cover their costs and still make money.
I am a little suprised that I have to point out that if you buy GW1, you get 100% of the game and all the content that comes with it. You don't get that from F2P or P2P. So you ask what happend to the days... GW is where it is.
Do we really have write the math out again. Really. For the last year of WOW, it cost 1 box sale + plus a 12 month subscription minimum. Thats 50 + (13 x 12) = a minimum payment of $206 compared to a minimum of $50.00. That should be enough to get the point.
Here's the point you seem to refuse to get. GW wasn't worth a sub fee, which is why they didnt charge it. You did NOT get the same amount or quality of content that WoW gave you, so of course it was more expensive.
That is a 100% subjective opinion on your part, and we aren't talking about GW....we're talking about GW2. By all measures and according to all facts available, GW2 will provide everything any other subscription-based MMORPG offers and in some ways even more...and it will do it with the same payment model as Guild Wars.
This all comes down to one simple question. What does the subscription fee of Rift, WoW, or SW:TOR provide that GW2 won't provide?
If they're providing the same content, NCSoft will require the same payment, one way or the other, meaning they are going to be raping people via the cash shop or selling lots of expansions.
Apparently you didn't get it. I didn't say GW because what WOW is up against is GW2 with the same B2P model. A fully persisent MMO. I agree with your point that WOW is better MMO than GW that isn't an MMO. I prefer WOW as an MMO, but ripping GW is foolish. It has sold over 6 million boxes. You may not have liked it but alot of people did. I enjoyed it very much. It was a great game but it wasn't an MMO. The whole point of the thread is what will sub-based games do with GW2 on the market. An b2p MMO against other sub-based MMO's.
That's a lot of guesses and assumptions in one sentence. But you separated each with a comma...so it's all good.
What does "the same payment" mean? You mean NCSoft will require GW2 to make a big profit? The game will do that simply from initial box sales, because it's going to sell millions of copies. Do you mean the same profit as other MMOs? I guess then it depends on what MMO you want to compare it to.
How exactly would they "rape" people with the cash shop?
You feel it would be a bad thing for them to create a lot of expansions? :-
First I'm am not saying the cash shop is a bad approach, I'm not saying that B2P is either. Personally I'm not a cosmetic driven player, as I said in another thread on this subject, they could cover me in Tar and Feathers for all I care.
I'm not arguing from a point of what you or I pay. The exact opposite actually, what i'm talking about is how these companies make money. As well as the idea that sub models are greed based. That's the double standard.
It's all greed based to some extent, they want to make as much money as possible. Whether it's B2p, F2P or P2P. They all have the same underlying goal, to part you from your money.
In the end if cash shop sales are not what they want them to be, they will add to that shop until they are. If cosmetics aren't making them money, they'll add something that will. My whole problem with what Jeff Strain and others from A-net (past and present) have said. Is that it gives the playerbase the wrong impression, that they are some sort of saint in a sea of criminals, which just isn't the case. They want your money as much as the next guy, and they need it just as much as everyone else.
As for your (1.) the reason I say it's irrelevant is because while yes you have to pay to play WOW, you also have to pay for everything you may want from GW1 as well, whether it's new content, the look you want etc... In the end it's all the same thing, companies trying to make a profit and keep their services running.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Matt Foley and Young Frankenstein make a deadly team.
You supported a claim of a double standard that didn't exist. Re-read Jeff Strains quote again. He said they subscription is still viable but you need to be ready to explain it. His point was to not count on subscriptions. He isn't trying to make Anet look like a saint, just stating what he feels and he is exaclty right. You are misinterperting what he and the rest of Arenanet is saying. Both you and I will pay a subscription but we have to be getting something for it. The old excuse is for server costs, which can't be used anymore. You are holding Jeff Strain to a higher standard simply because he pointed it out. That is your mistake. You are misinterpreting what he is saying.
It doesn't matter what they add to the cash shop if it remains a choice. You and I will pay only for things we deem worthy. Jeff Strain and Arenanet have never said anything bad about games that charge a subscription, only that they won't charge a subscription. They will use another method to get that revenue, one that provides a choice for the consumer which happens to always be better off in the long run. It doesn't matter what you are selling. Yes, if they save me $15.00 a month I am much more likely to buy a charr plushy.
I agree.
Only " I " can decide if $15 a month is a good entertainment value to "me."
This^
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Ah c'mon. For the sake of argument, can you at least pretend to be serious?
If $15 a month is a good deal then $0 a month must be a better one then.